Gilmore Goes

One Republican presidential candidate has called it quits -- and probably not the one most would have guessed. Jim Gilmore, former governor of Virginia, has decided to end his campaign after two quarters of having no impact on the race at all:

Former Virginia governor James S. Gilmore III ended his long-shot Republican presidential campaign yesterday, saying he was unable to raise enough money to communicate his conservative vision to Americans. He held out the possibility, however, that he might soon run for public office again in Virginia.

Gilmore, the son of a butcher who had improbably risen to become a local prosecutor, a state attorney general and a governor of Virginia, dropped out of the crowded GOP primary field a day before reporting that he had raised $211,000 between April and June.

Since January, he has raised $381,000, while his rivals have collected tens of millions of dollars.

In a field crowded in both parties with candidates lacking in executive experience, one might have expected Gilmore to get more traction. Gilmore never caught fire, and for a couple of reasons. First, although he had to have some connections to big donors from his days as RNC chair, he never raised any serious funds for his campaign. He obviously could not keep up with the big dogs, or even the small dogs, for that matter. He only raised a tenth of what Ron Paul raised in the same period, and Ron Paul attracts less than one percent of the vote in national polling.

One can overcome bad fundraising with great messaging. Unfortunately, that was Gilmore's other Achilles heel. Gilmore never added anything to the debate, especially during the televised debates. When asked questions on policy, Gilmore would give nebulous answers promising a return to real conservatism but only occasionally answering the actual questions.

I met Gimore briefly at CPAC, and he seems like an intelligent fellow. He never gave me any indication why anyone should consider him for the presidency, or even why he himself was running for the office, however, and that showed in his campaign. In the end, it seems like even Gilmore had trouble convincing himself that he was a serious candidate.

The Washington Post reports that Gilmore may decide to run for John Warner's Senate seat if Warner retires as expected in 2008. That may be a better choice for Gilmore, but he'll have to do better in explaining to Virginians what he wants to accomplish than he did with Republicans across the nation in his presidential bid.

Maybe He's Only Mostly Dead

Osama bin Laden made a big splash today in the media by appearing in his first video in over a year. He looks sprightlier than ever -- but that's because he took off a few years through recycling:

Osama bin Laden stresses the importance of martyrdom for Muslim causes in a videotape that purportedly contains a 50-second message from the al Qaeda leader. ...

The videotape was made in the last four weeks, but the clips appear to be old, said Octavia Nasr, CNN's senior editor for Arab affairs. There is no indication of where it was shot, and CNN cannot verify its authenticity. ...

Bin Laden was one of several men appearing and speaking on the tape. They include Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq who was killed in a U.S. airstrike June 7, 2006.

Jihadist websites have been pushing rumors of a new message containing "good news from Osama bin Laden," but if this was it, it fails to impress. Clearly the tape is old; Zarqawi reached thermal equilibrium over a year ago. The backdrops used in the tape resemble those from messages created just before the 9/11 attacks. Unless this is K-Tel's Osama' Greatest Hits package, it's nothing we haven't seen before now.

That doesn't necessarily mean it isn't significant for others, even if Osama appears to have been silenced. The appearance could signal sleeper cells to activate here in the US and around the West. Intel sources have warned that the chatter levels have hit new highs in recent weeks, which may indicate some logistical efforts to stage a new series of attacks. It's certainly something that will get a long look by the CIA and MI-6.

However, one could conclude that Osama has gone on to his 72 virgins. Zawahiri has no trouble making public statements, but Osama has not issued any recordings in over a year -- and this looks like a poor substitute. If that's the best AQ can do, it's suggestive that Osama has joined Zarqawi for whatever reward will come to both terrorists.

Overstating The Case

Normally I think Chris Cilizza's political analysis is top notch, but everyone has a bad day now and then -- and today is the day for Chris, Michael Shear, and Dan Balz. In giving the backstory on the conflicts behind the scenes that caused the housecleaning at Team McCain, they wildly overstate McCain's position in the race when it began:

After weeks of internal struggles over who would run John McCain's presidential campaign, three key aides went to the candidate in January and told him he had to take action. Rick Davis, the campaign's chief executive, they said, should be pushed aside, and McCain had to make it clear that Terry Nelson, the campaign manager and a veteran of President Bush's 2004 team, was in charge.

But the senator from Arizona refused, telling the three aides -- John Weaver, Mark Salter and Nelson -- that he would not strip Davis of his title or empower Nelson. "You're all equals," McCain told them, according to one participant. "Work it out."

For McCain, the onetime insurgent then firmly ensconced as the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination [emphasis mine -- EM], it was a fateful decision. Instead of easing tensions among his most trusted advisers, it only exacerbated them, and for the next six months two warring factions clashed repeatedly as McCain's fundraising stalled and his poll numbers dropped.

This week McCain finally took a dramatic step, as his aides had urged him. But instead of moving Davis aside, he put him in clear control of the campaign. Nelson quit, Weaver resigned, and a dozen senior staff members went with them. With their departure, virtually no money in the bank, and the layoffs of dozens of other staff members, a campaign that once seemed on an inevitable march to the nomination has been left struggling for survival.

Firmly ensconced as the frontrunner? In January of what year? If the Post's trio means this year, they have not done much research. Polls before the last midterms put Rudy Giuliani as the frontrunner for the nomination, as I noted in October. Even in New Hampshire, where McCain remains one of the more popular Republicans, all he could do in January was to come up a percentage point behind Rudy. Since November, Gallup has shown Giuliani consistently ahead of McCain, and by January, significantly so.

Hell, even their own polling from last January shows Rudy beating McCain by seven points. He beat McCain by eight in December. When was McCain ever "firmly ensconced" as the frontrunner?

McCain took a big hit this week with this housecleaning, but anyone who has watched the campaign knows it was long overdue. It's going to be a problem in the short run and I still doubt McCain will come close to the nomination, but it's still only July. McCain raised only $3 million less than Mitt Romney did in Q2, and over two million more than John Edwards in a cycle that so far has favored Democrats. He's not dead until he decides to quit, and I don't think he would have bothered to do all of this retooling if he wanted to exit. And while he's certainly lost ground over the last few months, anyone saying that he was the undoubted frontrunner is either indulging in hyperbole or hasn't paid much attention.

News Flash: Jihadists Threaten America!

I missed this breaking news story at ABC yesterday, but apparently radical Islamists want to attack America. The dean of Jihadi U, where grade inflation has apparently threatened their accreditation, now says that we will see much more massive attacks in the US this summer:

As senior intelligence and law enforcement officials met again today in the White House Situation Room to deal with the "summer terror threat," a top terror commander said an attack was coming that would dwarf the failed bombings in London and Glasgow.

Taliban military commander Mansour Dadullah, in an interview broadcast on ABC News' "World News With Charles Gibson," said the London attacks were "not enough" and that bigger attacks were coming.

"You will, God willing, be witness to more attacks," he told a Pakistani journalist in an interview conducted just four days ago.

Dadullah presided over a graduation at a jihadi training camp in Pakistan in June. At the time, he promised a wave of attacks against the West. The London attacks turned out to be a bust, although those attackers did not come from Dadullah's alumni.

So what's new? Jihadis have been making these threats since the 1990s. Most of them turn out to be busts or vaporware altogether. Other times, the threats meant nothing until after the attacks. We have to remain vigilant at all times, regardless of whether the Dadullahs of the world decide to shoot their mouths off to willing journalists.

Better yet, let's drop a Tomahawk on Dadullah's camp next time he pops his head up for his 15 minutes of Western fame.

A Crossroads For The Surge

The Times of London reports on a crossroads in Jabour that demonstrates the successes and the dangers of the surge in Iraq. While the soldiers would prefer to be elsewhere, the efforts to close down lines of communication for al-Qaeda and other terrorists has created an "Iraqi surge" in the area -- the creation of a new police unit from tribal volunteers who want the momentum to stay against the terrorists. The tribal leaders remain cautious about cooperating too much with the Americans, however, because they are afraid we're leaving:

This shabby outpost is at the heart of President Bush’s Iraqi strategy. And it is, therefore, at the centre of a raging political debate in Washington that could yet see US troops hurried home.

It is one of four such camps established in the lawless Arab Jabour region since mid-June as part of Mr Bush’s troop “surge” – his last-ditch attempt to curb the violence that is crippling Iraq. ...

Such outposts give US troops a permanent foothold for the first time within local communities. Previously they had operated from isolated fortress-like bases around the country, going out to clear hostile areas before heading back after a few days.

Colonel Terry Ferrell, the US commander in Arab Jabour, said that the extra manpower provided by the surge allowed troops to integrate better with the public and win the all-important support of tribal sheikhs, who command huge local influence and are starting to speak out against al-Qaeda.

Morale seems mixed in this remarkably balanced report. Some of the soldiers there want to leave, tired of the heat and of an enemy that won't engage in a stand-up fight. Others see progress and want to remain to see the mission all the way through. The commanding officers warn that an abandonment of the crossroads would not only give the important roads back to terrorists, but also would betray the coalition of local Iraqi leaders that have formed an alliance with the American troops in fighting al-Qaeda.

One Iraqi made this point very clear to the Times:

Local Iraqis touched by the surge of US troops seem grateful for the increased security, but some are scared of getting too close to the Americans in case they leave.

“I cannot help the coalition because I worry that if I do and the soldiers go then the terrorists will come back and kill me,” said Mokdat Ahmed Shahib, a 40-year-old security guard, who lives in a village near Patrol Base Murray. He was speaking as a group of US military medics handed out free medicine and advice to scores of families, who had no other healthcare facilities in their village.

The Iraqis know better than anyone what a withdrawal will mean for them. The terrorists will have free rein to lauch punitive attacks against those who allied themselves with us, creating not only a wave of victims but also the impetus for an explosion of non-government militias. Some tribes will choose to fight the terrorists, while others will cut a deal with whomever they see as the strongest side for the long run. It's a prescription to turn an insurgency into a real civil war on every level in Iraq -- a bloodbath unlike anything we've seen thus far.

At the moment, the terrorists simply cannot launch those kinds of attacks in any consistent manner. They cannot use the road at this crossroads, which severely limits their range. Instead, they litter the road with IEDs in the hope of killing enough Americans to force our withdrawal. Seven have died thus far in that manner in Jabour.

At the same time, the local populace has begun to secure themselves. The tribes requested arms from the US, but the central Iraqi government refused permission, worried about arming local militias. In Anbar, the tribal leaders called for their members to staff the local police force under the government's command and the watchful eye of the American commanders in the area. The same may happen soon in Jabour. If it does, it will allow the surge operation to speed up considerably.

Will it be fast enough to keep Congress from reversing all of the gains made in the last few weeks? It may be a race to the finish line.

Pervez Goes North

Pervez Musharraf has sent his army north towards the frontier, apparently modifying a truce he made with the radical Islamists controlling the region. The agreement appears to be over as groups in Waziristan began calling for jihad against Musharraf after the siege and capture of the Red Mosque:

Thousands of troops were deployed to Pakistan's northwestern frontier to try to dissuade outlawed Islamic militants from launching a holy war against the government for its bloody attack on a radical mosque, military officials said Saturday.

As the troop movements proceeded in at least five areas of the North West Frontier Province, a suicide bomber struck in another region of the border, his explosives-laden vehicle killing at least eight soldiers in a military convoy, army spokesman Maj. Gen. Waheed Arhad said. ...

"With help from local tribal elders, we are trying to ensure that militants lay down their arms, and stop issuing calls for jihad against the government," said a senior military official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

He said there were no immediate plans for combat operations against Maulana Fazlullah, a radical cleric who has pressed for the imposition of Taliban-style rule in Pakistan, much like the leaders of the Red Mosque.

Fazlullah had earlier agreed not to make statements over the FM radio station he controls that called for action against the government. Fazlullah broke that agreement after the Red Mosque siege, telling his followers to prepare for jihad against Musharraf. Instead, Musharraf has apparently prepared for Fazlullah's jihad. They may not have immediate plans to confront Fazlullah, but it doesn't take thousands of troops to revoke a broadcast license, either.

The army has not made its way to North Waziristan, but that seems to just be a matter of time. Tribes in that region demanded an end to military checkpoints there in a case of poor timing. Their spokesman says the checkpoints violate the agreement with Musharraf, but Musharraf apparently feels differently now then he did in 2005. It's hard to believe that Musharraf will dismantle checkpoints in that region now; it's far more likely that he'll reinforce them with at least some of the troops on the move now.

He may not bother to attack the tribes with this movement. It may just be a way to seal off the frontier in preparation for a NATO attack on Taliban positions. Musharraf has reportedly agreed to allow Western forces to cross the border, and if they do, Musharraf will want to make sure that the radicals can't flee further into Pakistan. If they keep going towards Waziristan, that possibility will get a lot more likely.

Same Old Song From Shef

Gary Sheffield has a book to promote, and the obnoxious superstar has fallen back on one of his tried-and-true attention-grabbing schemes -- accuse a former manager of racism. Sheffield accused Yankees skipper Joe Torre of treating blacks different than whites and claims that Jeter wasn't "black enough" to notice the difference:

New York Yankees manager Joe Torre treats black players on his team worse than white players, controversial baseball player Gary Sheffield has charged.

"I know when I was [with the Yankees], the couple of blacks that were there, every one of them had an issue with the organization," Sheffield, who played outfield for the Yankees between 2004 and 2006, told Andrea Kremer in an interview that airs Tuesday on HBO's "Real Sports."

When pressed on who specifically within the organization black players were upset with, Sheffield said, "They had an issue with Joe Torre."

"They weren't treated liked everybody else," said Sheffield, who currently plays for the Detroit Tigers "I got called out in a couple of meetings that I thought were unfair. ... [Torre] had a message to get across to the whole team, so he used me to get the message across."

Sheffield has been down this road before. Dodger fans will remember that he accused the O'Malley organization of being racist, and specifically leveling the charge against Tommy Lasorda. Of course, this was after the Dodgers made it clear that they didn't want the locker-room cancer to return at the end of his contract, even though the Dodgers clearly missed his power at the plate afterwards.

Last week, he accused Major League Baseball of racism, too. He said, in essence, that Latin American ballplayers suck up to management more than black ballplayers do, and that's why the percentage of black ballplayers has dropped by half in the last generation. I'd guess that the Latin American stars in MLB might take issue with his disparagement of them, but also point to a draft system in the US that devalues the development of domestic talent in favor of athletes not subject to the draft at all.

Let's all agree not to buy Sheffield's book. Then he can proclaim book readers racists -- and disappear quietly with the tens of millions of dollars he made in this racist system.

An Deireadh Seachtaine Leis An Teango Beo

If readers noticed an unusually quiet period at Captain's Quarters, it's because I took the afternoon off to travel to Winona, Minnesota. What's in Winona besides beautiful landscapes and clean air? It's the annual Gaeltacht Minnesota Irish-language workshop weekend -- and I'm attending for the first time in three years.

I''ve written occasionally about my love for the Irish language. It has a distinctive, poetic beauty but is very challenging to learn. One of six Celtic languages -- a branch on its own from the Indo-European language root -- it uses a verb-subject-predicate structure that takes time to absorb. Gaeilge uses intriguing and maddening processes such as lenition and eclipsis that change the spelling and pronunciation of words in certain circumstances, which is like learning a vocabulary that likes to play hide-and-go-seek.

For instance, here's the start of an article from the Irish-language website Beo about an American city. Can you guess which one?

Is é an plódú tráchta an chonspóid is déanaí i Nua-Eabhrac. Faoi dheireadh tá glactha ag an gcathair leis go bhfuil an iomarca tráchta ar na sráideanna, agus táthar ag obair ar phleananna chun an trácht sin a mhaolú.

Here's the translation, as best as I can do:

Traffic jams are the latest controversy in New York. Talk has it that the city has been gripped with too much traffic, and work is in progress to debate plans to decrease it.

It sounds much less mundane in Irish ... trust me. I'll be posting over the weekend, but probably rather lightly. I will take the day off from the Northern Alliance Radio Network, but be sure to tune in and listen to the rest of the crew tomorrow, starting at 11 am CT.

In the meantime ... oíche mhaith!

A Colloquy On The Fairness Doctrine

The debate over the Fairness Doctrine continued in the Senate today, as Dick Durbin blocked Norm Coleman from offering an amendment that would forbid content control in political speech on the airwaves. Coleman and Durbin then got into a series of volleys on the nature of speech and broadcast licensing, which capsulizes the differing approaches to freedom between the two parties:

Mr. Durbin: I'm sorry to interrupt you but I really wish that through the commerce committee or the appropriate committee of jurisdiction, we can really get into this question. But the senator is arguing that the marketplace can provide. What is the senator's response if the marketplace fails to provide? What is the marketplace does not provide opportunities to hear both points of view? Since the people who are seeking the licenses are using America's airwaves, does the government, speaking for the people of this country, have any interest at that point to step in and make sure there is a despair balanced approach to the --a fair and balanced approach to the information given to the American people?

Mr. Coleman: Mr. President, I’ll respond to the final question here. Very clear disagreement here. The government does not -- does not -- have the responsibility to regulate content of speech. That's what the first amendment is about. It's exactly what the first amendment is about. Government's not supposed to be regulating content. And in a time in 1949 when you had three network TV stations, basically, when had you limited channels of communication, I presume there was a legitimate concern on the part of some that, in fact, government needs to step in and ensure balance. But now we're in 2007. We're at a time where we've got 20,000, you know, opportunities for stations and satellite, where you have cable, you have blogs, you have a whole range of information. I think it would be -- I -- I can't even conceive -- I can't even conceive that the market could not provide opportunities for differing positions because it does. And in the end -- in the end, consumers also have a right based on the market to make choices. And so if they make choices that say we want to hear more of one side than the other, that's ok okay. And I think it's very dangerous, I say to my -- my friend from Illinois, I think it's very dangerous for government to be in the position of deciding what's fair and balanced. Because as we see on the floor of the senate, oftentimes amongst ourselves, learned -- hopefully learned individuals who've the great humble opportunity to serve in the US Senate, we have differences as to what is fair and balanced. And so the reason I think we have a First Amendment is that we get government out of -- out of the -- the measuring, controlling, dictating, regulating content and that's my concern. ...

John Kennedy stated, "we are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." Mr. President, I’m not afraid of of -- of the people. I'm not afraid of the people having access to the in information, ideas that they want to have access to. But I am afraid of the government stepping in and regulating content. We have a first amendment. That's the underpinning, the foundation of all the other amendments. The fairness doctrine flies in the face of that. It was rejected. It was rejected in 1987. The idea of bringing it back today is a very, very bad idea. This amendment specifically includes the Armed forces network. Our folks are out there on the front line fighting. They should be able to tune into whatever they want to tune into and they shouldn't be thinking that back home someone at the FCC is listening and monitoring and deciding what is fair and what is balanced. Let the people decide. Let the market decide. Let the first amendment flourish.

Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.

The effort to bring back the Fairness Doctrine is entirely about fear. Durbin and his associates are afraid that they have lost the debate, and they want to shut down the forum rather than acknowledge it. Either that, or Durbin and Barbara Boxer and anyone else who wants the government to dictate the content of political speech think you're too stupid to find differing points of view.

The Fairness Doctrine never made any sense at any time, but today's communications market make it especially inappropriate. We have millions of Americans debating issues on the Internet at places like Captain's Quarters. News sources from around the world can be accessed within seconds (or minutes, if you're stuck on dial-up). Talk radio occupies a small niche in a cornucopia of information sources.

Anyone who claims that Americans can't access all sides on an issue is either being deliberately disingenuous or is hopelessly obtuse. I'll leave it to the reader to decide which applies to Dick Durbin. In the meantime, kudos to Norm Coleman for staying on top of this assault on free political speech.

UPDATE: Here's the NRSC site opposing the Fairness Doctrine, called Stop Liberal Censorship. Be sure to keep up with FD news and information at that site -- and a big welcome to Instapundit readers.

CQ Radio: Charles Hill

Today on CQ Radio (special time: 10 am CT), Rudy Giuliani's chief advisor on foreign policy, Charles Hill, will join me. Hill has served under George Schultz at State during the Reagan administration, following an extraordinary career in the foreign service that put him in the world's hot spots for 20 years: Viet Nam, Israel, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and other assignments. Hill also served the UN as a special advisor to then-Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali. We'll ask him about Rudy's policy direction, how Rudy will approach the issues in various hot spots of the world, and about Hill's own remarkable career.

Call 646-652-4889 to join the conversation! Also, you can subscribe to CQ Radio through iTunes now by clicking this link:

The Petraeus Betrayal

The US Senate sent General David Petraeus to Iraq in January in full understanding of his intent to implement a new counterinsurgency strategy as a means to control the violence in Iraq. After 108 days of stalling on funding these operations, Congress finally cut the check less than two months ago. Petraeus finally got the rest of the combat troops requested for the operations last month. Now Congress wants to pull the plug, and Charles Krauthammer calls foul.

At Heading Right, I talk about the very confused messages coming from Congress. They send Petraeus to Iraq when he clearly states his intention to conduct a large-scale counterinsurgency strategy, they hold up his funding, and just when he gets all of the troops he requested, they try to pull the rug out from underneath him. Given that the military benchmarks have largely been met at this point, why does Congress want to stop now? Could it be success they really fear?

Ambassador Jawad Interview: Transcript, Part II

Jeff Kouba at the recently-relaunched Peace Like A River has transcribed and posted the second half of the transcript of my interview with Ambassador Said T. Jawad of Afghanistan. In this half, I asked Ambassador Jawad about the issues with the drug trade, whether he felt Afghanistan had been abandoned by the West, and questioned how his nation was approaching gender equality, especially in education. Ambassador Jawad gave direct and frank answers and didn't hesitate to give details:

CQ: Do you feel that Afghanistan has been shortchanged in terms of support following the invasion and occupation of Iraq?

Ambassador Jawad: Afghanistan is shortchanged, that's for sure. I don't know if it was after the Iraq invasion, because after the Cold War when the Soviets were gone we were also shortchanged, there was no Iraq back then. There has been underinvestment in Afghanistan. I don't know how much of that relates to Iraq, but certainly you would have not been in this position that we are right now had we invested adequately in the past five years in Afghanistan.

I asked about the poppy trade, which many have criticized the current government of Hamid Karzai for not doing enough to stop. The real story is much more complicated. Ambassador Jawad explains why Afghan farmers have little choice but to grow poppies -- and why they're more slaves than willing participants in the global drug rings:

Ambassador Jawad: ... Even if you convince a farmer to grow apples or pomegranate or something else, if there is no road to take it to the market, there is no cold storage facility, there is no market at all, it is difficult for him to do it in the long run. He might do it once or twice, but he will change his mind. So, fighting narcotics in Afghanistan or anywhere in the world is truly a matter of economic opportunities. If you look at the example of Turkey, they succeeded in eliminating opium in Turkey by development. If you emphasize only one aspect of the fight against narcotics such as eradication, like in Columbia for instance, then you will be in it for a long time. You have to fight narco trafficers, eradicate the poppy fields, build the institutions, provide for alternative livelihoods, and work closely with the countries that are either benefitting or are involved in the trafficing, in the processing and production of illicit drugs.

CQ: Ambassador Jawad, you said something here, and I just want to make sure that people understand it. A lot of people who are growing poppies are being forced to do so because of basically what we would call in this country loan sharking. They are being forced into a type of slavery in order to pay off the ever increasing interest on loans where the rate is 100% or more. Is that the main problem? Is that how the drug trafficers really lock in that poppy crop?

Ambassador Jawad: They come in the winter, when the farmer really doesn't have a source of money, they need the money. They will give them loans with a very high interest rate. But also as I mentioned, when a farmer grows opium, the crop is like cash. You can harvest that deadly crop and put it in a plastic bag and it will be sitting in a corner of a room for two or three months. It is not like grapes where you have to market it in a matter of a week, or turn it into juice or something, otherwise you will be losing the entire year. And especially if there is no agro-processing facilities, to turn for instance that grape into juice or a raisin or something else, then you'll be losing your entire harvest of the year. But, when you grow opium, and you harvest that, and you just put in a plastic bag and it will be sitting in a room without even needing a refrigerator or anything, and when you need to sell it, it's like a piece of a cake, you just cut a piece of it, it's almost cash. You go to the market and you sell it. So all these factors affect the mentality of the people who are growing poppy. And again, we have some of the best orchards, in Afghanistan, vineyards particulary in Kandahar, in the Shomali Plain, but when you have vineyards, you have to have a mindset of five to ten years. Some years you might make it well, some years it might not be so good, you should have to pass it to generations, to your son or family.

But when you grow poppy, all you need is three months. You grow it, you harvest it, and as I mentioned, you put in your pocket and you become a refugee again if needed. So we have to make sure that people are replanted in their home and in their village, like other plants. They grow their roots back into their home and village and they feel that yes, there is a future of five to ten years, and therefore I'm going back to rebuild the vineyards of my father or restore the orchards of my family.

Be sure to read all of the transcript, especially if you didn't get a chance to hear the interview live.

Dionne's Just A Little Too Kind

E.J. Dionne offers an unusual take on the revelation of Senator David Vitter's relationship with a purported prostitution ring in Washington, DC -- forgiveness. Dionne wants a truce on the outing of sexual peccadilloes, so that we can get back to the actual business of governing. Dionne's heart is in the right place, as it usually is, but in this case his sympathy is somewhat misplaced:

Perhaps because no one else will do it, I want to offer a qualified defense of Sen. David Vitter, the socially conservative Louisiana Republican who faces a bit of a problem. ..

My defense of Vitter is qualified because I believe that married guys have a moral obligation not to seek the pleasures of "escort services."

Nor do I like hypocrisy. During the battle over the impeachment of Bill Clinton, Vitter wrote in the New Orleans Times-Picayune that if no "meaningful action" were taken against the president, "his leadership will only further drain any sense of values left to our political culture." Vitter, then a state representative, suggested that Clinton was "morally unfit to govern."

But a big part of me is rooting for Vitter to survive because I so want to return to a time when we -- that "we" includes the media -- chose to pay little attention to the extracurricular sexual activities of our politicians. The magnitude of our public problems does not afford us the luxury of indulging in crusades about politicians' private lives, even those involving a high degree of hypocrisy.

In general, Dionne is right. He notes with obvious distaste the efforts of Hustler publisher Larry Flynt to collect damaging information about the sex lives of conservative politicians in what would be considered an extortion conspiracy at any other time, and wonders why it matters. Solve the health care crisis, Dionne offers, and we'll promise to look askance at extramarital dalliances.

In this case and in the case of Bill Clinton, though, Dionne is wrong. Clinton didn't just have a fling while President, he importuned an intern in the business offices of the White House. The Democrats had made a lot of hay over the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas uproar, and they had also passed a few very restrictive laws about how employees must act in the workplace. It directly related to his performance as an executive. The sex act itself shouldn't have been cause for impeachment -- and it wasn't, it was his perjury about it -- but it certainly applies to any analysis of his job performance. It was demeaning to the office, which belongs to the American people and not to any one man. A man with more honor would have resigned.

For Vitter, it's worse than Clinton -- partly because Vitter didn't hold back from publicly judging Clinton as "morally unfit" for the Presidency. Mainly, though, what Vitter did was illegal, a point that some people seem to miss. The woman whose service Vitter used will stand trial for allegedly providing services used by Vitter, even though Vitter won't get charged for his part in that alleged crime. And since this happened in DC, Congress could have passed laws that would make it legal to sell sex -- but Vitter didn't have that kind of libertarian streak on the floor of the House or Senate, even if he did in Palfrey's parlor.

Most voters don't care about the sex lives of politicians, as long as they're not screwing the taxpayers. They do care when politicians break the law or treat the Oval Office as a meat market -- and they should.

Going All In?

It looks as if Pervez Musharraf has decided to go all in against the extremists in Pakistan. After the assassination attempt and the siege at the Red Mosque, Musharraf told his nation that he would fight the extremists madrassa by madrassa if necessary:

President Pervez Musharraf pledged to combat Muslim extremists across Pakistan yesterday as furious crowds demonstrated against the storming of the Red Mosque and two suicide bomb attacks left six dead.

In a televised address to the nation, Gen Musharraf said that those inside the mosque and its adjacent madrassa, or Muslim college, were "terrorists" who directly threatened Pakistan's security. They had also tarnished Islam's reputation as a tolerant and peaceful religion.

"What do we as a nation want?" he asked. "What kind of Islam do these people represent? In the garb of Islamic teaching they have been training for terrorism. They prepared the madrassa as a fortress for war and housed other terrorists in there."

Gen Musharraf praised the army for wresting the mosque and its madrassa "from the hands of terrorists" and said: "I will not allow any madrassa to be used for extremism."

This prompted protests by extremists throughout Pakistan. However, the protests took place in venues known to support extremism anyway, and it appears as if Musharraf may have gained more support from moderates previously unhappy with him over his seizure of power. It also distracted Pakistan from his greatest political crisis, firing Chief Justice Mohammed Iftikhar Chaudhry.

Musharraf still finds himself in a tough spot, and his next moves may have to be towards the secular moderates he aced out of power. He will eventually need the support of the Pakistan People's Party, led by former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, if he wants to marginalize the extremists that he originally relied on for power. That would mean re-opening the political process, a move which the US has pushed, but which comes with its own dangers.

Would that mean that extremists could get elected in Pakistan? Not likely, according to the Afghanistan Ambassador Said T. Jawad. I asked the Ambassador on Monday whether he feared a radical-Islamist takeover of Pakistan. He replied that the extremists only comprised less than 10% of Pakistan's population -- which would still put them in the millions, but not anywhere near enough to win a popular election. Jawad also expressed his confidence in the Pakistani military, which prefers secular rule and has a great deal of political influence.

Musharraf has talked about reinstituting democratic rule, but has conveniently pushed off the date for its return. He may need to rethink his reluctance if he wants to survive, and especially if he wants the support of the moderates in fighting the extremists who want his blood.

Iran To Allow Inspection Of Arak Reactor

The Iranians will allow the IAEA to inspect its heavy-water plant in Arak, apparently intending to forestall another round of economic and diplomatic sanctions. The inspectors will check to see if the Iranians are producing and storing plutonium, which would give them another means of producing nuclear weapons besides their uranium-enrichment cascades:

Iran has agreed to let inspectors visit this month a nuclear reactor being built which could produce plutonium, the UN nuclear watchdog has said.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) announced a delegation would visit the Arak heavy water reactor following two days of talks in Tehran.

Heavy-water reactors produce plutonium, which can be used in nuclear weapons as an alternative to enriched uranium.

Perhaps CQ readers can help here. The normal output of a heavy-water reactor produces plutonium -- so what do IAEA inspections gain? It doesn't sound like the Iranians risk much by having IAEA inspectors come through the reactor, nor does it appear that the IAEA gains anything at all.

Of course, the Iranians have an explanation for why they need the heavy water. They want to have Iranians drink it to cure cancer and AIDS. An Iranian nuclear-program official gave a tortured explanation of this almost a year ago:

Mohammad Sa'idi: One of the products of heavy water is depleted deuterium. As you know, in an environment with depleted deuterium, the reception of cancer cells and of the AIDS viruses is disrupted. Since this reception is disrupted, the cells are gradually expelled from the body. Obviously, one glass of depleted deuterium will not expel or cure the cancer or eliminate the AIDS. We are talking about a certain period of time. In many countries that deal with these diseases, patients use this kind of water instead of regular water, and consume it daily in order to heal their diseases.

In other words, the issue of heavy water has to do with matters of life and death, in many cases. One of the reasons that led us to produce heavy water was to use it for agricultural... medical purposes, and especially for industrial purposes in our country.

Perhaps the Iranians plan to show the IAEA how this works by having people drink the output of Arak. If so, the IAEA should insist that the test group includes Mohammed Sa'idi and Ari Larijani.

Idiots

Earlier today, a Hindu minister started to give the benediction on the Senate floor. This honor traditionally is offered to a diverse range of representatives of the many faiths that live together in peace and freedom in the United States, a testament to our belief in religious liberty. Unfortunately, he couldn't complete his benediction because of a few idiots who apparently believe that Christianity means acting rudely to others.

And as Americans, they're hardly the kind of ambassadors we need, either. The Times of India noticed the display:

Christian activists briefly disrupted a Hindu invocation in the US Senate on Thursday, marring a historic first for the chamber and showing that fundamentalism is present and shouting in the US too.

Invited by the Senate to offer Hindu prayers in place of the usual Christian invocation, Rajan Zed, a Hindu priest from Reno, Nevada, had just stepped up to the podium for the landmark occasion when three protesters, said to belong to the Christian Right anti-abortion group Operation Save America, interrupted by loudly asking for God's forgiveness for allowing the ''false prayer'' of a Hindu in the Senate chamber.

"Lord Jesus, forgive us father for allowing a prayer of the wicked, which is an abomination in your sight," the first protester shouted. "This is an abomination. We shall have no other gods before you."

Democratic Senator Bob Casey, who was serving as the presiding officer for the morning, immediately asked the sergeant-at-arms to restore order. But they continued to protest as they were headed out the door by the marshals, shouting, "No Lord but Jesus Christ!" and "There's only one true God!"

Yes, I'm sure that these mouthbreathers think they're spreading the Word. I have little doubt that they think they can convert the heathen by shouting at them, acting rudely, and comporting themselves as fools. That's why they left no doubt as to their idiocy, let alone their utter lack of hospitality.

Unfortunately, Ante Pavkovic, Kathy Pavkovic, and Kristen Sugar have company. The Reverend Flip Benham of Operation Save America immediately issued a press release scolding ... the Senate. "Not one Senator had the backbone to stand as our Founding Fathers stood," the flipped-out Benham wrote, even though nothing in the Federalist Papers indicate that the Senate acted rudely to Hindus as a matter of national policy.

Thank the Lord that this trio doesn't represent real Christians. They're great ambassadors for the numbnut contingent, however.

'This Bill Is About Politics'

The House just passed a resolution that demands a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. The final vote had more Democrats crossing over to oppose it (10) than Republicans crossing the aisle to support it (4), and it faces a certain veto if it even gets through the Senate:

Iraq has achieved only spotty military and political progress toward a democratic society, the Bush administration conceded Thursday, an unenthusiastic assessment followed quickly by a House vote to withdraw U.S. troops by spring.

The measure passed 223-201 in the Democratic-controlled House despite a veto threat from President Bush, who has ruled out any change in war policy before September. ...

A few hours after Bush's remarks, Democratic leaders engineered passage of legislation requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops to begin within 120 days, and to be completed by April 1, 2008. The measure envisions a limited residual force to train Iraqis, protect U.S. assets and fight al-Qaida and other terrorists.

Unfortunately, the AP writes the bill much more coherently than the Democrats in Congress did. The bill does not define the "residual force" in either size or scope, and it doesn't specify exactly what is meant by "other terrorists". In fact, it is useless as a military plan or as a public policy, and could get interpreted to maintain almost as many troops as are deployed at the moment.

John Shadegg pointed this out in his speech in opposition to the bill. Since his office has kindly provided it, I will post it here in its entirety. I have it in the extended entry, but this point seems the most germane:

First, it is a purely political document, hopelessly vague and meaningless. Let me explain why. The bill turns on two key terms. One, that the United States transition to a ‘limited presence’ in Iraq within the next 120 days; and, two, that the President provide a justification of the ‘minimum force levels required to protect the United States’ national security interests in Iraq.’

While I am pleased that the authors recognize that we are in Iraq to protect our national security interests, again, the legislation is hopelessly vague and therefore meaningless. Neither of these two key terms, ‘limited presence’ and ‘minimum force level required to protect U.S. national security interests,’ is defined. Oh, the bill has a definition section and other terms are defined, but ‘limited presence’ and ‘minimum force level required to protect U.S. national security interests’ aren’t defined. ...

The Chairman of the Armed Services Committee knows exactly why these terms are not defined, and indeed the Democratic Leadership knows why these terms are not defined. They are not defined because they need ambiguity. Indeed, ambiguity in this legislation is essential to its passage. They know that they can’t agree on what the meanings of these terms are. You see, if they defined ‘limited presence’ as too many troops, then their most liberal, most antiwar Members would not vote for the legislation. They couldn’t. And, if they defined limited presence too low, then their Blue Dog Members would not support the bill. Again, this bill is about beating up on the President and about scaring nervous Members of Congress.

This shows why the military cannot be run with 535 Commanders-in-Chief. This does nothing but make war policy especially murky and unwieldy. If this is the caliber of military thinking in the 110th Congress, it's even more imperative to rebuke them for their unconstitutional power grab.

“Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest respect for the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). I honor him and respect him deeply. But this legislation is deeply and fatally flawed. It will damage America and American interests for two reasons:

“First, it is a purely political document, hopelessly vague and meaningless. Let me explain why. The bill turns on two key terms. One, that the United States transition to a ‘limited presence’ in Iraq within the next 120 days; and, two, that the President provide a justification of the ‘minimum force levels required to protect the United States’ national security interests in Iraq.’

“While I am pleased that the authors recognize that we are in Iraq to protect our national security interests, again, the legislation is hopelessly vague and therefore meaningless. Neither of these two key terms, ‘limited presence’ and ‘minimum force level required to protect U.S. national security interests,’ is defined. Oh, the bill has a definition section and other terms are defined, but ‘limited presence’ and ‘minimum force level required to protect U.S. national security interests’ aren’t defined.

“You might ask yourself, why would the authors of the measure leave two such critically important terms undefined? Well, the answer is easy: because this bill is not about policy; this bill is about politics.

“The Chairman of the Armed Services Committee knows exactly why these terms are not defined, and indeed the Democratic Leadership knows why these terms are not defined. They are not defined because they need ambiguity. Indeed, ambiguity in this legislation is essential to its passage. They know that they can’t agree on what the meanings of these terms are. You see, if they defined ‘limited presence’ as too many troops, then their most liberal, most antiwar Members would not vote for the legislation. They couldn’t. And, if they defined limited presence too low, then their Blue Dog Members would not support the bill. Again, this bill is about beating up on the President and about scaring nervous Members of Congress.

“Again, let’s look at the other term, ‘minimum force levels required to protect U.S. national security interests.’ Why not define what the minimum is? Answer, again, if they define it too high, those who want out tonight and want out force levels at the lowest conceivable level couldn’t vote for the bill. And if they define it too low, then those who recognize we face a threat from Iran and other regions’ interests wouldn’t vote for the bill. It is deeply flawed for those reasons.

"And I would ask proponents of the bill what they would say if the President, as he could under the language of the bill, were to decide that ‘limited presence’ means 154,000 troops, just 1,000 fewer than we have now. That would comply with the letter of the bill, but it wouldn’t satisfy proponents of the bill.

“And what if the President, as he can under the language of the bill, were to define the term ‘minimum force level required to protect U.S. national interests’ not as 155,000 troops as we have today, but rather at 500,000 troops?

"You see, they can’t agree on those terms. I wonder how many of the Members realize that the critical terms in this bill aren’t defined.

“The bill is also flawed for a second reason, and that is that it reneges on the essential agreement Congress struck just 2 weeks ago. It is a little bit like Lucy pulling the football out from under Charlie Brown just before he kicks it. Here, don’t rely on my opinion; rely instead on today’s Washington Post. You see, today’s Washington Post editorial makes the case for me. The Washington Post, not exactly a conservative journal, says, ‘It seems like just weeks ago, because it was, that Congress approved funding for the war in Iraq and instructed General David H. Petraeus to report back on the war’s progress in September.’ Ladies and gentlemen, this isn’t September.

“The Post goes on to write, ‘Before Congress begins ordering withdrawals, it should at least give those generals the months they asked for to see whether their strategy can offer some hope.’ We owe it to those generals to give them, as the Washington Post says, the months they asked for, but, instead, we have given them 27 days.

“I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.”

Off With The BBC's Head!

The BBC issued a humiliating apology this afternoon after its promotional video of an upcoming documentary falsely portrayed Queen Elizabeth II as walking out on a photo shoot. The editing strongly suggested that the monarch stormed out of a session with Annie Leibovitz after a disagreement -- but it turns out that the footage was from her entrance, not exit:

The British Broadcasting Corp. apologized to Queen Elizabeth II on Thursday for saying she had walked out of portrait sitting with photographer Annie Leibovitz.

The BBC said a promotional trailer released Wednesday from the upcoming documentary, "A Year With the Queen," showed the monarch arriving, not departing.

That scene showed the queen walking down a Buckingham Palace corridor, wearing a crown and her Order of the Garter robes, and telling her lady-in-waiting: "I'm not changing anything. I've had enough dressing like this, thank you very much."

The Beeb blamed the error on the production company's editors. They also blamed the technicians in the broadcast booth for running the ad. They also blamed the producers for giving the footage back to the BBC. If we wait a couple of more days, the BBC will find a way to blame George Bush and the neocon cabal.

Of course, this does wonders for the credibility of the BBC. They've been using this promotional material to excite viewers about the new documentary. How many people will believe anything in it now, if the producers managed to put together sequences so out of context as to tell an outright lie?

And the best part of this is that the British government forces the Queen's subjects to subsidize this kind of performance. There's more than just a little irony there.

It could be worse. If this had happened a couple of centuries earlier, it wouldn't have been the Queen losing her head over it.

Tomorrow On CQ Radio: Charles Hill

Earlier this week, Rudy Giuliani announced the expansion of his advisory staff with new appointments on foreign policy. Among the distinguished new members of the staff are notables such as Norman Podhoretz, one of the original conservative thinkers and writers, as well as being the father of our friend at NRO and the New York Post, John Podhoretz; former Wisconsin Senator Bob Kasten; and Martin Kramer, the scholar and expert on Middle East studies, among others. The choices show Giuliani tilting to a solidly conservative national-security approach to foreign policy, undoubtedly intended to assure the GOP base about the direction of a Giuliani presidency.

The man in charge of the group, Charles Hill, will join me tomorrow morning at 10 am CT. Hill has served under George Schultz at State during the Reagan administration, following an extraordinary career in the foreign service that put him in the world's hot spots for 20 years: Viet Nam, Israel, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and other assignments. Hill also served the UN as a special advisor to then-Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali. We'll ask him about Rudy's policy direction, how Rudy will approach the issues in various hot spots of the world, and about Hill's own remarkable career.

Don't miss this show, and call in with your own questions!

CQ Radio: Joe Gandelman, The Moderate Voice

Today on CQ Radio (2 pm CT), I'll talk with Joe Gandelman of The Moderate Voice. We'll talk about centrism, both in the political world and in the blogosphere. We'll also talk about Unity '08, which Joe has championed, and the difficulties of piloting a group blog with such a diverse stable of writers.

Call 646-652-4889 to join the conversation!

UPDATE: Joe joined us about halfway into the program. He's a great guest, and hopefully we can have him back again soon. Tomorrow, we'll have Charles Hill from Rudy Giuliani's campaign, and we'll go at the special time of 10 am CT.

Also, you can subscribe to CQ Radio through iTunes now by clicking this link:

New Gallup Poll Challenges Assumptions

Gallup has its latest national polling on the presidential primaries, and it challenges a few recent assumptions. On the Democratic side, the addition of Al Gore has much less impact on the support for the two frontrunners. For Republicans, the addition of Thompson would shake up the race, but a more recent declaration of rigor mortis seems far off base:

With only about six months remaining before the Iowa caucuses, the races for the Republican and Democratic presidential nominations remain in a steady state. Republican Rudy Giuliani and Democrat Hillary Clinton continue to hold statistically significant leads over the rest of their respective fields of competitors. The most notable recent change this year has been on the Republican side, where John McCain's recent dip in the polls and Fred Thompson's recent gains have resulted in the two switching second and third places. Even though Al Gore would draw significant support for the Democratic nomination, recent polls suggest his entry would not alter the basic structure of that race. ...

Clinton leads the pack of Democratic hopefuls on both ballot measures, pulling in 37% support with Gore in the race and 42% with him factored out. Obama places second by a narrow margin with Gore in the race and a more comfortable margin when Gore's support is re-allocated. Gore draws 16%, essentially tying him for third with Edwards at 13% (Edwards' support is 16% without Gore.) No other candidate receives more than 4% support. ...

Giuliani continues to be the top choice of Republicans for his party's 2008 presidential nomination, with Fred Thompson following next, John McCain in third, and Mitt Romney in fourth. The percentage of support for these candidates varies little depending on whether reluctant candidate Newt Gingrich -- who is supported by only 6% of Republicans -- is included in the race. None of the remaining Republican candidates score higher than 3% in the poll.

John McCain seems to still have some life in the campaign. His numbers have dropped, but he still scores higher -- and raised more money -- than John Edwards did for his third-place finish. If Fred Thompson were to enter the race now, he might be able to bury his old friend by stripping him of the remainder of his support. The longer Fred waits to enter the race, the more opportunity McCain has to retool his campaign and make up lost ground. Now with rumor having Fred waiting until September, that window may be large enough to turn things around.

Giuliani still shows amazing strength, considering the attacks in Q2 before the immigration debate took the focus off the race. His strategy of getting the controversies out early appears to be working. He's doubled up on McCain and double-digits ahead of a non-campaigning Fred Thompson. He's made it to the point where most Republicans will give him a first or second choice position for the nomination, which indicates that he's been convincing on core principles of national security thus far, even if his domestic policies appear to diverge significantly from the GOP base.

Fred has to like these numbers as well, but he shouldn't spend too much time admiring them. At some point, voters will want to see him engage, and that point is coming fast. He's done a masterful job of running a non-campaign campaign, but he won't get solid support until he commits completely to the race.

For Democrats, especially the hard-left wing, the lack of impact of Al Gore's future entry into the race must be frustrating. Gore's entry does not apparently energize a large portion of the party. The activist Left appears split between Edwards and Obama, while Hillary retains a commanding lead under every possible configuration of the primary race. The challenge will be to see which darling of the Left will get drafted to bring ideological balance the ticket -- and that's not much of a guess. With Obama outperforming Hillary on fundraising and Edwards barely registering on contributions now, Edwards can't expect another shot at the bottom of the ticket.

One race looks to be all but over, while the other couldn't possibly be more wide open. It will be interesting to see when the Republicans start to coalesce around one particular candidate. It may wait until February 5th's near-national primary day.

TiVo And Podcasts, A Match Made In Podcaster Heaven

Millions of people own TiVos, but many have no idea how many features it has for the user. That includes me. I just discovered that TiVos that connect to the Internet through home networks can access podcasts, as well as a number of other services on the Web. And one of the podcasts you can access is my BlogTalkRadio show, CQ Radio.

If you have a Series 2 DVR from TiVo (not from DirecTV) and access to the Internet, select the extra features in Music, Photos, and More. One of the options there is Podcaster, and it has a number of preloaded links to a variety of commercially produced podcasts. It also has an option to add your own favorites to the TiVo system. All you need is the URL for the RSS feed of the podcast, which you have to enter manually using the remote and a virtual keyboard on the screen.

My normal RSS feed for the BlogTalkRadio show doesn't resolve properly through TiVo's system, unfortunately. However, I registered it with Feedburner -- and it works perfectly with TiVo now. The URL is:

http://feeds.feedburner.com/cqradio

My blog podcast feed -- for recordings outside of BTR -- also works with TiVo:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/podcasts/podcast.xml

I've added both to my TiVo system, and right now, the First Mate is listening to my interview with Nader Elguindi on our bedroom television. She can listen to my CQ Radio shows whenever she likes now, without having to hassle with the spare computer to access it. It's delivered to the TiVo system automatically. I've also added Glenn and Helen Reynolds' Instapundit podcasts to the TiVo, and I'm looking forward to catching up on what I've missed.

If you have TiVo, give it a try. It's the best way to podcast at home that I've seen!

The Laughingstock Of Teheran

Have you heard the joke about the president of Iran -- or more accurately, the joke that is the president of Iran? Monica Maggioni at Foreign Policy reports that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has become a laughingstock in Iran, and not just among the hoi polloi waiting in hours-long gas lines. Even the ruling elite have started snickering up their sleeves, but the punch line may not be humorous at all:

Since his election in June 2005, Iranians have had conflicted feelings about their president. At first, he evoked interest and curiosity. And there were great expectations from this humble man who was promising economic reform, an anticorruption campaign, and a rigid moral scheme for daily life. Then came fear—when Ahmadinejad began to destroy any chance of good relations with the outside world.

But today in Iran, laughter is supplanting fear. Mocking the president has become a pastime not only for rebellious university students, but also members of the establishment and the government itself.

Behind the high walls of Iranian palaces or in the quiet of Tehran’s parks, Iranian elites will indulge in a quick laugh about the president’s intelligence or his populist bombast. Jokes about his résumé are especially popular. Many refer to his “Ph.D. in traffic” or his letter last May to U.S. President George W. Bush, in which he proclaimed, “I am a teacher.”

The jokes—and who is delivering them—tell the story of a man whose power is on the decline as Iran’s economy collapses around him. Prices for basic goods are skyrocketing, and the government is unable to cope with increasing poverty. Just last month, over 50 Iranian economists sent an open letter excoriating the president’s mismanagement of the economy.

For each public gathering, his loyalists must now arrange hundreds of buses from the remotest and poorest regions of the country. The president’s rented crowds shuffle off the buses for an hour or two and then enjoy Tehran sightseeing, lunch, and dinner paid for by Ahmadinejad’s inner circle in the administration.

The rapid disillusionment with Ahmadinejad comes as no surprise to anyone paying attention to Iran. Their economy has skidded from stagnation to catastrophic. Under the direction of the mullahcracy, Ahmadinejad's pursuit of nuclear weapons has allowed the US to isolate Iran diplomatically and economically as the entire world worries about having the finger on the button belong to a man who holds conferences on wiping out Israel. That has created an enormous burden on an economy that had its share of problems without it -- and now a country that relies on oil exports can't even put gas in their own tanks.

It's easy to lay all of this onto Ahmadinejad. That's why fools can be so very handy for those who actually wield power. Maggioni reports that those who seek to supplant Ahmadinejad have no plans for re-engagement with the West by offering better terms, but instead may be even more hardline than Ahmadinejad. Ari Larijani, for instance, has fronted the nuclear weapons program for years and has built his own constituency with the ruling elite He's the most likely candidate to replace Ahmadinejad in 2009, when the mullahs will stage the next election.

The replacement of Ahmadinejad with a competent administrator may set back the cause of Iranian freedom for years. The damage Ahmadinejad does to the mullahcracy that endorsed him will dissipate with a more competent leader, if Larijani proves to be that. Ahmadinejad creates hostility among the Iranian populace, where Larijani almost certainly would handle himself with more aplomb than the former mayor of Teheran.

That has implications in foreign policy as well. Will the nations of the West remain united against Iran when the leadership stops fantasizing aloud about a world without Israel and conducting Holocaust-denial conferences? From what we have already seen of Western tenacity in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and the like, we may not like the answer we get.

That's why the Laughingstock of Teheran may be the best option, at least until Iran gets nuclear weapons. Winston Churchill once remarked that the worst kings produced the biggest strides for liberty while analyzing the circumstances surrounding the Magna Carta. An incompetent in Teheran keeps the pressure on the mullahcracy in all the right ways.

That's Wishful Thinking In Itself

The Washington Post editorial board scolds leading anti-war Democrats for their wishful thinking on the consequences of a withdrawal from Iraq. The essay informs them that just wishing that Iraq isn’t the central front of the war on terror doesn’t make it so, and that the rush to pull out now when Congress had agreed to wait for September seems inexplicable. It would be inexplicable indeed — if the problem was just wishful thinking.

At Heading Right, I argue that the consequences of withdrawal now will lead to a regional conflict, one in which almost every nation in Southwest Asia would be tempted to participate. At the very least, a retreat leaves significant portions of Iraq in the hands of al-Qaeda, giving them another free and clear base of operations against the West. We would only have to return after the next massive attack, and it would be much more costly to re-invade Iraq.

The Post's notion that anti-war activists indulge in wishful thinking about the benefits of withdrawal to Iraq is itself a case of wishful thinking. This is all about political expediency -- and don't expect the Democrats to actually prevail in these efforts. Their proposals are not meant to succeed, but to shift responsibility for the failure to withdraw onto Republicans.

If the Democrats wanted a withdrawal, they would simply cut off the funding for the deployment. No one disputes that they have that power -- but the Democrats don't want to take responsibility for what comes afterwards. It's not wishful thinking but political expediency that drives their efforts this summer.

Promises, Promises

The Democrats made a lot of promises in the last electoral cycle, most of which they have yet to fulfill: serious earmark reform, action on a long list of legislative priorities, ending the power of lobbyists, and so on. Not only have voters learn to live with bitter disappointment from the worst Do-Nothing Congress in decades, but even Arlen Specter has been surprised by the level of mendacity by the opposition. The ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, who has served as a moderate enabler on some of the Democratic attacks on the administration, expressed his frustration about broken promises on judicial confirmations, which have ground to a halt:

Specter has accused Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) of breaking promises they made regarding Leslie Southwick, President Bush’s pick for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Specter aired his grievance with Reid and Leahy during a private meeting with leading conservative activists late Tuesday afternoon. Specter told those assembled that he was prepared to battle Democrats and asked if they also had an appetite for a fight, according to several people who attended the meeting. The activists assured Specter that they were eager to confront the Democrats on Southwick. ...

Republican discontent over the progress of Southwick’s nomination reached a boiling point Tuesday because early in the day Reid told Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Southwick’s chief advocate in the Senate, that the nomination had no hope of confirmation, according to GOP sources.

Reid stabbed Specter in the back by giving Leahy the green light to torpedo Southwick. Russ Feingold objected to a voice vote in the Judiciary Committee, and the nomination stalled there without a vote. Specter insists that the Democrats agreed to allow Southwick to have a vote on confirmation by the full Senate, and now they have used a parliamentary trick on him to derail a confirmation vote Specter thought he could deliver.

Now Specter wants conservative activists to start generating heat and outrage over this betrayal. That makes sense, but Specter's the last man to stand in front of conservatives and demand satisfaction for a betrayal. Many think Specter betrayed them more than once over judges, and Specter never had any fondness for conservative activists inserting themselves into the confirmation debate before now. In fact, he has been rather dismissive of grassroots support for specific nominees.

Apparently, it's different when it's his ox being gored. What a shock!

The case against Southwick seems rather poor in any case. The Democrats have tried to scotch the nomination because he joined a majority ruling upholding custody of an eight-year-old boy to his father, rather than his lesbian mother, which used the word "homosexual" in his opinion rather than the word "gay". He also ruled with the majority in reinstating a fired state employee who used a racial epithet at work. He didn't write either opinion, and no one argues that these decisions didn't comply with the law. The ABA unanimously gave Southwick its highest rating.

Democrats want to play politics with judicial confirmations -- again. They have more power to do so now that they have the majority. A failure to recommend confirmation from the committee does not equate to a filibuster, however, and the Republicans did the same thing to some of Bill Clinton's nominees. The difference here is that Specter got his feelings hurt, and now wants conservatives to fight his battles for him when two years ago he had no use for us whatsoever.

We should champion Southwick, and we should tell Specter to pound sand.

Jawad Interview Transcript, Part 1

Whenever I have a great interview subject on CQ Radio, I get e-mails asking for transcripts. That process takes a little bit of time; my transcriber likes to make sure it gets done correctly, and of course she can't start until the show is complete. However, in the case of my interview with Ambassador Said T. Jawad of Afghanistan, many people have an interest in amplifying the remarks made by the Ambassador. One enterprising blogger, Jeff Kouba of the re-launched Peace Like A River, took on the job himself. He's transcribed the first half of the interview -- and here's a taste:

CQ: Some critics in our country who are opposed to intervention in this region say that long lasting democracy is really not a possibility for Afghanistan, for Iraq, or other nations in that region, and that we should be directing our efforts in different directions. Some of my readers have asked, first off, do you find that criticism [inaudible], and secondly, how would you respond to those critics?

Ambassador Jawad: If democracy means having the peace of mind of going to bed without fearing the secret police, if democracy means having an opportunity to send your daughter to school, if democracy means the possibility of having a decent medical treatment, and being able to express your mind, this is what every human being deserves and demands.

What we are doing in Afghanistan is what of course the Afghan people demand. They would like to have security. They would like to have their village to be connected to the next city so they can prosper economically, so they can sell their products to the markets. All of these measures are the nation of human beings. We all demand freedom. We all hate dictatorship. I don't think that anywhere in the world anybody is either trying or it is possible to impose democracy... Democracy is not imposed, it is a value of a human being. What is being imposed is dictatorship. What you are doing in Afghanistan is trying to prevent others to impose dictatorship and despotism to the Afghan people. [The Taliban are] are teaching people what kind of clothes to wear, schools to go, and this is what you're trying to do, is to end despotism and dictatorship. You're not imposing democracy, you're preventing others from imposing dictatorship on the Afghan people, and to the region, and if they get their way, to the world.

CQ: So you don't see, and the Afghan people don't see, the American effort and the Western effort in Afghanistan as some sort of an imperial effort to colonize Afghanistan in a certain direction?

Ambassador Jawad: Certainly not. You and I, Afghans and Americans, were partners in fighting the Soviets. Our biggest complaint was that you left us when the Soviets were gone. So we were asking for your engagement, we were demanding that. There is so much extremism introduced in the small nation of Afghanistan, that we as Afghans would not be able to save our country without your assistance. It took 9/11 for you to come back to assist us, and we appreciate this very much and we have to work together to prevent another 9/11. That would be a disaster for us, for you, for humanity. But definitely the engagement of the international community in Afghanistan is very much welcome. Of course there are frustrations. When the military operations are conducted in a way that civilians die, or when the expectation of the Afghan people are not met, but there is certainly not resentment. The hope of the Afghan people is to rebuild their country through the partnership of the international community.

I think this may have been the most interesting comment from Ambassador Jawad. "Cultural imperialism" is a frequent criticism of the United States, and often used as an accusation of why terrorists hate us. As you can see here and hear later in the interview as well, Ambassador Jawad rejects the notion entirely and speaks about his gratitude for international assistance -- and reminds us that it came rather late.

Be sure to check out all of Jeff's transcription. I'll have my own up at Heading Right soon, but I thank Jeff for volunteering his time to make sure that everyone has a chance to take in Ambassador Jawad's wise counsel.

A Long Term Investment?

After researchers found a beneficial side effect while testing the blood pressure medicine Sildenafil -- better known as Viagra -- the pharmaceuticals have discovered the vast market for sexual-enhacement medications. They tend to play on the insecurities men and women have had for millenia about performance. Now Johnson & Johnson want to tackle the Great White Whale of male insecurity, but the Food and Drug Administration questions the need to medicate men into having more staying power:

In the hunt for a new sex pill for men, Johnson & Johnson has staying power.

The health-products giant hasn't given up on what it hopes will become the first drug approved for premature ejaculation, even though the U.S. Food and Drug Administration rejected it in 2005. Regulators questioned whether helping men last longer during sex was a clear medical benefit, and may have had concerns about side effects of the drug, dapoxetine.

Other companies -- including New York-based Pfizer Inc., the maker of Viagra -- have scrapped experimental drugs for the condition since the FDA's thumbs down for Johnson & Johnson's.

Now, Johnson & Johnson will test its luck with dapoxetine outside the U.S. The New Brunswick, N.J., company plans to file for regulatory approval of dapoxetine in some European countries later this year, and also plans to submit it for approval in Canada. Johnson & Johnson hasn't ruled out a second try for FDA approval to sell the drug to American men.

The FDA rejected the drug earlier, not because of any significant issues or side effects, but because they rejected the notion that premature ejaculation qualifies as a disease. Some men may differ, but the FDA took the position that the issue does not require medication at all. They may have been reacting to the backlash against Viagra and Cialis, which created some controversy over the investment of pharmaceuticals into what was seen as less-than-serious issues when other more serious but less marketable conditions escape their attention. Erectile dysfunction at least qualifies as an obstacle to procreation, while this doesn't qualify at all.

It's a losing battle, at least on two fronts. First, J&J will take the drug to Europe. It's been proven effective, although the trials use an amusing method: the women use stopwatches during coitus. European administrators will not likely block its production, simply based on the economics. Many people don't realize that Viagra primarily got produced in Ireland, where Pfizer's investment helped contribute to the Celtic Tiger. Europe won't mind another boost in economic fortunes, especially if the US hands them the manufacturing market.

Second, if it does get manufactured in Europe, it will be sold in the US whether the FDA likes it or not. The global market in pharmaceuticals will ensure that American men can access the drug, and spammers will facilitate those transactions. It will take less time than the announced performance improvement between the European launch of the drug and the first American purchase. The only effect the FDA's rejection will have on the drug will be to increase the price.

I'm not necessarily opposed to the FDA, as some conservatives and libertarians are. It does good work in forcing pharmaceuticals to do the proper testing before selling potentially dangerous chemicals to sick people. Some, like Vioxx, still make it through, but we would have hundreds of Vioxx stories if the FDA closed up shop. In this case, though, they are making essentially a consumer choice rather than a safety choice, and they should reconsider their decision.

Addendum: I've always wanted to remark on this, but never had a post in which I could do so -- but isn't it more than a little ironic that so many web sites try to sell Viagra in the form of soft tabs?

Iraq Report To Be Mixed Bag

The White House report on Iraq will show mixed progress on benchmarks demanded by Congress, ABC News reports tonight. The Iraqi government has made satisfactory progress on almost half of the benchmarks, almost all related to security, while disappointing on most of the political goals:

An eagerly awaited White House report on Iraq will be released tomorrow, which will claim the Iraqi government has made satisfactory progress on 8 of the 18 benchmarks set by Congress.

This is the first assessment of the Iraqi government's success rate since President Bush ordered the troop surge in January. White House officials tell ABC News' Jonathan Karl the report will cite encouraging signs that should eventually lead to a reduction of U.S. forces in Iraq.

The report notes that progress is "satisfactory" on eight of the benchmark criteria, mostly dealing with the Iraqi security forces.

This actually sounds better than the initial buzz on the report. Early rumors had Iraq failing to make progress on any of the eighteen benchmarks. ABC has eight apiece as satisfactory and unsatisfactor, with two as "mixed".

The successes are obvious. Chief among them is the reversal of fortunes in Anbar, which many had considered so intractable that it should have just been abandoned. Now the province has been rid of terrorists and life has begun to return to normal. The move to Diyala and Baqubah appear to be having the same effect there. The report stresses that the full complement of surge forces has only been in Iraq for three weeks, and that these early results show the potential of wider success against terrorists -- and that they have even garnered support from native insurgents eager to drive out foreigners.

However, the surge has always been considered a way to gain enough breathing room to allow the Iraqi government to start pursuing the necessary political reforms for reconciliation. The report, not surprisingly, assesses the Iraqis as having made little progress towards those benchmarks. This could result in a suspension of non-military aid to the central Iraqi government as a penalty for not taking the reforms demanded by the US seriously.

More likely, the Bush administration will give the Iraqis a pass on this first benchmark test -- but Congress will probably not give the White House a pass on it.

Fred On The Nature Of Representation

Fred Thompson sent an essay over to my good friends at Power Line to discuss the nature of legal representation -- and what it means for the lawyers. He notes that the current smear tactic of branding the attorney with the views of the client has been tried by his opponents before. Of course, Fred hasn't lost a race yet:

A lawyer who is a candidate or a prospective candidate for office finds himself in an interesting position because of the nature of the legal profession and the practice of law. This is true when the practice was as varied as mine, and it’s especially true when the office being considered is the Presidency of the United States.

The easiest and most generally used tactic when running against a lawyer is to trade off a general perception that most people dislike lawyers. Goodness knows that a lot of lawyers have earned disfavor but, as it turns out, folks understand our system better than a lot of politicians think they do. In my first run for the Senate, my opponent tried the old demagoguery route – “He has even represented criminals!” – to no avail.

A first cousin of this ploy is to associate the lawyer with the views of his client. Now-United States Chief Justice John Roberts addressed this notion during his confirmation hearings. “… [I]t’s a tradition of the American Bar that goes back before the founding of the country that lawyers are not identified with the positions of their clients. The most famous example probably was John Adams, who represented the British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre.”

Roberts pointed out that Adams was actually vindicating the rule of law. Every person, unpopular or not, is entitled to representation. He further said, “That principle that you don’t identify the lawyer with the particular views of the client or the views that the lawyer advances on behalf of the client, is critical to the fair administration of justice.

Be sure to read the entire essay. Not only is it well written, entertaining, and effective, but Fred chose the perfect forum in which to publish it.

AQ Opens A New Front

The management of al-Qaeda has obviously not learned much from history. They want to open a new front in their assault on humanity, this time in Pakistan, over the military's seizure of the Red Mosque:

Al-Qaida's deputy leader issued a video Wednesday calling for Pakistanis to wage a holy war against their government in retaliation for the attack by Pakistan's army on the Red Mosque in Islamabad.

Ayman al-Zawahri's 4-minute, 24-second address focused entirely on the clashes between Islamic students and Pakistan's army at the mosque.

Zawahiri spends a lot of his time on recruitment these days. Just a few days ago, he asked volunteers to go to Iraq to fight the Americans there, and to tell Iraqis to play nice with his foreign terrorists. He's also tried to get lunatics to attack European and American targets. Now he wants to add a front in Pakistan, where he can keep an especially close eye on operations.

That should prompt questions about his effectiveness. He's holed up in the Pakistani provinces of Waziristan, among Islamist friends. Why does he need to release a taped demand for jihad on the Internet? Surely his inspiring leadership should allow him to raise a small army in the rugged Pakistani frontier where he lives. Why doesn't he just place himself at the head of such forces, sweeping out of the mountains to bring Allah's wrath onto the infidels of Pervez Musharraf?

Probably because he knows that he'd die the same kind of death as Enver Pasha -- cut down in a frontal assault against a modern Soviet army, cutlass in one hand and the Qur'an in the other. Zawahiri prefers to have others do his dying for him. One could call it "martyrdom by proxy," and now he wants to expand the franchise to his own neighborhood. His recruits should ask themselves why the #2 man in AQ won't poke his head out of the cave on his own.

CQ Radio: Ambassador Jawad Replay And Your Comments

Today on CQ Radio (2 pm CT), I'll replay the interview with Ambassador Said T Jawad of Afghanistan, which some missed due to technical problems on Monday. The BlogTalkRadio blog links to Air Congress, which kindly noted the unique opportunity this provides listeners. Afterwards, I'll take your calls in reaction to the Ambassador's remarks as well as discuss other topics of the day -- such as the defeat of the Webb amendment, the McCain campaign travails and my analysis of it, and more. Call 646-652-4889 to join the conversation!

Also, you can subscribe to CQ Radio through iTunes now by clicking this link:

Webb Amendment Fails, Top GOP Candidates Back Away From Surge

One of the contentious bills offered in the Senate to handcuff the President into a withdrawal from Iraq died on the floor this afternoon. Jim Webb (D-VA) offered what was essentially the 2006 John Murtha plan to use forced rotation requirements to bring down troop levels in Iraq, but his amendment failed to gain cloture:

Senators lacked the four votes needed Wednesday to bring to the floor a Democrat-sponsored amendment that would have set restrictions on U.S. troop rotations in Iraq and Afghanistan, to give troops more time at home.

The tally for the procedural motion was 56 to 41. Sixty votes were required to cut off debate on the amendment so a vote could be held.

Under the proposal by Jim Webb, D-Virginia, military personnel who return from deployments would have had to remain stateside for at least as long as they spent overseas, before they could be sent back.

The vote was being seen as a test of whether Democrats have gained enough momentum from disaffected Republican senators to begin forcing changes in the U.S. strategy in Iraq.

The amendment generated more discussion of the Constitutionality of Congressional actions to micromanage troop deployments. Webb argued that the Constitution gave Congress responsibility for maintaining the armed forces and therefore the authority to determine how to use the forces. Opponents argued that the law would interfere with a Commander-in-Chief's authority to apply resources, and not just in Iraq, either.

Seven Republicans broke ranks and supported Webb, but it wasn't enough in the end. Hot Air notes that all but one of them stand for election next year: Sens. Norm Coleman (Minn.), Susan Collins (Maine), Gordon Smith (Ore.), John Sununu (N.H.), Olympia Snowe (Maine), Chuck Hagel (Nebraska) and John Warner (Va.). It didn't end with the Senate, either, as the Los Angeles Times reports that Republican presidential hopefuls have begun to distance themselves from the administration's efforts in Iraq:

As President Bush struggles to maintain support in Congress for his Iraq "surge" strategy, the three leading Republican presidential contenders have been quietly backing away from any commitment to continue the buildup.

Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson have made it clear that their original support for the escalation does not mean they are signed on to keeping the current 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, even as they have laid out hawkish positions on other aspects of foreign policy.

Their recent moves underscore the president's growing isolation on Iraq as the GOP begins searching for a post-Bush foreign policy. The shifts also distance the three top contenders from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the former front-runner who Tuesday reaffirmed his commitment to the troop escalation.

With doubts about Iraq policy growing even among conservative voters, "there's very little percentage in getting too far in front on the issue," said John J. Pitney Jr., a Claremont McKenna College government studies professor. "If you put all your chips on the surge, you could end up a big loser."

Or, one could also say, a big winner, if the surge strategy succeeds in allowing enough space for the Iraqis to take over their own security. Even the native insurgents seem to allow for extended American efforts and to assist them in ridding Iraq of al-Qaeda, as long as we promise to leave shortly thereafter. Michael Yon reports this in an extraordinary interview with a commander in the native-insurgency 1920 Brigades:

Unfortunately, we had to go to other meetings, so the time for taping was short. In closing, I asked Abu Ali if there was something he would like to say to Americans. The markets that had been closed under al Qaeda were bustling around us.

Ali thought for a moment as some local people tried to interrupt him with greetings, and he said, “I ask one thing,” and now I paraphrase Ali’s words: “After the Iraqi Army and Police take hold and the security forces are ready, we want a schedule for the leaving of the American forces.”

“I will tell the Americans this,” I said. Ali seemed satisfied as he went off with another American unit. We loaded back into the Stryker and headed to other interesting meetings on other interesting matters, all dealing with the grinding gears of winning or losing this war, and with catching and killing al Qaeda.

At the moment, we seem to have generated a measure of Iraqi unity against the real lunatics of AQI. If so, we risk making many factions in Iraq look like fools for trusting us to stick to the job to the end if we run out before that point, and the loss of credibility would probably be permanent in a region with long memories. The administration will have to start planning for that eventuality if the GOP starts wavering on a surge that really has just gotten started, and if Congress attempts to wrest command of the armed forces from the executive.

How Many Times Will McCain's Political Obituary Run?

After yesterday's exodus at Team McCain, pundits lined up declare John McCain's presidential aspirations dead, and perhaps his Senate career as well. Most of the newspapers followed suit, doing everything but have pipers sound "Amazing Grace" across the Potomac. One exception comes from the Wall Street Journal, which notes that the struggling fortunes of the campaign almost demanded a housecleaning if McCain was to remain in the race:

Yesterday's shakeup of John McCain's top campaign staff is giving the media who once loved him a chance to bury his Presidential campaign. But it's also possible the shakeup will give his candidacy another chance to connect with the priorities of GOP primary voters.

In the mainstream media telling, the decline of Mr. McCain's campaign is a modern Greek tragedy: He rose as a brave reformer who defied GOP orthodoxy, then fell as he gave up the iconoclast's mantle to court conservatives and defend the Iraq war. This is the history of a Republican campaign as told by journalists who never vote Republican. ...

Down in the polls, Mr. McCain can also afford to take a few policy risks that might cause voters to give him another look. Tax reform would be one issue on which he could break from the GOP pack, and free-market health care is one on which he could contrast with Mr. Romney's Massachusetts mandates. We hear that the staffers who departed yesterday include some who opposed bolder policy proposals. When you're the former front-runner, you have nothing to gain by playing it safe.

I've always considered McCain a long shot to win the nomination. As the WSJ notes, he's alienated almost all of the Republican factions at one time or another, whether when opposing the Bush tax cuts, championing the BCRA, or pushing comprehensive immigration reform. All of that had been known at the beginning of the primary campaign, though, and McCain started off at a surprising strong second place, which he maintained until just the last few weeks. He has not done anything that reversed any of his previous policy stands -- and therefore the campaign itself has to be the big problem.

That's why a big shakeup doesn't represent the "wheels falling off" that other pundits have insisted. The wheels already started to come off, and McCain wants to put them back on to move in a different direction. The earlier layoffs came from a simple lack of funds, but these departures speak directly to direction and strategy, the two failures of the 2008 campaign.

What went wrong? The man who played Maverick suddenly got a bad case of Ivory Tower. McCain does best when he avoids the sound bite and plays directly to the people. When he holds town halls, voters respond to him. Instead of pursuing that strategy, his campaign placed him behind velvet ropes.

Here's one example from New Hampshire, where McCain has tremendous popularity. The campaign started heavily vetting those voters invited to ride along with McCain on the bus, which reflected a big message-control push that conflicts with the "Straight Talk" approach favored by McCain. It was also completely unnecessary, as McCain knows almost everyone active in politics there. It is symptomatic of his campaign team's effort to put space between McCain and the voters, which was exactly the wrong strategy for McCain.

McCain's decision to clear the decks will put him squarely in command of his campaign. That may not be a great development; seasoned activists know that a campaign does best when a dispassionate analyst runs the ship. However, McCain knows now that he needs to reconnect with voters, get back to taking risks, and demonstrating the kind of joy he did in 2000.

From this point, expect less handling, more direct engagement with ordinary voters, and a return of outspokenness and, yes, the Maverick. McCain didn't go through the pain of this housekeeping to quit next week. He's still tied for third in the national polls and able to raise over $11 million in a quarter when his immigration bill stoked rage throughout the base. Those who keep writing his political obituaries will have to explain how a dead man can do all of that and still keep campaigning. In this field, anything can happen.

Gonzo Does A Double Clinton, With A Twist

Embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has created even more trouble for himself with Congress. In April 2005, he told the Senate that the FBI had not committed "one verified case of civil liberties abuse" after 2001. However, two of his aides now confirm that they had informed Gonzales of hundreds of violations before that testimony, which would directly conflict with that testimony.

At Heading Right, I look at the two responses from Justice on why Gonzales' testimony should not be considered false. In one, Gonzales takes a page from Hillary Clinton's defense of her vote to authorize war against Iraq, and in the other Justice relies on definition-parsing that evokes Bill Clinton's treatment of the word is. Neither reflects well on Gonzales' credibility or competency, and it makes clear that the White House should have dumped Gonzales long ago.

Did Fred Thompson Want To Dump Party Platforms?

A column by CBN's David Brody discusses statements by Fred Thompson in 1996, when he ran for re-election to a full term in the Senate, about the uselessness of party platforms. Saying that the Republicans "deserve to lose" if they spent the convention arguing over planks in the GOP platform, Fred suggested that no one cared about the end result of the debate:

First off, it appears Thompson wasn't a big fan of the GOP having any sort of platform back in 1996. In April of 1996, this is what The Memphis Commercial Appeal wrote: Thompson wants to change the way the 1996 Republican National Convention is conducted. For starters, he wants to abolish the party platform - just toss the archaic thing away. 'It's the most useless device I've ever heard of,' Thompson said during a recent visit to Memphis."

Thompson also said this in a separate article from April of 1996:
Thompson: "Does Anyone Remember What Was In The Last , Except Abortion? … If We Get Caught Up In Having A Platform Debate And Stuff Like That, We Deserve To Lose."

In August of that same year, Thompson called abortion a "distracting issue." Read below from an Associated Press article:
U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson says he seldom hears about abortion in campaign travels throughout Tennessee and hopes the issue is downplayed at the Republican National Convention. The Tennessee Republican, a pro-choice defender in a party with an anti-abortion tilt, is preparing for next week's convention in San Diego. He said the party must avoid distracting issues and focus on electing Bob Dole as president. 'We need to concentrate on what brings us together and not what divides us,' Thompson said in an interview with The Tennessean published Tuesday.

First, it should be noted that the AP couldn't get the record straight on Fred's abortion position as far back as 1996. Thompson wasn't pro-choice then or now. What Thompson argued was the prioritization of abortion as an issue in the 1996 elections, saying that voters had other priorities and that the GOP needed to focus on Dole's other qualities more. He wanted to do what Clinton had done in the previous election -- remain on topic on those issues that united Americans.

That was one of the reasons why Thompson wanted to ditch the platform. Especially after Pat Buchanan's appearance in 1992, Thompson wanted a unified convention, which he knew the Republicans needed to gain any momentum against Bill Clinton. Platform fights typically generate a lot of anger and passion and leave plenty of hard feelings -- and for what? How many voters read the party platform anyway? They generally exist to give the opposition some easy ammunition to use in general elections. Candidates rarely adopt the platform in its entirety, for the simple reason that they don't agree with all of it.

So, considering the vulnerabilities it imposes on individual candidates, the arguments and disunity it causes when drafting it, and the complete and utter lack of interest from voters, I think the question should be asked again: why have a platform at all? Brody says that the party should have a document which delineates "the principles that unite us," but that's not what a platform is or does. It's not a simple declaration of principles, which might tend to unite, but a lengthy and detailed list of policy positions that tend to divide us.

I'd say a Declaration of Principles sounds like a great idea. It should be left to the candidates to apply those principles to their own policy decisions, and then defend those positions in primary elections. Thompson was right in 1996, and his advice should probably get heeded in 2008.

UPDATE: Of course, the AP and Brody miss the fact that Thompson was campaigning for Robert Dole at the time, and the issue on the abortion plank of the platform was how to keep from alienating libertarian and pro-choice Republicans. This is why Dole and Thompson offered language endorsing "tolerance" for opposing points of view for a Constitutional amendment banning abortions altogether. William F Buckley himself questioned the usefulness of that approach and of platforms altogether:

But one recalls here the critic Hugh Kenner's stricture that writers should not hang their meaning on the correct placement of a comma. Mr. Kenner was talking about newspapers and the necessary hustle and bustle of going to press every day. The Pro-Life people are talking about back-of-the-bus treatment on abortion. If the platform goes out of the way to express "tolerance" for deviation on abortion, doesn't that make it sound as though abortion were uniquely privileged to emerge as the issue on which ambivalence is permitted? After all, there's nothing proposed for the platform that expresses tolerance for those who oppose Social Security laws, or a federal post office, or free lunches for children. ...

What does not make much sense, to partisans either of Life or of Choice, is Bob Dole's attempt to play with words. We all know, or should, that political platforms are there to be seen but not acted on. It hurts the theatrical stand one wants to take to say this out in the open. But surely there are ways out of this.

Abbas: Hamas Allowing AQ Infiltration Of Gaza

Mahmoud Abbas knows what buttons to push in the West in order to keep his rivals in Hamas marginalized. In an interview on an Italian television program, Abbas accused Hamas of allowing al-Qaeda to infiltrate Gaza now that Fatah has been pushed aside. Hamas denies it, but it will be difficult for them to prove it:

Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, has accused his rivals in Hamas of having opened the door to Al Qaeda in Gaza.

In an interview on Monday with Italy’s RAI TV, Mr. Abbas, of Fatah, said, “Thanks to the support of Hamas, Al Qaeda is entering Gaza.”

The charge, denied by Hamas, underscored the depth of Mr. Abbas’s hostility toward Hamas since it seized control of Gaza nearly a month ago in a rout of Fatah forces.

A Hamas spokesman in Gaza, Sami Abu Zuhri, responded that Hamas had “no links” to Al Qaeda, adding that Mr. Abbas was “trying to mislead international opinion to win support for his demand to deploy international forces in Gaza.”

Regardless of whether al-Qaeda has set up shop in Gaza or not, the policies of Hamas are similar enough to AQ to warrant the comparison. They both spring from Muslim Brotherhood origins, and they both want to impose radical Islamist rule in areas under their control. Both of them want to wipe Israel off the map, and in this point of convergence, an alliance certainly seems more likely than Hamas' insistence that they need no assistance from "this group or that group".

Isabel Kershner points out one key observation about this interview, which is Abbas' obvious hostility towards Hamas. It has grown into a very public and deadly rivalry, the result of the Gaza rebellion -- but perhaps more calculated than heartfelt. Abbas sees an opportunity to set the West Bank up as a model of the "good Palestinian" -- the one who wants an end to occupation in a two-state solution. Hamas then represents the "bad Palestinian" who supports terrorism and genocide, intractable and deaf to negotiations. That kind of staging gets Abbas more Western aid, which means more power, and most critically, a less radicalized populace and more security for Abbas himself.

Abbas has a stake in the peace process that he didn't have before. That may not make him an honest broker, but if he's smart, he'll see that he has only a narrow window now in which to deliver any kind of improvement for Palestinians. If he can't get Israel to the bargaining table with some serious concessions, the West Bank will opt for Hamas instead, and Abbas will likely be the first one up against the wall.

His demand for an international force to secure Gaza is unlikely to be honored, though, and even Abbas knows it. What country will send its troops into Gaza for Hamas to butcher them, and to what purpose? Israel's occupation of Gaza is instructive. They knew how to keep the lid on Gaza, but in the end it did no good at all. After their withdrawal, Palestinians finally understood the benefits of Israeli management in Gaza, but those days are gone. If the Israelis have to return, it won't be for a lengthy occupation, and no other nation will bother at all.

Abbas doesn't need Gaza now anyway. Hamas loses credibility by the day trying to run Gaza, and that benefits Abbas. Eventually the people of Gaza will have to find a way to conduct a counter-coup against the Islamist nutcases, and when they do, Hamas will be completely discredited -- even if al-Qaeda comes to their rescue.

AQ Cell On The Way To The US?

ABC News reported last night that US officials believe that an al-Qaeda cell is either coming to America, or has already arrived, to conduct a terrorist attack. In reviewing some of the communications from the failed attacks in Britain, analysts believe they have uncovered other coded messages in e-mail traffic that points to an attack here, although the White House denies that they have any evidence of an imminent threat:

Senior U.S. intelligence officials tell ABC News new intelligence suggests a small al Qaeda cell is on its way to the United States, or may already be here.

The White House has convened an urgent multi-agency meeting for Thursday afternoon to deal with the new threat. ...

Law enforcement officials say the recent failed attacks in London have provided important new clues about possible tactics.

And officials say the London attackers use of the Internet left important clues that are being used to decode other e-mails that had initially been deemed unimportant but are now taking on new significance.

Concern should always be high about AQ attempts to attack America. We pay a lot of people to remain very concerned about that very possibility, and just the fact that AQ staged attacks in Britain should lead us to at least strongly consider that they're going to try it here as well. However, the attacks in Britain did not get carried out by recent arrivals to that country; the perpetrators entered the UK over a two-year period and established themselves in professional jobs. That follows the same pattern as the 9/11 attackers here, although the "muscle" hijackers only came to the US three months prior to the attacks.

The White House acknowledges the concern, but in the response given to ABC, denies that any specific imminent threat. That seems to be underscored by ABC's reporting, which states that the meeting to review the new information will be held two days after the ABC report. It doesn't take two days to put together an multiagency meeting in an emergency. Other tasks can get pushed aside very quickly, and if top security officials think they have an imminent threat on their hands, responsible parties would assemble in a manner of minutes, not days.

We know AQ has been trying to promote more attacks, but that effort started in 2005 with missives to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to start conducting attacks outside of Iraq. Those public exhortations have been known for at least two years. The issue would not be that a cell had just arrived or is in transit to the US, but that it may have been here for the last year or two and may become active soon. With Zawahiri issuing a number of statements in the past few months, that might indicate that a sleeper cell like the one in the UK has been ordered to become active and attack.

That's the real threat, and it has been all along.

CQ Radio: Live From The Heritage Foundation

Today on CQ Radio (2 pm CT), I'll broadcast live from The Heritage Foundation! We'll have live interviews with MacKenzie Eaglen and James Sherk. Eaglen specializes in national security and homeland defense, while Sherk focuses on economics, fiscal policy, and labor issues. Our friend Brian Darling, who keeps an eye on the Senate, may also jump in at some point as well.

The Heritage Foundation is one of the premiere think tanks in the US. Have you ever wanted to take advantage of their expertise? Call 646-652-4889 to join the conversation! We definitely want to take some calls today.

UPDATE: We'll have more hosts, and I just want to remind people that we are airing at the normal time of 2 pm CT/3 pm ET. That's a change from yesterday's announcement.

Also, you can subscribe to CQ Radio through iTunes now by clicking this link:

McCain's Top People Out

How serious is John McCain about running for president? Apparently, serious enough to have his top two people exit as the campaign attempts to turn its fortunes around in time for the primaries. He may also be considering a resignation from the Senate to show his commitment:

John McCain's campaign manager and chief strategist quit Tuesday, the second major staff shake-up in a week for the Republican presidential candidate who trails his rivals in money and polls.

In a statement, the Arizona senator said Terry Nelson and John Weaver offered their resignations, "which I accepted with regret and deep gratitude for their dedication, hard work and friendship."

Nelson, a veteran of President Bush's successful 2004 re-election effort, said he stepped down as campaign manager and Weaver, a longtime aide who ran McCain's failed 2000 presidential bid, said he left his post of chief strategist. Both resignations were effective immediately.

Some people may see this as the wheels coming off the campaign, but that has already arguably happened. This looks more like trying to put new wheels in place of the old while the vehicle is in motion. Both men have worked for McCain for years -- Weaver was a key man in McCain's failed 2000 primary bid -- and McCain would not have parted with them if he intends to quit. This signals that McCain wants to rethink his campaign strategy to such an extent that new management will be needed.

Nor could those be the only resignations. Via Michelle Malkin, US News says that McCain's advisors want him to quit the Senate. The argument is that it will show a Cortes-on-the-shore kind of commitment to the race, as well as free McCain from legislating. That would have two benefits -- a freer schedule and an ability to avoid the kind of policy wars like immigration that torpedoed McCain in the last month.

Unfortunately, that would put the seat into the hands of Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano. The Democrat would not likely name a Republican to fill the seat, tilting the balance of power in the Senate even more towards the Democrats. Such a move would not likely endear party stalwarts to McCain, the very people he needs to win back in a retooled campaign. I doubt that his resignation will be forthcoming soon.

But it should be clear that this shakeup underscores McCain's efforts to stay in the race. Whether it helps will be anyone's guess.

Dancing In The Dark

Democrats promised to reform the appropriations process in the midterm elections, claiming — correctly — that Republicans had abused the earmarking process in order to curry favor with lobbyists, who then assisted in their re-election efforts. Harry Reid celebrated the fact that Democrats had stripped all the earmarks from the one spending bill left to them by the 109th Congress, shortly after taking control in January. However, it turns out that Reid kept the stripped earmarks alive in a sneaky bit of political arm-twisting that didn’t get made public.

At Heading Right, I note that the pork-barrel process has indeed changed in this Congress -- it's gotten more secretive. Reid has removed the small portion of sunlight that Porkbusters helped force on Congress in the last session and made it even more difficult to smoke out undue influence and corruption.

Prostitute Scandal Hits The Senate

The case of the Beltway Madam has kept people in DC on the edge of their seats lately, as defendant Deborah Jeane Palfrey has threatened to release her phone records publicly as part of her public defense. The case already resulted in one high-ranking government official's resignation, and the public wondered who might be next. After a judge finally gave Palfrey the green light to post the records on her website, the scandal caught its next big fish, this time in the Senate:

Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) apologized last night after his telephone number appeared in the phone records of the woman dubbed the "D.C. Madam," making him the first member of Congress to become ensnared in the high-profile case.

The statement containing Vitter's apology said his telephone number was included on phone records of Pamela Martin and Associates dating from before he ran for the Senate in 2004.

The service's proprietor, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, 51, faces federal charges of racketeering for allegedly running a prostitution ring out of homes and hotel rooms in the Washington area. Authorities say the business netted more than $2 million over 13 years beginning in 1993. Palfrey contends that her escort service was a legitimate business.

The damage won't limit itself to the Senate. Vitter serves as Rudy Giuliani's campaign chair for the South. This follows on the heels of the indictment of Rudy's state chair in South Carolina, State Treasurer Thomas Ravenel, on felony drug charges. For a man many unfairly derided as overly authoritarian, his campaign has begun to look a lot more libertarian than anyone suspected.

What happens to Vitter? He got elected in 2004, so he has three years left on his term in office, replacing Democrat John Breaux. So far he has acquitted himself well in the Senate, but that may not make much difference now. He could be charged with a misdemeanor, although the statute of limitations has almost surely run out on that potential charge. More likely, Palfrey might call him as a witness in order to bolster her defense that she didn't arrange explicit sexual encounters, which would extend his humiliation and the political damage.

It's not outside the realm of possibility that he could resign, and the Democratic governor would name his replacement. If Kathleen Blanco appointed a Democrat, it would strip Joe Lieberman of his ability to tilt the Senate back to the GOP by switching parties, and allow Harry Reid to marginalize him. That could also complicate issues even further for the GOP on the war and conservative domestic policies in a Congress already bitterly divided.

However, that might only be temporary. Palfrey has posted an enormous amount of phone records on line, and it won't take long for enterprising amateurs to start putting phone numbers together with names. Vitter might be the first elected official to get burned by his escort-business past, but he likely won't be the last. (via Memeorandum)

UPDATE: I'm pointing this out late because I was traveling and in meetings all day, but James Hymas notes in the comments that Vitter got elected last year, not in 2004. However, the stort indicated that his connection to palfrey was in or before 2004, which means that the statute of limitations noted by James (3 years) would almost certainly have passed, as I wrote.

Hamastan's Isolation Appears Complete

After its coup in Gaza, Hamas had hoped to use its position there as leverage to win concessions with both Fatah and the West. In effect, they hoped to use the 1.5 million residents there as hostages for aid and recognition. Instead, their plans have backfired and the new Hamastan may find itself permanently isolated as a terrorist state:

In the month since Hamas took over Gaza, the 1.5 million Palestinians there have become more cut off than ever, supplies and jobs slipping away as its rival, Fatah, backed by Israel and the West, presses Hamas.

The situation from the continued closure of the main commercial crossing in and out at Karni has gotten so bad that on Monday, the United Nations agency that cares for the majority of Gazans — refugees and their descendants — announced a halt to all its building projects there because it has run out of construction supplies, like cement.

The halt will affect about $93 million of projects employing 121,000 people, including schools, water works, health centers and sewage-treatment plants, said the agency, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, or UNRWA. ...

As for the mood of the United States Congress, which had been asked to provide millions to help Mr. Abbas’s elite Presidential Guard with training and to rebuild the Palestinian side of Karni, Representative Steven Israel, Democrat of New York, said on a visit here, “There is no appetite to fund Karni, no interest there.”

Congressman Israel has this exactly correct. If Hamas wants to be taken seriously, it has to renounce terrorism, recognize Israel, and give up what it took by force. They have had abundant opportunities to do exactly that before they conducted their successful rebellion in Gaza and refused to do so. It's not as though they couldn't have predicted their isolation -- the West had already refused to engage with them because of their status as a terrorist organization, which caused the economic pressure that they supposedly wanted to end.

They'd rather be terrorists. That's their choice. They'd rather conduct rebellions and impose radical Islamist rule. That's their choice as well. We don't have any obligation to endorse it or to provide for the people under their thumb -- who overwhelmingly voted for Hamas in a relatively free election eighteen months ago.

The situation grows more bleak every day, though. Israel will send water and electricity into Gaza, but everything else will remain closed. Egypt will have to keep Rafah closed to protect itself from a flood of refugees into the Sinai, and Mubarak isn't likely to bolster a group with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, his enemy in Egypt. Supplies have rapidly dwindled, and the major crossing -- Karni -- remains closed.

Expect pressure on Israel to reopen Karni, and expect the Israelis to refuse. Karni is the only crossing that can handle large container shipments, but that only worked when Israel partnered with Fatah on security. The more pragmatic faction understood that Israel would not allow transactions that created security issues, and had worked out procedures that minimized Israel's risk. When Hamas gunment in masks took over the Fatah positions at Karni, that ended Israel's willingness to continue its efforts at Karni, and for good reason.

What if the Fatah security people returned to Karni? Israel might rethink its position. After what happened to Fatah's personnel in Gaza last month, though, their return is as unlikely as it would be suicidal. Even if they did, they would still be under Hamas control, and Israel couldn't trust them to keep to security protocols as they did in the past.

These are the issues that arise with terrorist states. Hamastan is a pariah, an uncontrolled risk, a danger to civilized nations. Isolation is a completely rational choice in dealing with irrational terrorists. Gazans who want to change that equation had better figure out how to do that for themselves.

The Honor Of Enemies

Richard Cohen writes about his discovery of a photograph from 9/11 that he had put out of his mind, but that CQ readers have probably never forgotten. The picture showed Palestinians joyfully celebrating the mass murder of 3,000 Americans in four terrorist attacks, the final one aborted by the victims themselves before the plane could reach its final destination. Cohen correctly diagnoses their hatred of America -- and then explains why we can't address it:

Still, the chief reason for the cheering on Sept. 11 was U.S. support for Israel. Sometimes that support has been mindless and sometimes it has been over the top, but fundamentally it is based on certain truths. The first is that Israel is a legally sanctioned state, created by the United Nations in 1948 and recognized soon after by most countries, including -- amazingly enough -- Cold War adversaries the United States and the Soviet Union. The second truth is that at least one Islamic state (Iran) and a host of militant organizations -- Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and, of course, al-Qaeda -- fervently wish for Israel's destruction. There is no way the United States could appease these groups and not, in the process, trample on its own moral values. Israel on occasion is wrong -- and the settlements are an abomination -- but its existence is right.

Granted, George Bush and his calamitous war -- not to mention his swaggering unilateralism -- have made matters worse. It's hard, for instance, to overstate the impact of Abu Ghraib in the Arab world. When a couple of years ago my driver in Jordan brought up the abuses at that prison, he became visibly upset. He was a college graduate who had been abroad -- what might be called Westernized. Yet the wanton contempt for Islamic and Arab sexual taboos was almost more than he could take. Soon, he had to stop talking. All in all, Bush's presidency has been a tear-down for America's image. The next president will have to start almost from scratch.

But, in a way, America has little choice about being hated in some parts of the world. The United States is never going to be truly popular as long as it insists on adhering to certain principles. Russia, which is creeping back to totalitarianism, does not have this problem. China, which is already authoritarian and obstructionist on Darfur, does not have this problem. Cuba, which is authoritarian, obstructionist and vile, also does not have this problem. Many Serbs hate America for the NATO bombing of that country, but the bombing stopped the killing in the Balkans. Tell me that was the wrong thing to do.

I agree with Cohen in the first and last paragraphs above, but the middle paragraph is nothing but twaddle. George Bush did not order abuses at Abu Ghraib, and neither did Don Rumsfeld. Abu Ghraib resulted from a lack of discipline one of the units assigned there and a lack of oversight by its officers. Those responsible were court-martialed and sent to prison, and the general commanding that unit got sacked. And while it certainly did give us a black eye in terms of our image, the idea that it somehow outstripped the murders, tortures, and rapes conducted their under previous management is preposterous.

However, in his main point, Cohen is dead on. For six years, we have heard people say that America must address why people like the Palestinians hate us so much that they would cheer our deaths. What they mean is that we have to abandon Israel, as Cohen notes. We've known that for decades, and we have refused to respond to it. Israel has been the one stable democracy in the region with Western values such as free speech and free practice of religion, while the lunatics who cheer for mass murders have no respect for our values. Why should we align ourselves with them?

Americans want to believe that everyone can be our friends. We would certainly like that, and thanks to our diversity, we can relate to a wide range of cultures and sensitivities -- but we seem to have a blind spot about values and motivations. Not everyone wants American friendship, and even if we did abandon Israel, they would still hate us for other, secondary reasons, such as our support for moderate Arab oppressive states like the Saudis. The more radical populations hate us on our own, regardless of Israel, precisely for the values of free speech, gender equality, and religious expression that bind us to our Israeli allies.

Does anyone want to give those values up, as well as turn on our reliable friends? What kind of nation would we be if we did? What would we win with the friendship of those who ululate in glee at our destruction?

We make our share of mistakes, and Abu Ghraib qualifies as a big one. That isn't what America is or where our values lie. Cohen makes a big mistake in arguing that it does under any presidency, and the swift punishment of those responsible demonstrates the fallacy of that thinking. The response showed that we take our values seriously, even in how we deal with our enemies. I will also note that we have seen how those who hate us and array themselves against us treat Americans they capture, and we can see their values clearly in how they handle themselves.

I'd rather have them as enemies than friends.

Pakistan Seizes Red Mosque, Captures Foreign Fighters

After a week-long standoff with what they thought were home-grown radicals, Pakistani security forces finally raided the Red Mosque today. An attempt at a last-minute negotiation with the chief cleric foundered when the imam admitted that foreign fighters had joined his forces and the government refused to give them clemency:

Pakistani troops seized Islamambad's Red Mosque on Tuesday and attempted to flush out the remaining militants entrenched inside a women's religious school in fierce fighting that left at least 50 militants and eight soldiers dead, the army said.

The troops stormed the mosque compound before dawn. Eight hours later, they were still trying to root out the well-armed defenders said to be holding about 150 hostages. Officials said at least 50 women were allowed to go free from the complex. Some 26 children had earlier escaped. ...

Amid the sounds of rolling explosions, commandos attacked from three directions about 4 a.m. and quickly cleared the ground floor of the mosque, army spokesman Gen. Waheed Arshad said. Some 20 children who rushed toward the advancing troops were brought to safety, he said.

Two dozen others fleeing were captured by security forces, Arshad said, without giving further details about those trapped inside. Another military official, who spoke on condition of anonimity because he was not authorized to talk to the press, later said that 51 militants had surrendered or been captured.

Abdul Rashid Ghazi remains inside the mosque in a basement level with a few of his forces holding the remaining hostages. The Pakistanis want to capture Ghazi and rescue the hostages, and they know they have Ghazi cornered. He has told them he will not come out quietly and wants to be martyred, so the situation looks rather bleak for the women and children he has left with him. Ghazi's mother has already died in the assault.

So far, though, the Pakistani military has done a remarkable job in keeping the raid as bloodless as possible. This had the potential of being Pervez Musharraf's Waco, with everyone dying in a conflagration that could have torched his own position. Based on these initial reports, the military has mostly managed to keep the suicidal extremists from martyring themselves; 40 have died as opposed to 51 captured, with some of the latter wounded. Pakistan now has dozens of them available for questioning -- a big plus in counterterrorism.

At the same time, it has shown some toughness in dealing with extremists that will put minds at ease, both in and out of Pakistan. The defiance of the Red Mosque, along with their attempt to impose Taliban-like rule through extortion and violence, undermined confidence in Musharraf's government and had people questioning his determination to confront extremism. The recent odd assassination attempt appears to have focused Musharraf more on that goal, and the call to put an end to the Red Mosque standoff demonstrates that focus.

One particular area has reacted as expected to the raid. The northwest frontier, meaning primarily Waziristan, erupted in anger and shouts for Musharraf's death. Perhaps Musharraf will have to rethink his disengagement in this area, where the Red Mosque's ideological allies plot and scheme for a Taliban-like takeover of both Afghanistan and Pakistan alike.

My Interview With Ambassador Jawad, And Yours

Earlier today, I had the opportunity to engage in some ground-breaking journalism -- a word that I do not toss around lightly. Not only did I get a chance to bring the story of Afghanistan to readers that gets little enough coverage, we could do so in depth with a lengthy interview with Ambassador Said T. Jawad. (Unfortunately, due to technical difficulties, we started late and lost the last five minutes of the interview.)

Why do I consider this groundbreaking? In one sense, it breaks new ground because the Ambassador rarely gets an opportunity to speak in depth about the status of Afghanistan. Normally, all he gets are quick sound bites taken out of context, or a five-minute segment on a talking-head show in which he never gets the opportunity to speak about his country's experience in any depth at all. In this format, we can allow Ambassador Jawad to speak at length -- and if you listen to the show, you can see that the Ambassador has quite a story to tell.

The most groundbreaking aspect of the interview, I believe, is how the questions came to the Ambassador in the first place. Readers of this blog asked the questions in the comments section, and I selected the most germane and posed them to the Ambassador. His staff reviewed that thread and spoke about how impressed they were with the variety and depth of the questions. Afterwards, Ambassador Jawad said the one question I failed to ask that he wanted to answer was one about dirt-biking in Afghanistan's mountains, which he thought would be a marvelous idea, so I know they paid close attention to your input.

I think that's a remarkable process, one which seems very unique, and one which I will employ in the future. In my opinion, it brings the subject and the audience into a much closer relationship; it gives everyone a larger stake in the process and the product. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did, and please let me know your opinion on the result.

And for the record, they had the best tasting iced tea I have ever had, and not just because it hit 100 here in DC today.

CQ Radio: Ambassador Said T Jawad of Afghanistan

Today on CQ Radio, at the special time of 1 pm CT/2 pm ET, I'll be interviewing Ambassador Said T. Jawad of Afghanistan. Don't forget to tune in as we cover some of the questions you suggested in the CQ comments section over the past two weeks. Call 646-652-4889 to join the conversation -- we'll ry to take a couple of questions.

Also, you can subscribe to CQ Radio through iTunes now by clicking this link:

Shocked, Shocked! At The Inefficiencies Of Super-Bureaucracies

The Washington Post reveals today that the conglomeration of 22 federal agencies into the Department of Homeland Security has still not been successfully completed. Four years after its creation, a number of top management positions have yet to be filled. The DHS says that the report overstates the problem -- because the expansion is still continuing:

The Bush administration has failed to fill roughly a quarter of the top leadership posts at the Department of Homeland Security, creating a "gaping hole" in the nation's preparedness for a terrorist attack or other threat, according to a congressional report to be released today.

As of May 1, Homeland Security had 138 vacancies among its top 575 positions, with the greatest voids reported in its policy, legal and intelligence sections, as well as in immigration agencies, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Coast Guard. The vacant slots include presidential, senior executive and other high-level appointments, according to the report by the majority staff of the House Homeland Security Committee.

A DHS spokesman challenged the report's tally, saying that it is skewed by a sudden expansion this spring in the number of top management jobs. Before then, only 12 percent of positions were unfilled in a department that has always been thinly staffed at headquarters, spokesman Russ Knocke said. ...

"One of the continuing problems appears to be the over politicization of the top rank of Department management," concludes the report by the committee, chaired by Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.). "This could lead to heightened vulnerability to terrorist attack."

I'm not sure which of the themes found in this article are the most ironic: the lack of efficiency in a gargantuan bureaucracy, the attack on the White House for "overpoliticization" of the DHS, or that the DHS's excuse for not filling positions is that it's too busy creating more. Let's just take them one hilarious step at a time.

The DHS got created by Congress in a fit of bureaucracy-building following the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 Commission, not coincidentally comprised almost entirely of bureaucrats, decided that the best approach to bolstering federal agencies in homeland security and intelligence was to burden them with even more bureaucratic overhead. Rather than create efficiencies, it created a management system more out of touch with its missions than anything preceding it. That created the need to extend consultant contracts far beyond their initial cost estimates, since the DHS bureaucracy had no clue as to how to hire for its varied component agencies.

Thompson's charges of politicization of DHS are laughable on its face. First, the superbureaucracy exists because of the politicized debate over streamlining, rather than the use of thoughtful analysis at the time. Second, it hardly appears that politicization is the issue when presidential appointments haven't yet been made. Third, the Democrats have already thoroughly politicized the oversight process this session, making this charge rather silly.

Finally, though, the DHS itself has to take the award for irony. The excuse of expansion for not filling necessary and existing open slots is jaw-dropping. Why did DHS start its expansion before filling the 12% of positions left unfilled first? What kind of management expands an organization that already cannot fill its open slots?

Four years after its creation, people in Washington still speak about the challenges of unifying the management of 22 different agencies. Perhaps that should be the first clue that creating a superbureaucracy wasn't the right answer from the start.

Gomery Considered Naming Chretien In Adscam

Two years ago, when the Canadian political scandal surrounding the Sponsorship Programme reached its zenith of public attention, many wondered how far the scandal would reach in Liberal Party circles. According to the National Post, Judge John Gomery considered the conclusion that criminal misconduct had reached all the way to the top (via Newsbeat1):

Justice John Gomery's letter of warning to Jean Chretien in May, 2005, said an allegation of misconduct against the former prime minister was being considered in Judge Gomery's final report that would tie Mr. Chretien to untendered 1995 pre-referendum contracts, including one with Lafleur Communications for an outdoor advertising campaign in Quebec, a transcript of a private meeting reveals.

The transcript shows Mr. Chretien's lawyer arguing vehemently during a June 1, 2005, closed-door meeting in Montreal with Judge Gomery that the letter did not contain enough details to allow them to prepare their final submission to the judge later that month. ...

The verbatim record of the 90-minute meeting has been obtained by CanWest News after it was recently filed as part of Mr. Chretien's ongoing court action to have Judge Gomery's report quashed by the Federal Court of Canada because the commissioner had allegedly been biased against him throughout the hearings.

Mr. Doody told Judge Gomery at the meeting that the warning letter's five allegations weighing against Mr. Chretien were short on details, and a written request to Bernard Roy, the commission's lead lawyer, for more information had already been rejected.

Chretien had retired by the time of the Gomery inquest, but the effect of allegations against the former Prime Minister would have devastated the Liberal Party and its leadership at the time. Gomery considered it seriously enough to have issued warning letters to Chretien, a legal step required by Canadian law when a judicial inquest considers publishing allegations of criminal misconduct. That allows the target enough time to prepare a public defense, a rather fair-minded requirement, but Chretien's lawyers argued that Gomery's letters did not provide enough detail for a comprehensive defense.

In the end, Gomery did not make specific criminal allegations against Chretien. However, Gomery blamed Chretien and his senior aides for the mismanagement that allowed the Sponsorship Programme to blossom into Adscam, where hundreds of millions of dollars disappeared into thin air. Jean Pelletier also complained about the report in its final form, which argued that Pelletier's specific direction allowed the money to go to political fronts rather than for its intended purpose, which was to sponsor cultural activities to promote Canadian unity in Quebec.

Adscam finished Paul Martin, the Prime Minister during the inquiry and a high-ranking official during the period in which the Liberal Party conducted the Sponsorship Programme. The Conservatives won the next national election and Stephen Harper replaced Martin as Prime Minister in early 2006, a direct result of the fallout from Adscam. The Liberals managed a decent showing in the election, keeping the Tories from an all-out majority -- but if Chretien had been accused of criminal conduct, the Liberals would probably have all but given up the ghost.

McCain's Pain -- Fred's Gain?

The New York Sun reports that the recently terminated staffers from John McCain's campaign may not collect unemployment for long. Fred Thompson, supposedly disadvantaged in organizational strength by his late start, may benefit from his friend's electoral struggles:

The downsizing of Senator McCain's presidential campaign is coming at an opportune time for Fred Thompson, the former Tennessee senator who is likely to jump into the race officially any day now and seeking to build a campaign staff in the early primary states.

Struggling with a shortage of cash, Mr. McCain's campaign announced last week that it was laying off dozens of staff members, including about half of his paid team in Iowa and New Hampshire.

While there is no evidence of an outright pillaging of Mr. McCain's departed aides, Republican sources in those states say Mr. Thompson's emerging campaign is the likeliest landing spot. Aside from Mr. Thompson's obvious need for staff — assuming he enters the race — the two are closely aligned ideologically, and Mr. Thompson even endorsed Mr. McCain when he sought the White House in 2000.

The layoffs certainly come at a propitious time for Fred. Many analysts had sniffed at a late entry into the race for the former Senator, explaining that fundraisers and staffers had already aligned themselves with other candidates. Having so many experienced hands suddenly on the market in the key states of Iowa and New Hampshire could allow Fred to vault that obstacle easily, positioning himself for some momentum against Mitt Romney, who has already spent a lot of money in those states to build credibility for his candidacy.

As Russell Berman notes, the ideological shift for these staffers would be minimal to non-existent. Only two key issues separate Fred from McCain: immigration and perhaps campaign finance reform. On the latter, Fred co-sponsored the BCRA and provided one of only 11 GOP votes in the Senate in its support. Lately, though, he has acknowledged that the BCRA has not performed as expected, and that a different course (full disclosure) should be considered as a replacement.

Thompson has to act quickly in order to take advantage of the opportunity. He has not yet officially entered the race, which he needs to do in order to build his organization. His backers are chomping at the bit; as New Hampshire backer and former state Representative Daniel Hughes put it, "it's time to fish or cut bait." Rudy Giuliani is still hiring in these same markets, and while McCain's policy stands are much closer to Fred than to Rudy, these staffers aren't going to wait forever to jump onto the Fredwagon.

If Fred jumps in now, he can act to negate the one detriment resulting from his relatively late entry. We'll see if he takes advantage of the opportunity.

Meanwhile, Back At The Quagmire

The quagmire of Kosovo's status continues at the United Nations, thanks to Russian refusals to consider the independence of the province. Eight years after UN intervention and administration, the Security Council warns of more violence in the area as the talks have stalled yet again on the final status of the breakaway territory:

A senior United States diplomat, speaking at a conference in Croatia over the weekend, cast doubt on a quick resolution of Kosovo’s future, suggesting that an agreement that would enable it to claim independence might not come until next year.

The assessment by Daniel Fried, assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, is likely to be seen as a setback for Kosovo’s ethnic Albanian leadership. This spring, Western officials had held out hope that the future of the province, which technically remains part of Serbia, would be resolved within weeks. Mr. Fried told delegates at a conference on NATO’s enlargement in this seaside Croatian resort that he hoped Kosovo’s future could be resolved in the months leading up to the alliance’s summit meeting in Romania next April.

“I can’t give a precise date, but I suspect it will be a number of months before the Bucharest summit,” he said.

Mr. Fried’s comments are the clearest indication to date that the United States now acknowledges that it is unlikely that Russia will soon agree to a United Nations plan that would grant the province independence under supervision of a mission led by the European Union. Senior European Union politicians at the conference on Friday and Saturday also cast doubt on whether an agreement could be reached this summer.

Russia has refused to consider independence. Vladimir Putin's government has demanded that the issue remain between Kosovo's ethic-Albanian leadership and the Serbian government. Had a resolution been possible between the two, the UN would not have spent the last eight years keeping the two separated, with occasional failures. That demand effectively negates any UN Security Council decisions on Kosovo' status -- and it extends the current standoff indefinitely.

Russia has always seen the Balkans as inside its sphere of influence, and the Slavs of Serbia as ethnic cousins under their protection. They want to ensure the strength and allegiance of Serbia, and in this case that means keeping Kosovo as part of Serbia, regardless of what Kosovo wants. The Kremlin also wants to re-establish its diplomatic writ in eastern Europe, which has declined dramatically since the end of the Soviet Union. The breakup of Yugoslavia embarrassed the Russians, and they do not want to see that process continue.

This lack of progress will have consequences. The Kosovars have lost patience with the UNSC's vacillations. The country has been occupied for eight years with no political progress at all. Both Ban Ki-Moon and NATO's secretary-general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer warn that extending this delay will create pressures on the ground that will result in an outbreak of violence, perhaps escalating to civil war. However, with Russia's veto, it appears that the Security Council has no possible way of resolving Kosovo's status towards independence -- and any other solution will lead to civil war.

The UN and the US believe that they can resolve the issue next year. That's beginning to sound very familiar in Kosovo. As long as the Russians see the Serbs as vital to their national interest, the UN will not be able to resolve the issue -- which means that the US and EU need to consider bypassing the UN altogether if they want to put an end to the quagmire.

Americans Tune Out Live Earth (Update: Not Just Americans, Either)

A new survey by Rasmussen shows that Americans didn't pay much attention to the celebrity-driven Live Earth concerts, mostly because of skepticism about their motivation. Less than a quarter of those surveyed bothered to follow the news stories about Al Gore's project, which may have political implications of its own.

At Heading Right, I take a look at the numbers and see a reality check for those who believe climate change to be a winning issue in the next election. Although a 22 share would be pretty good ratings for a televised event, it shows a distinct lack of resonance for political benefit. The Draft Gore movement may have to rethink its chances for success. (via Memeorandum)

UPDATE: Americans weren't alone in their lack of enthusiasm. The British also tuned out in droves, according to the Daily Mail:

Live Earth has been branded a foul-mouthed flop.

Organisers of the global music concert - punctuated by swearing from presenters and performers - had predicted massive viewing figures.

But BBC's live afternoon television coverage attracted an average British audience of just 900,000.

Viewership peaked at 4.5 million for Madonna's set, which was about a third of those who watched a tribute to Princess Diana the week before. It's less than half of those who watched the Live 8 concert for African relief last year. Apparently the spectacle of celebrities lecturing people on lifestyle has little appeal even for a country more sympathetic to the issue of global warming.

Keith Ellison, In The Nutball Box

Our new Congressman from MN-05, Keith Ellison, has performed about as well as could be predicted before his election -- he has become a 9/11 Truther. Gary Gross of Let Freedom Ring has kept track of Ellison after the election, and notes a Star Tribune article that shows Ellison not quite having the courage to jump all the way into the paranoia:

On comparing Sept. 11 to the burning of the Reichstag building in Nazi Germany: "It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted. The fact is that I'm not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box -- dismiss you."

I'd say that this puts Ellison squarely in the nutball box. It shows a depressing lack of education about the Nazis and the Reichstag fire itself, let alone the rather obvious point that Osama bin Laden has gladly taken credit for the 9/11 attacks and that all of the evidence shows he and al-Qaeda did it. The Reichstag fire was a political stunt immediately prior to a national election that not only allowed Hitler to ban a political party but also to pack the assembly with fellow Nazis -- in order to pass an Enabling Act similar to what Hugo Chavez just pushed through Venezuela's parliament.

It did not, as Ellison presumes, give Hitler total power, at least not directly. The elections did not deliver the two-thirds necessary for the Nazis, a disappointment for Hitler. It took more street violence and locking up all the Communists to convince the other political parties to give Hitler the dictatorial power he sought -- which is, not coincidentally, how he came to be Chancellor in the first place. The fire helped the Nazis, but in the end they had to use violence and extort the Reichstag vote for the Enabling Act, which is how Hitler took away civil liberties in Germany.

(Has Ellison made the connection between that Act and the Chavez regime's similar action? What has Ellison said about Venezuela? According to Google -- nothing.)

Ellison knows that the 9/11 attacks were carried about by al-Qaeda and 19 radical Muslims. He just can't bring himself to admit it, and instead likes to flirt with paranoid conspiracy theorists who believe that the entire attack was a BushCo plot to grab power in the US. Well, if so, where is the power grab? We've held elections on schedule ever since 9/11; the only one to be delayed was the New York City municipal elections, for obvious reasons, and then only for a few weeks. Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, and might have won the Presidency in 2004 had they not nominated a total stiff to run against George Bush.

Where's the power grab? Where are all of the political groups that have been banned, all of the people disappeared under a Nacht und Nebel program, the cancelled elections? Where?

In January 2009, George Bush and Dick Cheney will step down from their offices on schedule, just as their predecessors have done, in compliance with the Constitution. At that point, a lot of people are going to have to account for their paranoia. I'd like to hope that Mn-05 will force Ellison to account for his flirtation with the paranoids, but I thought his association with CAIR would have been enough to keep him from getting elected in the first place.

Brother Moqtada's Traveling Salvation Show

Moqtada al-Sadr has once again fled to Iran, apparently after a split widened in recent weeks between the leader of the Mahdi Army and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Sadr's support had been seen as key for Maliki early in his term, but with the US pressuring Maliki for serious reform and reconciliation, Sadr and his militias have come under increasing military and political pressure:

Fiery Iraqi Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has gone back to neighbouring Iran, U.S. military sources in Baghdad said on Sunday.

Earlier this year, U.S. officials said the anti-American cleric was hiding in Iran to avoid a major security crackdown in Baghdad, although his aides say he never left Iraq. ...

His lower profile has coincided with a growing rift between his movement and Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

Sadr pulled his six ministers out of Maliki's cabinet in April when the prime minister refused to set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

The cleric's political bloc has boycotted parliament since an attack on a revered Shi'ite mosque last month in the city of Samarra and most recently rejected a landmark draft oil law.

It looks like Sadr has overplayed his hand. Had Sadr pulled his ministers out of the government six months ago, Maliki might have lost his position. Now it looks as though Maliki has successfully marginalized Sadr and found enough support to form a governing coalition without him.

That puts Sadr in a tough position, both politically and militarily. It shows that the Shi'ites may have tired of Sadr's "fiery" oratory and might have more interest in burying the hatchet than previously thought. Iraqis want an end to war, and that won't happen as long as Sadr continues with his militias-cum-death squads. Pushing Sadr out of the coalition could create a center of reconciliation in the National Assembly, especially if the surge can hold down the violence to keep the retribution attacks to a minimum.

Militarily, it makes it easier to go after the Mahdis. If Sadr isn't necessary for Maliki to maintain his position, then the US can go on the offensive against Sadr's forces in Baghdad with much less concern over the political fallout. That seems to be what we're seeing; recent reports show that the US controls 50% of Baghdad, and recent troop arrivals promise even more stability.

None of this matters if the Iraqis don't make quick improvements on several political fronts. They have to get some sort of oil revenue plan implemented -- which Sadr had blocked -- and find a way to re-engage the Sunnis in public life. The Sunnis need a reason to work with the Shi'ites, and the Shi'ites need to give up their revenge fantasies if they want a stable Iraq.

And don't count Sadr out. He's a cat with more than nine lives, at least thus far. A few more escapes to Iran, though, and even his followers will have trouble ignoring the streak of yellow that has become more and more apparent. And as Bill Roggio notes at The Fourth Rail, these "successful disappearances" make it clear that Sadr's nationalism is all on the surface.

Travel Day

I'll be traveling to Washington DC today in preparation for my live interview with Ambassador Said Jawad of Afghanistan on Monday. I'll also broadcast live from the Heritage Foundation on Tuesday afternoon. Both shows will come at special times -- 1 pm CT on Monday and 1:30 pm CT on Tuesday.

I'll have more later this evening when I escape Minnesota's sticky heat for DC's even worse heat. I'm hoping that everyone has their air conditioners in top form and their electrical bills paid!

UPDATE: Just arrived -- and I'm back at the hotel where I stayed last year at The Week's awards dinner. If I have to travel, this is the way to do it. More later.

UPDATE II: Took a walk after eating a $16 hamburger in my room. It's just as steamy as the Twin Cities, but it's nice to see so many people out on the streets. I like DC -- I'm going to have to spend more time here.

When Did Fred Start At Arent Fox?

An interesting question came to me from CQ reader Adam W regarding the Los Angeles Times' story about Fred Thompson and his supposed work for the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association in 1991. The only evidence of this work comes from a copy of the NFPRHA's board minutes from September 14, 1991 that claims that the group had hired "Fred Thompson, Esq. as counsel to aid us in discussions with the administration" to end the rule barring abortion counseling at clinics that received federal funds. A couple of the group's principals swear that they hired Thompson; Thompson denies working for them, and the man whom Fred would have had to meet categorically states that he never discussed the gag rule with Fred at all.

Now a new bit of indirect evidence has been found. Arent Fox brought Thompson into the firm to be "of counsel" in 1991 for his expertise in their lobbying business, including the representation of foreign governments. Anyone involved in such lobbying has to register with the Foreign Agent Registration Unit at the Department of Justice. Arent Fox filed its registration for its lobbyists, complete with the listings of all its lobbyists -- including their start and termination dates.

Take a look at registrant #2661 in the FARA search system (unfortunately, the results are unlinkable). Fred D. Thompson, according to their records, starts as a lobbyist for foreign business on 10/10/1991 and terminates on 9/17/1993, which is when he decided to run for the remainder of Al Gore's term in the Senate. That gives some indication that Thompson started lobbying for Arent in October and not September of 1991. It's possible that Arent had limited Thompson to lobbying for domestic clients until October, but that seems rather odd, given their desire to have him on board as a major attraction for DC lobbying.

I'd be interested to know when he started lobbying for Arent Fox -- with an exact date. The information on Thompson's association with Arent Fox says that they hired Thompson specifically for lobbying on behalf of foreign customers, which would require the FARA registration with an exact date that such lobbying began. This implies that Thompson wouldn't have been available to the NFPRHA in Septemer 1991, and make the document on which the Times based its entire story somewhat suspect.

UPDATE: According to the American Spectator, Fred started at Arent in April -- but there is something else unusual about the story, and the way the LA Times has handled it:

Jim Geraghty, meanwhile, points out that the LA Times story has been altered without any explaination [sic] to remove a reference to a 1991 meeting in which Judith DeSarno, the head of the abortion rights group in question and Thompson's primary accuser, recalled that "Thompson re-enacted a coyboy {sic] death scene from one of his movies." He hadn't been in a coyboy [sic] movie by 1991. That is pretty damaging to the credibility of the Times story.

It's pretty clear that somebody is not telling the truth here, and now the onus is on the Times to provide harder evidence.

He also hadn't had a death scene in any of his movies, which makes the story even more laughable.

More Absurdities On The Libby Commutation

Anyone reading my blog over the past seven days knows that I have been critical of the decision to commute Scooter Libby's sentence. Granted, the investigation conducted by Patrick Fitzgerald was a waste of time and money. After all, what was investigated -- a leak between a government official and a reporter on classified material? Why, that never happens! Just ask the New York Times, which has blown critical national-security programs twice in two years, neither of which resulted in the appointment of special prosecutors or grand jury proceedings.

Nevertheless, when giving statements to investigators and testimony to grand juries, witnesses do not have the authority to determine on their own whether they believe the investigation to be legitimate enough to tell the truth. Those who commit perjury and obstruction of justice should go to prison, especially if they hold positions of trust and power in the government. A duly-constituted jury found Libby guilty on four such counts, and an appellate court ruled that he doesn't have much hope on reversing the convictions. Libby should have gone to prison. Bush obviously disagreed, and his clemency action is open to criticism.

However, the commutation has created quite a stir among the charming if unstable conspiracy theory community. Among the most incoherent is John Colson in the Aspen Times, whose column yesterday has to be read to be disbelieved. He thinks the commutation is meant to keep Libby quiet, but it takes him TEN paragraphs of ranting about Bush and Cheney to explain why (via Memeorandum):

I’ll tell you why — Cheney, better than anyone, knows what a weak link Libby is. All you have to do is look at the guy to know, without any doubt, that within two weeks of incarceration he would sing like a lark on a bright spring morning. And the notes of his song would not be good for Cheney, Bush or the entire construct of deceit and destruction that the Bush presidency has become.

Libby certainly knows who decided Plame’s identity should be leaked to the media. He certainly knows who was in on the discussions leading to that decision. And he undoubtedly knows where the papers are that could prove any assertions of those points, although it’s entirely possible that Cheney is smarter than Richard Nixon was and already has shredded, electronically scrubbed and otherwise obliterated all the evidence.

It's difficult to know where to begin. I guess I'll start with the first leak of Plame's identity, which didn't come from the White House at all. It came from Richard Armitage, who told Robert Novak first about Plame's identity. Anyone who thinks that Richard Armitage would conspire with Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, or Scooter Libby on anything has been spending too much time in the oxygen-deprived environs of Aspen's peaks. If Fitzgerald wanted to know what Colson suggests, he could have asked Armitage -- since his leak was the only one that made it to print.

Next, if Libby had something to say, he wouldn't have waited for his incarceration. He would have talked before getting convicted and spending a fortune on his defense. He's not going to talk now, because he wants to get the convictions off his record -- and thanks to the judge forcing him to start his prison term immediately, he would have been out on parole before the end of that appeals process. Once Fitzgerald convicted him, Fitzgerald's leverage on that score ran out.

Besides, Colson obviously hasn't paid much attention to the news. Fitzgerald closed his investigation, long before the Libby commutation. There will be no more indictments to serve, nor any more deals to be made. The investigation terminated without any indictments on the main complaint, and it appears there was no lawbreaking at all on that central issue.

All this, of course, is obvious to anyone who pays attention to the story. Colson, on the other hand, apparently spends his time in the highest-elevation fever swamp in the United States. His entertaining but ludicrous commentary will amuse readers who know better.

Culture Of Entitlements Started With FDR

George Will reminds us of when we began moving towards federal bankruptcy, and why, in today's column about Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Long admired as the man who saved America from economic disaster and potential revolution, FDR also begat the large-scale government spending programs that failed to reolve the economic crisis, but instead set us on the path for another:

In 1937, during the depression within the Depression, there occurred the steepest drop in industrial production ever recorded. By January 1938 the unemployment rate was back up to 17.4 percent. The war, not the New Deal, defeated the Depression. Franklin Roosevelt's success was in altering the practice of American politics.

This transformation was actually assisted by the misguided policies -- including government-created uncertainties that paralyzed investors -- that prolonged the Depression. This seemed to validate the notion that the crisis was permanent, so government must be forever hyperactive.

In his second inaugural address, Roosevelt sought "unimagined power" to enforce the "proper subordination" of private power to public power. He got it, and the fact that the federal government he created now seems utterly unexceptional suggests a need for what Amity Shlaes does in a new book. She takes thorough exception to the government he created.

Republicans had long practiced limited interest-group politics on behalf of business with tariffs, gifts of land to railroads and other corporate welfare. Roosevelt, however, made interest-group politics systematic and routine. New Deal policies were calculated to create many constituencies -- labor, retirees, farmers, union members -- to be dependent on government.

Will's prinary point isn't to discredit FDR, a president faced with an unprecedented catastrophe when elected to office, but to explore the failures of government imposition of scarcity. In the Depression, everything became scarce -- goods, food, even work itself. Rather than attempt to bolster capital investment in the economy, FDR decided instead to assume federal control of the economy and ration on the basis of scarcity.

In taking that approach, FDR deliberately grew the federal government into a huge bureaucracy in order to control the economy down to the smallest level. At the end of his first term, the federal government surpassed the spending of all states and localities inside the US combined, for the first time in peacetime history -- and it has done so continuously since.

Seeing jobs as a scarce resource, FDR provided Social Security to get older workers to retire and free up jobs for young adults. Given the restless nature of unemployed youth, this could be seen as a completely different kind of security program. It may have been intended to head off a Bolshevik overthrow of the US, considered a real threat at the time. That, at least, would be a reasonable basis for what turned into a Ponzi scheme over the next few decades.

However, it didn't work as promised. By 1938, the Depression had only lengthened and deepened. Despite all of the WPA programs, Social Security, and other top-down solutions offered by FDR in his scarcity-management program, unemployment rose again to over 17% -- meaning one in six American workers had no job. In desperation and faced with an antagonistic Congress, FDR attempted to pack the Supreme Court in order to bypass the legislature -- certainly another pattern that would arise again in American politics. Wendell Wilkie scolded FDR for his attempt to rule by fiat, and the notion died.

What saved us from the Depression? World War II. Even before our entry, the US began tooling up for war as the "arsenal of democracy". We skirted the legal strictures of neutrality through the Lend-Lease Act and began providing military supplies for Britain, and later the Soviet Union. FDR also started building up the American military, seeing clearly that war would soon come to the US from one direction or the other. Unlike FDR's other economic policies, this buildup utilized the private sector for competition and ingenuity -- and it put America back to work.

Ever since, we have struggled with the legacy of the overmighty federal government. FDR's radical approach to economic disaster, which ultimately failed, remains a millstone on our economy and our liberties. It's time to rethink the FDR approach and return to a streamlined and properly scaled federal government.

Someone Must Be Very Worried (Bump: Smelly Indeed)

Fresh on the heels of the Los Angeles Times attack on Fred Thompson's lobbying, the New York Times lowers the bar by attacking Fred Thompson's wife. Calling Fred "grandfatherly" and Jeri Kehn Thompson a "trophy wife", the Gray Lady wonders whether America can deal with a May-December romance in the White House:

AS the election of 2008 approaches with its cast of contenders who bring unprecedented diversity to the quest for the White House, the voting public has been called on to ponder several questions: Is America ready for a woman to be president? What about a black man? A Mormon?

Now, with the possible candidacy of Fred D. Thompson, the grandfatherly actor and former Republican senator from Tennessee, whose second wife is almost a quarter-century his junior, comes a less palatable inquiry that is spurring debate in Internet chat rooms, on cable television and on talk radio: Is America ready for a president with a trophy wife?

The question may seem sexist, even crass, but serious people — as well as Mr. Thompson’s supporters — have been wrestling with the public reaction to Jeri Kehn Thompson, whose youthfulness, permanent tan and bleached blond hair present a contrast to the 64-year-old man who hopes to win the hearts of the conservative core of the Republican party. Will the so-called values voters accept this union?

Mr. Thompson, who needs the support of early primary voters, is expected to formally announce his candidacy any day now. Meanwhile, much of the brouhaha around Mrs. Thompson, 40, is being stirred by photos of her in form-fitting gowns circulating on the Internet.

Sexist? Yes. Crass? Definitely. Ridiculous? You bet.

I'm touched, really, by the concern that Susan Saulny and the Paper of Record show for "values voters", a group that normally received little but scorn and ridicule from Pinch's crew. However, these people are not likely to have an issue with a man who spent seventeen years between marriages before marrying a woman in her mid-30s. Thompson's ex-wife speaks well of him, his children seem very well-adjusted, and his current wife is an intelligent and well-spoken woman who will be an asset to his campaign.

Now let's talk about the form-fitting gowns. Or let's not. The clear implication is that Jeri Kehn is some sort of a trollop who married for power on the basis of her beauty, which is ridiculous. Saulny faults the Thompsons for not officially distributing her resume, but anyone with access to Google knows that Mrs. Thompson worked as a media consultant in DC, as well as a staffer at the RNC and on the Senate Republican Caucus [see below]. She's no bubble-headed bleach blonde, but someone with her own record of accomplishment -- even if the New York Times and Susan Saulny apparently can't find it with both hands and a flashlight.

That's what makes the "trophy wife" slam so obnoxious. Saulny even tries to weasel past her use of it by telling readers that Fortune Magazine's original definition included accomplishment, but that probably lasted as long as that particular issue did on the newsstands. When people talk about trophy wives now, they mean arm candy -- beautiful but vapid social climbers with nothing more to offer than cleavage. Jeri Kehn Thompson does not qualify as a trophy wife. Does Susan Saulny qualify as a trophy reporter?

Is this the level to which the New York Times will stoop for the rest of the political campaign? All it indicates to me is that Pinch Sulzberger and his staff seem very worried about a Thompson campaign, so worried that they have already started attacking Fred's family rather than discuss his policy stands, contained in essays that he has published for months at Townhall and ABC. The caliber of these attacks show the quality of the opposition to Fred, and also give Fred some indirect credibility, as his opponents don't appear to have confidence that they can beat him on the issues.

UPDATE AND BUMP: Joe Gandelman puts this in the "smelly journalism" category. Be sure to read his criticism in full, but here's a taste:

So the writer of the piece knows for a A FACT that when Thompson married his present wife, she was picked as a “trophy?” There was no love involved? No relationship? No friendship? She didn’t share some of his values and dreams?

She KNOWS that he just simply pointed to her and said: “TROPHY! I’ve GOT to have HER to show people! See this younger woman! Stand up, honey! See this guys? OK, honey, you can sit down now!”

UPDATE, 8-6: Jeri Kehn Thompson has never worked as an attorney, which I had mistakenly asserted. I apologize for the error.

Getting Closer To Omar

Pakistan announced the capture of senior Taliban figures, including two close aides to Mullah Omar, just a few hours ago. Security forces captured four high-value targets in two raids in the city of Quetta:

An Afghan intelligence source told the BBC four senior associates of Mullah Omar were being held after operations by Pakistani security forces. The arrests took place in two areas of the city of Quetta in western Pakistan.

The source said those arrested included two men responsible for Mullah Omar's letters and communications. They have been named as Mullah Jahangir and Mullah Mohid.

Others now in detention are said to be Mullah Nazir, who was Taleban commander in the southern Afghan province of Urozgan, and Mullah Tahir, the former Taleban commander for the capital, Kabul.

Pervez Musharraf survived another assassination attempt this week and has a few dozen radical Islamists surrounded at the Red Mosque. It seems to have refocused him somewhat on the threat to his power that the Islamists represent. Afghanistan has frequently complained about the Taliban's open presence in Quetta and Musharraf's lack of effort in attacking it.

That appears to have changed. Musharraf has spent the last couple of years backing away from the fight against the terrorists in Waziristan, the province north of Balochistan, where Quetta is located. Recent rumors appearing in Asia Times on July 3 have Musharraf allowing the US top operate in a mostly covert fashion inside Waziristan -- which would indicate a spectacular shift for a man worried about the reaction to foreign "crusader" troops on Islamic soil:

According to Asia Times Online contacts, NATO and its US backers have gotten their wish: coalition forces will start hitting targets wherever they might be.

Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf is expected to make an important announcement on extremism during an address to the nation in the next day or two.

The ATol contacts in Islamabad say that coalition intelligence has pinpointed at least four centers in the tribal areas of North Waziristan and South Waziristan on the border with Afghanistan from which Taliban operations inside Afghanistan are run. These bases include arms caches and the transfer and raising of money and manpower, the latter in the form of foot-soldiers to fight with the Taliban-led insurgency.

These captures are the first significant action Musharraf has taken against the Taliban in months, and the fact that he acted in Quetta seems significant. Musharraf appears to have ended his flirtation with the Islamists and is now convinced he needs the West to help him get rid of their threat to his regime. If this plays out well, we could finally have the entire al-Qaeda leadership in a vice from which they cannot retreat.