Crazy, Unlike A Fox

Democratic actiivists have rejoiced this week in the cancellation of a presidential campaign debate in Nevada, arranged by the state party to air on Fox. They demanded that the candidates reject the debate even before Fox executive Roger Ailes made a controversial joke about Barack Obama, but the effort gained so much steam afterwards that all of the candidates acquiesced. Nevadans who had hoped to host an important party function are now outraged over the end of the event, and the Las Vegas Review-Journal has special derision for the activists who screeched with outrage over Fox's involvement:

Hard-core liberals can't stand the Fox News Channel. Passing a television that's tuned to the conservative favorite forces many of them to close their eyes, cover their ears and scream, "La la la la la la la la la!" Then they dash to their computers and fire off 2,500 e-mails condemning the outlet, none of which are ever read.

But liberals' aversion to Fox News has finally gone over the top. The Nevada Democratic Party had agreed to let the right-tilting network co-sponsor, of all things, an August debate in Reno between Democratic presidential candidates. Party officials were serious about drawing national attention to the state's January presidential caucus, the country's second in the 2008 nominating process. What better way for the party to reach conservative and "values" voters who might consider changing allegiances?

But the socialist, Web-addicted wing of the Democratic Party was apoplectic. The prospect of having to watch Fox News to see their own candidates would have been torture in itself. So they set the blogosphere aflame with efforts to kill the broadcast arrangement, or at least have all the candidates pull out of the event. Before Friday, the opportunistic John Edwards was the only candidate to jump on that bandwagon. ...

The approach of outfits such as MoveOn.org is so juvenile it's laughable. Imagine if every political organization created litmus tests for news organizations before agreeing to appear on their programming. Republicans would have boycotted PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, National Public Radio and The Associated Press decades ago.

Imagine that! Well, some Republicans might not object to that, but the grown-ups who run the party understand that one has to reach voters in order to convince them to support their candidates. In order to do that, the GOP works with all media outlets, even if they do not trust them at times. The point isn't to love the network, but to reach their viewers.

Democrats apparently have forgotten that. If Fox really was that conservative, they wouldn't have wanted to carry the debate at all. They want to sell advertising time, and if their audience was so unconcerned with Democrats, they would hardly have asked to televise their debate. In fact, Fox balances its commentary at least as well as the other networks, and it attracts viewers from across the political spectrum because of it. Fox News Channel routinely outscores CNN in the ratings, and unless liberals want to concede the majority to conservatives, that indicates a pretty wide attraction.

Instead of campaigning to the widest possible audience, the surrender of the Democratic presidential candidates shows that they want to pander to the extremists of their party. They seem frightened to stage their debates in venues where anyone other than those approved by left-wing activists can see them. How can they then make an argument for their election as a President for the entire nation? (via Memeorandum)

Well, At Least We're Talking ... Right?

People kept insisting that we could solve all of our problems with Iran if we just started talking to each other. Newspapers around the world scolded us for not entering into direct talks, even though our last diplomatic contact with the Islamic Republic came when they sacked our embassy in Teheran and took our staff hostage for 444 days. Talk will bridge all gaps, critics insisted.

They should be happy today. We've started talking:

In their first direct talks since the Iraq war began, U.S. and Iranian envoys traded harsh words and blamed each other for the country's crisis Saturday at a one-day international conference that some hoped would help end their 27-year diplomatic freeze. ...

During the talks, U.S. envoy David Satterfield pointed to his briefcase which he said contained documents proving Iran was arming Shiite Muslim militias in Iraq.

"Your accusations are merely a cover for your failures in Iraq," Iran's chief envoy Abbas Araghchi shot back, according to an official familiar to the discussions who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.

The U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, only said that American delegates exchanged views with the Iranians "directly and in the presence of others" during talks, which he described as "constructive and businesslike."

But Labid Abbawi, a senior Iraqi Foreign Ministry official who attended the meeting, confirmed that an argument broke out between the Iranian and American envoys. He would not elaborate.

At least it's a start, right? We tell them to stop fomenting the insurgencies, and they tell us to stop lying. Sounds like peace is around the corner.

UPDATE: Obviously, I prefer to talk than to exchange bombs, as Monkei points out in the comments. In fact, I don't think a military strike on Iran would work out well for the US at all, for many reasons. However, talk means nothing when neither side is willing to give what the other wants under any circumstances. Iran wants us out of the Middle East and Israel , and we want them to stop sponsoring terrorism in the Middle East, against Israel and the democratic government in Iraq.

So far, we have no basis for barter -- except to the extent that we can threaten their existence, and whatever they will give up to eliminate that threat. It's not much of a basis for honest negotiation, and until the Iranians get rid of their millenial mullahs and their hatred of Israel, it's not going to change.

The Party Of Meaningless Gestures

Do the Democrats really want to end the war, or only look like they want to end the war? Their bills say "retreat", but their words say "pose", as Kathryn Jean Lopez notes at The Corner:

[Senator Carl] Levin described a relatively modest goal, sayin he would be comfortable if the resolution received at least 40 votes. He allowed that such a plan would backfire if the measure received several votes fewer than previous resolutions critical of Bush’s policy.

Apparently, the entire point of these resolutions is to tally how badly they fail in the Senate. The new definition of victory - for the Democratic majority -- is to garner more than 40 votes. Now the Democrats want to define victory in Iraq as defeat, and defeat in the Senate as victory.

And Democrats wonder why people don't trust them with national security?

Male Bashing As A Bad Habit

Dr. Helen notes that the magazine Cosmopolitan has broken a mild taboo -- talking about the detrimental effects of male bashing on relationships in general. They refeence it in terms of how it damages women, of course, but the magazine hits the problem head-on otherwise:

The advice is good and direct, such as telling women to stop telling their dates they are not like the jerks they usually date. "You're actually broadcasting for the most part, you think dudes suck." To break the habit, the author suggests when your girlfriends start guy trashing, you change the subject. Or, "if a girlfriend says that guys never commit, ger her to see how silly it is to make such broad statements by making one about women, like, 'I know, and women start shopping for a wedding dress after the third date.'" Cosmo gives suggestions (but should you really need this advice after the age of 12?) that women should ditch lines like "Men are dogs" or "Unless its football, it's too complicated for his brain."

Until I mostly gave up episodic network television, I found this to be doubly true in entertainment and in advertising aimed at women. Men were made helpless by washing machines, mops, cold & flu season, food preparation, and with any other product whose most discerning consumers -- women -- would certainly choose the advert's brand. Fathers on sitcoms were emasculated, ridiculous boors getting daily comeuppances from their wives and their children.

One exception to this was The Cosby Show, a deliberate exception as conceived by Bill Cosby himself. Malcolm-Jamal Warner, who played his son Theo in the series, told a story about his audition that highlighted Cosby's choice. He read for the part in the manner most TV series used, with a snotty, back-talking, sarcastic manner. Cosby stopped Warner and asked, "Do you talk to your parents like that?" Warner said no, and Cosby then asked, "So why would you talk to me like that?"

Unfortunately, it was one of the few exceptions. Male-bashing has continued for most of one generation and into the next, but perhaps we may finally have tired of it, even if we haven't learned any lessons from it. (via Instapundit)

FBI, DoJ Broke The Law

FBI Director Robert Mueller had to concede that his agents had broken the law in obtaining personal information from American citizens and residents. He took responsibility for the incidents in front of a hostile Senate committee that condemned the sloppiness at Justice:

Bipartisan outrage erupted on Friday on Capitol Hill as Robert S. Mueller III, the F.B.I. director, conceded that the bureau had improperly used the USA Patriot Act to obtain information about people and businesses.

Mr. Mueller embraced responsibility for the lapses, detailed in a report by the inspector general of the Justice Department, and promised to do everything he could to avoid repeating them. But his apologies failed to defuse the anger of lawmakers in both parties.

“How could this happen?” Mr. Mueller asked rhetorically in a briefing at the headquarters of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. “Who is to be held accountable? And the answer to that is I am to be held accountable.”

The report found many instances when national security letters, which allow the bureau to obtain records from telephone companies, Internet service providers, banks, credit companies and other businesses without a judge’s approval, were improperly, and sometimes illegally, used.

Moreover, record keeping was so slipshod, the report found, that the actual number of national security letters exercised was often understated when the bureau reported on them to Congress, as required.

Not to kick a man when he's down, but unless Mueller submits his resignation, he's not really taking responsibility for anything. He did right yesterday by admitting the errors his agency made, and he can assume responsibility for cleaning up the mess and ensuring that the FBI stops violating the law in regards to data collection and national-security letters. If he wants to take responsibility for the violations themselves, a statement that implies that the entire organization is responsible for them, then Mueller really should resign and allow a new director to lead the FBI in a new direction. Otherwise, he should let those who violated the law assume individual responsibility -- and fire them.

Andy McCarthy makes a good point about national-security letters, and why the FBI shouldn't have the authority on its own to decide whether to self-issue warrants:

The controversy is maddening because it is a self-inflicted wound that will have outsized consequences. "Self-inflicted" not only because the FBI has failed to follow the rules but because it is dubious whether our national security required giving the FBI NSL authority in the first place — even though the FBI and DOJ aggressively lobbied congress for it. "Outsized" because the press and civil liberties extremists will inevitably conflate NSLs with the Patriot Act and other investigative powers that really are crucial. There is already a push for cut-backs, and we're hearing "I told you so" from many people who have been railing hysterically about Big Brother since 9/11.

McCarthy wrote two years ago about the lack of need for NSLs, preferring the use of administrative subpoenas. The need for a separate review of these kinds of request from law enforcement has been aptly demonstrated in this incident. Those checks exist for the protection of law enforcement as well as the protection of civil rights.

We can't afford sloppiness in law enforcement and counterterrorism, as Charles Grassley noted yesterday. The FBI spent most of its first fifty years developing a well-deserved reputation as a domestic spy service that perverted national politics for the purposes of its chief. Since J. Edgar Hoover's death, it has done a splendid job of reforming itself. Neither America nor the FBI needs the agency to return to its darker days, even during wartime. We need an agency we can trust to be tough against terrorists and equally tough in defending our civil rights. An abrogation of that trust could be fatal all around.

Did Privatization Undo Walter Reed?

The focus of blame for the deplorable conditions of a portion of Walter Reed Army Medical Center has now fallen on the Army's decision to privatize its maintenance workforce. After the canning the Secretary of the Army and the commander in charge of Walter Reed, critics blame a contract with a KBR subsidiary -- and a sister of Halliburton -- for the poor state of the facility:

The scandal over treatment of outpatients at Walter Reed Army Medical Center has focused attention on the Army's decision to privatize the facilities support workforce at the hospital, a move commanders say left the building maintenance staff undermanned.

Some Democratic lawmakers have questioned the decision to hire IAP Worldwide Services, a contractor with connections to the Bush administration and to KBR, a Halliburton subsidiary.

Last year, IAP won a $120 million contract to maintain and operate Walter Reed facilities. The decision reversed a 2004 finding by the Army that it would be more cost-effective to keep the work in-house. After IAP protested, Army auditors ruled that the cost estimates offered by in-house federal workers were too low. They had to submit a new bid, which added 23 employees and $16 million to their cost, according to the Army.

Yesterday, the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal workers union, blamed pressure on the Army from the White House's Office of Management and Budget for the decision to privatize its civilian workforce.

Well, maybe. Even if the OMB played a rather heavy-handed role in this decision, it's one within their purview. Defense contracts have routinely underestimated costs in order to lock in contracts that then have to be expanded to ensure continuance of services; it's a story that goes back farther than my own experience in defense contracting. OMB has to ensure that bidders properly state their costs, especially in cost-plus contracts, and IAP had every right to complain if they saw unfair bidding practices in play by the federal workers for the contract.

The problem appears less one of privatization than of management of the process. IAP got the contract in January of 2006, but didn't take over the job until a year later. In that period, almost half of the maintenance staff left Walter Reed, and the facility didn't replace them. It's hard to maintain a facility as large and complex as Walter Reed with only half of the necessary facilities management personnel, and over the period of a year, things will fall apart.

The Army runs Walter Reed. If they saw the need for more people, they should have moved people into these positions until they were ready to have IAP take over the functions themselves. Critics should be asking why it took the Army over a year to transfer responsibility to IAP, not blame IAP and privatization for the problems caused before they had the authority to resolve them. It's not the fault of the facilities management staff left holding the bag after half their peers quit last year, either.

The Army had the responsibility for ensuring the proper staffing and maintenance of Walter Reed, and they allowed more than a year to go by without any supervision of facilities management. That's really the beginning and end of the problem.

Note: I haven't covered this story, mostly because I believed it to be old news. Anyone who reads newspapers knows that the VA has chronic problems in serving veterans. Hollywood made a movie about it called Article 99 fifteen years ago to capitalize on the controversy over it then, a silly but earnest affair that tried to capture the essense of M*A*S*H but fell far short. (Hell, it didn't even have Fred Dalton Thompson!)

However, I underestimated the national scope of this story. It's obviously more intense now with the war on terror, especially in Iraq, and the shortcomings of the system need more exposure. It wasn't one of my better editorial decisions.

An End To Schalit Saga, Chapter 176 And Counting

Hamas now says that they want to end the months-long kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit. They have agreed in principle to release Schalit as part of the process towards a unity government in the Palestinian territories, with the staged release of "several hundred" Palestinian prisoners by Israel:

The release of kidnapped IDF Cpl. Gilad Schalit affair depends on the establishment of a unity government in the Palestinian Authority, Hamas faction head Halil Alhaya said Saturday.

According to Israel Radio, the head of Hamas's armed wing, Abu Obaida, corroborated Alhaya's statement, but stressed that even if no agreement on Schalit's release was reached, it would not prevent the PA from setting up a unity government.

Abu Obaida added that Hamas wanted an end to the Schalit affair, and said that Egyptian envoys had asked Hamas to move forward on negotiations in the next few days. ...

According to defense officials, the prisoner swap will be conducted in three stages. Israel will first release prisoners as a gesture to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. Schalit will then be released into Egyptian custody, and only then will Israel release several hundred additional prisoners, mostly affiliated with Hamas.

Hamas may not want to end the Schalit affair, but the Egyptians and the Saudis do. They have both pressed the West to work with a unity government that includes both Hamas and Fatah, but the West has refused to do so while Hamas continues to support terrorism and refuse to recognize Israel. The Schalit abduction reminds everyone that Hamas has not and will not renounce terrorism and war, and it reminds everyone who started the Gaza war last summer.

The Israelis are making a mistake by agreeing to this swap. They continue releasing prisoners on a hundreds-to-one basis that does nothing but undermine their own security. Israeli soldiers die while arresting Palestinian terrorists in small numbers, and then Israel releases them by the hundreds to get one or two captured soldiers back. It makes Israel look weak, and it puts Palestinian terrorists back onto the street with exponentially magnified credibility.

Acquiescing to Hamas in this instance, as all the others before, only incentivizes the Palestinians to abduct more IDF soldiers. Hostages become the coin of this twisted realm only because Israel keeps ratifying their value. And in the end, they can't even easily buy back their hostages even with the hundreds of Palestinians they release -- as the long and redundant tale of Gilad Schalit's abduction aptly demonstrates.

Where Have You Gone, Fred Dalton Thompson?

The runors have flown for weeks that Hollywood celebrity and two-term Senator Fred Dalton Thompson might decide to run for President -- not on The West Wing but in the Republican primary. Yesterday, The Hill reported that the rumors may have more substance than first thought:

Former Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker (R-Tenn.) is contacting powerbrokers in the Republican Party to build support for a 2008 presidential campaign by his one-time protégé, former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.).

Baker, who Wednesday made a visit to the Senate, was asked by several Republicans about his involvement on Thompson’s behalf.

“He said, ‘I am making a few calls and I think it’s a great idea,’” said one Senate Republican who heard Baker discuss his efforts to advance Thompson’s prospects.

One Republican who discussed a possible bid with Thompson described his interest and Baker’s queries as “a friendly exploration.”

Baker is a close friend and mentor to Thompson. Thompson broke into national politics in a big way in 1973 when Baker named him chief Republican counsel on the Senate Watergate Committee. Thompson’s work helped to uncover the scandal that forced the resignation of President Nixon. Republicans believe Baker is coordinating efforts with Thompson, and view Baker’s emerging role as a sign that Thompson is taking steps toward launching a campaign.

Thompson has quite a history, both in and out of politics. He has a reputation as a reformer, due both to the nature of his involvement in Watergate and his efforts to topple a corrupt Tennessee governor. In the former, as The Hill notes, he worked as a counsel for the Republicans but helped Howard Baker make the final push that got Richard Nixon to resign. In the latter, Thompson represented Marie Ragghianti in a case that exposed Tennessee governor Ray Blanton's sale of pardons while in office. Blanton never got charged in that case but got convicted later for his sale of liquor licenses, but the conviction got overturned on appeal. (Blanton proclaimed his innocence of corruption until his death in 1996.)

The Blanton case launched his acting career. The producers of Marie, starring Sissy Spacek as Ragghianti, decided to use Thompson rather than an actor to play himself. After receiving good notices, he continued to land substantial roles, usually as a decisive, commanding presence in one manner or another. He returned to politics by winning Al Gore's seat in the Senate in a special election, garnering the most votes any Tennesseean ever received for statewide office -- and then he beat that record in his re-election in 1996. He wound up serving eight years in the Senate, retiring in 2003 to return to acting.

Now he's being pushed as a challenger to the three frontrunners of the GOP primary -- Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. With the kind of money that the three have raised and spent already, and with a long tail of less-successful primary combatants in their train, one might think that Thomspon would be better off signing on for another four seasons of Law and Order. However, Thompson may have an opening that others do not.

First, Thompson remains very popular with conservatives. In his short tenure in the Senate, he pushed for conservative goals while maintaining respect from all quarters. He never took himself so seriously that he created a target for his political opponents, but he worked hard to advance conservatism in the Senate. Thompson did not shy away from pointing out the follies of his allies when needed, either. His work as a reformer in Washington and Tennessee gives him a white-knight quality that the Republicans, battered by scandals over the last couple of years, could use.

In comparison to the three candidates at the top, Thompson appears much more reliably conservative, and more above the political fray. He doesn't have the personal baggage of Giuliani (and Newt Gingrich), and he doesn't have the flip-flops of Mitt Romney. Thompson supported John McCain in 2000 and is reluctant to oppose his friend in 2008, but conservatives have made clear after the McCain-Feingold disaster and the McCain-Kennedy immigration disaster to come that they will not support him -- and McCain made clear in his rejection of CPAC that he's not interested in conservatives, either. Thompson has an opening to exploit, and it could be a wide opening at that.

Thompson seems to be a candidate who can generate considerable enthusiasm across the board for Republicans, from the social conservatives to the Northeastern Rockefeller-style voters. If he enters the race, he could ascend quickly to the top, especially with Howard Baker behind him.

UPDATE: Thompson's voting record is summarized here. Looks solidly conservative, although there is an early vote (1997) for the first McCain-Feingold efforts at campaign reform. He also voted for the final version in 2002, probably due to his allegiance to McCain and his reformist impulses. He'll have to explain that one.

NARN, The Spring Thaw Edition

The Northern Alliance Radio Network will be on the air today, with our six-hour-long broadcast schedule starting at 11 am CT. The first two hours features Power Line's John Hinderaker and Chad and Brian from Fraters Libertas. Mitch and I hit the airwaves for the second shift from 1-3 pm CT, and King Banaian and Michael Broadkorb have The Final Word from 3-5. If you're in the Twin Cities, you can hear us on AM 1280 The Patriot, or on the station's Internet stream if you're outside of the broadcast area.

As always, we will have plenty to discuss. It looks like the US and Iraqi forces may have started turning a corner in both Anbar and Baghdad, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed turned a corner, too -- right towards the military tribunals in Gitmo. It was Baggage Week for the Republican presidential contenders this week, with Mitt Romney being thankful that the Mormon is the only one among the frontrunners with one wife. We may talk about the controversies at Justice involving the abrupt dismissals of a number of US Attorneys and the FBI's overzealousness in obtaining restricted personal information on US citizens -- and how conservatives should consider both.

And, of course, we'll have Libby Libby Libby on the table table table.

Be sure to call and join the conversation today at 651-289-4488.

Brad Delp, Rest In 'Peace Of Mind'

The lead singer of Boston, one of the most talented bands of the 1970s, has died unexpectedly. Brad Delp, 55, died alone in his house, and police say no foul play is suspected:

Brad Delp, the lead singer of the 1970s and '80s rock band Boston was found dead at his home in southern New Hampshire on Friday, local police said.

Delp, 55, apparently was home alone and there was no indication of foul play, Atkinson, New Hampshire, police said.

With Delp's big, high-register voice, Boston scored hits with "More Than a Feeling," "Long Time," and "Peace of Mind."

Boston always took its sweet time in releasing new albums, but fans could not argue with the results. Any band that produced "More Than a Feeling" would have its place in rock history, but Boston had a string of well-written, evocative hits. Whether Boston tried love songs like "Amanda" or went a bit autobiographical as in "Rock and Roll Band", the product was always sharp, intelligent -- and just plain great rock music.

The band had its problems, notably with lead guitarist Tom Scholz, whose perfectionism put years between releases and drove the band apart. Later efforts only included occasional appearances by original band members. However, the small but impressive collection with the original band still makes Boston one of the most significant monster-rock groups.

At 55, Brad Delp left us too soon. Tom Scholz wrote "Peace of Mind", one of my favorite Boston songs, but Delp sang it -- and maybe it's a fitting song to recall:

Now everybodys got advice they just keep on givin
Doesnt mean too much to me
Lots of people out to make-believe theyre livin
Cant decide who they should be.

I understand about indecision
But I dont care if I get behind
People li vin in competition
All I want is to have my peace of mind.

I hope Delp found his.

Al-Baghdadi Captured

Iraq and the US scored a big victory today when it rolled up the leadership of an al-Qaeda affiliated group in Iraq. Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, who has taunted Americans in press releases in the past, wound up in our custody after a series of raids:

The shadowy leader of the Islamic State of Iraq, an al-Qaida-inspired group that challenged the authority of Iraq's government, was captured Friday in a raid on the western outskirts of Baghdad, an Iraqi military spokesman said.

Abu Omar al-Baghdadi was arrested along with several other insurgents in a raid in the town of
Abu Ghraib, said Brig. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi, spokesman for the Baghdad security operation. U.S. officials had no confirmation of the capture and said they were looking into the report.

Al-Moussawi said al-Baghdadi admitted his identity, as did another "of the terrorists" who confirmed "that the one in our hands is al-Baghdadi."

Hot Air has much more on this story; I'm coming to it late after a very long day. Al-Baghdadi's real name is Khalid al-Mashhadani, which may sound familiar, as the Iraqi Speaker in its National Assembly and one of its Vice Presidents come from the Mahhadani tribe. That may or may not have a lot of significance; after all, Osama bin Laden's family has massive commercial interests in the West and have disowned their murderous scion.

The best aspect of this story so far is that one of Mashhadani's men ratted him out. He admitted his identity as the master terrorist, but apparently only after another detainee spilled the beans. Rumors have also begun to swirl that Mashhadani's brother got captured last week, which may mean his own brother ratted him out as well. It seems that either Mashhadani and his minions ache for publicity, or are too demoralized by their capture to care.

Now that they have been identified as the leadership of the ISI, they will face a grim future. Just a week ago, the ISI posted videos of the executions of 18 Iraqi security troops. They kidnapped the troops as revenge for the alleged rape of a Sunni woman by an Iraqi policeman, and the videotaped executions raised the bar even further for Islamist depravity. The Iraqi government may keep the Saddam gallows in good working order in anticipation of stretching Mashhadani's neck, after the US is finished interrogating him.

So Then The Rino Walks Up To The Podium And Says ...

... I will run for President in 2008:

Nebraska's Chuck Hagel, the Senate Republican most outspoken in opposition to President Bush's March 2003 decision to invade Iraq, is expected to announce Monday that he will make a bid for the Republican Party's presidential nomination. ...

The question on nearly every Republican's lips yesterday was whether Mr. Hagel can raise the $100 million-plus that campaign analysts say will be needed by the end of this year to be a serious 2008 nomination contender.

Bwa-ha-ha! Stop it, you're killing me!

Oh, wait ... he's serious?

The big question isn't whether Hagel can raise $100 million for a credible campaign. The question is whether Hagel can beat Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo for last place. (via Power Line)

US Enters Pakistan On Bin Laden Hunt

The US has sent CIA special operations units into Pakistan to hunt down fresh leads on the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders, the London Telegraph reports. The action comes just a few weeks after American officials presented Pervez Musharraf with evidence of AQ's growing presence in Waziristan and demanded action to destroy them:

America is stepping up its hunt for Osama bin Laden by dispatching additional CIA operatives and paramilitary officers to Pakistan to kill or capture the al-Qa'eda leader.

US officials said that the mission is intended to intensify the pressure on the terrorist leader, who turns 50 tomorrow, and perhaps force him into making a mistake. He is widely believed to be hiding in the region bordering Afghanistan.

Satellite photographs and details of communications intercepts were given to President Musharraf of Pakistan last week by Stephen Kappes, deputy director of the CIA, as part of a strategy to persuade him to give US intelligence agencies more assistance. ...

"Reports that the trail has gone stone cold are not correct," an American official said afterwards. "We are very much increasing our efforts there."

Intelligence officials believe that Osama normally goes on the move in March, when the bitter winters in that region finally dissipate and travel can resume. Movement makes people more vulnerable, and the US wants to catch him in transition. They believe that he has built the camps with the aim to run the Taliban and AQ operations directly and in person, and hope to catch him either at the camps or on his way to them.

For those who want action in Pakistan, it seems to be coming true. The US has tried to avoid trammeling Pakistani sovereignty in the past in order to keep from destabilizing Musharraf. The deal Musharraf signed with Waziri tribal leaders has changed the American perspective, it appears. If Musharraf will not fight for his sovereignty in Waziristan, then the US apparently has decided that we do not need to honor it, and will attack AQ assets ourselves. Admiral Mike McConnell signaled this last week in testimony to the Senate. The new Director of National Intelligence told the Senators that he would focus "with great intensity" on AQ's Pakistani outposts.

It seems as if Dick Cheney's visit to Pakistan meant something rather significant for Musharraf. With AQ more active than any time in the last five years, and with Musharraf sitting on his hands, Cheney's visit was meant as an ultimatum for action. If Musharraf won't fight terrorists, then we have less interest in preventing his destabilization. Musharraf responded by arresting two senior members of the Taliban outside of Waziristan, and his lack of response thus far to American operations in Waziristan seems to indicate acquiescence to the new American policy.

Expect a much greater latitude in American action across the Afghan/Pakistani border from this point forward -- a new policy that will cripple the Taliban's expected spring offensive, and perhaps force Osama and Ayman al-Zawahiri to flee their safety zone.

Musharraf Deal Bad For Pakistanis, Too

With the deal between Pervez Musharraf and the Waziris widely acknowledged as a problem for the US and NATO in Afghanistan, some forget that Pakistanis also suffer from its effects. The Los Angeles Times reports on the ascendancy of the extremists and terrorists in Pakistan since Musharraf signaled a retreat on his prosecution of the war on terror, and what that means for moderates opposed to jihadism:

For weeks, there had been whispers that Akhtar Usmani, a young teacher at a Muslim religious school, was speaking out against the growing presence of Islamic militants in his home in the tribal area of Waziristan.

Then one day last week, the schoolteacher's corpse, with the head severed from the torso, was found in a bloody sack dumped beside a desolate road. A note on his mutilated body called him a spy for America.

Such grisly reprisal killings have become a recurring feature of life in Waziristan, a rugged border zone that is in the global spotlight because of U.S. intelligence claims that elements of Al Qaeda are regrouping there

A little-noted corollary of the area's notoriety as a militant haven is the suffering of civilians who live and work there, say human rights groups, political analysts and Pakistani law enforcement officials. The killings are part of an atmosphere of terror enveloping many of the 4 million or so people living in North and South Waziristan and the other "tribal agencies," seven federally administered but essentially ungoverned areas adjoining the Pakistan-Afghanistan frontier.

Civilians there are increasingly subject to the stringent Islamic prohibitions and punishments of Taliban insurgents, foreign militants and members of radical Pakistani organizations, whose influence is breaking down traditional tribal leadership, people in the area say.

Musharraf's retreat wasn't just a betrayal of his allies in the war on terror, but also a betrayal of the moderate Muslims he claims to lead. The Waziristan deal has allowed the extremists out of the shadows and into the open, and they have predictably acted to impose their religious tyranny on everyone in sight. Just as the Taliban did in Afghanistan, they have banned music, threatened barbers, shuttered movie theaters, and forced schools that teach girls to close.

It's not just Taliban fanily values that have afflicted Waziris and others in the region. They have also started conducting kidnappings to bolster terrorist finances, another form of terrorism on the local civilians. The Taliban have turned themselves into an Islamic Mafia, conducting protection rackets, truck hijackings, and the ubiquitous drug smuggling that occurs in the region regardless of who is in charge.

The civilians have not quietly accepted their fate as Mullah Omar's vassals. They have organized their own response to Islamist terrorists, conducting attacks on their own. A gang of tribal warriors attacks Uzbek terrorists last week in a battle that left 19 dead.

Musharraf signed the deal in order to maintain his power in Pakistan, obviously feeling threatened by the Islamists and daunted by the tough fight Waziristan represents. However, it's obvious that he has traded one form of instability for another, and either way he faces a civil war. The question for Musharraf is whether he wants to fight now while he has the better ground, or whether he waits until the Taliban absorbs so much of Pakistan that he will have no tactical strength left.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Gets Hearing Today

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the operational commander of the 9/11 attacks, gets a hearing to determine his status at Guantanamo Bay today. The US will review his case to determine whether he should remain in custody and face a military tribunal under the process approved by Congress last year:

Hearings begin today at Guantanamo Bay for a group of 14 terrorist suspects including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged September 11 mastermind.

No lawyers or reporters will be present at the hearings so the only account of the outcome will come from the US military.

Also going on before the hearings panels include Abu Zubaydah, a senior aide to Osama bin Laden, and a man known simply as Hambali, who is alleged to have orchestrated the 2002 Bali bombings. ...

The Centre for Constitutional Rights, which is organising the defence of hundreds of Guantanamo detainees including Khan, said it was "outrageous" that he had not seen his lawyers since October.

The outrage expressed by the CCR fails to recognize that Mohammed helped run a terrorist organization that declared war on the United States. Osama bin Laden, Mohammed's commander in the organization, issued an explicit statement of war against America, and then conducted a series of attacks on our interests, including 9/11 and an attack on a Navy warship.

That state of war means that AQ leaders captured don't get treated like bank robbers or murderers after their arrest. It means they get treated as enemies at war -- and since they hide among civilians without any insignia or uniform showing their combatant status, Mohammed and the rest of his ilk get treated like spies and saboteurs. He should have had nothing more than a summary court-martial and a quick hanging, but the US exploited his potential for intelligence on terrorists in and out of AQ first.

Mohammed will get representation in the new military tribunal system, where his fate will be decided. That's more than good enough for the author of 9/11, even if CCR doesn't agree. We're at war with these terrorists, a war they wanted; their status reflects their own rhetoric and actions.

Checking His Baggage At The Door

One of the most effective strategies for defusing potentially damaging information is to have the person it damages release it early, before his opponents have the chance. It works equally well in litigation as well as in politics, if it gets out very early. Newt Gingrich knows this full well, and yesterday employed the strategy in dealing with a messy chapter in his own life:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich acknowledged he was having an extramarital affair even as he led the charge against President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, he acknowledged in an interview with a conservative Christian group.

"The honest answer is yes," Gingrich, a potential 2008 Republican presidential candidate, said in an interview with Focus on the Family founder James Dobson to be aired Friday, according to a transcript provided to The Associated Press. "There are times that I have fallen short of my own standards. There's certainly times when I've fallen short of God's standards."

Gingrich argued in the interview, however, that he should not be viewed as a hypocrite for pursuing Clinton's infidelity.

"The president of the United States got in trouble for committing a felony in front of a sitting federal judge," the former Georgia congressman said of Clinton's 1998 House impeachment on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. "I drew a line in my mind that said, 'Even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed, and even though at a purely personal level I am not rendering judgment on another human being, as a leader of the government trying to uphold the rule of law, I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept ... perjury in your highest officials."

Gingrich, like Rudy Giuliani, has had two divorces and three marriages. John McCain has been divorced once. Only Mitt Romney, alone among GOP frontrunners, has remained married to the same woman. This contrasts sharply with the Democratic leaders in the 2008 race; neither Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, nor John Edwards have had a divorce.

Politically, Gingrich made the right move. His peccadilloes already have had wide exposure, but not in the context of a national race. He wants to ask forgiveness up front for his mistakes, and evangelical Christians will feel compelled to grant it. It's the NCAA football strategy; take a loss up early in the season and one can still win the national championship, but the same loss late will almost certainly spell the end of any hopes of winning the big prize.

The charges of hypocrisy will not go away as easily. Gingrich has it correct when he says the problem with Clinton was the perjury, not the sex, and it's important to recall why Clinton had to lie about it in the first place. Ken Starr had originally reached an agreement with Webster Hubbell to cooperate with his investigation into the Whitewater mess, but when Hubbell suddenly got $400,000 for work with Revlon -- allegedly arranged by Vernon Jordan -- he stopped talking. Starr believed that to be a delberate obstruction of justice, and when Monica Lewinsky got a job at Revlon after Jordan arranged it following her identification as a potential paramour by Paula Jones' legal team, Starr thought he had found a pattern of deliberate obstruction.

And why was Jones pursuing depositions? She claimed that Clinton had sexually harassed her, and wanted to establish that he preyed on female staffer and interns, a strategy that Democrats had proudly written into law following the Clarence Thomas hearings where Anita Hill accused him of harassment in an attempt to derail his nomination to the Supreme Court. Clinton wasn't smart enough to default on the lawsuit and instead decided to fight it, which allowed for the depositions -- and the perjury -- that followed.

Gingrich didn't commit perjury. However, Gingrich had the affair with his staffer at the same time he pursued Clinton's impeachment for perjuring himself about sex with an intern. Given that Republicans made a great deal of noise about Clinton's sexual escapades with an employee/volunteer in the Oval Office itself, that comparison is not completely apples to oranges.

Regardless of whether the underlying investigation is well-advised, perjury is still perjury, and Gingrich is correct in saying that perjurers have to be held accountable for their false statements under oath. That's true of Scooter Libby as well.

UPDATE: My friend La Shawn Barber says the infidelity is not news, and she's right. However, to paraphrase Peter Allen, all old skeletons become new again in a presidential race, and Newt's smart to address it now. And another good friend, Rick Moran, reviews a few more of the old bones in this post.

Senate Republicans Turn On Gonzalez Over Firings

Senate Republicans have turned on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales after his explanations over the dismissals of eight US Attorneys failed to convince the Senators that Justice had good reasons for their termination. Normally staunch GOP defenders of the administration like Jon Kyl of Arizona scolded Gonzales yesterday in a hearing, and the White House has begun to retreat on interim replacement powers as a result:

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales agreed yesterday to change the way U.S. attorneys can be replaced, a reversal in administration policy that came after he was browbeaten by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee still angry over the controversial firings of eight federal prosecutors.

Gonzales told Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and other senior members of the committee that the administration will no longer oppose legislation limiting the attorney general's power to appoint interim prosecutors. Gonzales also agreed to allow the committee to interview five top-level Justice Department officials as part of an ongoing Democratic-led probe into the firings, senators said after a tense, hour-long meeting in Leahy's office suite.

The concessions represent a turnaround by the White House and the Justice Department, which have argued for three months that Gonzales must have unfettered power to appoint interim federal prosecutors and have resisted disclosing details about the firings. ...

Even two of the administration's strongest defenders on the issue openly questioned the Justice Department's handling of the dismissals. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) called the lack of explanation for the firings "unhealthy," and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said the department's public criticisms of the ousted prosecutors were unwarranted.

"Some people's reputations are going to suffer needlessly," Kyl said.

The firings came after passage of a new law, part of a larger bill, that gave Gonzales the power to appoint interim US Attorneys for indefinite periods after a termination. Gonzales wanted to streamline the process for replacements by eliminating the need for immediate Senate confirmation, and the new law allowed the AG to make the interim appointments rather than the local federal district court.

Immediately after that change became effective, Gonzales terminated almost 10% of his US Attorneys, all of which were Bush appointments. While the administration employs these US Attorneys as political appointments, it is unusual to terminate them in the middle of a term, especially in such a significant number. When Gonzales filled one of the positions with an associate of Karl Rove, it made the entire exercise look like the beginning of a patronage system at Justice.

Kyl and Arlen Specter scolded Gonzales for publicly impugning the peformance of the attorneys in an op-ed piece for USA Today earlier this week. John Ensign, normally another dependable defender of the administration, went public with his anger over the dismissal of Daniel Bogden in Nevada. Pete Domenici and Heather Thomas have now acknowledged calling New Mexico US Attorney David Iglesias to ask him why a corruption probe against Democrats was delayed, just weeks before the last elections, making even other Republican Senators uncomfortable with the appearance of pressure on Iglesias. (Domenici hired a lawyer to prepare a defense against a potential ethics charge.)

The new Democratic majority has made reversing that change in the law a priority. Kyl, up to now, has blocked that effort, but from his remarks yesterday it appeared he may have been wavering. The White House took it out of Kyl's hands altogether by agreeing to allow the bill to proceed to the floor. Leahy says that Bush has committed to signing it, if it passes Congress.

Gonzales has more explaining to do. Political appointees serve at the pleasure of the President, but wise administrations take care not to overly politicize the offices themselves. Prosecutors have to have enough credibility to be seem to conduct investigations in a fair and impartial manner, especially those involving public corruption. This will continue to attract attention until Gonzales explains the sudden significant turnover for attorneys, almost all of whom had received good performance evaluations. It's a controversy no one needed and quite frankly didn't have to occur.

Congo Uranium A Go-Go

With the world focused on two potential nuclear proliferators and an ongoing Islamist terrorist threat, one might believe that nations with nuclear materials would take security a bit more seriously these days. Unfortunately, one would be wrong, at least in Congo. The Democratic Republic of Congo arrested its nuclear chief after the government found 100 bars of enriched uranium missing from their stocks:

The head of the Democratic Republic of Congo's dilapidated and poorly guarded nuclear reactor plant has been arrested on suspicion of illegally selling enriched uranium, following the disappearance of large quantities of the material.

The commissioner general for atomic energy, Fortunat Lumu, was detained on Tuesday along with an aide. Congo's state prosecutor, Tshimanga Mukeba, said Mr Lumu was being questioned about the disappearance of unspecified quantities of uranium in recent years.

Mr Mukeba said Mr Lumu was suspected of "orchestrating illicit contracts to produce and sell uranium" but he did not name the alleged buyers.

Le Phare newspaper reported that about 100 bars of uranium had disappeared from the small experimental reactor, the oldest nuclear facility in Africa. The uranium produced by the reactor in Congo's capital, Kinshasa, is enriched but not to weapons grade, although it could be used in a "dirty bomb" to spread radiation.

The problems at the Kinshasa reactor are no secret. The IAEA and various countries have complained about the lax security provided by Lumu and the Congolese government. Two years ago, Iran reportedly purchased uranium on the sly from Lumu's organization, and five years before that Newsweek reported that Saddam Hussein had tried to do the same.

For a nation that operates a nuclear reactor in an age of terrorism, they have remarkably little security. The Guardian reports that the facility only has a low fence, a flimsy gate, and no security guards to watch the facility, which no longer operates. It has -- or had -- 98 bars of leftover uranium bars. The disappearance of two bars in the 1970s made headlines. One rod got recovered in the Middle East, after having been sold there by the Mafia, while the fate of the other rod remains a mystery.

Not that anyone needs to steal it from the facility, as it turns out. Congolese farmers mine it with their bare hands in the war-torn south, putting it on the black market to survive the poverty there.

This points out a vital hole in international security, and a reason to be skeptical of nuclear power as a panacea for the energy production of Third World nations. The DRC apparently does not have the resources to properly guard even those facilities that no longer operate, let alone the level required for operational reactors. Even worse, the few resources assigned to securing the facilities wind up exploiting them for their own personal profit and potentially handing the means of our own destruction to our enemies.

We need to start securing these old reactor sites, immediately. Our lives depend on it.

CQ Radio: Libby, Cheney, Visas, And Cut-And-Runs (Bumped)

Tonight, CQ Radio will air at its normal time, between 9-10 pm CT, and we'll be talking about Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney, pardons, appeals, and more. We'll also have Charles Hurt from the Washington Examiner on the show to discuss the expansion of the Visa Waiver Program.

You can listen live at the above link, and even join in the conversation by calling 646-652-4889. We may have more to discuss between then and now, and I'll be keeping the agenda wide open in case any breaking stories catch our attention.

Yesterday, Always On! ran an interesting article on Blog Talk Radio, and I'd be remiss if I didn't point it out:

What sets BlogTalkRadio apart from similar services is its clever and easy-to-use implementation without needing any special equipment. The secret is that all audio input is via the telephone. Podcasters get a private dial-in number to the service, then they are streamed out to the Internet. Callers get their own number, while BlogTalkRadio provides a Web-based console the podcaster uses to control the show. Once the show is created, it is hosted on BlogTalkRadio and can be accessed either at the BlogTalkRadio site or a widget on the host's site. ...

Since its launch five months ago, this self-funded company has amassed heavy traction and is preparing to take the next steps toward success. By integrating click-to-call VoIP functions, introducing audio and visual advertising, BlogTalkRadio can offer its diverse content to what CEO Alan Levy describes as a "near limitless market."

The traditional radio model is based on the one-to many paradigm. BlogTalkRadio gives rise to a new broadcast medium: many-to-many. The question now becomes not so much who will use it, but how it will be used.

I'll have more on BTR later. For now, make sure to catch the show live tonight -- and check the home page for more shows on a wide range of topics.

The Doomed Plan To Doom Iraq

The Democrats unveiled their latest version of Cut and Run, which will demand a total withdrawal from Iraq by no later than the fall of 2008 -- just in time for the Presidential election. The plan forces President Bush to certify that the Iraqi government has met a series of benchmark tests, and any failure will trigger an immediate and early withdrawal:

House Democrats today unveiled a plan for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of August 2008, introducing legislation that attaches a complex series of conditions to military spending requested by President Bush.

The plan, described in a Capitol Hill news conference by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other Democratic leaders, would require Bush to certify that the Iraqi government is meeting military, political and economic benchmarks. If he cannot, it would move up the U.S. withdrawal to as early as the end of this year.

Regardless of Iraqi progress in meeting the benchmarks, the plan calls for the gradual redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq starting March 1, 2008, and ending within six months.

Republicans immediately denounced the proposal as a recipe for U.S. failure in Iraq, and the White House threatened a veto if it ever reached the president's desk.

The plan represents the toughest congressional challenge to Bush's Iraq war policy to date. It also marks the first time that Democrats, who took control of Congress in last year's midterm elections, have set a firm deadline for pulling U.S. combat troops out of Iraq after four years of an increasingly unpopular war that has left nearly 3,200 Americans dead and more than 23,000 wounded.

Bush threatened to veto any bill that included hard deadlines for withdrawal, and apparently this one in particular. It's doubtful it will ever get that far. Democrats expect to peel off a few Republicans by pointing out that they're not cutting off funding for the war, but that's pretty thin gruel. Jumping through all of these hoops practically guarantees that outcome, and probably sometime this summer.

John Boehner spoke for the Republicans today, calling the bill a recipe for failure. Noting that the Senate just confirmed David Petraeus in his new role as commander in the theater, Boehner said that tactics and strategy should be his bailiwick and not Congress'.

Instead of focusing on losing the war, Petraeus needs to focus on winning it, and Congress needs to get out of his way. This gives a roadmap for the terrorists to follow to drive the US out of Iraq. All they have to do is read the list of benchmarks and do whatever they can do to block the first one, and Congress will declare defeat and run for the hills.

Expect the Republicans to successfully filibuster this bill in the Senate.

Democratic Senate To Relax Visa Requirements

I decided to do a little lunchtime blogging, and the first item I see is this Examiner column by Charles Hurt outlining the Democratic priorities on national security -- relaxing visa requirements to enter the US. Harry Reid took all of about six weeks after capturing the majority for the first time since the 9/11 attacks to demonstrate his party's understanding of security priorities, and a few Republicans appear to be supporting him, including George Bush:

The Senate’s anti-terrorism bill would relax visa requirements for foreign travelers coming to the United States, a move that some worry will leave the country more vulnerable to a terrorist attack.

“Nineteen murderers got into the U.S. because of lax scrutiny of their visas,” Rosemary Jenks of the nonpartisan Numbers USA said, referring to the terrorists responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. “Now the Senate wants to eliminate visas for millions more people.” ...

“There are many countries helping us thwart terrorism around the world, and they should be rewarded for their continued cooperation,” said Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio. “This legislation will improve both our national security and economic interests while helping to solidify these relationships and improve good will toward the United States for years to come.”

Already, 27 mainly European countries are exempt from obtaining visas for travel for up to 90 days in the United States. The anti-terrorism bill would allow the administration to expand that waiver to 13 additional countries that are determined not to pose a security risk.

It's bad enough that the Senate wants to relax entry requirements while we're at war with people who mainly attack through infiltration. The Senate should be embarrassed to be loosening security requirements in a bill they advertise as "anti-terrorism". However, Harry Reid takes it even father by blocking some common-sense amendments that would address some other holes in the entry process -- because he says they're off-topic.

Charles Grassley, for instance, has proposed an amendment to eliminate judicial review of visa revocations when the holder is already in the US. At the moment, someone traveling in the US belatedly found to be a risk can appeal the revocation of a visa and remain in the country, sometimes for months. Given that no one has a right to a visa, it's hard to understand why people determined to be security risks have to be allowed to remain in the US after that determination is made. Jon Cornyn wants to add an amendment that will allow the Department of Homeland Security to detain illegal aliens after a judge orders their deportation, and not wait until their home country has agreed to accept them back.

Reid won't allow either of them to come to the floor. Why? They're related to immigration, Reid says, and irrelevant to national security.

I contacted Charles Hurt, and he has graciously agreed on short notice to appear on CQ Radio this evening. Be sure to tune in at 9 pm CT, when I will interview him about this concerning development. (via Instapundit)

A Darwin Award Nominee

One finds many colorful characters here in the Upper Midwest, especially when the heavy snows hit and people start getting a bit of cabin fever. The vast majority of intelligent, erudite Northerners will use that time to do constructive projects or perhaps participate in some creative work. The tiny minority of mouthbreathers attempt to sterilize themselves so that that minority continues to decline:

Attempts to do a movie stunt landed one man in the hospital with burned genitals and another facing criminal charges. The men were trying to do a stunt from one of the "Jackass" movies, in which a character lights his genitals on fire.

Jared W. Anderson, 20, suffered serious burns to his hands and genitals, according to the criminal complaint. Randell D. Peterson, 43, who sprayed lighter fluid on Anderson and lit him on fire, was charged with felony battery and first-degree reckless endangerment Tuesday in Eau Claire County Court. ...

Anderson pulled down his pants and let Peterson spray him with lighter fluid. When the fire didn't catch, Peterson sprayed more lighter fluid on Anderson, splashing some on his clothing. He tried again to light the fire, catching Anderson's genitals, hands and clothes.

Anderson ran into the bathroom, jumped into the tub and put the flames out. Other guests took him to Luther Hospital, and eventually he was treated at the Regions Hospital Burn Unit in St. Paul, Minn., for second-degree burns.

Yes, alcohol was involved, as it usually is in these cases. The two had just watched the movie Jackass and decided to recreate one of the stunts. Of course, it had to be the stunt that involved the family jewels, and now Anderson's family had better hope they have another child who can provide them the next generation of Andersons.

His partner in stupidity faces 10 years in prison for setting his buddy's balls on fire, which might make for one of the more amusing trials seen here in long memory, if it actually goes to trial. It's almost certain to get pled down to a misdemeanor and some community service time. Perhaps he can tell school kids the difference between movie stunts and real life, a lesson he had to learn the hard way.

Note to Republican National Convention attendees for 2008: this is not a local custom. We do not wear long underwear in the winter and asbestos underwear in the summer.

UPDATE: AnonymousDrivel points out that Anderson's scarred genitalia wouldn't really be an appropriate visual reference for schoolchildren. His question, "are you nuts?", I will assume was an attempt at rhetorical irony, or ironic rhetoric, or something to that effect. It certainly made me laugh...

Identity Politics Gone Wild

First we had the strikingly pale Bill Clinton proclaimed as America's First Black President by Toni Morrison as an odd reward for pandering to identity politics. Now, the New York Sun reports that the First Woman President may well have a Y chromosome, if John Edwards wins the White House:

Toni Morrison famously dubbed President Clinton America's "first black president." With that barrier broken, the comments of a prominent feminist are provoking debate about who may lay a similar claim to the title of America's first woman president.

The candidate being touted as a torchbearer for women is not Senator Clinton, but one of her former colleagues, John Edwards. At a rally near the University of California, Berkeley campus this week, a veteran of the abortion-rights movement, Kate Michelman, asked and answered the question she gets most frequently about her decision to back the male former senator from North Carolina.

"Why John Edwards, given the historic nature of our extraordinary campaign for the presidency this year with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and all the others?" Ms. Michelman asked as she warmed up the crowd for Mr. Edwards. "I've gotten to know a lot of political leaders over the years that I've been an advocate for women's rights. I know the difference between those who advocate as a political position and those who understand the reality of women's lives."

Compared to Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Edwards is short an ‘X' chromosome, but listening to Ms. Michelman, that is easy to forget. "As a lawyer, as a senator, as a husband, as a father of two daughters, he understands the reality of women's lives. He understands the centrality of women's lives and experience to the health and well-being of society as a whole. … He understands that on an extremely personal level," she said.

Quite frankly, it shouldn't matter which chromosomes or skin pigmentation a candidate has on an individual basis. In a general sense, we want to ensure that the political process remains open to everyone, and diversity among elected officials gives us an indication of whether we're successful at it. If diversity is a goal in and of itself, as the Toni Morrisons and Kate Michelmans have argued in the past, then granting honorary minority status on rich, white men seems to be counter-productive.

It points out the silliness of identity politics in a comic way, as the final stage of the process. Identity becomes so much more important than actual policy that candidates have to assume ridiculous poses as the most female of all candidates in a race, even while the race includes actual females and the claimant is a male. In Bill Clinton's case, the appelation belies the fact that actual black men and women ran for the office before he did, and did not win the nomination -- and that he's not really black.

The first black president will be the candidate of African descent who wins the most Electoral College votes. The first female president will be the candidate with two X chromosomes who takes the oath of office on January 20 of the given year. Perhaps the Democrats might dispense with the gender and ethnic politics and just focus on policy instead.

The Friends Of Ali Reza Asgari

Iranian intelligence general and former Foreign Ministry official Ali Reza Asgari is among friends, the Washington Post reports, and enjoying the conversation. The Iranians had asked Turkey to help locate Asgari after he disappeared from there in February, but now US officials confirm that "Western intelligence agencies" have been meeting with Asgari and discussing Iran's ties to terrorism:

A former Iranian deputy defense minister who once commanded the Revolutionary Guard has left his country and is cooperating with Western intelligence agencies, providing information on Hezbollah and Iran's ties to the organization, according to a senior U.S. official.

Ali Rez Asgari disappeared last month during a visit to Turkey. Iranian officials suggested yesterday that he may have been kidnapped by Israel or the United States. The U.S. official said Asgari is willingly cooperating. He did not divulge Asgari's whereabouts or specify who is questioning him, but made clear that the information Asgari is offering is fully available to U.S. intelligence.

Asgari served in the Iranian government until early 2005 under then-President Mohammad Khatami. Asgari's background suggests that he would have deep knowledge of Iran's national security infrastructure, conventional weapons arsenal and ties to Hezbollah in south Lebanon. Iranian officials said he was not involved in the country's nuclear program, and the senior U.S. official said Asgari is not being questioned about it. Former officers with Israel's Mossad spy agency said yesterday that Asgari had been instrumental in the founding of Hezbollah in the 1980s, around the time of the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.

Iran's official news agency, IRNA, quoted the country's top police chief, Brig. Gen. Esmaeil Ahmadi-Moqaddam, as saying that Asgari was probably kidnapped by agents working for Western intelligence agencies. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Asgari was in the United States. Another U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, denied that report and suggested that Asgari's disappearance was voluntary and orchestrated by the Israelis. A spokesman for President Bush's National Security Council did not return a call for comment.

The tie to the Khatami regime could be significant. Khatami is what passes as a reformer in Iran, which means that he favored a more measured approach to international relations. Calling the US the "Great Satan" and Israel the "Little Satan" sufficed for stirring up anti-Western sentiment amongst the rabble for Khatami and his clique. They saw no need to dive into the waters of Holocaust denial and openly advocating for war with Israel and the US.

Asgari may have become disenchanted with the direction Mahmoud Ahmadinejad provided for Iran after the mullahs staged his election in June 2005. That appears to be around the time that Asgari left the Iranian government, although it seems he continued his work in intelligence. That would make Asgari one of the most valuable defections for Western intelligence in decades, not just in information but also in motivation. The mullahs not only have to stop all programs of which Asgari has knowledge, but they also have to wonder how many other disaffected Asgaris they are creating with their reckless domestic and foreign policy.

The Iranians now want to downplay the impact of his apparent defection. Teheran claims that Asgari has been out of the loop for "four or five years", transparently untrue given his employment history. An Iranian official told the Post that Teheran assumes Asgari is traveling in Europe, which doesn't explain why he went missing in Turkey and why the Iranians demanded assistance from the Turks in locating him.

Asgari's defection is dangerous and embarrassing for the mullahcracy. It threatens to expose all of their connections to terrorism, their operations against Western targets, and the network of sleeper cells they have threatened to activate if attacked. It might also expose points of political vulnerability for the hard-liners in Iran, including the Twelfth Imam clique that apparently sees no problem in massive destruction as long as their #12 highway remains open. It's also concrete evidence that high-ranking officials within the Iranian government are not all supporters of their current policies, showing disunity at a particularly inopportune moment.

No Pardon In The Near Future

President Bush quashed speculation that he would issue an immediate pardon for Scooter Libby after his conviction for perjury and obstruction of justice. He told reporters yesterday that he will wait for Libby's legal options to be exhausted before he looks into a pardon:

President Bush said yesterday that he is "pretty much going to stay out of" the case of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby until the legal process has run its course, deflecting pressure from supporters of the former White House aide to pardon him for perjury and obstruction of justice.

Libby's allies said Bush should not wait for Libby to be sentenced, and should use his executive power to spare Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff the risk of prison time for lying to a grand jury and FBI agents about his role in leaking the name of an undercover CIA officer. But the prospect of a pardon triggered condemnation from Democrats and caution from some Republicans wary of another furor.

Defense lawyers for Libby said they are focused on seeking a new trial and appealing Tuesday's jury verdict, while making clear that they believe the president should step in. "Our number one goal is to see Scooter's conviction wiped out by the courts and see him vindicated," attorney William Jeffress Jr. said in an interview. "Now, I've seen all the calls for a pardon. And I agree with them. To me, he should have been pardoned six months ago or a year ago."

In his first comments on the case since the verdict, Bush told CNN en Español that he has to "respect that conviction" but that he "was sad for a man who had worked in my administration." Bush did not rule out a pardon but implied that it is not imminent. "I'm pretty much going to stay out of it until the course -- the case has finally run its final -- the course it's going to take," he told Univision during an interview before a trip to Latin America that begins today.

Undoubtedly, this will make many Republicans unhappy. Many CQ readers insisted that Bush should act immediately on a pardon, arguing that the prosecution was abusive enough to justify quick action. Some critics noted the Clinton pardon of financier Marc Rich, who never returned to the US to stand trial, as evidence that Bush would be well within precedent to act before the courts finish with their processes. Ironically, Libby represented Rich during the effort to gain a pardon from Bill Clinton. Bush's father didn't wait for Caspar Weinberger to come to trial, either, although that may have had more to do with getting some payback against the special prosecutor who deliberately timed his indictment just prior to the presidential election.

A pardon at this stage would seem like an endorsement of the notion that Libby cannot win an appeal. It plays against Libby in the long run, although I'm certain Libby's team does not agree. If an appellate court reverses Libby's conviction, either by ordering a new trial or by issuing an outright dismissal, he wins in a much more public and substantial manner than a presidential pardon can provide.

Politically, a pardon would create all sorts of problems with Congress, and while that bothers some people, it's simply a political truth. At the moment, Bush is using all of his meager political capital to keep the Iraq War from getting defunded, and at the moment, he's succeeding. If he pardoned Libby at this point, while passions are running hottest about the conviction, he risks splintering his own coalition at a critical time. Libby won't even get sentenced for another three months. and he likely will not go to prison while his appeals are being heard.

Bush is keeping his options open, and it's the smart thing to do, even if it presents more difficulties for Libby in the short term. It's almost certain that if the Libby conviction still stands in late 2008, Bush will probably pardon him. Until that point, Bush is doing the smart thing by allowing the legal system to adjudicate Libby's status.

Learning The Right Lessons

Perhaps it is too early to grant General David Petraeus rock-star status, but he has garnered some good press of late. USA Today reports on Petraeus' philosophy of war and its application in Baghdad, as well as early indications of success:

Twenty years ago, David Petraeus, then a young Army officer, wrote a Ph.D. dissertation for Princeton University, saying many of the lessons U.S. military leaders learned from the Vietnam War were wrong.

Generals had become hesitant to commit forces except when they could win conventional battles with superior American firepower. "The senior military have universally been more cautious since Vietnam," Petraeus wrote.

That hesitancy posed a problem in Petraeus' view. The U.S. military was turning away from the very fight — insurgencies — that it would likely confront. The United States' enemies had also learned from Vietnam and would not want to confront U.S. military might head-on.

Now the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Petraeus is following his own advice. Since he arrived in Baghdad last month, U.S. troops are moving off large bases and into combat outposts in the city's turbulent neighborhoods. Aides insist the new strategy is beginning to show positive results, particularly in the capital ...

USA Today provides some interesting stats to source its argument for the early success of Petraeus. Sectarian fighting between Sunni and Shi'ites has decreased by as much as 80% in some of the tougher areas of Baghdad. Between 600 and 1,000 families have returned to the Iraqi capital, halting a flow of refugees from the violence-wracked streets of Baghdad; 20 families a day had been going the other direction before that.

More significantly, the Sunni insurgents have returned to the bargaining table. Now that they understand the Americans are all that stand between them and a Halabja-style ethnic cleansing, they have decided to engage in the political process, at least for now. The new push against both sides of the sectarian conflict has apparently bolstered our credibility, as bloody noses often do.

Petraeus wants more out of this assignment than just a pacification in Baghdad, although that is his primary goal. He has argued for a better counterinsurgency regime within the American military, arguing that the proven domination of the US on the battlefield will mean that almost all future threats will be asymmetrical. If the US expects to maintain its military superiority and therefore protect its national security, it will have to learn to defeat insurgencies. We will not learn that by running away, and a retreat in the face of such terrorists will only encourage more of them -- as the only way to defeat the United States, and by extension, the West.

It's unfortunate that Petraeus did not get this opportunity earlier. His vision could save Iraq, if given the time, but Petraeus has little of that. If in six months he cannot make substantial and enduring progress, a hostile Congress will almost certainly pull the plug. However, if he can expand on his early success and help give the Iraqi government enough room to negotiate a settlement between its sects, then Congress will likely act as though Iraq doesn't exist, and allow for even further gains.

Petraeus has six months to undo thirty years of faulty analysis and three years of ineffective strategy. Hopefully, the Pentagon's new rock star will start churning out the hits.

If We Enforce Immigration Law, We Make The Children Cry

The Guardian takes a poke at American immigration enforcement from across the pond, going weepy over the arrests of illegal aliens at a defense-industry manufacturer in Massachussetts. Included among over 300 people employed by Michael Bianco Inc were, shockingly, some mommies and daddies:

About 100 children were left stranded at schools and day care centres after their parents were rounded up by federal authorities in a raid on a factory where hundreds of illegal immigrants worked to produce supplies for the US military.

About two-thirds of the 500 employees working at leather maker Michael Bianco Inc in New Bedford, Massachusetts, were detained on Tuesday by immigration officials for possible deportation as illegal immigrants. Most of the employees were women and, as a result, many of their children were not picked up from school or day care that day.

Corinn Williams, director of the Community Economic Development Centre of Southeastern Massachusetts, estimated about 100 children were left with babysitters or caretakers.

"We're continuing to get stories today about infants that were left behind," she said yesterday. "It's been a widespread humanitarian crisis here in New Bedford."

Without a doubt, the authorities need to ensure that the children receive proper care. However, let's put the blame where it belongs -- on the parents. They knew they broke the law when they came into the country illegally, and they knew they broke the law when they took employment while being here illegally.

For that matter, so did the employer. Francesco Insolia employs 500 people in his workshops. He makes backpacks and safety vests for the military, and apparently the notoriously profitable defense contracts he received did not provide enough margin for Insolia. More than two-thirds of his workforce could not verify their eligibility for employment, making illegal workers the rule rather than the exception.

Insolia wasn't the kind and mentoring type, either. Michael Sullivan, the US Attorney bringing charges, calls Insolia's workplace a "sweatshop", and for good reason. He regularly fined his workers $20 for talking on the job or spending more than two minutes in the bathroom. Three of his managers also found themselves in custody, and a fifth man got arrested for providing the counterfeit identification they used to keep ICE at bay.

Contrary to the tone of the Guardian's introduction, ICE has committed to resolving the status of the children. For those who are single parents, Julie Myers has pledged to release the parent. Eight pregnant women have already been released, although all will have to face deportation hearings soon.

No one likes to see parents separated from their children. However, when parents break the law, that's what happens; responsible parents already know that. We don't waive charges for moms and dads that rob banks, steal the payroll, or sell drugs on the corner. If these parents want to work in the US, let them follow the law and emigrate legally, gaining the eligibility to work like millions of legal immigrants before them. If they don't want to do that, then they had better make preparations to be separated from their children if they get caught in ICE raids.

Another UN Bribery Conviction

The Oil-for-Food Program continues to generate convictions against corrupt United Nations officials. The latest comes against Russian diplomat Vladimir Kuznetsov, who chaired a UN budget committee and used the procurement process to take in more that $300,000 in bribes:

Kuznetsov helped Alexander Yakovlev, who worked in the UN's procurement office, pocket illegal payments from foreign companies seeking UN contracts.

Yakovlev pleaded guilty in 2005 to soliciting more than $1m in bribes and co-operated with authorities. He testified against Kuznetsov.

The procurement officer was the first UN official to face criminal charges over the scandal-hit oil-for-food programme to Iraq.

Kuznetsov could get 30 years in prison for his corruption, although he will likely get much less. The sentencing has been scheduled for June, which gives him plenty of time to spend what's left of his bribe money on some character witnesses and sob stories.

Kuznetsov first got entangled in the OFF scandal in 2000. At that time, as head of the budget committee, Kuznetsov discovered the off-shore banking accounts that Yakovlev arranged to hold his increasing fortunes in payoffs. Rather than blow the whistle on corruption -- a move apparently not encouraged by the Turtle Bay environment -- Kuznetsov instead insisted on getting a piece of the action. As the chair of the budget committee, he certainly had plenty of access to the procurement processes and could set himself up to be enriched by them, an opportunity Kuznetsov did not allow to slip past.

Kuznetsov has interesting connections, too. He worked in the Russian Foreign Ministry at the same time that he held the position with the UN, according to the report at the time of his arrest. His conviction may allow for more information to flow about Vladimir Putin's dealings with Saddam Hussein, including his interference on Saddam's behalf at the UN Security Council for more than a decade.

Libby Juror: Please Reverse Us

After the OJ Simpson jury's post-trial remarks, I honestly thought I'd never hear anything less intelligent from a juror. Apparently, I was wrong. After having voted to convict Scooter Libby on four felony counts, Ann Redington told Chris Matthews that she wants George Bush to pardon Libby and effectively reverse her decision:

Saying “I don’t want him to go to jail,” a member of the jury that convicted I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby of perjury and obstruction of justice in the CIA leak case called Wednesday for President Bush to pardon Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff.

The woman, Ann Redington, said in an interview on MSNBC’s “Hardball” that she cried when the verdicts against Libby were read Tuesday. She said Libby seemed to be “a really nice guy.” ... “He seemed like a ton of fun. ... I didn’t want to see him and his wife and say he was guilty of a crime,” Redington told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. But she she said she had no choice given the evidence. ...

“I would like him to get” a pardon from Bush, Redington said. “It kind of bothers me that there was this whole big crime being investigated and he got caught up in the investigation as opposed to in the actual crime that was supposedly committed.”

The only crime committed, however, was the perjury and obstruction by Libby. Fitzgerald didn't charge him with leaking Plame's identity, and he's not charging anyone else for that action, having determined (a) it wasn't a crime, and (b) Richard Armitage is the one who did it. Armitage confessed to it over three years ago, before Fitzgerald even got the case, and he worked for Colin Powell and not Dick Cheney.

And who determined that Scooter "Ton of Fun" Libby committed a crime? Ann Redington and her peers on the jury.

Again, if Libby lied to investigators and a grand jury, then he did commit crimes and the jury had no choice to convict. However, it certainly doesn't give any confidence in the verdict to have one of the jurors ask for the President to let off the hook the man she just put on it.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, the jury system is the worst form of criminal justice -- except for all the others. (via Memeorandum)

Former Sailor Arrested For Selling Secrets To Al-Qaeda

A former Navy sailor and recent convert to Islam has been arrested for espionage, ABC News is reporting tonight. Paul Hall, now known as Hassan Abujihaad, sent information about Navy warships in the months following the attack on the USS Cole -- an attack that killed 17 of his former fellow sailors:

A former U.S. Navy sailor has been charged with allegedly passing military secrets about U.S. Navy movements through waters in the Middle East to al Qaeda-related Web sites during the spring of 2001, just months after the USS Cole was attacked in Yemen.

Hassan Abujihaad, formerly known as Paul R. Hall, allegedly passed information about U.S. Navy warship movements in the Straits of Hormuz in April 2001 while he was a member of the Navy. The information passed along contained details about vulnerabilites of U.S. vessels -- including susceptibility to small boat attacks by terrorists.

Abujihaad was arrested today in Phoenix, according to a criminal complaint unsealed tonight that charged him with providing material support to terrorists who planned to kill U.S. nationals.

The complaint claims Abujihaad was an associate of Derrick Shareef, who allegedly tried to explode grenades at the CherryVale Mall outside Chicago during the height of the holiday shopping season last December. Shareef was arrested on Dec. 6, 2006, when he traded stereo speakers for dud grenades in an FBI sting operation.

Abujihaad worked with others in a network of AQ spies, the indictment alleges. He came to the attention of counterterrorism investigators during a probe of Babar Ahmad, who creates AQ propaganda for its websites. The British have had Ahmad since 2004, and he's fighting extradition to the US. His extradition has been approved, pending a last appeal at the Law Lords.

Ahmad ran a website for Azzam Publications, which posted material from another indicted terror suspect, Sayed Talha Ahsan. Ahsan posted information on US Navy ship movements, and the US now says Abujihaad supplied that information to Ahsan. The US Attorney's office in Connecticut will handle the prosecution, since the websites in question had been hosted in that state.

If memory serves, this is the first indictment of a former American serviceman for espionage in service of AQ. If convicted, he could get the death penalty -- and if he's guilty of selling out his former Navy brethren, he deserves it. I normally oppose the death penalty in domestic criminal cases, but espionage and treason in time of war is a clear exception for me.

OK, Now Maher's Really Said Something Offensive

At the same time as the Ann Coulter dustup, Bill Maher came under criticism for saying on his HBO show that "more people would live" if radical Islamist terrorists had succeeded in killing Dick Cheney. Maher, who lost his last show by favorably comparing the relative courage of the 9/11 terrorists to American pilots in Yugoslavia, regularly makes outrageous statements like this, and predictably the same people who celebrated Cheney's blood clot found nothing wrong with his endorsement of vice-presidential assassinations.

However, this time Maher has gone too far. Earlier today, I got a press release from Playboy (a press release I read only for the articles, I assure you) announcing the magazine's latest installment of their storied Playboy Interview. Maher was asked about Barack Obama, and he used the "a" word:

On Barack Obama: “Barack Obama is exciting. Everyone says he’s a rock star, which is one of the most overused phrases these days; everybody’s a rock star. You know what? If you’re not getting blown after the event, you’re not a rock star. But okay, Obama is a rock star. Fine, if that’s what it takes. He seems articulate and serious and thoughtful and electable.”

Oh, my. Joe Biden got a hailstorm of criticism for using the a-word about Obama (as well as calling him the first "clean" African-American presidential candidate) in January. I expect a strongly-worded post from Oliver Willis in the near future.

Michael Yon Returns

Michael Yon has returned from his embed assignment in Iraq. Be sure to read his excellent report. Don't forget to hit the tip jar while you're there.

Posting will be light today here at CQ today.

How Damaging Is The Libby Conviction?

Analysts and Democrats waited only moments after the conviction of Scooter Libby before tying the case around the neck of Vice President Dick Cheney. Following Patrick Fitzgerald's comment in his summation that a "cloud" hovers over the Vice President, many claim that Libby's conviction means the end of Cheney's influence in American policy, and perhaps the start of a process that would end in his removal from office:

With Tuesday’s verdict on Mr. Libby — guilty on four of five counts, including perjury and obstruction of justice — Mr. Cheney’s critics, and even some of his supporters, said the vice president had been diminished.

“The trial has been death by 1,000 cuts for Cheney,” said Scott Reed, a Republican strategist. “It’s hurt him inside the administration. It’s hurt him with the Congress, and it’s hurt his stature around the world because it has shown a lot of the inner workings of the White House. It peeled the bark right off the way they operate.” ...

The political question was whether Mr. Libby, the vice president’s former chief of staff, was “the fall guy” for his boss, in the words of Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York. Though the defense introduced a note from Mr. Cheney worrying that Mr. Libby was being sacrificed to protect other White House officials, some say the vice president bears responsibility for the fate of his former aide, known as Scooter.

“It was clear that what Scooter was doing in the Wilson case was at Dick’s behest,” said Kenneth L. Adelman, a former Reagan administration official who has been close with both men but has broken with Mr. Cheney over the Iraq war. “That was clear. It was clear from Dick’s notes on the Op-Ed piece that he wanted to go get Wilson. And Scooter’s not that type. He’s not a vindictive person.”

One can argue that the case has no real bearing on Cheney or his influence. After all, the leaks regarding Plame came from an entirely different area of the administration (State), and through someone who would rather see Cheney in flames than give him covert political assistance (Richard Armitage, to two different reporters). Patrick Fitzgerald will not pursue any more indictments in the case, and the only person who Cheney has to please is George Bush.

However, that's not political reality, for either Bush or Cheney. Had Libby been acquitted, both would haved used the occasion for vindication. Now that he has been convicted, the reality is that a senior man in the administration got caught lying to investigators, regardless of whether one believes the investigation to be valid or not. People will want to know why, and the first place they will look for answers is the Vice President's office.

Does that mean Cheney has to resign? Of course not. The Clinton administration had a number of its staff indicted and convicted for various peccadilloes, including Webster Hubbell, the MacDougals, and so on. If Cheney did nothing wrong himself, then he has no need to resign, nor should he.

However, Cheney and his office will have to answer a lot of questions over the next few weeks, and perhaps some of those may be in Congress. The Libby conviction will present a major distraction for at least a while, and the Republicans will have to answer for it in the next election. That's not a demand by me, but just a cold, hard, political reality. Libby lied to investigators who were probing the administration, and he was not some junior flunky at a folding table. Libby was an inner-circle man, and this will hurt. A lot.

So, the question will be whether Cheney should step aside for the good of the team. In my opinion, absolutely not. First, it won't resolve any of the underlying political problems for the Bush administration caused by the Libby conviction; the damage there is already done. Second, and more importantly, it's inappropriate for a sitting Vice President to resign his office if he has committed no crime -- and according to Fitzgerald, Libby's perjury and obstruction are the only crimes committed. (He's not charging anyone else, including Armitage, who leaked the information.)

The Vice President gets elected to his office, and is not a political appointment. Only two VPs have resigned: Spiro Agnew for a bribery scandal in Maryland from an earlier office, and Aaron Burr for killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel [incorrect -- see update below]. Political appointments can be expected and encouraged to resign when they become a net political negative, but even if Cheney qualifies as such, the voters elected him to that office. One does not overturn elections lightly and for middling reasons such as popularity polls.

Addendum: I want to re-emphasize a key point. I agree that the Fitzgerald investigation was an out-of-control mess whose conclusion shows how bankrupt it had been all along. That did not give Libby carte blanche to commit perjury and obstruction of justice. If he did that -- and a jury determined that he did -- then he should have been tried and convicted for it. I'd say the circumstances of the prosecution argue towards strong mitigation of his sentencing, and perhaps a presidential pardon at the end of Bush's term, but the conviction under those circumstances is entirely appropriate.

Just as when Bill Clinton committed the same crime.

UPDATE: Michael Barone and several other CQ readers wrote today to correct me on my Vice-Presidential history. Aaron Burr served out his term after killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel, although Michael suggested that he didn't get too many invitations to the White House for dinner afterwards. John C. Calhoun, the famous/notorious advocate for the continuation of slavery, resigned as VP in order to assume his Senate seat. Many thanks to all who pointed this out, and I apologize that I could not immediately post the correction.

Pardon Me?

Speaking of pardons, Al Kamen of the Washington Post has a contest to pick the date when Scooter Libby will get his from George Bush:

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton has set June 5 for sentencing. He has discretion to order Libby immediately to prison or let him stay out until his appeals are exhausted. So, assuming that Bush -- who could pardon immediately if he wanted -- won't allow Libby to spend time behind bars, he might need to act then.

If not, the next likely pardon time would be when the U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit announces its decision on Libby's appeal. That can take many months. The court recently has been averaging about 15 months from appeal to decision. By that schedule, it could rule on Libby's appeal in September 2008, right before the election.

If Libby loses the appeal, Walton may decide then to order him to prison. This would make it decision time again for Bush. It's not a squeeze the White House wants to be in.

The best hope for the White House would be if Libby stays out pending appeal and the appeals court doesn't rule until after the election. Then a pardon might come along with the Thanksgiving turkey or around Christmas.

Will Bush pardon Libby at all? It would compound the political baggage of the conviction if he did. The issuance of a pardon would create a firestorm on Capitol Hill that would launch a hundred investigations, at a time when the Bush administration needs to calm the waters and hope to retain enough influence to keep the Democrats from shutting down the war.

A pardon will not likely get any attention until after the appeals courts have had a chance to rule. The Bush administration would not want to take a hit on a pardon if Libby can find vindication through the normal legal process. It also depends on the sentencing, which appears to favor somewhere between 18 months and three years in prison. If Judge Walton decides to give Libby home detention instead -- he's hardly a danger to society, and the circumstances of the prosecution seem a little suspect -- then Bush may not bother at all.

I think it's likely that Walton will sentence Libby to prison time but allow him to remain free pending appeal, not being a flight risk or a violent man. In that case, the appeals court should rule sometime next year on his case, making it more clear what Libby's chances for resolving the case himself will be. If that doesn't clear Libby, my guess is that Bush will not act until at least December of 2008, after the 110th Congress closes its session. If Libby goes to prison, expect Bush to pardon him in that time frame. After this Congress heads home for the final time, Bush will have no political considerations to keep him from mitigating Libby's conviction.

You can send your entries to Al Kamen here.

McCain Pursuing Rule Changes To Attract Independents

John McCain wants to get rule changes passed in California that will allow independents to vote in the Republican presidential primaries in order to defend against Mitt Romney, the Washington Times reports today. The "stealth" campaign would benefit McCain, his campaign believes, belying his stance that McCain represents the true conservatives in the primary:

Sen. John McCain's campaign is mounting a stealth effort to change Republican presidential nomination rules in California to allow independents to vote in the Feb. 5 primary, party and campaign officials in the state have told The Washington Times.

The impact could be huge -- and potentially damaging to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, currently the most acceptable to traditional-values voters among the three top-tier Republican presidential candidates.

"If California changes its delegate selection rules to allow independent voters to participate in the Republican primary, it would be very helpful for McCain and for Rudy Giuliani, who historically have done very well among independent voters," Federal Election Commissioner Michael E. Toner said.

An official with the Romney organization in California said McCain supporter Duff Sundheim, the former state Republican Party chairman and an ally of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, has been trying to line up votes for the rules change. Several other state officials and campaign operatives independently reported receiving phone calls from Mr. Sundheim seeking support for the change.

Sondheim denied an affiliation with the McCain campaign, but refused to answer when asked about his efforts to seek the rules change. In fact, all three of the leading campaigns refused to talk about any efforts to change the rules in California. The Giuliani campaign said it should be left to Californians to decide, as did the Romney and McCain camps.

It's not unusual for campaigns to attempt to jigger the rules in primaries and caucuses to maximize the prospects for their campaigns. Historically, that happened primarily at the conventions (and still does, to some extent), but that was when most conventions were open, without a winner already selected through the primary process. They go hand in hand with platform fights.

This rule change would be more significant than most, however, and it reflects oddly on the McCain campaign. They have made an effort to cast McCain as the true conservative, with some justification, in a race between the Senator and Giuliani and Romney. McCain has had more consistency on abortion, guns, and government spending than either of his two opponents. That would argue for a closed primary, especially in California, where an open primary would dilute the conservative vote in the primaries.

Instead, McCain would appear to be conceding that conservatives would more likely back Romney at this point in time. Even there, McCain would be playing a dangerous game by forcing an open primary, because Giuliani would attract more of the moderates and centrists, especially in California. The Republicans in California, especially the conservatives, would resent this effort, precisely because it would dilute what little influence conservatives retain in the state.

It's hard to see where McCain wins anything with this effort. If he wants to champion conservatism, one would expect him to keep or even strengthen its influence in the primaries. Then again, one would expect McCain to have met with conservatives at CPAC, too. The campaign seems a bit rudderless at the moment.

Super Mario Diplomacy

Talks with North Korea have begun on a positive note, chief negotiator Christopher Hill told the Los Angeles Times. During the 60-day preliminary period, Hill expects the Kim Jong-Il regime to make honest attempts to meet its obligations and to attempt to bridge the diplomatic divide. However, the tasks get increasingly more difficult as both sides progress through various stages, Hill warned, likening the process to a video game:

American negotiator Christopher Hill said Tuesday that two days of talks with his counterpart from North Korea had been "very good" and that the plan to dismantle the country's nuclear program and normalize ties with the United States was "on the right track."

Hill met with North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Gye Gwan on Monday and Tuesday in New York to discuss the legal and political hurdles to establishing relations between their two countries, which have never made peace since the 1950-53 Korean War.

In eight hours of talks, including a long session over lunch at a Sichuan restaurant, officials from the two countries outlined how to carry out the steps of a landmark Feb. 13 agreement by which North Korea would scrap its nuclear weapons program in exchange for oil and possible U.S. recognition.

Hill was relaxed and upbeat at an afternoon news conference as he ticked off the agenda for the initial 60-day phase, and said the two countries would meet again in Beijing before March 19, the next session of six-party talks, which also involve Japan, South Korea, Russia and China.

"I would say there's a sense of optimism that we'll get through this 60-day period and achieve all our objectives," Hill said.

It's not going to be all hearts and flowers, even during the initial period. North Korea has to shutter its Yongbyon nuclear power plant and allow for IAEA verification of its closure. They also have to disclose all of their work on nuclear-weapons research and development on both their plutonium and highly-enriched uranium processes. Hill reiterated that Pyongyang had to "come clean" on its purchases of "massive" amounts of uranium-enriching equipment before the end of the 60-day period in order for the Kim regime to normalize relations between the two countries.

The US has a few tasks on the table as well. We have to unfreeze $24 million in funds at a Macau bank that Kim used as a front for his counterfeiting operation in the next 30 days. We also have to deliver 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil after Yongbyon goes dark, and another 950,000 after the rest of the conditions are met. After that, we remove North Korea from the list of terror-sponsoring states, a move that will no doubt generate a lot of criticism here in the US, although likely not much elsewhere.

At some point in this process, the US has to get Kim to acknowledge the abductions of Japanese citizens over the last few decades. That's apparently going to be the Super Mario Bonus Round, because Kim has adamantly refused to discuss it. The Japanese will not move forward on peace talks without it, and the US cannot afford to stiff the Japanese or ignore them in this process. Our insistence on six-party talks requires us to ensure that we support our allies' concerns as well as our own.

It's progress, but so far, it still doesn't appear to be much more than the Agreed Framework, just with more partners. The North Koreans cheated on that almost from the start, and so far this looks suspiciously and similarly vulnerable to the same kind of hidden programs. The Kim regime runs one of the most secretive, Stalinist nations since Stalin himself; even Saddam Hussein's Iraq was more of an open book than North Korea. Hill discouraged comparisons between the two, but they're inescapable. Unlike a video game, we can't just re-do rounds until we get it right. Our failures make our enemy stronger, not return to status quo ante.

Libby Convicted On Perjury, Obstruction

I'm hospiblogging at the moment, as the First Mate has had problems today with her blood pressure, so I'm just catching up to the news that Scooter Libby got convicted on four of the five charges he faced in his trial:

A federal jury today convicted I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby of lying about his role in the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity, finding the vice president's former chief of staff guilty of two counts of perjury, one count of making false statements and one count of obstruction of justice, while acquitting him of a single count of lying to the FBI.

The verdict, reached by the 11 jurors on the 10th day of deliberations, culminated the seven-week trial of the highest-ranking White House official to be indicted on criminal charges in modern times.

Under federal sentencing guidlines, Libby faces a probable prison term of 1 1/2 to three years when he is sentenced by U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton June 5.

As the jury forewoman read each guilty count in a clear, solemn voice, Libby was impassive, remaining seated at the defense table, gazing straight ahead and displaying no visible emotion. His wife, Harriet Grant, sat in the front row with tears in her eyes and was was embraced by friends. Later she hugged each of Libby's lawyers.

Afterwards, Patrick Fitzgerald told reporters that he would not file any more charges in his investigation. This brings to a close a three-year odyssey in which the only crime supposedly committed turned out not to be one at all, where the perpetrator was discovered before the current special prosecutor ever got the case, and the only person to face charges is someone who never leaked any information at all. It's about par for the course for special prosecutors, who have become a bane on our system of justice, operating without oversight and with no limitations, working until they find charges to file even -- as in this case -- no underlying crime was committed.

Not to say that Libby should have been let off the hook, if he indeed lied to investigators and the grand jury, as this jury concluded he did. Regardless of the pettiness of the probe, people cannot be allowed to lie to the police or under oath at hearings and trials. It undermines our system of justice even more than out-of-control special prosecutors.

Of course, I made this same argument in 1998, when Bill Clinton committed perjury during another court case. I notice that his defenders at the time now want to string up not just Libby, but also Dick Cheney, despite (a) Cheney breaking no laws, and (b) their formerly cavalier attitude towards perjury -- which Cheney never committed. Why would they want to impeach Cheney for not committing perjury, when they fought the impeachment of Bill Clinton after he indisputably committed perjury? (He pled guilty to it, in case some don't recall.)

Those who want Cheney's hide will argue that he engineered the Plame leak, but that's ludicrous. The last person in this administration who would have done Cheney's bidding is Richard Armitage. He made clear at the time and at every opportunity since how much distaste he has for the VP and his staff.

The case will eventually find its way to an appellate court, where the justices will have plenty of issues on which to chew. Chiefly, the panel should look at the circus which preceded this prosecution and determine whether the lack of any underlying crime should mitigate towards a dismissal. Only when these special-prosecutor cases start getting tossed out will we finally see an end to that plague.

In Case It Was Still In Doubt

Rudy Giuliani appears to be all in for the 2008 Presidential campaign, and he's got the receipt to show it. Giuliani divested his lucrative investment-banking business for an undisclosed sum, widely seen as a necessary step to his candidacy:

An Australian-based firm bought Giuliani Capital Advisors LLC for an undisclosed amount. A source close to the Republican candidate who spoke on condition of anonymity said the sale is intended to free Giuliani from distractions as he pursues the White House.

"This enables him to sustain his intense focus on his candidacy," the source said.

Others viewed the sale as Giuliani's first step away from the lucrative private-sector career he built during the years he spent outside the public spotlight. Eric Abrahamson, a Columbia Business School professor, said he thinks Giuliani will have little choice but to start building a higher wall between his campaign and his business activities. ...

The 100-member banking outfit that Giuliani sold to the Macquarie Group yesterday specialized in helping companies restructure after bankruptcy. Giuliani Partners bought the boutique investment firm from accounting giant Ernst & Young in 2004 for $9.8 million.

Many have speculated that Giuliani might pull out of the race at some future point. They based that on his withdrawal from the 2000 Senate race against Hillary Clinton, which left Republicans with the earnest but overmatched Rick Fazio as her challenger. Giuliani had a bout of prostate cancer at the time, but Republicans had expressed mistrust about Giuliani's motives and questioned whether he had the fortitude to square off against Hillary.

It doesn't appear that Giuliani wants to run from this fight. He has now ended his fee-drawing speaking appearances and has begun divesting his considerable business interests. That shows a high level of commitment, especially this early in the campaign. He could have kept both until he got closer to the primaries.

So why divest now? The Washington Post speculates that his client list might have some embarrassing names, but they provide no evidence of such. The one name that they do mention, Bernard Kerik, already is widely known and associated with Giuliani for years. Giuliani may have to answer more questions about Kerik, but that would be true with or without the early divestiture. It's probably more related to the early announcement of his candidacy, which necessarily limits his business flexibility.

More acutely embarrassing but less impactful over the long term was the statement by Giuliani's son Andrew yesterday about the tension between himself and his father. This comes as no surprise; Giuliani left his mother during a very public affair several years ago. The younger Giuliani said that he would not campaign for his father but thought he would make a good President. The elder Giuliani asked that the media keep a respectful distance from his private life, but unfortunately Giuliani didn't have that level of discretion during his tenure as mayor. However, it's old news now, and will not likely mean much during the presidential campaign.

German Local Currencies Bypass Euro

The conversion of Europe to the multinational Euro currency appears to have created a black market in local currencies, at least in Germany. Carlos, Urstromtalers, Kann Wasses, and Nahgolds have pushed out the continental stanard in twenty-two areas of Germany as a form of barter, and thirty-one more may follow:

The system works like this. Pietsch uses Urstromtaler to pay for her purchases at, say, the health food shop. Its owners then use the same bills to pay the local cheese-makers, who pass those same bills along to the carpenter who repaired their goat stable. The ideal scenario is that a closed loop develops, boosting the regional economy and preventing money from being drained from the area.

Twenty-two such regional currencies are already in use in Germany, and 31 more are in preparation. They're called "Kann Was" ("Can Do"), "Nahgold" ("Near Gold"), "Carlo" or "Volmetaler" -- and their transactions are eligible for tax just like euros. Frank Jansky -- who also directs Regiogeld, the umbrella association for the currencies -- was even recently visited by a BBC reporter who asked him to explain Germany's wondrous proliferation of currencies.

The "Chiemgauer" currency (named for the Bavarian region of Chiemgau) is the most successful to date. The project was started by Christian Gelleri, a Waldorf school teacher, and six of his students in Bavaria in 2002. The regional currency's annual turnover climbed to an impressive €1.5 million ($2 million) last year. About 90,000 Chiemgauers are currently in circulation. Unlike the Urstromtalers, they can be converted back into euro for a fee. "Our currency circulates three times more rapidly than the euro," says Gelleri. But in order to achieve this, the system puts pressures on currency holders to spend: The Chiemgauer loses two percent of its value every three months and has to be "topped up" by purchasing a coupon.

In its way, this proves the theorem of America's founders. People want control over their government as close as possible. The farther power moves from the people, the more the people agitate to return it.

Currency policy has always been tied to sovereignty, until the European Union experiment with a shared currency. Monetary policy now transcends national sovereignty, and individuals within the EU have less power to demand change. Some will benefit from this union of interests, with Ireland being one of the biggest winners of the process. Some, however, will find themselves shortchanged, or perceive that they have lost -- and will take action to correct the situation.

Barter guilds exist here in the US, too, but they generally don't issue their own currency. American law prevents it, and it would be difficult to see why anyone would want to trade the US dollar for homemade scrip. The push to develop local currencies shows a decline of confidence in the euro as well as a rejection of the trade policies of the EU. It creates, as Der Spiegel notes, a closed economic system that discourages outside trade in all forms. That might work in small, isolated communities where the global economy has had a detrimental effect, but only for a short period; it practically guarantees that global investment will continue to bypass them.

As Der Spiegel points out, scrip usually costs the consumer more than trade in the official currency. The Cheimgauer, which is one of the few with an "official" exchange policy for the euro, winds up costing its holders an additional 15% in deflation and fees for its use. Ironically, the man behind the Cheimgauer puts these proceeds into svaings accounts, which flies in the face of the stated goal of the local currency movement -- to keep circulation high and force people to spend their scrip.

German politicians and other European leaders should consider the message these regional currencies communicate. Their constituencies have seem little benefit from surrendering control of their monetary policies to a supra-national bureaucracy that mostly is irrelevant to their local needs.

Cut And Run, v3.0

The Democrats in Congress have come up with yet another proposal to end the war in Iraq. After the non-binding resolution foundered and the John Murth slow-bleed plan blew up in their faces, the Democrats have hit on their latest strategy -- making President Bush certify troop readiness or allow him to waive the requirements:

Senior House Democrats, seeking to placate members of their party from Republican-leaning districts, are pushing a plan that would place restrictions on President Bush's ability to wage the war in Iraq but would allow him to waive them if he publicly justifies his position.

Under the proposal, Bush would also have to set a date to begin troop withdrawals if the Iraqi government fails to meet benchmarks aimed at stabilizing the country that the president laid out in January.

The plan is an attempt to bridge the differences between anti-war Democrats, led by Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), who have wanted to devise standards of troop readiness strict enough to force Bush to delay some deployments and bring some troops home, and Democrats wary of seeming to place restrictions on the president's role as commander in chief. ...

The new plan would demand that Bush certify that combat troops meet the military's own standards of readiness, which are routinely ignored. The president could then waive such certifications if doing so is in "the national interest."

Democrats hope the waiver and benchmark proposals, whose details were confirmed by aides and senior Democrats close to the House Appropriations Committee and leadership, will keep the policymaking responsibilities on Bush. That should allow the committee to move forward next week with a $100 billion war spending bill.

Well, that's been their wish all along. The Democrats want to force an end to the Iraq theater of the war without having to accept any consequences for their actions. They don't have the political courage to take the one action allowed them, which is to simply end the funding for the deployment. Democrats know that they risk a huge political backlash if they strand troops under fire, and rightfully so.

Instead, they have busied themselves with strategies to force Bush to call off the war and take responsibility for their own defeatism. They tried the non-binding resolution route, which did nothing effectual but attempted to embarrass the White House with other Coalition partners with a no-confidence vote. When that failed, the Democrats tried staging a series of reductions of men and materiel for Iraq. That might have worked, had John Murtha kept his mouth shut, but it fell apart when he announced his intentions on a left-wing website.

Now they want to go back to public humiliation as a motivator for Bush to order the withdrawal on his own. They want to force him to say that troop deployments consist of units not ready -- by Congress' definition -- to enter battle. So far, we have not had problems with the troops we have sent to either Iraq or Afghanistan; they have performed magnificently. The Democrats want to manufacture a controversy where none exists, using the troops as their stooges in order to score cheap shots at the White House during wartime.

All of this maneuvering takes place because the Democrats lack the courage to actually take the one step that could do what they want and end the American military involvement in Iraq. And they wonder why the American people don't trust them on national security.

NATO Beats The Taliban To The Punch

The much-anticipated spring offensive by the Taliban just found itself eclipsed by the late-winter offensive of NATO. The West launched a large operation that aims to push the Taliban out of Helmand province, where the Taliban have scored their only success at regaining territory:

NATO-led troops launched an offensive against Taliban militants Tuesday in a volatile southern Afghan province where hundreds of militant fighters have amassed.

The operation, which will eventually involve 4,500 NATO troops and 1,000 Afghan soldiers, was launched at the request of the Afghan government and will focus on the northern region of Helmand province, NATO's International Security Assistance Force said.

"Our first maneuver elements reached their positions at approximately 5 a.m. this morning," said Maj. Gen. Ton van Loon, ISAF's southern commander.

Dubbed Operation Achilles, the offensive is NATO's largest-ever in the country. But it will involve only half the number of soldiers who fought in a U.S. offensive in the same region just nine months ago, when some 11,000 U.S.-led troops attacked fighters in northern Helmand province during Operation Mountain Thrust.

NATO said that Achilles initially would focus on improving security conditions, but that its "overarching purpose is to assist the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (to) improve its ability to begin reconstruction and economic development."

British forces operate in Helmand, and have had some trouble maintaining security. The city of Musa Qala fell to the Taliban after the Afghan government reached a peace deal with the elders of Musa Qala. On February 1, the Taliban took advantage of that deal to capture the city and use it as a base of operations against the Afghan government and the nearby British forces.

Now we know why Tony Blair shifted 1,500 troops to the UK positions in Afghanistan. They will certainly bear the brunt of the fighting in Helmand, at least in the short term. They also want to begin repair work on a critical dam in nearby Kajaki, which supplies electricity to almost 2 million Afghans, and improve its supply of water for irrigation and clean-water supplies for residents of the area.

The offensive against Taliban elements in Helmand has more strategic value than either Musa Qala or the dam. Opium farmers in Helmand have developed what looks to be a record crop this year, and the Taliban protects it. They also tax the farmers for that protection, giving them an income stream that NATO would like to end. Cutting off their money supply would help keep them from properly outfitting themselves for war against the West, as well as reducing the funds for their recruitment drives.

NATO probably surprised the Taliban with their early start to the spring warfare everyone expected. This follows on the heels of the capture of the Taliban's senior commander, Mullah Obaidullah. The disarray caused by that capture will not help the Taliban in Helmand, either. Let's hope that NATO pushes its advantage to the maximum.

Where In The World Is Ali Reza Asgari?

The Iranians seem to have misplaced one of their intelligence-service generals. Ali Reza Asgari, last seen in Turkey last month, has not phoned home for the last few weeks, and the Iranians blame the US for his disappearance:

The mysterious disappearance of an Iranian general in Turkey in early February has led to speculation he either was kidnapped or defected.

Iran has reportedly asked Interpol to investigate the general's disappearance. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki was quoted by Iran's news agency today as saying that a foreign ministry official was currently in Turkey to investigate the disappearance and has asked the Turkish government "to inquire into the issue and give explanation on Asgari's whereabouts."

One respected analyst with sources in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard says Gen. Ali Reza Asgari has defected and is now in a European country with his entire family, where he is cooperating with the U.S.

Other reports have suggested that the general may have been kidnapped by the Israeli secret service, the Mossad. A spokesperson at the CIA declined to comment on the reported defection.

"This is a fatal blow to Iranian intelligence," said the source, explaining that Asgari knows sensitive information about Iran's nuclear and military projects. Iran called tens of its Revolutionary Guard agents working at embassies and cultural centers in Arab and European countries back to Tehran out of fear that Asgari might disclose secret information about their identities, according to the analyst.

Sources offer competing theories for his disappearance. Some believe the Mossad captured Asgari, hoping to learn more about Iran's nuclear program. Others claim he surrendered himself voluntarily to the US. Asgari could also have been captured by the US in retaliation for the abduction and murder of five American soldiers in Iraq, an operation that Asgari likely ran.

Regardless of where he went and who has him now, the loss creates a huge headache for the Iranians. They have to assume that either we or the Israelis have him, and that all of his information has become exposed. Their agents, their networks, their system of safehouses -- anything Asgari used or knew has to be trashed. That means a massive effort to repenetrate Iraqi institutions, and that may be more difficult than ever with the new surge in Baghdad suppressing the reach of the Mahdi Army.

It's not just Iraqi areas in which Asgari has critical knowledge. He worked with Hezbollah in the 1990s and would probably still have contacts within the Iranian proxy terrorist group. Asgari also has extensive knowledge of the Revolutionary Guard -- its organization, its capabilities, and the location of its units.

Another possibility exists. Asgari exposed fraud in Iranian defense procurement, which led to the arrest of several officials earlier. Some Iranians may not have been as pleased with his reformist zeal, especially those allied to the disgraced officials that wound up in prison. These Iranians may have killed Asgari themselves, although it would not do them much good to make the body disappear.

The Iranians have no clue about what may have befallen Asgari. That works in our favor. If the Iranians have to defend all possibilities, it could tie them up for months and seriously damage their intel capabilities. (via Hot Air)

A Suspicious Suicide In Moscow

A disturbing trend towards a shorter average life span has begun to afflict a certain small group of people. They have no connection through ethnicity or environment per se, but instead have one very specific point in common -- all of them have criticized the government of Vladimir Putin. The latest mysterious death dropped onto the street from his fifth-floor flat in Moscow:

A senior Russian journalist who embarrassed the country's military establishment with a series of exclusive stories has been found dead outside his flat in mysterious circumstances. The body of Ivan Safronov, 51-year-old defence correspondent for the newspaper Kommersant, was discovered on Friday. He apparently fell from a fifth-floor window.

Although prosecutors say they suspect that Safranov committed suicide, his colleagues yesterday insisted that he had no reason to kill himself. They said he was the latest in a long line of Russian journalists to die in unexplained circumstances. "Nobody believes he could have committed suicide. He had no reason to kill himself," his colleague Sergei Dupin told the Guardian last night. Safranov - a married father of two - had a happy family life and a successful career, he said.

Several newspapers pointed to Safranov's track record of breaking stories about Russia's nuclear programme. Last December he revealed that the experimental Bulava intercontinental ballistic missile, hailed by President Vladimir Putin as the basis for Russia's future nuclear might, did not work. It had failed to launch for the third consecutive time, he wrote. His exclusive infuriated military commanders, who continue to deny problems with the missile. They launched an internal investigation and threatened Safranov with legal action.

The authorities suspect suicide, but that may just reflect their view of those attempting to conduct journalism in Russia these days. In this particular incident, it seems odd to reach that conclusion so quickly. Safranov just returned from a business trip; why travel all the way home to kill himself? And why would Safranov toss oranges he had just bought into the stairwell first?

This follows on the heels of a shooting of another Putin critic here in the US. Paul Moyal, a former KGB associate of Putin, got shot four days after appearing on "Dateline NBC", where he told viewers that Kremlin critics had been warned that they would be silenced in "the most horrible way possible". Moyal survived the attack, in which he was shot in the groin; police are not convinced that it was an assassination attempt, but the coincidence seems strange.

As it does with Safranov. He did not always work as a reporter, but at one time held a high rank in the Soviet missile force. The coincidence of so many former officers in the old Soviet service -- Moyal, Litvinenko, and now Safranov -- all getting attacked so recently and so contemporaneously to their criticism seems more like a pattern of criminal behavior. One might as well be describing the MO of a serial killer, and that might be exactly what's happening.

The Russian journalism community is outraged by Safranov's murder, the latest of 13 such mysterious deaths in the last six years. They have organized tributes to his work, and pledge to continue his investigative efforts into the Putin government. They'd better make sure they've sealed their windows first.

King David

It's no secret that the Bush surge strategy has a narrow political window to show success, and that the pressure mainly falls on the man who now commands the troops in Iraq. David Petraeus has carved out enough political support to get most of what he wants in the short term, and he has the fortitude to do whatever he feels necessary to win -- or to pull the plug:

Petraeus's willingness to kick out against authority is the untold story of an otherwise orthodox career - and offers a clue to what may happen next in Iraq. He has surrounded himself in Baghdad with a team of officers described as "defence dissidents". His intellectual restlessness is typified by his now famous quizzing of an embedded reporter during the 2003 march on Baghdad. "Tell me how this ends," he repeatedly demanded. Now he has a chance to answer his own question.

Petraeus's scrappy, relentless, questing style could spell trouble for the White House. He knows he does not have enough troops and more will not be forthcoming. According to O'Hanlon, he knows political and public backing for the war is "very fragile".

So during his congressional testimony Petraeus made clear that by late summer he would report back to Congress and the American people, not just to the Pentagon and president. "I want to assure you that should I determine that the new strategy cannot succeed, I will provide such an assessment," he said.

That bold move potentially gives Petraeus considerable political leverage and practical autonomy. Yet the White House needs him badly. "If he were to resign, their last shred of credibility on Iraq would disappear," said one analyst.

The Bush administration gave whatever it had left of its credibility to Petraeus when it promoted him as General Casey's successor. Congress gave him what little authority they would cede when he made that bold statement on calling a halt to the American effort there if he saw it failing. He owns the Iraq war now, for all intents and purposes, and according to the Guardian's sources, he knows it. He has made sure that everyone else associated with the effort knows it, too, causing some to give him the nickname "King David".

That may be a good sign in itself. Colorless apparatchiks rarely make good field commanders. In war, the most successful usually exhibit strong self-confidence and a habit of commanding rather than taking votes. Some of America's best commanders got forged in the crucible of difficult circumstances: George Washington, Ulysses Grant, Jack Pershing, Bull Halsey, George Patton, Douglas MacArthur. The latter two took it too far, and wound up getting cashiered for it, of course, which is the risk one runs with battlefield geniuses.

The Guardian tells an interesting story about Petraeus, one CQ readers probably already know but I missed. In 1991, Petraeus got shot in the chest in a Fort Campbell training exercise. Medics rushed him to Vanderbilt University, where a cardiac surgeon spent five hours repairing the damage and saving his life. The man who directed the surgery was none other than future Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who recalled his patient when visiting Europe in 2004, saying that Petraeus has a good heart -- and Frist had held it in his hands.

His heart has not been questioned since then, and will likely not be questioned now. Petraeus has the tenacity and the fortitude to see this through to success, if success is possible. He needs only the support of his country and the time to get the job done. Hopefully, Petraeus will not have to question his nation's heart before persevering to victory.

Privacy Board: Terror Surveillance Program Protects Civil Rights

After over a year of supervising two of the most controversial programs adopted by the Bush administration after 9/11, a review panel has given both a clean bill of health on civil-rights protections. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Board will announce next week that the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program and the Swift banking transaction monitoring operation contain enough checks and balances to ensure that Americans will not fall victim to their own government:

A White House privacy board is giving its stamp of approval to two of the Bush administration's controversial surveillance programs — electronic eavesdropping and financial tracking — and says they do not violate citizens' civil liberties. ...

After operating mostly in secret for a year, the five-member Privacy and Civil Liberties Board is preparing to release its first report to Congress next week.

The report finds that both the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping program and the
Treasury Department's monitoring of international banking transactions have sufficient privacy protections, three board members told The Associated Press in telephone interviews.

Both programs have multiple layers of review before sensitive information is accessed, they said.

The one point where the panel recommended action was on an "error-ridden" no-fly list, which has relied too much on subjective data, according to their analysis. They want it reworked so that it doesn't interfere with travel for people who pose no threat. I'm sure the TSA would like to comply; it would rather focus on the real threats as well, but it may be difficult to square that with the shades of gray found in intelligence work.

The sunny analysis includes the endorsement of the Democrat on the panel, Clinton administration figure Lanny Davis. Davis wants to continue the group's monitoring of the programs, but agrees that they have put into place the proper safeguards against civil-rights violations. He told the AP that the work the panel did was "modest", but that the panel members were impressed with the mulitple layers of security for information parsing. It also includes detailed audit records to identify anyone who accesses the data.

This will not keep people from claiming that the TSP and Swift programs inherently damage civil liberties. In this new kind of warfare, though, we have to ensure that we maintain the quickest gathering and analysis of the potential threats arrayed against us -- and that requires intense effort in preventive intel operations. Thankfully, the board can confirm that the Bush administration has taken its responsibilities in defense of both the nation and our liberties seriously.

Incivility

I wanted to write something about the degenerative effects of incivility in politics in the wake of the comments and commentary today. Instead, a CQ reader sent me a link to a speech three years ago by Heritage Foundation president Dr. Edwin J. Fuelner. In speaking to the graduating class of Hillsdale College on May 8, 2004, Dr. Fuelner warned the young men and women that our democracy depends on the healthy exchange of ideas and arguments -- and that incivility degrades the social compact on which that debate depends:

This is the real danger of incivility. Our free, self-governing society requires an open exchange of ideas, which in turn requires a certain level of civility rooted in mutual respect for each other's opinions and viewpoints.

What we see today I am afraid, is an accelerating competition between the left and the right to see which side can inflict the most damage with the hammer of incivility. Increasingly, those who take part in public debates appear to be exchanging ideas when, in fact, they are trading insults: idiot, liar, moron, traitor.

Earlier this week I was in London and attended a dinner honoring Lady Margaret Thatcher on the twenty-fifth anniversary of her accession to the Prime Ministership of Great Britain. As you know, she is a good friend of Hillsdale College and has visited your campus. She was also a great political leader and has always been a model of civility.

If you want to grasp the nature of civility, try to imagine Lady Thatcher calling someone a "big fat idiot." You will instantly understand that civility isn't an accessory one can put on or take off like a scarf. It is inseparable from the character of great leaders. ...

Incivility is not a social blunder to be compared with using the wrong fork. Rather, it betrays a defect of character. Incivility is dangerous graffiti, regardless of whether it is spray-painted on a subway car, or embossed on the title page of a book. The broken windows theory shows us the dangers in both cases.

In my poor way, this was the point I have been trying to make. Readers of this blog have enthusiastically cheered when I criticized the Left for their incivility. For almost a solid week, we debated the Edwards blogger scandal, where Edwards hired two women who routinely used hateful epithets in describing Christians ("Christofascists" and "Godbags", as I recall), and people wanted his hide for it. I blasted Howard Dean for his announcement that he hated Republicans and everything for which we stand. This blog has spent the last 42 months taking on that kind of rhetoric, with thousands of posts and thousands of hours of my time.

That takes little courage, however. How brave is it to criticize those who hate and attack me?

It isn't enough to scold your opponents for their incivility; one has to have the courage to criticize their allies for it as well. That takes more fortitude, because it means alienating those who one presumes have become friends. It means weathering with some grace the kind of comments that people have thrown at me since Friday afternoon. Some may not want to generate that kind of storm, and after today, I don't blame them a bit.

If one wants to change the tone of political discourse, then one has to start with one's self, and hold one's own side accountable for their incivility. If both sides continue hurling rhetorical brickbats until the other side ceases, the incivility will continue forever. And. like Dr. Fuelner, I believe that it will degrade our democracy until the only people talking are the uncivil extremists.

Is that the kind of country we want? Does anyone want to be part of that kind of politics?

I certainly don't. I'm not quitting or going away, either. I will keep on doing what I can to fight for civility in political discourse -- and that means criticizing people on both sides who insist on using incivility to bludgeon their opponents out of the debate.

Note: I closed the comments on the previous thread because I had started to react in kind. I'm going to do better at avoiding that in the future, and I apologize for lashing out at certain commenters.

An Open Letter To The ACU And CPAC Sponsors

Note: This letter will appear simultaneously on a number of conservative blogs this morning. It has been scheduled in advance for that purpose. My personal remarks will appear below.

Conservatism treats humans as they are, as moral creatures possessing rational minds and capable of discerning right from wrong. There comes a time when we must speak out in the defense of the conservative movement, and make a stand for political civility. This is one of those times.

Ann Coulter used to serve the movement well. She was telegenic, intelligent, and witty. She was also fearless: saying provocative things to inspire deeper thought and cutting through the haze of competing information has its uses. But Coulter's fearlessness has become an addiction to shock value. She draws attention to herself, rather than placing the spotlight on conservative ideas.

At the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2006, Coulter referred to Iranians as "ragheads." She is one of the most prominent women in the conservative movement; for her to employ such reckless language reinforces the stereotype that conservatives are racists.

At CPAC 2007 Coulter decided to turn up the volume by referring to John Edwards, a former U.S. Senator and current Presidential candidate, as a "faggot." Such offensive language--and the cavalier attitude that lies behind it--is intolerable to us. It may be tolerated on liberal websites but not at the nation's premier conservative gathering.

The legendary conservative thinker Richard Weaver wrote a book entitled Ideas Have Consequences. Rush Limbaugh has said again and again that "words mean things." Both phrases apply to Coulter's awful remarks.

Coulter's vicious word choice tells the world she care little about the feelings of a large group that often feels marginalized and despised. Her word choice forces conservatives to waste time defending themselves against charges of homophobia rather than advancing conservative ideas.

Within a day of Coulter's remark John Edwards sent out a fundraising email that used Coulter's words to raise money for his faltering campaign. She is helping those she claims to oppose. How does that advance any of the causes we hold dear?

Denouncing Coulter is not enough. After her "raghead" remark in 2006 she took some heat. Yet she did not grow and learn. We should have been more forceful. This year she used a gay slur. What is next? If Senator Barack Obama is the de facto Democratic Presidential nominee next year, will Coulter feel free to use a racial slur? How does that help conservatism?

One of the points of CPAC is the opportunity it gives college students to meet other young conservatives and learn from our leaders. Unlike on their campuses—where they often feel alone—at CPAC they know they are part of a vibrant political movement. What example is set when one highlight of the conference is finding out what shocking phrase will emerge from Ann Coulter's mouth? How can we teach young conservatives to fight for their principles with civility and respect when Ann Coulter is allowed to address the conference? Coulter's invective is a sign of weak thinking and unprincipled politicking.

CPAC sponsors, the Age of Ann has passed. We, the undersigned, request that CPAC speaking invitations no longer be extended to Ann Coulter. Her words and attitude simply do too much damage.

Credentialed CPAC 2007 Bloggers

Sean Hackbarth, The American Mind
James Joyner, Outside the Beltway
Scott Schmidt, Boi From Troy
Joy McCann, Little Miss Attila
Kevin McCullough, Musclehead Revolution
Fausta Werz, Fausta's blog
Patrick Hynes, Ankle Biting Pundits
Ed Morrissey, Captain's Quarters


Other Conservative Bloggers
Owen Robinson, Boots and Sabres
N.Z. Bear, The Truth Laid Bear
Michael Demmons, Gay Orbit

For more background on the Coulter appearance, one of CPAC's sponsors spoke about their reaction to last year's "ragheads" comment. Amy Ridenour of the National Center for Public Policy Research says that the ACU had given them the impression that they had addressed the issue with Coulter:

The National Center for Public Policy Research is one of very many co-sponsors of CPAC, and has been for some years. After Ann Coulter's offensive speech last year, we telephoned the organizers and strongly suggested that Ann Coulter's behavior was harmful to, and unrepresentative of, the conservative movement. We said we were considering pulling out our co-sponsorship because of Ann Coulter's "raghead" comment, and asked them to not invite Ann Coulter to speak in CPAC 2007, or, at the very least, only invite her if she was told to can the offensive speech, and explicitly agreed to do so. I had 90 percent decided to stop our co-sponsorship for CPAC 2007, but the sponsor seemed to be taking our concerns about Coulter's 2006 remarks seriously and with what seemed to us to be appropriate sympathy, so the National Center co-sponsored CPAC again this year. ...

As has been widely reported, Ann Coulter not only once again went out of her way to use a nasty epithet, she pushed her offensiveness up a notch, using a word that is even more universally reviled than the derogatory term she hurled last year.

So, CPAC's sponsors either invited Coulter back without first getting her pledge that she would speak without using demeaning epithets, or they obtained her pledge, and she broke her word. ...

It would be better, in my opinion, to not have a CPAC at all than to have one that presents conservatism as a hostile, people-hating ideology. We conservatives have enough trouble overcoming the false things that are said about us without paying for a platform upon which we shoot ourselves annually in the foot.

Exactly. What the ACU did was provide a platform endorsed by a number of conservative groups to Coulter, who then abused it for her own purposes. If we are to tolerate speakers at such convocations using hateful and inflammatory language, then we're endorsing it and adopting it for our own. I'm not going to stand by and watch a movement that has the power to free people and protect liberty get hijacked by someone who treats us as a straight man for her own idea of a joke.

I have heard from a number of people that Coulter's remark was some sort of trenchant commentary on political correctness, defending the actor Isaiah Washington for his exile after using the word about one of his co-stars. First off, I was not aware that Washington's cause was of such concern for conservative activists; I must have missed that memo. Second, Washington fled to rehab to deflect some well-earned criticism, following Mel Gibson's example.

If Coulter had said, "I'd talk about Israel, but you can't say that the Jews control the Bush administration and cause all the wars without going into rehab," would she have so many defenders?

For the second year in a row, Coulter hijacked CPAC to get herself some headlines. The ACU was warned by at least one of their sponsors about that after last year, but either chose not to address it or got snowed again by Coulter. They need to cut off their association with her, or conservative organizations have to find a different organization for their conferences.

UPDATE: Laura Ingraham: "Isn't that a seventh-grade word? ... To me, it's not helpful."

The ACU issued this statement today (via Michelle Malkin):

The just completed 2007 Conservative Political Action Conference on March 1 – 3, 2007, was the largest in the 34 year history of the event, featuring 33 panels on a variety of public policy issues, 24 stand alone speakers including public officials, writers, student activists, media personalities and comedians. ACU, the event’s primary sponsor and CPAC strive to provide a platform and forum for a variety of differing views and personalities. ACU and CPAC do not condone or endorse every speaker or their comments at the conference. As such, ACU and CPAC leave it to our audience to determine whether comments are appropriate or not. “Ann Coulter is known for comments that can be both provocative and outrageous. That was certainly the case in her 2007 CPAC appearance and previous ones as well. But as a point of clarification, let me make it clear that ACU and CPAC do not condone or endorse the use of hate speech,” said David A. Keene, ACU Chairman.

They don't condone it or endorse hate speech, but they invited Coulter back after using last year and they're not condemning her for using it this year. Profiles in courage.

Speaking of which, since a number of CQ readers seem perfectly willing to defend character assassination as long as it's done by the right people, you may enjoy this comment thread.

Mum On Plan B

The Pentagon has not discussed an alternate strategy for Iraq if the surge does not produce the desired results, the Washington Post reports. Peter Pace, Joint Chiefs chairman, parries such questions with the response that "Marines don't talk about failure," and that "Plan B is to make Plan A work":

In the weeks since Bush announced the new plan for Iraq -- including an increase of 21,500 U.S. combat troops, additional reconstruction assistance and stepped-up pressure on the Iraqi government -- senior officials have rebuffed questions about other options in the event of failure. Eager to appear resolute and reluctant to provide fodder for skeptics, they have responded with a mix of optimism and evasion.

Even if the administration is not talking about Plan B, the subject is on a lot of minds inside and outside the government. "I would be irresponsible if I weren't thinking about what the alternatives might be," Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates acknowledged last month to Congress, where many favor gradual or immediate withdrawal.

Gates did not elaborate. Several administration officials, while insisting that a wide range of options was discussed before Bush's Jan. 10 announcement, firmly closed the door on the subject of fallback plans. "I don't think anyone is going to be inclined to discuss any contingency-type planning," said National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe.

The Pentagon warplans and games strategies and scenarios on a constant basis. They have a number of options on the table; that much was true when Bush decided on the surge. Staff officers and the White House will have them prioritized and ready for implementation when needed.

But that's not really the point of this article. Anyone who understands military operations would know that a multiplicity of alternatives have already been discussed, formulated, and selected. This article is of a piece with the meme of the last couple of years: that Bush could not admit mistakes. It's a transparent catch-22. If the Bush administration refuses to discuss the alternatives, then the media can say they have no fallback plans. If they start discussing the alternatives, their political opponents can use them to insist on transitioning to the fallbacks immediately.

The Post also reports on the rise of an old term in Iraqi security policy: containment. That plan would have the US pull back from major population centers in order to allow the Iraqis to have their civil war, while we blockade the borders to make sure no one else interferes. That certainly could be one of the alternatives to the surge, but it's easy to see why it wasn't adopted. It would put hostile forces on both sides of a stretched-out American line around the Syrian and Iranian borders, and would almost certainly get defunded by Congress as an inappropriate use of American military forces.

Another plan would be to pull back to the Kurdish area in the north and fight al-Qaeda in Anbar, leaving Maliki to sink or swim on his own in the rest of Iraq. It sounds good, but one look at the map shows the limitations of that idea. There are no good lines of communication into those areas without some control in the south. We're currently using the Gulf ports, Kuwait, and Qatar for our logistics. If we abandon the east and south, we make resupply and logistics exponentially more difficult.

Perhaps this is why other options don't get much discussion from the Pentagon. Winning the war and ending the violence in Baghdad remains the best policy. Plan B should focus on making that Plan A successful.

Mecca Agreement Falling Apart?

The Mecca agreement between Hamas and Fatah supposedly gave the warring Palestinian factions a basis for a unity government, one that would satisfy Western concerns and allow for aid to resume to the Palestinian Authority. The latter certainly proved false when Hamas refused to allow the PA to recognize Israel and honor its past agreements with the West as the basis of that aid. Now it looks like it won't even produce the unity government it promised, as Hamas and Fatah have begun accusing each other of undermining the pact:

Differences over the identity of Fatah and Hamas ministers in the coalition cabinet are threatening to torpedo the Mecca agreement, a top Abbas aide told The Jerusalem Post. He also said "some differences" had sparked disputes between the two parties over the interpretation of the Mecca agreement, particularly regarding the status of previous agreements with Israel and recognition of United Nations resolutions concerning the Israeli-Arab conflict.

"Some elements in Hamas are trying to thwart the Mecca agreement," the official said, warning against a resumption of intra-Palestinian violence. "These elements are unhappy with the agreement that their leaders reached in Mecca and are preparing for more fighting. They benefit from the continuation of the state of anarchy and lawlessness in the Palestinian territories."

In Gaza City, Fatah leaders issued a statement threatening to employ an "iron fist" against unnamed Hamas members for allegedly trying to derail the Mecca agreement. "We know who these people are and who's behind them," the statement reads. "They are serving the interests of a party that is hostile to our people."

In response, Hamas accused unnamed officials close to Abbas of working to thwart the Mecca accord. "While Abbas and the Fatah leadership are trying to consolidate the agreement, some people around them are trying to sabotage their efforts," the movement said in a leaflet distributed in Gaza City shortly before the Abbas-Haniyeh summit began.

Mahmoud Abbas and Ismail Haniyeh are conducting talks on the composition of a Cabinet. Those talks have encountered difficulties, with neither side making many concessions. They have two more weeks in which to form a government after Haniyeh's resignation allowed for a reorganization. If he cannot form a government, Abbas might be able as president to impose one -- which would touch off a civil war.

Right now, Abbas and Haniyeh have their hands full preventing that outcome, if in fact neither of them want one. That seems hard to believe, given the numerous attacks both sides have conduction on their counterparts. It's even more difficult to believe, given the divergent aims of both groups. Hamas wants an Islamic state that will encompass all of Israel as well as the PA, while Abbas wants a secular state that starts out in the territories -- and then will encompass Israel later.

It makes little difference whether war comes now or later. Regardless of their present efforts, neither Israel nor the Quartet will resume aid to the PA while Hamas dictates policy. They will not get a dime until they accept the two-state solution and accept Israel as a permanent neighbor. Eventually, the resultant poverty will touch off a war. The only questions will be when and how it starts.

The Bummer Of A Big Tent

The Democratic win in last year's midterms gave more credibility to the anti-war wing of Congressional Democrats, who spent most of 2006 trying to get reporters to show up to press conferences, and mostly unsuccessfully. With the new majority, these members of the so-called Out of Iraq Caucus have received much more attention and regularly get their message into the mainstream. However, they have begun to discover that all of the seats they won in November came from districts that don't appreciate a cut-and-run policy:

Now, with a change in power in Congress and a new military strategy to increase the number of American troops in Iraq, the members of the group — most of them liberals — are suddenly much in demand, finding themselves at the center of the debate over the war.

Yet even with a majority of Americans opposing the war, the caucus is struggling to overcome its fringe image and is becoming increasingly frustrated by what its members say is the Democratic leadership’s unwillingness to heed their calls for decisive action to the end the war.

At the same time, though the members are united in their desire to bring American military involvement in Iraq to a speedy end, they are still debating the best way to do so. In that sense, they reflect the broader struggle among Democrats in Congress, who have been unable to coalesce around a single position on how strongly to confront President Bush over the war.

House Democratic leaders this week seemed to back away slightly from a proposal by Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, to limit Mr. Bush’s latest supplemental spending request for the war. Mr. Murtha’s proposal would have required strict readiness for troops sent to Iraq, essentially limiting the president’s ability to follow through on his plan to deploy an additional 21,500.

Mr. Murtha’s conditions were favored by caucus members, though it has come under fire from Republicans who labeled it a “slow bleed” strategy. The proposed strategy has also run into opposition from conservative House Democrats, who argue that their concerns need to be taken seriously because they helped deliver the Democratic majority in the midterm elections. The Murtha proposal, they said, would leave the party vulnerable to charges of abandoning troops.

The rise of Blue Dog Democrats has complicated the plans of the defeat-minded Democrats to force an end to the war in Iraq through retreat. The real story in 2006 was the reverse of the "Reagan Democrats" in the GOP back to the Democrats. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid saw this as a rejection of the war effort and planned accordingly, but John Murtha's babbling exposed it as a plan to win a political victory by starving troops in the field

That fired up the Blue Dogs, and underscored the actual dynamic of the 2006 elections. The Reagan Democrats did not abandon the Republicans because of the war; these new seats came from center-right or centrist districts. They voted Democratic because the Republicans in Congress had stopped acting like Republicans. These voters grew tired of profligate spending, bureaucratic incompetence (exemplified by the post-Katrina performance of FEMA), and the kind of corruptions both petty and grand that the GOP pledged to end in 1994.

Democrats have slowly discovered what it means to win a majority. They now have to deal with the center-right members in their caucus, having absorbed them into what had previously been a more pure group, ideologically. Blue Dogs were lower in number and almost non-existent in influence before Pelosi won her thin majority; now they hold control of Congress in their hands, and the Out of Iraq caucus finds itself almost as irrelevant as before.

Chinese Military Spending Jumps 18%

The Chinese plan their largest jump in military spening in five years, Beijing announced yesterday. They will increase spending by 18% in order to hasten the modernization of weapons and defense systems, and also set themselves up as potential arms suppliers. However, the large increase still leaves their defense budget far behind that of the US:

China announced its biggest increase in defense spending in five years on Sunday, a development that quickly prompted the United States to renew its calls for more transparency from the Chinese military about the scope and intent of its continuing, rapid arms buildup.

Jiang Enzhu, a spokesman for the National People’s Congress, the Communist Party-controlled national legislature, said China’s military budget would rise this year by 17.8 percent to roughly 350 billion yuan, or just under $45 billion.

“We must increase our military budget, as it is important to national security,” Mr. Jiang said at a news conference. “China’s military must modernize. Our overall defenses are weak.”

But China’s military modernization efforts, particularly its drive to develop advanced weaponry, have been raising concern from Washington to Tokyo to New Delhi, where officials are worried that the buildup could be as much offensive as defensive. In January, China set off fears of an arms race in space when it successfully tested an antisatellite missile that destroyed one its own aging weather satellites. A month earlier, the People’s Liberation Army began deploying the country’s first state-of-the-art jet fighter, the J-10.

These advances reflect China’s intense focus on scientific and technological development, and are the fruits of more than a decade of increased military spending. China’s defense outlays increased an average of about 15 percent a year from 1990 to 2005, according to the Chinese military. This year’s jump is the largest one reported since military spending rose by 19.4 percent in 2002.

One of the reasons that American analysts have grown so concerned with these increases is that they believe the actual spending level of the Chinese is much higher than announced. Experts figure the actual outlay on defense amounts to as much as four times the announced level of $45 billion. China plays the numbers down, in part for domestic consumption, and in part from a policy of playing cards close to the vest.

Even at that level, they will still trail far behind the US. We have an annual budget for the military that exceeds $430 billion per year, and as the New York Times points out, that doesn't include spending on the war in either the Afghanistan or Iraq theaters. Even with worst-case scenarios on spending, the Chinese will spend half of what we do to defend -- or oppress -- a country many times our size and with four times the number of people.

It could even be a good sign for the West, although one would really have to be the sunniest of optimists to focus on it. Their success in implementing capitalism has boosted their economy enough to make this extra spending possible, and one could hope that further expansion of capitalism will eventually bring China around to the US as primarily a trading partner rather than a military opponent. Also, we have seen capitalism give ordinary people a stake in peace rather than war, and the Chinese populace might reject aggressive measures towards the US as business improves and expands throughout the nation.

The level of spending has not reached a critical point as a threat to us -- yet. Most of their focus will probably still be inward, especially since a number of their ethnic enclaves in their own west have begun to develop more significant unrest. They have a problem with radical Muslims there, close to where Afghanistan and Pakistan have their own. As NATO continues to pressure groups like al-Qaeda and the Taliban in those countries, they will find it more and more tactically useful to infiltrate China, where the Coalition would not dare attack -- and China will have to deal with the ever-increasing terrorist threat to their own stability in that region.

At this point, the situation bears watching, but their spending levels still indicate that they cannot hope to match us, even close to home. If anything, it might prompt some of our allies to start spending a little more on their own defense.

Domenici Prompted Dismissal Of One US Attorney

One of the eight federal prosecutors terminated in the last three months lost his job after a Republican Senator told the Department of Justice that his state needed a replacement. Pete Domenici admitted yesterday that he requested the change from the DoJ after a long period of frustration with the speed of prosecutions in New Mexico:

Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, said Sunday that he had urged the Justice Department to dismiss the state’s top federal prosecutor, who in December was one of eight United States attorneys ousted from their jobs.

In addition, Mr. Domenici said in a statement that last year he called the prosecutor, David C. Iglesias, to ask about the status of a federal inquiry in New Mexico. The case centered on accusations of kickbacks in a statehouse construction project in which a former Democratic state official was said to be involved.

“I asked Mr. Iglesias if he could tell me what was going on in that investigation and give me an idea of what time frame we were looking at,” Mr. Domenici said. “It was a very brief conversation which concluded when I was told that the courthouse investigation would be continuing for a lengthy period.”

Mr. Domenici apologized in the statement and said he regretted making the call, but added that he had not urged any course of action in any investigation. “I have never pressured him nor threatened him in any way,” he said.

A Justice Department spokesman said on Sunday that records at the agency showed that the senator complained about Mr. Iglesias in calls to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales in September 2005 and again in January and April 2006. The senator made a brief call to Paul J. McNulty, the deputy attorney general, in October 2006 when the deliberations over Mr. Iglesias’s dismissla began.

Needless to say, this does not reflect well on Domenici. The phone calls to Iglesias about the status of a corruption investigation involving Democrats looks like an attempt to make partisan hay out of the prosecution. It's completely inappropriate, and Domenici apparently realizes it a little too late.

Domenici claims he didn't pressure Iglesias. He may not have intended his call as a means to pressure the prosecutor, but how else was Iglesias to understand it? If a US Attorney gets a call out of the blue from a Republican Senator asking about an investigation of state Democratic officials, it doesn't take a genius to connect those dots.

However, it doesn't appear that the corruption investigation was the entire issue for Domenici's request to remove Iglesias. Despite recommending him to the incoming Bush administration in 2001 for his position, Iglesias had become a frustration for the Senator by 2004. Domenici started filing complaints with the DoJ at that time about Iglesias' performance. That certainly shows a mitigating context for the other calls, but not enough to shake the perception that Domenici pressured the US Attorney into charging Democrats with corruption to get campaign fodder just in time for an October surprise.

CPAC: Pictures Speak A Thousand ...

I got back this afternoon from my CPAC adventure, tired out and glad to be home, but happy with the weekend's work. I'll be grateful for my own bed after the rather unpleasant stay I had at the Washington Plaza Hotel in DC.

The place looks like a million bucks from the outside on Thomas Circle, but it looks like $1.50 on the inside. It has unique balconies that are shared for the entire floor, which means anyone can wander by your room. The balcony door only has a normal doorknob (the main room entrance is from the interior hallway), and mine fell off in my hand the first night I arrived. I asked twice the next morning for them to fix it, but when I got back to my room the next night, it was still broken. After listening to a bunch of foul-mouthed, loud lunatics on the balcony until 1 am, I got about four hours of sleep. I went down to the desk the next morning, this time with the doorknob in hand, and told them I expected to get a phone call when it got fixed.

After making several calls myself back to the hotel, they finally fixed it around 6 pm or so. They jammed it back onto the latch just tight enough so it wouldn't fall off again, rather than replacing the entire assembly, as they should have done. I won't stay there again, and neither should you.

But that's not the memory I want to recall for CPAC. I had some troubles with the camera interface and didn't get to post as many pictures as I wanted, but here are a few that will give CQ readers an idea of the fun and hard work we experienced on Bloggers Row.

1. The beginning of Blogger Row on Thursday morning.
2. This dolphin haunted the exhibition hall throughout CPAC. Someone wanted to point out Mitt Romney's flip-flops.
3. On Saturday, this babe got chased by the Grim Reaper, asking for someone to save her from an abortion. Someone else quipped, "Get Brownback to save you!"
4. Brownback was busy. (Actually, this was from Friday.)
5. NZ Bear brought Victory Caucus pens. They didn't last long -- everyone wanted one. The only other free pens came from Michelle and Brian for Hot Air.
6. Mary Katharine Ham, Karol Sheinin, and Flip Pidot at Happy Hour on Friday.
7. Jane Mom, Kevin McCullough's beautiful and intelligent wife Amy, and Kevin himself either giving me the thumbs-up or measuring me for a painting.

UPDATE: Here's a late addition that shows why I have such fond memories of CPAC:

Who wouldn't have a great time sitting between Mary Katharine and Jane Mom for three days?

Romney Loses The Straw Poll -- No, Really (Bumped)

Governor Mitt Romney won the straw poll results at the CPAC event, one of the last stories of the conference. He outstripped Rudy Giuliani and left John McCain in the dust, but CPAC attendees will understand the real story behind those numbers:

Mitt Romney won the most support for the Republican presidential nomination in a straw poll of GOP activists attending an annual conference.

Despite his record of inconsistency on some social issues, the former Massachusetts governor got 21 percent of the 1,705 votes cast by paid registrants to the three-day Conservative Political Action Conference. They were asked who their first choice would be for the Republican nomination.

Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor whose moderate stances on social issues irks the party's right wing, was second with 17 percent.

Here are the full set of results from the poll:

Romney – 21%
Giuliani – 17%
Brownback – 15%
Gingrich – 14%
McCain – 12%

Given that Romney has only received single-digit support in most national polls, these numbers would normally indicate a surprising level of strength within the conservative movement. After all, Romney has his problems with the GOP base due to some inconsistencies in his public positions over the years. This seems to indicate that has has overcome those questions.

However, the straw poll probably reflects Romney's organizing abilities far more than his popular support among conservatives. The Romney campaign turned CPAC from a get-acquainted event to a mini-convention by recruiting scores of young activists to attend CPAC and haranguing attendees to vote for Mitt. The Brownback campaign did the same with a smaller coterie of foot soldiers. None of the other candidates bothered to do anything of the kind.

Understanding that, these numbers should be somewhat disappointing to the Romney campaign. Take a look at Giuliani's numbers. Here's a candidate who supposedly didn't impress in his speech on Friday, whose consistent positions have him in conflict with more than a few of the groups comprising CPAC, and who didn't have any organization at the conference or spend any time with the attendees outside of the speech. Despite all of these handicaps, 17% of the conservatives at CPAC selected Rudy over any of the other candidates -- only four points lower than Romney. He beat Sam Brownback and Newt Gingrich, who is widely presumed to be preparing his own bid for the presidency.

John McCain also scored rather highly despite his snub of CPAC. He came in fifth, but still managed to win 12% of the straw poll without any organization or appearance at the conference. That's only nine points behind Romney.

Romney had a good CPAC with or without a straw poll win. He scored well on his speech, with the consensus at the conference being that he delivered big when he needed it the most, and his personal appearance later generated some glowing comments. However, this result shows that he has only made himself credible as a candidate. He hasn't really beaten anyone.

UPDATE: Greg in Texas asks if the conference was as dispirited as the press has reported. Not at all. In fact, the problem for this conference was all the enthusiasm for individual presidential candidates, and the distraction it proved for the other issues at CPAC. I'd say that the conference had plenty of energy and enthusiasm.

UPDATE II and BUMP: One of my regular commenters said that he understands that I do not like Mitt Romney, but that's not the case. I think Romney is a good candidate for the nomination. I think the same about Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich (if he runs), Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, and Sam Brownback. I think that less about John McCain, but I'm not going to rule him out completely until we get to the actual primaries. I could support Romney in a general election with no difficulty at all, and the same is true of most of the rest of the field.

However, that doesn't mean that I won't speak honestly about my experiences with the candidates. Romney had a good CPAC, even a great one, but that straw poll has to be a disappointment. His campaign did everything they could do to overwhelm the field, and they didn't succeed. That's not to say they were dishonest; it's part of campaigning, even if the rest of the field (save Brownback) didn't think it would get that intense in March 2007. It showed good organizational talent, and he eked out a win on paper, but I don't think the Romney campaign can honestly say that they expected to win by only four points over Giuliani and nine over McCain with that level of effort.

Romney, as I said, had a good CPAC regardless. I expect to see him eat at the lead of the frontrunners, probably McCain more than Giuliani, over the next couple of weeks.

Not Much More On That Al-Qaeda Story

Several people e-mailed me the link to the report at ABC's The Blotter about a supposed attack on an al-Qaeda stronghold in Afghanistan over the last few days. The attack targeted an unnamed member of AQ leadership, and some speculated it might be Osama himself:

For the past two days, U.S. and NATO forces have been conducting a major attack against a compound in a remote area of Eastern Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden or another senior al Qaeda leader may be hiding, ABC News has learned.

According to eyewitnesses and local reporters in Kunar province, Coalition forces launched a fierce attack on a small enclave in the village of Mandaghel, approximately 17 miles from the border with Pakistan, on Friday afternoon. Warplanes pounded the positions ; U.S. special forces and Afghan National Army soldiers moved in shortly afterwards.

The assault appeared to meet stiff resistance from militants at the compound. Heavy artillery and gunfire could be heard for hours, local witnesses said . A handful of civilians were reportedly wounded in the strike. Though sealed off from outside access, the area now appears to be under coalition control.

U.S. officials declined to identify who the operation was targeting, but indicated they were after a "High Value Target" (HVT) . Official sources would not rule out that al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden himself was the intended victim. Afghan officials said the target could be another senior ranking al Qaeda leader.

I held off on linking to the report until more details became known. After all, NATO still fights the war against the Taliban in that region, and it seems speculative to assume that this is anything more than catching a contingent of jihadists napping in large numbers. The only hard evidence supplied in the report that the attack might be something more than that or an operation against a druglord is the fact that Wahhabists prevail in that area.

Today, I have heard nothing else on this report. If I read something, I will update this post. I wanted to allow CQ readers to know that I'm keeping an eye on the story, but nothing much seems to be developing from it. Feel free to post links to further details in the comments.

Iranian Sleeper Cells Infiltrate The Gulf States

The Iranians have a plan if the West attacks them over their nuclear program, and they will not restrict themselves to military action. The London Telegraph reports that the Iranians have sent sleeper cells throughout the Gulf states -- and elsewhere -- and will activate them for revenge terrorist attacks if attacked themselves:

Iran has trained secret networks of agents across the Gulf states to attack Western interests and incite civil unrest in the event of a military strike against its nuclear programme, a former Iranian diplomat has told The Sunday Telegraph.

Spies working as teachers, doctors and nurses at Iranian-owned schools and hospitals have formed sleeper cells ready to be "unleashed" at the first sign of any serious threat to Teheran, it is claimed.

Trained by Iranian intelligence services, they are also said to be recruiting fellow Shias in the region, whose communities have traditionally been marginalised by the Gulf's ruling Sunni Arab clans.

Were America or Israel to attack Iran, such cells would be instructed to foment long-dormant sectarian grievances and attack the ex-tensive American and European business interests in wealthy states such as Dubai and Saudi Arabia. Such a scenario would bring chaos to the Gulf, one of the few areas of the Middle East that remains prosperous and has largely pro-Western governments.

For anyone who does not believe that a war on radical Islamist terrorism includes Iran, this should disabuse them of their naiveté. Iran has already done this in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. Their organizations in those places are called Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, and they do exactly what this article describes as a potential scenario throughout Southwest Asia.

On one hand, this points out a certain level of futility in the Iranian military. They have more readiness than Saddam Hussein's armies had in March 2003, but only because they still have an air force -- and that would only last the first couple of days in any conflict with the West. Nations that can defend themselves do not resort to terrorism as a deterrent. It took the Imperial Japanese three years of war against the US to reach the kamikaze stage, and since that was one military attacking another, it wasn't terrorism at all. In this case, Iran will take all of three minutes to cede their military insufficiency.

Adel Assidinia, the named source for this story, has other tales to tell. Formerly Iran's consul-general in Dubai and an important advisor to Iran's foreign ministry, Assidinia revealed that Iran has an extensive network throughout the region of spies and double agents. They run brothels in order to conduct "honey-pot" blackmail and extortion rackets against high-ranking government officials. They also track Iranian expatriates in order to use them for informants or sleepers -- and the primary thrust of the entire effort is to maintain security for Iranian nuclear-weapons research.

These agents will have the primary directive to unleash a wave of Shi'ite violence against Sunni targets throughout the region. All of these nations have sectarian divides to greater or lesser extents, but all are significant, and all could easily erupt into Baghdad-style violence if prompted. If this sounds familiar, consider Iran's role in the current violence in Baghdad as a clue to what they could do throughout the region.

It could get very bloody very fast in southwest Asia. Small wonder that our allies there would prefer a diplomatic solution to the problem.

UPDATE: I'm not talking about the proud Gulf states of Lousiana, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, etc. I'm talking about them there other Gulf states. Thanks to Peyton in the comments for a good laugh!

Sadr City Sweep Underway

The US and Iraqi armies began their sweep of Sadr City in force today, tackling the toughest nut of the new Baghdad surge strategy. First indications show that the Mahdi Army has melted away:

Hundreds of U.S. soldiers entered the Shiite stronghold of Sadr City on Sunday in the first major push into the area since an American-led security sweep began last month around Baghdad.

Soldiers conducted house-to-house searches, but met no resistance in a district firmly in the hands of the Madhi Army militia led by radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, said Lt. Col. David Oclander.

The move into Sadr City came following negotiations with political leaders in the neighborhood.

Al-Sadr had withdrawn his militia under intense pressure from the government, but there were worries that a large-scale military push without political clearance could bring a backlash and jeopardize the entire security effort.

"The indication that we are getting is a lot of the really bad folks have gone into hiding," Oclander said.

The new effort included a raid on a mosque in Baghdad. The US quickly announced that mosque raids were only to be used as a last resort; otherwise, the military would respect the sanctity of religious places. In this case, the US captured three terrorists attempting to hide, including a suspected bomb-maker.

The lack of response from the Mahdis appears to be a long-term strategy. They must understand that if the Americans and Iraqis can hold these neighborhoods for a substantial period of time, their chances of reinfiltration become smaller and smaller. A population freed from terrorists and protection racketeers will not easily allow their return, and if the Nouri al-Maliki government can clean out the police forces of collaborators, they will find it much easier to repel terrorists later.

In fact, Maliki has given strong indications of his intent in that regard. He announced that he will shake up his cabinet and pursue charges against those in the government with links to terrorism:

Iraq's prime minister said Saturday he will reshuffle his Cabinet within two weeks and pursue criminal charges against political figures linked to extremists as a sign of his government's resolve to restore stability during the U.S.-led security crackdown in Baghdad.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki also told The Associated Press during an interview at his Green Zone office that Iraq will work hard to ensure the success of a regional security conference. ...

Al-Maliki has been under pressure from the U.S. to bring order into his factious government of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds since it took office last May. Rumors of Cabinet changes have surfaced before, only to disappear because of pressure from coalition members seeking to keep power.

Nevertheless, al-Maliki said there would be a Cabinet reshuffle "either this week or next."

After the changes are announced, al-Maliki said he would undertake a "change in the ministerial structure," presumably consolidating and streamlining the 39-member Cabinet.

The prime minister did not say how many Cabinet members would be replaced. But some officials said about nine would lose their jobs, including all six Cabinet members loyal to radical anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, an al-Maliki ally.

If he follows through on these promises, it would show a rather significant fall from grace for Moqtada al-Sadr. Maliki obviously fears Sadr less than an American withdrawal, which gives another clear indication of the realities in Baghdad. The Americans still have the most powerful hand to play in the Iraqi capital, and Bush has played it effectively since last November.

If Sadr loses his six Cabinet positions, he likely will lose his influence in the National Assembly as well, where he currently has 30 seats under his control. His flight to Iran has apparently eroded his influence to the point where Maliki no longer fears the consequences of losing those 30 seats (about 15% of the Assembly), which means that the American push has given Maliki other alliances on which to rely. Sadr, whose influence has waxed and waned a number of times in the post-invasion period, appears on his way out of power.

The reason? The sharp drop in violence and death in the capital since the surge was announced has given Maliki new credibility as a national leader. Before, his tenure was marked by exploding terrorism and mayhem. Now, with law and order starting to establish itself in the streets of Baghdad, he has the opportunity to be the man who saved Iraq from the sectarian impulses of the radicals.

Maliki has a long way to go to get there, but it looks like he has momentum on his side at the moment, and the good sense to see how to maintain it.

I Love An Endangered Language Too, But This Goes A Little Too Far

In my pre-blog days, before CQ literally ate all my other hobbies, I studied the Irish language and had become a conversational speaker of an Gaeilge. Is Gaeilgeoirí mé, or at least I used to be, and there was a sense of mission in helping to keep a threatened language from dying altogether. Irish is only spoken by a million people altogether, and much fewer than that as an everyday language; for more information, Gaeltacht Minnesota's website is a great resource.

The Catalan language is similarly threatened, in this case by Spanish. However, I don't think that the Irish would have approved the Catalonian approach to saving their, er, tongue:

It is homage to Catalonia as never seen before. A Spanish pornographer has been given nearly £10,000 of public money to make a series of blue movies, promoting the Catalan language.

Pro-separatist authorities in the Catalan region of north-east Spain approved the grant as part of their agenda to "promote Catalan in every medium".

They awarded the film-maker, Conrad Son, nearly £7,000 to make one film and then a further £3,000 to show it along with two other examples of his work at a women's erotic film festival in the regional capital, Barcelona, last year. Details of the funding emerged when records of spending decisions by the regional government, the Generalitat, were made public.

It caused a national outcry, with critics saying the grants were the latest example of public money being wasted by hard-line Catalan nationalists, who hold power in the hung regional government.

This sounds like an excuse for Catalonian men to use for watching porn. No, honey, I watch it for the language lessons.

It sounds like a great idea, except that no one watches porn for its sparkling dialogue. In that sense -- and in that sense only -- porn is like the silent films of days gone by; they're universal and need no translation. Viewers of that genre do not need every "Oh, baby" and more explicit exclamations translated: they get the general idea. Very few, if any, of these movies come close-captioned for the hearing impaired.

The decision by the Catalan government to grant these pornographers £10,000 of taxpayer money speaks volumes about the priorities of the regional government. Catalonians should also be outraged at this official prostitution of their endangered language. I'm sure they want to multiply the number of native speakers there, but this is taking that a little too far.