NARN, The Quidditch Edition

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

Today, we'll have NZ Bear in on the second hour to talk about the relaunch of the Victory Caucus. We'll also spell out the insult that Keith Ellison offered to Americans this week in equating 9/11 with the Reichstag fire of 1933. We may also talk about the Fairness Doctrine, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani's acquisition of policy heavyweights, and much much more!

Be sure to call 651-289-4488 to join the conversation!

759 Pages, No Waiting

I just finished Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Book 7), which took me several hours while my Internet connection to my website refused to work properly, in any case. For fans of the series, it's a brilliant and definite ending. There is no Sopranos-style artistic ambiguity here; J K Rowling has brought the series to an excellent conclusion.

How did it end? Hah! No spoilers here, at least not for the moment. I'll have more this week, after I'm certain people will have had the opportunity to read it for themselves.

UPDATE: The site had its issues this morning, so my apologies for anyone who had difficulty hitting CQ today. As far as the book review goes, I'll probably have it tomorrow night or Monday morning, with the appropriate protections on spoilers. If you want to find out the fate of Harry, Ron, Hermione, Ginny, Snape, Voldemort, or others before then -- you should read the book!

Harry Potter: Live Blog

I decided that I would see for myself just how deep the Harry Potter phenomenon ran. I usually look at fads with more than a little skepticism, especially here in the Upper Midwest. If kids and parents go nuts for movies or games on the coasts, it would seem unlikely here in Middle America ... or at least in the sleepy suburb in which I live.

Guess again!

That little patch of floor at the bottom of the left corner was about the only unoccupied space in the store. Witches, quidditch players, and plain old Muggles have stuffed the Barnes & Noble almost to capacity already, and I'm certain more will be arriving as we get closer to midnight. They just announced that the store has a live owl show up at the registers, and signs all over the store announce other activities, such as a Quidditch Toss.

I plan to wander around and take a few snaps between now and 12:15, when my group gets their book. I'll post them as I go along -- if I can actually move.

11:24 PM CT - I took a pass around the store, shooting pictures of the various stops. I'm going to see if I can put them into a slide show. It's pretty amazing, but then again, retailers have had plenty of practice by this time. They have several activities to keep kids from becoming too restless, but the stress has begun to show with some. The smaller children seem to be handling it better than the older ones, but every adult I've seen in the place looks exhausted.

They'll begin organizing the sales in a couple of minutes. They just called the "11:30 cashiers" to the register.

11:35 - They just called the holders of orange slips into line -- and a hush fell over the store, I kid you not. The activities continued after a moment of silence.

11:39 - Here's the slideshow. I saved the scariest character until last.

11:44 - They're lining up now; the area in which I've been seated has pretty much cleared out. Pin The Tail On The Hideous Creature -- the activity just across from me -- has emptied out.

11:54 - Well, there's always one in the crowd that has to politicize things. A middle-aged Muggle just walked past me with a T-shirt that read, "Republicans for Voldemort".

11:57 -- Gryffindor won the Quidditch toss -- by one point! It's just like the book -- which a twenty-something sitting on the floor next to my chair reminded everyone.

12:00 - They're doing a New Year's Eve countdown -- happy Harry Potter!

12:01 - Have the first confirmed spoilers hit the Internet yet?

12:05 - My battery's running low, and if the B&N staff has their act together, my color group should get called to the counter in the next ten minutes. I don't plan on staying for the whole party; I'll hit the road as soon as I have my book. I'd stay but I can't get within a half-mile of the coffee bar here, and without caffeine, I'll be lucky to drive the two miles home.

12:52: Just got home a few minutes ago. They had it arranged pretty well, although they could have staged the line a little more efficiently. Not too many people stuck around for more festivities after they bought the book; most went immediately out the door.

It's easy to tease, but I have to say that everyone there looked like they were having a great time, even the employees. It was a fun festival, a magical night in many ways for the smaller readers who probably rarely stay up this late for anything else. I didn't see one tear or hear one complaint from the kids, and that's pretty remarkable.

Blogging may be a little light this weekend, BTW ....

An Example Of Google 'News'

An alert CQ reader, Mike Jackson, happened to check out Google News a few minutes ago (3:50 pm PDT), and was stunned to see the top headline and article:

It comes from a news service called AXcess -- and the article itself is worse than the headline:

A shudder could be felt across Capitol Hill Friday after news came out that President Bush would be having his butt checked out which meant that while Bush was going through the colonoscopy, Vice President Dick Cheney would be in charge of the nation.

"It's a chilling thought," one passerby told AXcess News when asked if they were concerned over Cheney's short-term rule of the White House. ...

Bush last underwent colorectal cancer surveillance on June 29, 2002. At the time, the only thing doctors found was an attitude, which medical experts say is not cancerous though his administration has become quite malignant in their support of the President's plan to keep U.S. troops in Iraq.

Great "news" service that Google chose to include, isn't it?

JetBlue Retracts Sponsorship; Is This Victory?

After the discount airliner JetBlue sponsored the YearlyKos event, conservative bloggers started campaigning to pressure the airline to end its association with the Leftosphere event. Bill O'Reilly even had a Factor segment on his show this week, challenging JetBlue management for its decision to help underwrite the event. At first, JetBlue remained adamant that they would not succumb to the pressure -- but that didn't last too long. According to Markos Moulitsas Zuniga at Daily Kos, they have ended their association with his conference (via Memeorandum):

Okay, so JetBlue, after deciding to resist Bill O'Reilly's pressure last night, just decided to back down. ...

As for my part, I'm cancelling my JetBlue American Express card and will be looking at alternative options for my future travel. Too bad. Unfortunately, JetBlue just told me (and the rest of us) that they accept O'Reilly's ... smears. ..

Oh, and JetBlue advertises with Fox. You see, it's okay to support the likes of Ann Coulter.

Don Surber proclaims victory:

The left loves to decry “hypocrisy” on the right. Well, what about them? The left is bankrolled by billionaires such as George “Convicted in France of Insider Trading” Soros. They hate insurance companies but love those campaign donations from Peter “Progressive Auto Insurance” Lewis. They hate multi-national corporations but demand money from them.

Actually, Kos played JetBlue, claiming it was a corporate sponsor when it was not. O’Reilly posted this from an e-mail he got from its CEO: “Because the only thing JetBlue has done with the YearlyKos Convention is to provide 10 travel vouchers, we’ve asked to have our name removed from their Web site to avoid confusion. We’re an airline, we’re not a political organization.”

All schadenfreude aside, in my opinion, this is a very thin victory -- especially for bloggers. I wouldn't mourn the collapse of Yearly Kos, but I don't think it's all that important in any case. The world will little note nor long remember the words spoken/shouted/screeched there. Frankly, this just gives them more publicity and the aura of minor martyrdom.

However, potential underwriters will remember the immediate attacks for any company foolish enough to sponsor forums where free political speech occurs. Does anyone think for a moment that these same lessons won't apply to conservative blogger conventions, if we start holding them, in the future? It takes a lot of money to stage these events, and if the Rightosphere ever gets its activist act together, they can go far towards bolstering the community and moving agendas forward.

Full disclosure also suffers. I don't blame JetBlue for sponsoring Kos' event as much as I appreciate knowing where they stand politically. That will now be more difficult to determine with executives who just learned to keep their mouths shut, along with their wallets.

I'd rather we had left the option open for corporate sponsorship for grassroots political events. There may come a time when we could benefit from it. If this is victory, it's only a short-term partisan triumph. Free political speech could use a little corporate protection in these days of pushing the Fairness Doctrine and the BCRA, and that's true for all Americans regardless of their political orientation.

Seven Rules, One Oath

One of the toughest tasks facing the Americans in Iraq is the building of a truly national security force, both as an Army and as a police force. Up to now, the police forces have tended towards the sectarian, and ineffective as a result, althought the Army has fared better. As part of his reporting from Iraq, Michael Yon describes a conference held by the US military that included Iraqi Army officers and leaders from insurgent and tribal groups that have committed to solidarity as Iraqis in a unified security force.

But how to get there? Colonel Steve Townsend presided over the conference, which developed into a negotiation -- and a remarkably civil and effective negotiation at that:

Colonel Townsend clarified the purpose of the meeting; it was not to formalize relations or to establish a chain of command, but to work out ways of cooperating to bring better days to Baqubah.

Colonel Townsend’s staff had prepared a slideshow that started off with a draft of “7 Rules.” The final version of the 7 Rules were open to discussion and suggestions from those in attendance. The rules were followed by an Oath, also still in draft. ...

After the proposal for the 7 Rules and the Oath were presented, the most interesting—fascinating, really—part of the meeting unfolded.

The Iraqi Army officers and the insurgents known as the Baqubah Guardians took these discussions very seriously. They made thoughtful objections to some portions of both, and the debate resulted in better versions. The former enemies in the field appeared ready to work together to bring quiet and security to Baqubah and Diyala in general, which may have been the most surprising aspect of the conference.

This is what Generals David Petraeus and Ray Odierno meant when they warned Congress that the legislative benchmarks had much less relevance than the progress on the ground. If the diverse elements of Iraqi society are to live together and champion an Iraqi nationality, these developments will be how that happens. It's not that revenue sharing and reversing the effects of de-Baathification aren't good legislative priorities -- it's that they are secondary to the kinds of alliances that the bolstered American military presence is creating in western and central Iraq.

Be sure to read all of Yon's post. Don't forget to throw a few dollars in the tip jar while you're there.

CQ Radio: Dean Ronald Cass, Guiliani Judicial Advisory Committee

Today on CQ Radio (2 pm CT), I'll speak with Dean Ronald Cass, who now serves as one of Rudy Giuliani's advisors on judges. Do you have questions for Dean Cass about Rudy's judicial direction? Leave your question in the comments! I'll ask the best questions and find out where a Giuliani presidency will leave the federal judiciary. Townhall's Matt Lewis will join me in the second half to talk about the McCain interview from yesterday, and Matt's analysis of the media treatment of McCain.

Call 646-652-4889 to join the conversation!

Did you know that you can listen to CQ Radio through your TiVo service? Click here for the instructions. Also, you can subscribe to CQ Radio through iTunes now by clicking this link:

The Harry Hurry

I decided to work off-site at my local Panera this morning, something I promised myself I would do now that I work from home -- but hadn't yet done in the three months I've worked at BlogTalkRadio. The coffee's great and the breakfast is reasonable; it cost me about the same for a refillable large coffee, a bagel, and a large orange juice as it does for the Starbucks raspberry mocha frappucino to which I've become addicted recently.

Barnes & Noble has a store in the same shopping center as Panera, and I was initially surprised to see a line running about 100 yards outside the door as I drove past it. I had not realized that people would start lining up for the release of the last Harry Potter novel, but there has to be over a hundred people -- and the book doesn't get released until tonight, after midnight. I have a hard time imagining why people would line up at midnight to get a book of any kind, and I certainly can't imagine why they would line up 15 hours before it can even be sold.

I'm not going to gainsay the Harry Potter phenomenon. I enjoy the books and am looking forward to reading the last installment. I already have my book reserved at the same store, and I had hoped to pick it up tomorrow morning on the way to the NARN show. I may come back tonight at midnight with a video camera and see the circus for myself. If I'm plagued by insomnia, I may have a YouTube broadcast here. Check back in the morning.

What do CQ readers think of the Harry hurry? Let's have a little fun, and take a completely unscientific poll:

UPDATE: I'm back home now, but I did stop at the Barnes & Noble to see what was happening. The line was to get onto the reservation lists at the last minute. By the time I got there, the lines had disappeared, so I confirmed that my name was still on the list. I then got a wristband for their costume party tonight, which starts at 10:30 PM, and an assignment to the color group that will get called first at 12:15 AM to retrieve their books.

If I'm up that late, I have to get some pictures and video of this. I think I'll come as a Muggle tourist ...

Jihadi, USA

McQ at QandO did a little digging at MEMRI and discovered a disturbing development. As the NIE noted, jihadist websites provide both indoctrination and operational capabilities for jihadists around the world. It should be in America's interest to get these sites shut down. Who do we have to invade for victory on this front?

Apparently, Texas, Nevada, New Jersey, and Washington:

Today, in a briefing on Capitol Hill hosted by Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY), chairman of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia and Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, MEMRI's president Yigal Carmon spoke about Islamist/Jihadi websites.

The briefing was based on a study prepared by MEMRI which highlighted the fact that all Islamist/Jihadi websites are hosted directly or through subservers by Western - primarily American - Internet Service Providers (ISPs). The study also discussed the question of what can be done about it, and stressed the fact that most - if not all - ISPs do not know what is the content of the websites they are hosting, due to the language gap, since most of these websites are in Arabic.

During the briefing, MEMRI announced that it is taking upon itself a public service - offering ISPs that want to know about the content of the sites they are hosting information regarding those sites within 7-10 days, so they can make an informed decision on whether they want to continue hosting these sites.

The sites involved aren't just jihadi-wannabe nutcases, little Adam Gadahns who lack travel funds. These sites are operated by Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Jaysh al-Mujahideen, and al-Qaeda. They're recruiting, they're supporting operational terrorism, and they're doing it from our own back yards.

And I'm sure they're having a hell of a laugh over it, too.

MEMRI notes that the ISPs may not realize their involvement in hosting jihadi sites because of a lack of knowledge of Arabic. I suggest we make it known to them through our phone calls and e-mails. Take a look at the list at QandO and at MEMRI, and encourage your ISP to use MEMRI's volunteers to check through their subscriber sites for any further infiltration.

I'll start with Site Genie here in Minnesota, and get back to CQ readers with whatever I find out.

UPDATE: Haft of the Spear advises people to leave the sites alone, so that the government can track the traffic at the sites. Unfortunately, since these site exist within the US, they fall within the same laws that keep the NSA from conducting warrantless wiretaps. The servers would have to exist outside the US in order for Haft's argument to work. Besides, while the information might provide some assistance in locating Internet access points for visitors, those points are most likely to be Internet cafes in places like Pakistan, Iran, Yemen, and so on. Interesting, generally helpful, but probably not specifically good enough to find the terrorists.

OK, Now Stop Listening To The Generals

For the first part of the Iraq war, critics kept insisting that we "listen to the generals," who wanted new strategies and more troops on the ground. Now that we have both, the same critics apparently have the opposite advice. Congress held a briefing with Generals David Petraeus and Raymond Odierno, along with Ambassador Ryan Crocker, and then essentially said they weren't going to listen to them:

The top commanders in Iraq and the American ambassador to Baghdad appealed for more time beyond their mid-September assessment to more fully judge if the new strategy was making gains.

Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the No. 2 commander in Iraq, told Pentagon reporters that while he would provide the mid-September assessment of the new military strategy that Congress has required, it would take “at least until November” to judge with confidence whether the strategy was working.

But their appeals, in three videoconferences on Capitol Hill and at the Pentagon, were met by stern rebukes from lawmakers of both parties.

In fact, the three men in Baghdad told Congress that the benchmarks they devised were poor measures of progress:

Ambassador Crocker cautioned the lawmakers that the series of 18 benchmarks set by Congress to define his assessment due Sept. 15 might not be the best measures of success in Iraq. And he strongly hinted that those specific goals may not be reached by the September deadline, anyway.

“The longer I am here, the more I am persuaded that progress in Iraq cannot be analyzed solely in terms of these discreet, precisely defined benchmarks because, in many cases, these benchmarks do not serve as reliable measures of everything that is important — Iraqi attitudes toward each other and their willingness to work toward political reconciliation,” Mr. Crocker said.

This is what the Iraqis said at the time as well. The politcal benchmarks may not indicate much of anything, except that the assembly can pass bills. (That would, by the way, make them more effective than the 110th Congress.) The Iraqis may not share the same legislative priorities as the Americans, and they may feel that their legislative priorities out to outweigh American priorities.

Joe Biden apparently decided to assume his role as 1/535ths Commander in Chief during the briefing. "You're not staying," he barked at the television as the three men on the ground tried to explain the situation. Biden seems to be very selective in his insistence that we "listen to the generals"; he seems to prefer the generals that aren't in command, those who have less information about the actual situation rather than axes to grind.

If it appears rather backwards to have Congress ignore the advice of the military commander on the ground in a war, along with the ambassador and the commander's #2, now we know why the founders made sure that the prosecution of war remained the responsibility of the executive. Congress insisted on benchmarks as their own standard of progress, and the truth is that they did a poor job of selecting them. Confronted with that truth, they have chosen to ignore the men closest to the situation and best able to analyze it in favor of their own flawed presumptions.

So now it's OK to stop listening to the generals. Indeed, it's now OK to bark insults at them. Just ask Joe "Listen to the generals" Biden.

Ted Kennedy And The Democrats Hate Free Speech

Once again, Minnesota's Senator Norm Coleman attempted to ensure that government would not control the content of political speech -- and once again the Democrats ensured that they could impose it. Ted Kennedy himself blocked Coleman's amendment with a point of order, and the Democrats torpedoed it in a party-line vote:

Senate Democrats last night beat back a Republican attempt to attach an anti-Fairness Doctrine bill as an amendment to education legislation.

The doctrine, a former requirement that broadcasters present opposing points of view on political issues, was scrapped in 1987 by the Federal Communications Commission, which said the policy restricted journalistic freedom. The bill by Sen. Norm Coleman, Minnesota Republican, would prevent the FCC from reinstating the doctrine.

"We live in an age of satellite radio, of broadband, of blogs, of Internet, of cable TV, of broadcast TV. There is no limitation on the ability of anyone from any political persuasion to get their ideas set forth," Mr. Coleman argued in support of the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007. "The public in the end will choose what to listen to."

By a vote of 49-48, senators voted not to consider Mr. Coleman's amendment after Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, raised a point of order. Senate rules require 60 votes to waive a point of order.

Kennedy pronounced Coleman's amendment on the education bill as "insulting", claiming that it delayed passage of his education bill. Coleman responded tartly by telling Kennedy that education can only be enhanced by "unfettered access to information." Perhaps it would have been better to remind Kennedy that the federal government has less business regulating political speech than it does in education.

It's become clear that the Democrats want top-down government control over political speech in this country. More than that, they want a mechanism that will kill talk radio -- because they can't compete in that arena. They want to re-establish the Fairness Doctrine so that broadcasters get intimidated into changing formats to protect their licenses. With the FD back in business, any crank can file complaints at will and force the broadcasters to conduct minute-by-minute audits of their broadcasts, attempting to determine how much time went to one position versus another.

Instead of going through that burdensome and expensive accounting, broadcasters will dump political talk for sports, or perhaps the inane "community" talk that almost always turns covertly political. The AM band will fade -- again -- and the broadcast industry will contract -- again. And all because the Democrats believe that Americans are so stupid that they can't find competing information on their own.

Evan Bayh was the only Democrat to support free political speech in this vote. Every Republican in the Senate voted to support free speech. That should inform voters for the 2008 campaign. Without free political speech, all else is lost.

Plame Doused

A federal judge brought the Plame show to a close yesterday, throwing out a lawsuit brought by Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson against several government officials, including Dick Cheney. The judge ruled that the officials named could not be sued for the conduct of their officials duties -- and noted that those duties included responding to public criticism:

A federal judge yesterday dismissed a lawsuit filed by former CIA officer Valerie Plame and her husband against Vice President Cheney and other top officials over the Bush administration's disclosure of Plame's name and covert status to the media.

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates said that Cheney and the others could not be held liable for the disclosures in the summer of 2003 in the midst of a White House effort to rebut criticism of the Iraq war by her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. The judge said that such efforts are a natural part of the officials' job duties, and, thus, they are immune from liability.

"The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory," Bates wrote. "But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush administration's handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials."

In other words, Joe Wilson should have minded his wife's status from the beginning. If anyone should have been sued, Valerie should have named Joe at the top of the list. Instead, Joe had to grandstand after getting the assignment through the efforts of his wife that led to his star turn as Bush administration critic. There's nothing new about that; we've made that argument all along.

If the judge had allowed it to go to trial, though, it still wouldn't have succeeded, because the actual leak in this case came from Richard Armitage, not Libby or anyone at the White House. In a civil suit, the damage has to come from the defendants, and no one could argue with a straight face that Armitage would have done Cheney's or Libby's bidding. The discovery that Armitage gave the information to Robert Novak should have closed the criminal investigation, and it should have mooted this particular suit, unless the Wilsons amended it to replace Cheney and Libby with Armitage. He did the actual damage, to the extent damage occurred at all.

But the Plames didn't file this suit to recover from actual damages. They filed the suit to continue their status as darlings of the Left. It's hard to imagine that Joe Wilson could have acquitted himself on the stand well enough to keep the lawsuit from getting dismissed on the merits, even if it had survived on jurisdiction. Any cross-examination would have established his credibility as at near zero, and the case would have dissipated. The judge did them a favor; now they can claim judicial martyrdom, and their supporters have another cause to decry.

A Hot Summer?

It may not have been the most provocative statement Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has ever made in public, but it may be all the more ominous for its ambiguity. While traveling to Syria to meet with Iran's closest ally, Bashar Assad, and with Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah, the Iranian president promised a "hot summer" in the region, which he hoped would lead to the "defeat for the region's enemies":

It's going to be a "hot" summer in the Middle East, said Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad following a surprise meeting with Hizbullah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah in Damascus on Thursday evening, Channel 10 reported.

Nasrallah allegedly entered Syria via an underground tunnel, the television channel said.

"We hope that the hot weather of this summer will coincide with similar victories for the region's peoples, and with consequent defeat for the region's enemies," Ahmadinejad added, in an apparent reference to Israel.

During his one-day trip to Damascus, Ahmadinejad held talks with counterpart Bashar Assad which focused on the Iraq situation, Palestinian territories and Lebanon, where both Teheran and Damascus wield influence.

It's less bloviating than his normal pronouncements, but it sounds more specific in its way. After all, Syria has reportedly started mobilizing on the border with Lebanon, and rumor has it that they will once again re-enter to tamp down any anti-Syrian momentum. Hezbollah has sufficiently re-armed enough to launch another series of attacks on Israel at almost any time they wish. Hamas has Gaza in its grip.

Alternately, Ahmadinejad could be talking about the US. The latest report from General David Petraeus notes the heavy involvement of Iran in the Iraqi insurgencies, especially in the Shi'ite militias. Could Iran expand their twilight offensive against the US in Iraq? With Congress looking for an excuse to flee, Ahmadinejad may be thinking of turning up the summer heat at this critical juncture.

Or he could just have decided to become a weatherman. As unlikely as that is, we'd hope that he finds that a more enjoyable profession than instigating genocides and oppressing millions of people. Maybe he can convince Bashar Assad to go back to optometry while he's at it.

Transcript: The John McCain Interview

For those who have not had the opportunity to listen to the podcast of the John McCain interview yesterday, or for those who want to excerpt it for debate, the transcript is now ready at Heading Right. Even in the transcript, one gets the sense of McCain's offended sensibilities from Harry Reid's publicity stunts this week, calling the suspension of the defense authorization bill "unconscionable" and noting that the Senate has more comedy than comity in the 110th Congress. For instance, McCain made his point plain in this exchange:

But then he pulls the bill down after not getting 60 votes, and guess where we are? The military does not get a three and a half percent pay raise, we don’t authorize these new types of equipment to fight IED’s, the wounded warrior legislation, the wounded war legislation was to try to fix this terrible scandal out at Walter Reed, and other aspects of our treatment of the men and women in the military and our veterans. That all gets pulled out, that all gets pulled out and I think its unconscionable, I think it’s absolutely unconscionable, and by the way with the full and certain knowledge, whether I happen to like it or not, that a month and a half from now in September, guess what? We’re going to take up Iraq again after General Paetreus is required to make a report to the Congress and the nation. So what was this all about? It was exactly what this guy who is one of the major people in moveon.org said it was, it was about putting pressure on Republican senators to get them to come out to withdraw from Iraq, and so at the expense of the security of this nation, the welfare of the men and women who are serving our nation, we bring up the Department Of Defense authorization bill, fight about it over Iraq, a publicity stunt to stay overnight, and then they pull the bill. Now I don’t know, I can’t recall something that is quite of this nature. I’ll try to restrain my rhetoric here, but have we forgotten, have we forgotten that our first obligation is to these young men and women who are serving our nation and give them the equipment, the training and the quality of life that they deserve. Instead he used that as a vehicle to for their own political agenda of the Democrat party, who by the way, quote Sen. Schumer, we will pick up seats as a result of this war. And pulled it down without us acting on what’s a vital ingredient in determining and assisting the national security of this nation. That’s the end of my tirade, Ed.

But it wasn't -- and it was fascinating. Be sure to read the entire transcript, and listen to the podcast as well.

UPDATE: John Kerry asserted that the stories of bloodbaths following the fall of South Vietnam were nothing but myths, in an appearance yesterday on C-SPAN:

Sen. John Kerry said during a C-SPAN appearance that fears of a bloodbath after the US withdrawal from Vietnam never materialized. He says he's met survivors of the "reeducation camps" who are thriving in modern Vietnam. An award-winning investigation by the Orange County Register concludes that at least 165,000 people perished in the camps.

That's breathtaking idiocy. I lived in Orange County, California, when hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese came to this country in rickety boats, victimized by piracy and the sea, just to escape the bloodbath that followed. The number that The Register published may be low; other estimates put the total closer to a half-million. Even at that number, it's three times the number of American men and women who died trying to prevent it. Shame on Kerry for his despicable fronting for the Communists in Southeast Asia.

Kerry's statement didn't get publicized until after I spoke with John McCain, but the subject came up anyway:

We said, if we left Cambodia, everything would be fine. Stop the bombing in Cambodia. I can find you the quotes in the Congressional Record. Stop the bombing in Cambodia, they’ll sort these things out. And they’ll have a nation that’s free from interference and killing by the Americans. Well, yeah, they got it. Three million people slaughtered in genocide. Three million. And everything was going to be fine in Vietnam if you might recall. It was going to be workers paradise. Thousands executed. Millions – hundreds of thousands put in re-education camps. Millions of people risking their lives to get in boats to get the hell out of there. Because of the incredible oppression that existed. And I don’t mean to keep revisiting another war, but if we ignore the lessons of history, the consequences are obvious.

If we keep electing idiots and enablers like Kerry to office, we'll wind up rewriting history instead.

On My Desk: Cheney

I took the evening off from blogging, after regularly scheduled medical maintenance for the First Mate and finishing the Ken Burns documentary series, The Civil War. It gave me an opportunity to flip through the latest book by Stephen Hayes, the author of The Connection, which outlined the various links between al-Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime. Now Steven has set his sights on Dick Cheney in his new book, Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President.

Hayes conducted hours of interviews with the VP and was allowed "unprecedented access" to administration officials -- including George Bush -- and Cheney's family and friends. The book promises to go into some touchy subjects, such as Cheney's opposition to removing Saddam Hussein in 1991, his disagreement over the dismissal of Donald Rumsfeld, and how he was chosen as Bush's running mate.

The book gets released next Tuesday, so get your pre-orders in now. I'll have Stephen on my show next week or the week after to talk about it and take your questions.

John McCain Interview Podcast

The podcast file for the John McCain interview is now up and ready for download. Senator McCain is one of the most interesting and provocative guests I have on the show -- he talks plain, and in this case, it comes through immediately. In the interview, he lashes out at Harry Reid, calling his suspension of the defense appropriation bill "unconscionable" and refers derisively to the all-nighter this week as a "publicity stunt". He also talks about his presidential campaign, which is something he refused to do with CNN, taking responsibility for the "failure" but insisting he will not withdraw. Without asking, he spoke out against any return of the Fairness Doctrine.

It really is can't-miss radio. In fact, Fox News agrees -- because they taped the interview off of one of the caller lines. Keep an eye on their website and on their broadcast tonight for a clip of the interview.

Don't forget that you can subscribe to CQ Radio through iTunes now by clicking this link:

You can also listen to CQ Radio via your TiVo! Find out how here.

UPDATE: The New York Observer tuned into the show. Andrew Mangino picked out some good blurbs, and hopefully he'll include links in an update.

UPDATE II: Douglas Gibbs will have Jim Gilmore on the next Political Pistachio to discuss his withdrawal from the presidential race. Be sure to catch that on Saturday!

Also, the Embassy of Afghanistan now has links up to my interview with Ambassador Said T. Jawad on its website.

UPDATE III: Fox News has the story up on its website. The last line is the best: "That was hardly the end of McCain's criticism but we don't want to fry your computer with the scalding rhetoric." I had the incorrect link earlier, but it's correct now.

CQ Radio: Senator John McCain

Today on CQ Radio, at the special time of 1 pm CT/2 pm ET, Senator John McCain joins us again at the beginning of the show. Make sure you don't miss this interview! We're going to talk about the state of the war in Iraq and the actions in the Senate this week. USA Today has alerted its readers to the show, and we hope to hear from them. Afterwards, fellow BTR host Rick Moran will join me to discuss the interview -- which should be interesting, since Rick has become a critic of the war.

Call 646-652-4889 to join the conversation!

Did you know that you can listen to CQ Radio through your TiVo service? Click here for the instructions. Also, you can subscribe to CQ Radio through iTunes now by clicking this link:

McCain's Not Quitting

It's become fashionable to write obituaries for John McCain's presidential campaign, and the recent housecleaning at the Straight Talk Express has convinced many that McCain will end his bid sooner rather than later. Chris Cillizza at The Fix reports that John McCain is not among those so convinced. The Senator has met with staffers to draw comparisons between the status of his campaign and that of another Republican, who went on to some degree of success. Chris reviews two memos making the rounds:

The first document seeks to draw parallels between Ronald Reagan's 1980 presidential bid and the current state of McCain's operation. "During the summer of 1979, Ronald Reagan's campaign reported that it was broke," begins the memo. "The candidate had to explain his weak fundraising and big spending, as well as overcome doubts about his age and ability." After firing much of his top campaign staff just before the New Hampshire primary, he went on to win that ballot, the GOP nomination and the presidency. "Ultimately when Ronald Reagan took control of his own campaign, he started to see successes," the document reads. ...

The second memo is far longer and more detailed -- seeking to explain McCain's potential path to the Republican nomination.

"The 2008 primary election is dramatically front-loaded," it reads. "We believe that puts more pressure on candidates to win early primary states than ever before.["]

Essentially, the strategy comes down to better fiscal management and a surprise win or two before the first Super Tuesday. Much the same as Mitt Romney does, McCain believes that a big win in Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina will give him both credibility and momentum going into the massive February 5th primaries. That could work, especially for Republicans, who usually work hard to close ranks early in the primary season.

However, it will take some doing for McCain. He has to retool his campaign to end the bleeding. They have raised a very respectable $24 million so far this year, but had to spend $22 million doing it. That's why McCain streamlined the operation this month, trying to hold down costs and slim operations that didn't give commensurate value. His fundraising numbers in Q3 will be critical to his credibility. If he can turn that around, then the comparison to Reagan may hold some water.

In order to get there, he needs to focus on his strengths. That means national security, the war on terror, and his personal story. McCain and his team need to get their man closer to the people and farther away from the ivory tower. People respond to McCain when they meet or talk with him in a manner they do not when they only see him on television. If he's going to regain his mojo, that's how it'll happen. Don't expect McCain to quit any time soon, in any case.

I'll be interviewing Senator McCain on today's CQ Radio show, at the special time of 2 pm ET/1 pm CT. Be sure to catch it live!

Russia Retaliates

Vladimir Putin has retaliated for the expulsion of four Russian diplomats from London. Russia expelled four British diplomats and announced that they would no longer cooperate with the UK on counterterrorism operations. However, analysts see some hope that the damage may be contained:

Russia today expelled four British diplomats, in tit-for-tat retaliation for Britain's expulsion of four of its own diplomats earlier this week.

Moscow also announced that it would withhold future co-operation with Britain in the war on terror, and stop issuing visas to British officials.

Russia's response had been expected since David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, announced on Monday that four Russian officials would be expelled from Britain following Moscow's failure to hand over Andrei Lugovoi, the man suspected of murdering Alexander Litvinenko.

The Russians could have raised the stakes on this confrontation, but apparently want to stop any further escalation. They took care to match what the Brown government did on Monday and go no further. In fact, the action is reminiscent of Cold War actions in diplomatic and espionage rows that erupted occasionally between the Soviets and Western nations. It even happened after the Cold War between Russia and the UK, in 1996.

Western eyebrows may get raised at the notion that Russia will end cooperation on security matters, but that also appears to be calculated to cause the least amount of blowback. Putin's government specifically stated that it would not cooperate with the UK -- which would allow other nations to act as intel conduits between the two nations. It puts more pressure on those nations to maintain ties to Moscow, though, and it calls into question Putin's commitment to global security against Islamist terrorism. If he just considers it a bargaining chip, then Russia can't have taken it all that seriously from the beginning.

Putin obviously hopes this will be the last word on this controversy. Gordon Brown has some thinking to do about whether they will let it be so. Do they want to keep poking the Russian bear, or will they swallow the insult to their sovereignty that two assassination attempts represent?

Democrats Abandon National-Security Tipsters

The Washington Times reports that the John Doe law, which would protect tipsters who provide information about potential national-security threats, has run into a buzz saw in Congress. Democrats want the language removed from a Homeland Security bill in the House, and removed quietly. Republicans in the House have called foul.

At Heading Right, I question how Democrats can posture as responsible guardians of national security while throwing citizen tipsters to the litigating wolves. Given that the intimidation of torts began here, my interest is somewhat more than academic, especially since I travel more often than before. It’s precisely this kind of disincentive, applied to law enforcement and intelligence, that created the walls that led to the failures resulting in the 9/11 attack.

Read more about this at Heading Right, and also Michelle Malkin, The Corner, and Hot Air.

When Visiting The Zoo, Stop And Try Their Deli

The zoo at Erfurt, Germany really loves animals. Apparently they love them so much that they just have to share them with people -- as stew, fricasee, sishkebab, and steaks. German authorities discovered a clandestine slaughterhouse that sold meat ranging from venison to guinea pigs:

Lots of people like looking at animals in zoos. Lots of people also like eating meat. However the thought of the two things together tends to turn most people's stomachs.

But not all apparently. Employees at the Erfurt zoo, it was revealed Wednesday, have for years been killing animals and selling their meat for zoo stew. Germany is outraged. ...

The animals killed were all "slaughterable" animals such as goats, sheep, pigs and deer, said Erfurt city hall spokeswoman Inga Hettstedt, and the meat was not sold to restaurants. However the mass circulation newspaper Bild reported Thursday that ducks, quails and even guinea pigs were also involved. The zoo, which is owned by the city of Erfurt, has over 1,400 animals belonging to around 190 species.

Well, they did have that many. The Sweeny Todd operation undoubtably reduced the inventory somewhat.

Invade Pakistan?

The co-chair of the Iraq Study Group has a suggestion for George Bush that he apparently believes to be novel -- invade Pakistan. Lee Hamilton apparently thinks that Bush hasn't thought of the idea before now (via Memeorandum):

U.S. forces should go into Pakistan to rout al Qaeda from the safe haven it has found in the mountains on the border with Afghanistan, a co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group said.

Former Rep. Lee Hamilton, who also served as the vice chairman of the 9/11 commission, says the Iraq war distracted the United States when it had al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden on the run in the tribal region between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

He says it's now time to finish the job.

"This has to be carefully calibrated, worked out with the Pakistanis, but I am very concerned that you have a safe haven in Pakistan today where they (al Qaeda) can regroup, rethink, and get ready for more attacks," Hamilton said on CNN's "Newsroom" on Wednesday.

It's a terrific idea! Why didn't we think of this before? Let's coordinate with Pervez Musharraf to invade North Waziristan, which will enrage the moderate Pakistanis and likely push al-Qaeda farther into Pakistan's interior. At that point, we can overrun all of Pakistan and occupy it. Sounds splendid.

Well, except for one thing ... what if Musharraf says no?

Does anyone really think that the administration hasn't been pressuring Musharraf for this exact plan? We've spent the last five years asking for permission to cross the border to pursue the Taliban remnants and al-Qaeda, and Musharraf has refused, and probably for good reason. An American invasion, even limited to Waziristan, would mean allowing infidel troops on Islamic land, which has never exactly been a move that stabilizes a Muslim nation. Just ask Saudi Arabia, who acquiesced to only hosting our troops for fourteen years in the standoff with Saddam Hussein.

Hamilton doesn't address a "no" from Musharraf, so let's actually do the analysis that Hamilton avoids. If Musharraf refuses and we invade anyway, we've just committed an act of war against Pakistan. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and probably an inclination to use them in case of an invasion, certainly one by India and probably one by the West. They also have a large, professional, well-equipped army, which we know because we equipped it to keep the Islamists at bay. Instead of using them against the Islamists, they would likely join the Islamists in fighting us.

And how many of our allies would come along with us on this adventure? Bush built a fairly large coalition for the invasion of Iraq and for the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. How many of those nations would come along on a war against Pakistan? I doubt we could even convince the UK or Australia to ride shotgun on that mission.

And if Bush commits an act of war against Pakistan, how long do you suppose it will take for Hamilton's friends in Congress to file articles of impeachment against Bush?

Hamilton is full of hot air, as is the ISG report. He wants us to invade a nation of 164 million people without regard to what its government wants -- a nuclear-armed nation at that. We would be attacking a mountainous position at the point farthest away from our naval lines of communication while fighting a military that could call up tens of millions of men. This apparently is preferable to the situation we face now in Iraq, where we're beating terrorists on a daily basis while hoping to bolster a stable republic that will one day fight terrorism on their own.

If Musharraf wanted us in Waziristan, we'd be there already. If he doesn't, we don't have much choice but to operate on quieter levels and take a chance now and again at a decapitating strike.

The Liberal Fantasy Of A Conservative

As I have written before, one can gain a sense of a candidate's viability by the volume and nature of the attacks against him (or her). That might be especially true when the candidate has not yet entered the race, as with Fred Thompson. So far we've seen attacks based on 19 hours of consultations (see below), smeared his sons, and all but called his wife a bimbo.

And Fred hasn't even officially declared himself as a candidate!

This continued yesterday with the normally sane New Republic, which apparently thought it got to the heart of Fred's appeal to conservatives. Michelle Cottle instead built up a strawman of a supposed conservative obsession with masculinity, which says a lot more about Cottle and TNR than it does about Fred or conservatives:

If there's one thing conservatives are obsessed with these days, it's manliness. Saddled with a president they once cheered as a kick-ass cowboy but have come to scorn as weak on everything from immigration to government spending, Republicans are desperate for a competent, confident champion to make them feel good about themselves again. As Rudy Giuliani recently told a crowd of Delaware supporters, "What we're lacking is strong, aggressive, bold leadership like we had with Ronald Reagan."

Enter Fred Thompson. More than anyone in the field--more than Giuliani, more than John McCain, and certainly more than the altogether-too-well-coiffed Mitt Romney--Thompson exudes old-school masculinity. Along with the burly build, he has the rumbling baritone, the low-key self-assurance, and the sense of gravitas honed by years as a character actor playing Important Men. In Thompson's presence (live or on-screen), one is viscerally, intimately reassured that he can handle any crisis that arises, be it a renegade Russian sub or a botched rape case.

But therein lies the irony. For, while the veteran actor certainly looks and sounds the part of the man's man in this race, there's precious little in either his personal or political history to suggest that he overflows with any of the attributes commonly associated with manliness, such as determination, perseverance, leadership ability, or garden-variety toughness. By his own account, Thompson is a not especially hard-charging guy who has largely meandered through life, stumbling from one bit of good fortune to the next with an occasional nudge from those close to him. It is, to some extent, part of his much- ballyhooed comfortable-in-his-own-skin charm. But it also raises questions about whether he has the gumption to gut out a presidential race when it inevitably becomes difficult, or mean, or plain old boring. In short, is Fred Thompson really enough of a man for this fight?

Did TNR's editors really let this pass, or did Cottle sneak into the computer system and insert this after close of business? Cottle alleges that conservatives have an obsession with "manliness," and then offers exactly nothing in support of her psychological diagnosis. The best she can do is Rudy Giuliani saying that Republicans want "strong, aggressive, bold leadership," which apparently Cottle believes are qualities exclusive to men. That says a lot more about Cottle than it does about conservatives.

It's worth noting that the man who said this rather famously dressed in drag for a party -- and that he leads in almost all of the national polls for the Republican primary. How does that square with Cottle's diagnosis?

Cottle then argues that Fred is somehow not manly enough for the Republican nomination. She derisively refers to him as "young Freddie Thompson" when reviewing his high-school life, including having to be separated from his buddies in study hall because of the excessive cutting-up. (Wow! What a scoop! And how un-manly!)

Cottle writes somewhat derisively about how his first wife had to help him mature, which shouldn't be much of a shock, since they got married at 17 -- and having a son and daughter-in-law go through a similar situation, it's not surprising that getting married and having babies matures someone. What should be considered is the fact that Thompson went through college and law school while doing so, which isn't easy now and was tougher back then.

The article basically consists of one unsupported hypothesis after another. She accuses Stephen Hayes of having a "particularly intense man crush" on Fred because he wrote this: ""As we spoke, I was struck by the fact that Thompson didn't seem to be calibrating his answers for a presidential run. On issue after contentious issue, I got the sense from both his manner and the answer he gave me that he was just speaking extemporaneously." Cottle also reveals a certain lack of humor when discussing an Internet post that joked, "If Fred Thompson had been at Thermopylae, the movie would have been called 1." Had Cottle had a sense of humor, she would have realized that the joke pokes fun at the sweeping enthusiasm surrounding Fred.

In reading the entire article, it becomes apparent what Cottle and TNR want to say with this article. They want to imply that conservatives suffer from some latent homosexuality, and that the enthusiasm for Thompson's run exposes it. It is a familiar refrain in attacks on conservatives; locally, Nick Coleman specializes in accusing his critics of being closeted gays as well as obsesses over equipment size. Coleman doesn't write for a national publication, however, and Cottle is TNR's Senior Editor. TNR should be embarrassed by the insinuation and by the shoddy writing offered on its pages.

Billing Records Resurrected? (Updated & Bumped)

The Los Angeles Times will report in the next day or so that billing records have been found at Arent Fox which show some consultations between Fred Thompson and the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association. The records will show that Arent billed the NFPRHA for nineteen hours of consultation over a period of fourteen months. The time period corresponds roughly to the time frame between when the NFPRHA claims they hired Thompson as a lobbyist, in September 1991.

We can expect the billing records to make a big splash in the blogosphere. However, a few points should be noted. Fred Thompson made it clear that he never represented this group as a lobbyist, and that he never lobbied John Sununu on their behalf. Sununu verified Thompson's denial. Thompson never denied nor confirmed that he provided some consultation on their behalf through Arent Fox, saying that he could not recall either way.

If the source has the details correct, it would appear to support Thompson's statements. A lobbyist who only bills 19 hours in 14 months would be a highly unsuccessful lobbyist, and the client idiotic. The billing would be consistent with internal consultations at Arent between Thompson and whomever represented the NFPRHA's lobbying interests, perhaps in the nature of gaining Thompson's perspective on various members of the Bush administration, although there also could have been direct consultation with the NFPRHA.

The discovery of the billing records will create another nine-day wonder among the politically attuned. If it turns out to involve nothing more than nineteen hours in fourteen months, it may not even come to that much.

UPDATE & BUMP: The New York Times did the follow-up, as it turns out, but otherwise it seems about as advertised. It starts by saying that Thompson did "nearly 20 hours" worth of work for the NFPRHA, which again implies no continual working relationship. However, the Times says that the billing records show that he reported lobbying Bush (41) officials three times on the group's behalf:

According to records from Arent Fox, the law firm based in Washington where Mr. Thompson worked part-time from 1991 to 1994, he charged the organization, the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, about $5,000 for work he did in 1991 and 1992. The records show that Mr. Thompson, a probable Republican candidate for president in 2008, spent much of that time in telephone conferences with the president of the group, and on three occasions he reported lobbying administration officials on its behalf.

In fact, it says that Thompson spent three and a half hours lobbying the White House -- but it doesn't say whom:

The billing records from Arent Fox show that Mr. Thompson, who charged about $250 an hour, spoke 22 times with Judith DeSarno, who was then president of the family planning group. In addition, he lobbied “administration officials” for a total of 3.3 hours, the records show, although they do not specify which officials he met with or what was said.

That seems a little thin, although if it appears on billing records, one has to assume he at least chatted with someone. However, it's clear that Fred was not the lobbyist for the NFPRHA, not unless they only spent 3.5 hours trying to effect policy change over 14 months. The current partner of Arent makes it pretty clear that Fred was consulting and not lobbying:

The family planning association became a client of Arent Fox through Michael Barnes, a former Democratic congressman who was then a partner at the firm. The firm’s current chairman, Marc Fleischaker, said, “Regardless of whatever the political ramifications are, Fred was being a good colleague by helping out one of the firm’s partner.”

So it appears that Barnes was the lobbyist, and Fred consulted ... occasionally. I don't think Fred intended to live on $5,000 every 14 months, and Barnes would be the obvious choice for lobbying at any rate.

As one of the commenters on this post wrote, this story is a nothingburger. However, Fred's team needs to make sure they don't make matters worse when nothingburgers arise in the future. Patterico calls the response an "unforced error", and he's right. It's one of the bumps in the road that serve as opportunities for improvement, but overall, my friend John at Power Line is correct -- this story is essentially a yawn. "Lawyer Consults! Film At 11!"

Guest Post: Senator James Inhofe

I am pleased to welcome Senator James Inhofe to Captain's Quarters again. In this guest post, Senator Inhofe shares his thoughts about the overnight session Harry Reid demanded.

Iraq and the Continuous Session

Thank you, Ed, for the opportunity to address your readers.

Last night’s shameless press stunt further politicizes a situation that, now more than ever, requires a strong dose of thoughtful discussion and honest debate. Harry Reid’s orchestrated political theatre was never intended to be a serious consideration of Iraq and the War on Terror, but merely a brazen publicity event. And so as our American sons and daughters woke up in Baghdad to put their lives on the line and fight another day, the Democrats kept the Senate up late fighting to undermine their mission and undermine our nation. Armed with a “Let Us Vote” sign and speeches proving how we have already lost, they arrived at their “Sleepover in the Senate” knowing all the while there was no chance the surrender amendment would pass. It seems appeasement of their liberal base is top priority for the razor thin Democrat majority, rather than a discussion of what victory means and how to achieve it.

Of course, it was insufficient to simply be in continuous session. A Washington Post article published this morning details the extent to which Democrats prepared for their event. Pizzas were ordered. A media advisory was issued to advertise cots being rolled in. And Senator Durbin kindly sent toothpaste, toothbrushes, and deodorant to Republican members. Is there any question about how seriously Democrats took the past 24 hours? I bring these points up to illustrate why I am so disappointed. It’s not every day that we debate issues of literal life and death in the Senate, and yet Democrats have been acting like it is sweeps week for C-SPAN.

The continuous session was not without its highlights, however. A number of my colleagues once again reinforced the reasons for our ongoing presence in Iraq and why staying the course is so vital to future security in the Middle East and our homeland. It was an opportunity to review the recent positive points from the surge.

Recent successes in Anbar province have been well documented, and it has become a model for potential developments in other regions of the country. I personally saw the positive results of the newly implemented ‘bottom-up’ approach in both Anbar Province and Baghdad last May. Iraqi defense forces have demonstrated their commitment to security by meeting the benchmark goal of having three brigades trained and deployed in support of Baghdad. Civilians and our military are working jointly together in new ways to build hospitals, improve communications, and develop institutions of democracy. And sectarian violence is on the decline as Iraqis increasingly work side-by-side with our soldiers to root out terrorists. While the picture in Iraq is far from rosy, there are new reasons to believe the situation is improving. These successes give me hope that additional improvements are possible with continued support of our troops and their mission.

The troop surge strategy has been set in motion. The benchmarks for measurable progress have been established. General Petraeus is set to give a complete assessment come September. Undoubtedly the price of our present resolve is high, but the price of impatiently surrendering is even greater still.

By U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.)

GOP Still Hasn't Learned On Pork

During the 110th Congress, critics of the Democrats have had plenty of material with which to work, especially on earmarks. Every week, it seems, another story about Democratic earmarks appears, including today on a mystery earmark that cost American taxpayers the equivalent of 40 years salary for an average American family. That doesn't mean that every Republican has learned their lesson on spending -- and in one case, a GOP Congressman seems determined to learn the wrong lesson.

First, though, let's check in with David Harsanyi of the Denver Post and the author of an upcoming book, Nanny State, about government overreach. He wrote a column criticizing Tom Tancredo for pushing earmarks that totalled over $200 million, and Tancredo objected:

David Harsanyi pointed out that I am attempting to obtain more than $200 million in federal funding for “pet projects” this year. What he neglected to mention is that some $180 million of that money would fund just three projects: completion of the voter-approved T-REX project ($80 million), work on the voter-approved West Corridor light-rail line ($40 million) and a new Denver-area Veterans Affairs hospital ($60 million).

I was also quite puzzled by Harsanyi’s implication that I somehow object to making this information (which is posted on my website) available to the public. After all, for the last several years I have often attempted to publicize it whenever I’ve helped to obtain funding for a local transportation, defense or conservation initiative. And while The Post rarely found such items newsworthy enough to report on in the past, we should all be pleased that this appears to be changing.

Harsanyi responds by asking why federal dollars should be spent on state projects:

I’m quite puzzled myself. First of all, there was no implication in the column that Tancredo objected to releasing his earmark requests — other than he had never released them before. And though I “neglected to mention” that $180 million of the over $200 million he asked for were to fund just three local projects, I’m not sure that fact makes his case for pork any stronger. If folks in Maryland are going to fund local Denver transportation then what stops Colorado money from funding Byrd Country or Bridges to Nowhere?

Indeed. In fact, that's the crux of the problem with pork. It pushes the federal government into tasks in which it should have no stake at all. It also takes money from taxpayers in one state and uses it to fund local and state projects elsewhere, where those taxpayers have no control over the expenditure or the projects. Why not collect less federal tax money and allow each state to fund and run their own projects?

At least Tancredo understands the objections to earmarks, even if he's not willing to give them up for his own grip on power. The Politico notes an exchange between House Republicans that shows how much work we still have ahead of us in educating our elected representatives:

Rep. Don Young attacked his fellow Republicans on the House floor Wednesday, as he defended education funds allocated to his home-state of Alaska.

"You want my money, my money," Young stridently declared before warning conservatives that, "Those who bite me will be bitten back."

Er, whose money?

During his brief tirade Wednesday, Young suggested Republicans lost their majority because Scott Garrett, whom he did not specifically name, and others had challenged spending during the GOP's tenure. He also had disparaging things to say about the great state of New Jersey - home to The Sopranos and Bon Jovi.

You want to know how out of touch Don Young is? He thinks the GOP lost the midterms because Republicans were too critical of spending. Apparently, Don Young of Alaska thinks that Americans send politicians to Washington specifically to pork up the budget and to assume ownership of our tax money.

Thankfully, most Republicans learned a different lesson in 2006. Garrett got a standing ovation later in the day at the Republican Study Committee meeting. He should get one from everyone who wants to bring an end to pork-barrel spending and the corruption it enables.

Oh, and Rep. Young? Bite me.

John Burns: US An 'Important Inhibtor Of Violence' In Iraq

Although I have often criticized the New York Times for its bias and editorial decisions, I have often expressed admiration for John Burns, their intrepid reporter on the ground in Iraq. He has found himself in the thick of militia and insurgent action, and was one of the first to give Americans a comprehensive look at Moqtada al-Sadr -- from his experience as a hostage. He reports in the same fashion as Michael Yon, telling the story straight, regardless of whether the news is good or bad.

Last night, he appeared on the Charlie Rose Show, and he continued in that same vein. When asked about the consequences of pulling troops out of Iraq, Burns told Rose that a catastrophe would almost certainly follow:

JOHN BURNS: Well, I think, quite simply that the United States armed forces here -- and I find this to be very widely agreed amongst Iraqis that I know, of all ethnic and sectarian backgrounds -- the United States armed forces are a very important inhibitor against violence. I know it`s argued by some people that they provoke the violence. I simply don`t believe that to be in the main true. I think it`s a much larger truth that where American forces are present, they are inhibiting sectarian violence, and they are going after the people, particularly al-Qaeda and the Shiite death squads, who are provoking that violence. Remove them or at least remove them quickly, and it seems to me -- controversial as this may seem to be saying in the present circumstances, while I know there`s this agonizing debate going on in the United States about this -- that you have to weigh the price. And the price would very likely be very, very high levels of violence, at least in the short run and perhaps, perhaps - perhaps for quite a considerable period of time.

CHARLIE ROSE: This is what you said to me in January 2007. "Friends of mine who are Iraqis, Sunni, Shiite, Kurd -- all foresee a civil war on the scale with bloodshed that will absolutely dwarf what we`re seeing now. It`s really difficult to imagine that that would happen, considering we`re talking about the fallout between the Sunnis and Shiite worlds, without Iran becoming involved from the east, without the Saudis who have already said in that situation they would move in to help protect the Sunnis majority in Iraq."

Has anything changed in the six months since you said that? Five months?

JOHN BURNS: I don`t believe it has, no. I honestly don`t believe it has. You know, I don`t want to wade into the debate that`s going on in Washington because I understand that - that a very important element of that debate is weighing as everybody on both sides I think understands, the price of staying against the price of going. And there`s no doubt that the price of staying is very, very high in American blood, to begin with, and American treasure too.

But it seems to me incontrovertible that the most likely outcome of an American withdrawal any time soon would be cataclysmic violence. And I find that to be widely agreed amongst Iraqis, including Iraqis who strongly opposed the invasion. And especially amongst Sunnis, a minority who ruled here, whose power was usurped by the invasion and who now find themselves facing Shiite militias and 350,000 man and woman Shiite-led Iraqi security force, that`s to say army and police, which is overwhelmingly Shiite and would be likely, first of all, to disintegrate in the face of a civil war, but with its principal units falling on the Shiite, not the Sunni side of that war.

John Burns ended the segment with this disturbing anecdote:

And I`ll give you just one taste of that. A senior American official told me just the other night that he had been to see Tariq Al Hashimi, who - the Sunni vice president, a former Saddam army officer who never joined the Baath Party and left Iraq in the early `90s. In other words, a Sunni who - who has genuine credentials as a moderate.

Tariq Al Hashimi asked this senior American official, "is your Congress really serious about withdrawing troops?" And the American official said to him, "you`d better believe that it may be. This is a serious debate and it`s very finely balanced, and it could - it could fall in favor of withdrawing those troops and withdrawing them on a fairly rigorous, tight schedule." Tariq Al Hashimi responded to that by saying "then we will all be slaughtered," then we will all be slaughtered.

The American official who told me this, told the story in evidence of a sobering up, a beginning of a realization amongst the Iraqi leaders of just how serious is the predicament in which they find themselves. Too late? Possibly.

Be sure to catch Burns' interview at Rose's site.

CQ Radio: It's My (Pajama) Party And I'll Sleep If I Want To

Today on CQ Radio (2 pm CT), we have Duane Patterson of the Hugh Hewitt Show to talk about the all-night session in the Senate and its aftermath. We'll also talk with Mackenzie Eaglen of the Heritage Foundation about the capture of Khaled al-Mashhadani and the NIE report released yesterday. During the hour, we'll also review Peter Pace's "sea change" statement and John McCain's speech on the Senate floor.

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

Petraeus On Hewitt

I hear that Hugh Hewitt will have a very special guest on today's show: General David Petraeus. Hugh's show starts at 6 pm ET/3 pm PT. While Hugh is always must-catch radio, be sure to clear your schedule for tonight.

While you're at it, make sure to catch Rush right now. I'm certain that he will have some clear and concise words for the cigar-tax idiocy that the Democrats tried to quietly push through Congress. King Banaian notes that this looks very similar to the luxury tax that Democrats forced onto the Bush 41 administration, and reviews the fallout.

'I Will Stand Where I Stand'

Harry Reid wanted a debate, and he got one, especially from John McCain, during last night's stunt -- which Reid himself mostly skipped. It didn't change a single vote, and more importantly, Reid didn't get what he wanted -- a Republican refusal to engage. Instead, Republicans made it clear that they had no intention of allowing Congress to usurp the role of the executive, and McCain made it clear why. Here's his entire statement from the debate early this morning:

Mr. President, we have nearly finished this little exhibition, which was staged, I assume, for the benefit of a briefly amused press corps and in deference to political activists opposed to the war who have come to expect from Congress such gestures, empty though they may be, as proof that the majority in the Senate has heard their demands for action to end the war in Iraq. The outcome of this debate, the vote we are about to take, has never been in doubt to a single member of this body. And to state the obvious, nothing we have done for the last twenty-four hours will have changed any facts on the ground in Iraq or made the outcome of the war any more or less important to the security of our country. The stakes in this war remain as high today as they were yesterday; the consequences of an American defeat are just as grave; the costs of success just as dear. No battle will have been won or lost, no enemy will have been captured or killed, no ground will have been taken or surrendered, no soldier will have survived or been wounded, died or come home because we spent an entire night delivering our poll-tested message points, spinning our soundbites, arguing with each other, and substituting our amateur theatrics for statesmanship. All we have achieved are remarkably similar newspaper accounts of our inflated sense of the drama of this display and our own temporary physical fatigue. Tomorrow the press will move on to other things and we will be better rested. But nothing else will have changed.

In Iraq, American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen are still fighting bravely and tenaciously in battles that are as dangerous, difficult and consequential as the great battles of our armed forces’ storied past. Our enemies will still be intent on defeating us, and using our defeat to encourage their followers in the jihad they wage against us, a war which will become a greater threat to us should we quit the central battlefield in defeat. The Middle East will still be a tinderbox, which our defeat could ignite in a regional war that will imperil our vital interests at risk there and draw us into a longer and far more costly war. The prospect of genocide in Iraq, in which we will be morally complicit, is still as real a consequence of our withdrawal today as it was yesterday.

During our extended debate over the last few days, I have heard senators repeat certain arguments over and over again. My friends on the other side of this argument accuse those of us who oppose this amendment with advocating “staying the course,” which is intended to suggest that we are intent on continuing the mistakes that have put the outcome of the war in doubt. Yet we all know that with the arrival of General Petraeus we have changed course. We are now fighting a counterinsurgency strategy, which some of us have argued we should have been following from the beginning, and which makes the most effective use of our strength and does not strengthen the tactics of our enemy. This new battle plan is succeeding where our previous tactics have failed, although the outcome remains far from certain. The tactics proposed in the amendment offered by my friends, Senators Levin and Reed – a smaller force, confined to bases distant from the battlefield, from where they will launch occasional search and destroy missions and train the Iraqi military – are precisely the tactics employed for most of this war and which have, by anyone’s account, failed miserably. Now, that, Mr. President, is staying the course, and it is a course that inevitably leads to our defeat and the catastrophic consequences for Iraq, the region and the security of the United States our defeat would entail.

Yes, we have heard quite a lot about the folly of “staying the course,” though the real outcome should this amendment prevail and be signed into law, would be to deny our generals and the Americans they have the honor to command the ability to try, in this late hour, to address the calamity these tried and failed tactics produced, and salvage from the wreckage of our previous failures a measure of stability for Iraq and the Middle East, and a more secure future for the American people.

I have also listened to my colleagues on the other side repeatedly remind us that the American people have spoken in the last election. They have demanded we withdraw from Iraq, and it is our responsibility to do, as quickly as possible, what they have bid us to do. But is that our primary responsibility? Really, Mr. President, is that how we construe our role: to follow without question popular opinion even if we believe it to be in error, and likely to endanger the security of the country we have sworn to defend? Surely, we must be responsive to the people who have elected us to office, and who, if it is their wish, will remove us when they become unsatisfied with our failure to heed their demands. I understand that, of course. And I understand why so many Americans have become sick and tired of this war, given the many, many mistakes made by civilian and military leaders in its prosecution. I, too, have been made sick at heart by these mistakes and the terrible price we have paid for them. But I cannot react to these mistakes by embracing a course of action that I know will be an even greater mistake, a mistake of colossal historical proportions, which will -- and I am as sure of this as I am of anything – seriously endanger the people I represent and the country I have served all my adult life. I have many responsibilities to the people of Arizona, and to all Americans. I take them all seriously, Mr. President, or try to. But I have one responsibility that outweighs all the others – and that is to do everything in my power, to use whatever meager talents I posses, and every resource God has granted me to protect the security of this great and good nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. And that I intend to do, Mr. President, even if I must stand athwart popular opinion. I will explain my reasons to the American people. I will attempt to convince as many of my countrymen as I can that we must show even greater patience, though our patience is nearly exhausted, and that as long as there is a prospect for not losing this war, then we must not choose to lose it. That is how I construe my responsibility to my constituency and my country. That is how I construed it yesterday. It is how I construe it today. And it is how I will construe it tomorrow. I do not know how I could choose any other course.

I cannot be certain that I possess the skills to be persuasive. I cannot be certain that even if I could convince Americans to give General Petraeus the time he needs to determine whether we can prevail, that we will prevail in Iraq. All I am certain of is that our defeat there would be catastrophic, not just for Iraq, but for us, and that I cannot be complicit in it, but must do whatever I can, whether I am effective or not, to help us try to avert it. That, Mr. President, is all I can possibly offer my country at this time. It is not much compared to the sacrifices made by Americans who have volunteered to shoulder a rifle and fight this war for us. I know that, and am humbled by it, as we all are. But though my duty is neither dangerous nor onerous, it compels me nonetheless to say to my colleagues and to all Americans who disagree with me: that as long as we have a chance to succeed we must try to succeed.

I am privileged, as we all are, to be subject to the judgment of the American people and history. But, my friends, they are not always the same judgment. The verdict of the people will arrive long before history’s. I am unlikely to ever know how history has judged us in this hour. The public’s judgment of me I will know soon enough. I will accept it, as I must. But whether it is favorable or unforgiving, I will stand where I stand, and take comfort from my confidence that I took my responsibilities to my country seriously, and despite the mistakes I have made as a public servant and the flaws I have as an advocate, I tried as best I could to help the country we all love remain as safe as she could be in an hour of serious peril.

If the Democrats want an end to the war, then let them use the one power the Constitution gives them to do so: defund the war. They don't want to take responsibility for the catastrophe that will follow in its wake, however, so they continue to conduct publicity stunts like this slumber party and offer unconstitutional legislation that Bush is certain to veto. Harry Reid can't even figure out how to surrender properly.

Reed-Levin Cloture Going Down To Defeat

Harry Reid can't even tire the Senate into voting for cloture. The Levin-Reed bill has only received 52 votes to end debate, even after the insomnia festival that Reid staged last night. As expected, the Democrats wound up the debate with the same number in support that they had when it started.

The final vote will show 53 votes in favor of cloture, and the Republican caucus largely united against the Congressional incursion on executive powers. Even moderate Republicans like Arlen Specter, George Voinovich, and Chuck Grassley could not support a declaration of defeat from the Senate. The publicity stunt has failed.

UPDATE: Reid changed his vote at the end, so cloture failed 52-47. He called the bill "bipartisan", but it looks like all of the GOP except Chuck Hagel voted against it. It's an odd sense of the term "bipartisan," but then again, Reid hasn't exactly put on an intellectual tour de force so far this session as Majority Leader.

UPDATE II: Just to answer a question that's come up in the comments, Reid's vote change does not represent a flip-flop. The Majority Leader has to vote against cloture in order to have the opportunity to ask for reconsideration of the motion later, according to parliamentary rules. It's a common procedural step, one that Bill Frist used as well, and for the same reasons.

UPDATE IIa: As you can see from the vote breakdown, Reid got 4 Republican votes, three of whom pledged to support the bill earlier: Hagel, Olympia Snowe, Gordon Smith, and Susan Collins, who said she opposed the bill but wanted an up-or-down vote. Thanks to Jim C for the correction.

UPDATE III: Here's the vote breakdown:

YEAs ---52

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---47

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

The Case Of The Mystery Earmark

It's hardly a case for Sherlock Holmes, but a million dollars of your money went missing yesterday. Congress earmarked it to an outift called the Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure, despite the fact that no one could quite tell whether or not this Center exists, let alone what they need with the money. And despite the best efforts of one particular porkbuster, the money vanished into the thin hot air of Capitol Hill.

At Heading Right, we take a look at the mystery, and find the usual suspect. It didn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure this out, either. Unfortunately, in the end, it seems more like Murder on the Orient Express, where everyone did it -- as it usually turns out with earmarks.

What The Nation Doesn't Need Is A Ten-Dollar Tax On Cigars

Democrats have decided to pass a 20,000% tax increase as part of their new fiscal program for America. The target -- this time -- is cigars, on which they plan to escalate the current federal nickel tax to $10 per stogie (via Professor Bainbridge):

The Democrat controlled Congress has sought an extra $35-billion to $50-billion for the state children's health insurance program. The program distributes payments to the states to help buy coverage for kids not poor enough for Medicaid.

Cigarettes, which accounted for more than 95 percent of tobacco tax collections last year, are the main focus of the bill. Federal taxes on a pack would jump from 39 cents to $1.

But the legislation has dragged cigars along for the ride. The industry operates under a 4.8 cents-per-cigar tax cap.

Under the proposed bill, taxes on "large cigars," a category that includes all but the tiny cigars sold in 20 packs like cigarettes, would rise to 53 percent.

A U.S. Senate version of the bill under consideration today in the Finance Committee sets the maximum tax per cigar at $10.

The bill doesn't have much of a chance to pass in any case. Bush has already indicated that he will veto any expansion of this entitlement program to the non-indigent. Congress should be considering how to keep our current entitlement programs from sinking into red ink rather than hastening the process with more entitlements.

Democrats will argue that they are considering it with the new tax. They want to raise revenue for their program, so they found it, on the backs of cigar smokers. They're counting on the negatives of tobacco to keep the public from being outraged over the unconscionable 20,000% increase of the tax on cigars, but if so, they've probably miscalculated.

Sin taxes get a lot of support, but only to the extent that they actually work. For instance, the increase on cigarettes will probably not raise that much of an outcry, mostly because the tax increase is much more modest. It will not put manufacturers out of business, much as some members of Congress would like. Therefore, it will actually raise the funds Congress projects.

The whopping $10 per cigar limit, on the other hand, will kill the cigar industry. No one will pay $15 for a $5 cigar. Some might not have an issue with that, but cigars are not the same as cigarettes. They don't get smoked in the same way or in the same quantity, and they do not have the same addictive qualities and harmful additives of cigarettes. Nevertheless, it's quite apparent that Democrats want to kill the cigar industry with this ridiculous tax.

And that's what makes this so dishonest. Their new program is predicated on the projected tax revenues from these tax increases. Those increases will not occur if the cigar industry shuts down, which this onerous tax will almost certainly accomplish. The money will never arrive to pay for this program -- and the Democrats know it.

We don't need a $10 tax on cigars. We also don't need an expansion of entitlement programs. What we need is a Congress with fiscal responsibility and a sense of honesty about its operations. Apparently, the Democrats aren't capable of delivering that.

US Captures Top AQI Figure

Update: US confirms. See Update 1.

The US captured a senior figure for al-Qaeda in Iraq on July 4th, the BBC reports this morning. Khaled Mashhadani told investigators that he acted as a conduit between the real AQI leader and senior al-Qaeda leadership outside of Iraq:

US forces say they have arrested a senior member of al-Qaeda in Iraq, the group accused of being behind some of Iraq's deadliest violence.

The man was named as Khaled Mashhadani. He was captured earlier in July in the northern city of Mosul, officials said.

US military officials said he had told interrogators that the group's supposed leader, Omar al-Baghdadi, was a front.

Mashhadani may give the US enough information to target the real leader of AQI, if it isn't Omar al-Baghdadi. Interestingly, some think that Khaled Mashhadini is Omar al-Baghdadi. Nibras Kazimi gave a run-down on al-Baghdadi four months ago:

This is what the Iraqi government told us: ‘Abu Omar al-Baghdadi’ is the pseudonym for Khalid al-Mashhadani, who also goes by the name ‘Abu Zaid’.

This is what we know from following the bitter recriminations among jihadists on internet discussion forums: ‘Abu Omar al-Baghdadi’ was arrested under the Ba’athist regime as a Salafist (radical Islamist) activist who had broken into a school and defaced Saddam Hussein’s pictures and the Ba’athist slogans at the school.

This is what Al-Qaeda’s Islamic State of Iraq claims about his pedigree: ‘Abu Omar al-Baghdadi’ is descended from the Prophet Muhammad’s grandson, Al-Hussein bin Ali, which would make him a Husseinite from the Hashemite clan that is part of the tribe of Quraysh.

This is the best I could do to tie all this up together, according to my sources: al-Baghdadi’s full name is Khalid Khalil Ibrahim al-Mashhadani. He is in his early 40s, and is known as ‘Abu Zaid’. He had been a Salafist under Saddam, and was briefly detained then over some unknown infraction.

This looks like it could be Zarqawi's successor. I'll update as more details become available.

UPDATE I: The US is now saying that Mashhadani is the "most senior Iraqi" in AQI. Mashhadani used a ruse to keep his identity from being known as the leader of AQI:

In Web postings, the Islamic State of Iraq has identified its leader as Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, with al-Masri as minister of war. There are no known photos of al-Baghdadi.

Bergner said al-Mashhadani had told interrogators that al-Baghdadi is a "fictional role" created by al-Masri and that an actor is used for audio recordings of speeches posted on the Web.

"In his words, the Islamic State of Iraq is a front organization that masks the foreign influence and leadership within al-Qaida in Iraq in an attempt to put an Iraqi face on the leadership of al-Qaida in Iraq," Bergner said.

Mashhadani started off as a militant in Ansar al-Sunna, then merged with al-Qaeda in 2004. Zarqawi made him the media minister of AQI, which apparently doesn't include actually making speeches for himself.

UPDATE II: Welcome, Instapundit readers! The BBC updates its earlier breaking-news bulletin:

"Baghdadi, who has never been seen, is an actor. To make Baghdadi seem real, Masri swore allegiance to him, knowing he was fictitious," he said.

"Mashhadani confirmed that Masri and al-Qaeda in Iraq leaders he surrounds himself with are foreigners," he said. ...

"He is considered a conduit between Masri, Bin Laden and Zawahiri," Gen Bergner said, referring to the Saudi- and Egyptian-born founders of al-Qaeda, who are thought to be hiding in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

UPDATE III: Today on CQ Radio, I'll interview the Heritage Foundation's Mackenzie Eaglen on this subject, as well as the NIE and the progress in Iraq. We'll be on at 3 pm ET/2 pm CT, so don't miss it!

Putin Tries Assassination Again

Britain acted to expel Russian diplomats on Monday for failing to extradite alleged assassin Andrei Lugovoi because they had reason to believe Vladimir Putin had sent a second assassin to the UK. The target this time? Boris Berezovsky, a strident Putin critic who had survived murder plots when living in Russia:

Boris Berezovsky fled Britain three weeks ago on the advice of Scotland Yard, amid reports that he was the target of an assassination attempt by a suspected Russian hitman.

The exiled tycoon and fierce critic of President Putin of Russia told The Times last night that he had been warned that it was not safe for him to remain in London, where he had been living since being granted asylum in Britain. ...

Reports last night claimed that an assassin was captured at the Hilton Hotel in Park Lane, West London, moments before he planned to kill Mr Berezovsky, whose offices are a short distance away. Scotland Yard said last night that it was not prepared to discuss the matter.

The revelation could help to explain why the new Government of Gordon Brown decided to take such tough action against the Kremlin this week. On Monday David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, ordered four Russian diplomats, believed to be members of the Russian security services, to leave Britain within ten days. He also announced measures to tighten visas for Russian officials visiting Britain.

Berezovsky returned after the immediate threat was removed, but he didn't give any indication that he would modify his fierce opposition to Putin as a result of the attempt. He told a television news program that he was "100% sure" that the Putin government had arranged the hit on Litvinenko and the attempt on his own life. Berezovsky trusts the British to give him the best protection, although he apparently gave no indication where he went when he fled Britain.

If true, it confirms that Putin has turned Russia as a Mafia-style piece of turf. This is even worse than the Soviets, who used to assassinate critics of the state, not just people who spoke out against a particular leader. Putin has become a megalomaniacal gangster, sending button men to rub out people and insulting the sovereignty of nominal allies.

The Russian president has threatened serious consequences for the expulsion of his diplomats from London. Perhaps it's time that the West consider serious consequences too, such as the expulsion of Russia from the G-8 as long as Russian state policy appears to include murder as a political tool. Terrorist states should not have access to financial markets or be included in global fiscal policy.

Republicans Call Reid's Bluff

Harry Reid kept the Senate in business all night long as a way to publicize the fact that Republicans won't allow cloture on an amendment for retreating from Iraq. For some reason, Reid apparently thought that this would somehow break the will of the Republicans in a manner that had escaped the Democratic effort to complain about the same cloture rules they used repeatedly to block legislation and presidential appointments when Reid was Minority Leader instead of Majority Leader.

In the end, not only didn't Reid move the Republicans, he took most of the night off himself:

So much for forcing Republicans to filibuster all night.

As the clock struck midnight and Tuesday became Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid loosened up a bit on his plans to teach members of the minority that Democrats set the schedule on the debate over Iraq. ...

Speaking of those mandatory attendance tallies, Reid changed his mind about how many, and when. He had originally planned holding one around 3 a.m. and another at 7 a.m. But that changed during the midnight vote when Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., made the case against senatorial sleep deprivation and impugned Reid to push the quorum call back.

Reid, who had his very own cot waiting for him in a quiet parlor off his office, agreed. Next live quorum call, he announced: 5 a.m. With a few cases of bed-head among them, senators rolled in and again passed the same motion to instruct. This time the motion passed 37-23, with dawn beginning to break by the time the tally was completed.

So what did this accomplish? Nothing. After midnight, most of the Senate disappeared. It turned into nothing more than a huge bluff, and Reid lost.

Here's what Reid wanted. He knew that he didn't have enough votes for a quorum; he only has 49 Democrats available, with Tim Johnson's disability. Reid counted on Republicans forcing an end to the session by having a single member present to challenge for a quorum. No votes could take place without one, including the instruction motion to the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest recalcitrant members and drag them back to the chamber. That would have allowed Reid and the Democrats to accuse Republicans of dodging the debate, calling them cowards to take the spotlight off of their insistence on retreat.

Many expected the Republicans to do just that, but it turns out that Mitch McConnell is a little smarter than Harry Reid. Instead of denying Reid a quorum, the Republicans showed up for the debate, perhaps charged up by John McCain's earlier speech on the floor. Once Reid figured out that the Republicans would not give him the satisfaction of walking out the door, he caved. In fact, Reid didn't even bother to attend his own No Snooze Until We Lose party after the first instruction motion, choosing to hit the sack instead while Republicans took the podium all night long.

The cloture vote has been scheduled for around 11 am this morning. The overnight session has done nothing except to annoy Republicans into a more unified caucus, and to make Harry Reid look like a fool. One might have expected a Senator from Nevada to recognize a busted flush when he saw it.

Falcons QB Indicted On Dogfighting Conspiracy

The Atlanta Falcons may have to count on their backup quarterback in the 2007 season. According to ABC News, a grand jury indicted the star QB on felony charges surrounding an alleged dogfighting conspiracy centered at his mansion:

Michael Vick has been indicted by a federal grand jury in connection with the dogfighting probe of his property in Virginia.

The Falcons quarterback was indicted for conspiracy to travel in interstate commerce in aid of unlawful activities and to sponsor a dog in an animal fighting venture in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District in Richmond, Va. Three others -- Purnell Peace, Quanis Phillips and Tony Taylor -- also were indicted by the grand jury on the same charges.

According to court documents filed by federal authorities earlier this month, dog fights have been sponsored by "Bad Newz Kennels" at the property since at least 2002. For the events, participants and dogs traveled from South Carolina, North Carolina, Maryland, New York, Texas and other states.

Members of the venture also knowingly transported, delivered and received dogs for animal fighting, the documents state.

Fifty-four pit bulls were recovered from the property during searches in April, along with a "rape stand," used to hold dogs in place for mating; an electric treadmill modified for dogs; and a bloodied piece of carpeting, the documents said.

The alleged perpetrators carefully bathed the dogs before a fight. Some participants apparently would occasionally put poison on the dogs' coats in order to disable its opponent. This consideration would end in a loss; if the dog survived, they would kill it by electrocution, drowning, strangulation, gun shot, or whatever other method was handy.

Vick denied that he had any connection to the activities on his property. He sold it after the initial search, but apparently not quickly enough to convince federal investigators. He stopped talking about the case over the last couple of months -- a wise move. The federal grand jury didn't need to hear from him to hand down the indictments.

Why federal and not state investigators? The conspiracy crossed several state lines. Bad Newz Kennels staged dogfights as far north as New Jersey and as far south as South Carolina. The Virginia Attorney General originally accused federal officials of going after Vick because of his celebrity, then changed his tune when the extent of the ring became apparent.

I like watching Vick on the football field, even though I'm usually rooting against him. He's exciting and unpredictable. However, if he's guilty of this, he should do some serious prison time for participating in such a cruel so-called "sport". It's despicable, and if convicted, the NFL should think twice before allowing him back in the game -- and not just for the cruelty, but for the gambling as well.

McCain's Shot Across Reid's Bow

With the Senate about to conduct a pajama party tonight to discuss all the ways in which we can retreat in the face of our enemies, John McCain seems almost alone in the Senate in confronting Harry Reid on the consequences of his actions. They want to conduct a series of votes overnight in order to force Republicans into cloture on an amendment that would demand a pullout of Iraq by next April and beginning in September:

They called for sleeping cots to be rolled into a room off the Senate floor and told members to prepare for repeated votes throughout the evening. Senators even left open the possibility of dispatching the sergeant at arms to summon colleagues from their homes to the floor if lawmakers ignored the debate.

The threat was reminiscent of a 1988 debate on campaign finance reform in which Capitol police carried Oregon Republican Sen. Robert Packwood into the Senate feet first shortly after 1 a.m.

The goal of the planned marathon debate was to test the patience of Republicans, who have threatened to filibuster the bill. So far, the GOP leadership has been successful at blocking anti-war legislation because Democrats don't have the 60 votes to cut off what would become an endless debate on the war.

It's more reminiscent of the overnight session called by Republicans two years ago to force votes on judicial confirmations. That went nowhere and the GOP looked foolish for its publicity stunt -- and Harry Reid has fewer votes than Bill Frist did back then. In fact, he may not even get a quorom. Even if he managed a quorom, an approval for cloture requires 60 votes, which will not be forthcoming under any circumstances.

Reid might like publicity stunts, but John McCain reminded Reid that these circus acts have real-world consequences in an impassioned speech today from the Senate floor:

No matter where my colleagues came down in 2003 about the centrality of Iraq to the war on terror, there can simply be no debate that our efforts in Iraq today are critical to the wider struggle against violent Islamic extremism. Already, the terrorists are emboldened, excited that America is talking not about winning in Iraq, but is rather debating when we should lose. Last week, Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s deputy chief, said that the United States is merely delaying our “inevitable” defeat in Iraq, and that “the Mujahideen of Islam in Iraq of the caliphate and jihad are advancing with steady steps towards victory.” He called on Muslims to travel to Iraq to fight Americans, and appealed for Muslims to support the Islamic State in Iraq, a group established by al Qaeda.

General Petraeus has called al Qaeda “the principal short-term threat to Iraq.” What do the supporters of this amendment believe to be the consequences of our leaving the battlefield with al Qaeda in place? If we leave Iraq prematurely, jihadists around the world will interpret the withdrawal as their great victory against our great power. Their movement thrives in an atmosphere of perceived victory; we saw this in the surge of men and money flowing to al Qaeda following the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. If they defeat the United States in Iraq, they will believe that anything is possible, that history is on their side, that they really can bring their terrible rule to lands the world over. Recall the plan laid out in a letter from Zawahiri to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, before his death. That plan is to take shape in four stages: establish a caliphate in Iraq, extend the “jihad wave” to the secular countries neighboring Iraq, clash with Israel – none of which shall commence until the completion of stage one: expel the Americans from Iraq. Mr. President, the terrorists are in this war to win it. The question is: Are we?

The supporters of this amendment respond that they do not by any means intend to cede the battlefield to al Qaeda; on the contrary, their legislation would allow U.S. forces, presumably holed up in forward operating bases, to carry out targeted counterterrorism operations. But our own military commanders say that this approach will not succeed, and that moving in with search and destroy missions to kill and capture terrorists, only to immediately cede the territory to the enemy, is the failed strategy of the past three and a half years….

Those are the likely consequences of a precipitous withdrawal, and I hope that the supporters of such a move will tell us what they believe to be the likely consequences of this course of action. Should their amendment become law, and U.S. troops begin withdrawing, do they believe that Iraq will become more or less stable? That al Qaeda will find it easier to gather, plan, and carry out attacks from Iraqi soil, or that our withdrawal will somehow make this less likely? That the Iraqi people become more or less safe? That genocide becomes a more remote possibility or ever likelier?

Mr. President, this fight is about Iraq but not about Iraq alone. It is greater than that and more important still, about whether America still has the political courage to fight for victory or whether we will settle for defeat, with all of the terrible things that accompany it. We cannot walk away gracefully from defeat in this war.

The Democrats may not care about the gracefully part, but they're going to do their level best to see us run away from the fight.

ABC: Middle Easterners Smuggled Across Southern Border

This news flash from ABC came across my desk during my CQ Radio show:

The FBI is investigating an alleged human smuggling operation based in Chaparral, N.M., that agents say is bringing "Iraqis and other Middle Eastern" individuals across the Rio Grande from Mexico.

An FBI intelligence report distributed by the Washington, D.C. Joint Terrorism Task Force, obtained by the Blotter on ABCNews.com, says the illegal ring has been bringing Iraqis across the border illegally for more than a year. ...

The FBI report, issued last week, says the smuggling organization "used to smuggle Mexicans, but decided to smuggle Iraqi or other Middle Eastern individuals because it was more lucrative." Each individual would be charged a fee of $20,000 to $25,000, according to the report.

The people to be smuggled would "gather at a house on the Mexican side of the border" and then cross the Rio Grande into the U.S., the report says.

"Unidentified individuals would then transport them to train stations in El Paso, Texas or Belen, New Mexico," according to the FBI document.

ABC also reports that the US has mostly refused to allow Iraqi refugees to resettle in the US. Less than 800 had received permission to come here after the invasion, but the Bush administration had agreed to allow over six thousand more by the end of the year. Refugees, of course, usually leave with little more than the shirts on their backs, and for those fleeing the fighting in search of a better life of freedom here, we'd be heartless not to help.

Do you think those are the people paying $25,000 to get across the Rio Grande? Or do you suppose the "refugees" fleeing with those kinds of resources might have something else in mind entirely? And how convenient that they meet at train stations to go to all corners of the country, after paying a small fortune to get across the border illegally.

Remember when the American people demanded that Congress take action to close the border as a national security priority? This is what we meant.

CQ Radio: Eli Lake On NIE

Today on CQ Radio (2 pm CT), I'll have Eli Lake from the New York Sun on the show to talk about the latest National Intelligence Estimate and its revelation about al-Qaeda's connection to Iran. We'll also review the latest on George Galloway and Norm Coleman to see who's laughing now, and we'll preview the "publicity stunt" that Harry Reid will conduct tonight in the Senate.

UPDATE: The Heritage experts will join us tomorrow instead of today.

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

Michael Yon: The Saga Of The General Lee

Michael Yon has another excellent dispatch from his embed mission in Iraq, although this piece gives more of an in-depth look at the connection between men and machines. Yon profiles the travails of a Stryker used by the men of the 1-24th Regiment as an example of how tough it is to lose one. The General Lee saved lives on more than one occasion in 2005, until IEDs finally retired it:

The patrols can be tedious. Fatigue accumulates after months of fighting, and it seems most units who are performing routine missions go against the grain of strict regulation and plug music into their comms to keep them alert. When they beep into the comms to talk, the music clicks off. It’s against the regs, but when everyone is tired—and weary—it works for a while. Some soldiers will listen to music before combat missions, sort of like Apocalypse Now, and that works, too. Gets the mind right. The Brits do it too, one unit I traveled with had a particular Rolling Stones tune. But that day was easy listening: Kenny Chesney was playing on the comms. ...

I don’t know which Kenny Chesney song they were listening to before the bomb exploded, but I played my favorite—“Me and You”—over and over while writing their story, wondering what might have been going through their minds just before the detonation. Although the bomb was massive, they couldn’t have seen it. It was hidden and packed into a culvert under the road. ...

As the bomb detonated beneath it, the General Lee arced like a dolphin from the sea of Hell. LT Brad Krauss can be seen flying out like Superman, if you look closely and imagine real hard. PFC Devon Hoch can clearly be seen standing in the back hatch. And that was it. Our guys’ lives seemed to be reduced to propaganda. The terrorists published reports that the soldiers were killed.

The story might have ended in the American press ... [b]ut that’s not exactly how it turned out.

It's a fascinating story, and it illuminates a larger point Yon makes about the difficulties in dealing with roadside bombs. Make sure to read the whole thing -- and throw a few dollars in the tip jar while you're there. Michael isn't getting a salary while on this mission and relies totally on reader assistance.

Norm Coleman: I Told You So

No one had to get a bigger charge out of George Galloway's pending suspension from the UK House of Commons than Norm Coleman. The British Parliament has acted to punish Galloway for his dishonesty in hiding the source of his funding for his Mariam Appeal fund -- Saddam Hussein and Galloway's take in the Oil-For-Food scandal. Galloway's apologists laughed off Senator Coleman's interrogation of Galloway, but the Minnesota Senator gets the last laugh -- and takes it:

The anti-war Respect MP was criticised by the Standards and Privileges Committee for “concealing the true source of Iraqi funding” to a charity he set up and failure to co-operate with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

It backed a finding that there was “strong circumstantial evidence” that his Mariam Appeal received cash from the regime of Saddam Hussein, the payments delivered through the UN’s Oil for Food Programme “with Mr Galloway’s connivance”.

It said that the MP had been “complicit in the concealment of the true source of the funds” and had “damaged the reputation of the House” - and said that he was “clearly irresponsible” in refusing to look into the source of substantial donations to the fund.

In other words, the House of Commons came to the same conclusions as the US Senate, under Coleman's aggressive probe of the UN scam that put billions into Saddam's pockets during the supposed sanctions regime. Galloway got specifically named as a beneficiary of Saddam's generosity at the same time he vociferously defended the tyrant around the world. It was people like Galloway who perpetuated the notion that Saddam had been put in a "box" while taking cash hand over fist to represent a genocidal maniac instead of his constituency.

The Commons subcommittee reached its conclusions based in large part on the efforts of Norm Coleman. Coleman just released the following statement in response:

"I applaud the Committee for its diligence. With the release of the report, the U.K. Parliament becomes the fourth official entity to conclude that Galloway, through his political campaign, received financial support from the Hussein regime and that support was obtained from Oil-for-Food deals,” said Coleman.

Notably, the U.K. report includes a document that provides even further evidence that Galloway was knowledgeable about and participated in nefarious transactions related to the Program. The report has released the minutes of a meeting between Galloway and Saddam Hussein that occurred on August 8, 2002, in which Galloway discusses with Hussein and Tariq Aziz certain Iraqi oil deals – in clear and unmistakable terms. He specifically mentions how certain unidentified problems with oil prices are affecting "our"' income and "our dues."

"This document confirms what we've known all along: Galloway was neck-deep in the Oil-for-Food deals, he kowtowed to Saddam Hussein, and his bombastic denials were nothing more than a web of misleading statements. This report clearly shows he was trying to mislead the Subcommittee in his 2005 testimony and tried to create the impression that he did not benefit in any way from any Iraqi oil deals. The evidence shows that Galloway tried to mislead us when he denied knowing that his Jordanian business agent was doing oil deals with Iraq, when he denied knowing that some deals resulted in donations to his political campaign, the Mariam Appeal, and when he denied communicating with Saddam Hussein and Tariq Aziz about oil allocations. The evidence also shows that those claims are simply not true. These findings should put to rest any suggestion that Galloway did not know about these oil transactions and that he had no idea his wife and his political campaign were getting hundreds of thousands of dollars in oil money," Coleman said. "In fact, the evidence shows that he solicited such favors from the Hussein regime. As Parliament’s report states, he at best turned a blind eye, and ‘on balance, was likely to have known and been complicit in what was going on.’ He will undoubtedly resort to his old tactics and claim that these are fraudulent documents, but the evidence shows that he is flat wrong. The avalanche of credible evidence against him is just never-ending.”

“In response, Galloway will huff and puff, but he can’t blow away the facts of this report. In fact, the house is falling down around him and he will be suspended from the Parliament because of his transgressions,” Coleman added.

During Senator Coleman's tenure as Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, the Subcommittee issued a detailed report in October 2005 that presented bank records establishing that Galloway's wife received roughly $150,000 directly from an Oil-for-Food oil deal. The Subcommittee's report also presented detailed documentation proving that the Mariam Appeal, the political organization Galloway portrayed as a children's charity, received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Oil-for-Food transactions. The U.N.'s investigators, the Independent Inquiry Committee, found that Galloway's wife received approximately $120,000 from a different transaction under the Program and that the Mariam Appeal also received massive cash transfers funds from Oil-for-Food transactions.

More recently, the U.K. Charity Commission concluded that the Mariam Appeal improperly received at least $376,000 from Oil-for-Food deals. The Charity Commission also chastised Galloway, along with the other trustees of the Appeal, saying that they "did not properly discharge their duty of care as trustees to the Appeal in respect of these donations," and concluded that, having considered the totality of the evidence before it, that Galloway may also have known of the connection between the Appeal and the Program.

Many people here in the US expressed more admiration for Galloway's ranting in the Senate hearing than for Coleman's determined, measured approach that was designed to get information from Galloway. In the end, obnoxious and corrupt lost out to intelligent and tenacious. Congratulations to Senator Coleman for all of his hard work.

Pace: Iraq Has Turned Around (Update: UN Chief Warns On Withdrawal)

General Peter Pace, the outgoing chair of the Joint Chiefs, has called the surge a success, saying that it has brought about a "sea change" in security for Iraq. Time Magazine reports on his remarks from Ramadi, which in itself demonstrates a level of success, as the Anbar Province has changed markedly from the lost cause it appeared a year ago (via Hugh Hewitt):

In his most optimistic remarks since the U.S. troop buildup began, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Tuesday that Iraq has undergone a "sea change" in security in recent months, and that this will influence his recommendation to President Bush on how long to continue the current strategy.

After conferring with Maj. Gen. Walter Gaskin and other commanders in this provincial capital west of Baghdad, Pace told reporters he has gathered a positive picture of the security environment not only here but also in Baghdad, where he began his Iraq visit on Monday.

He was asked whether this would inform his thinking about whether to continue the current strategy, with extra U.S. troops battling to security Baghdad and Anbar province. "It will because what I'm hearing now is a sea change that is taking place in many places here," he replied. "It's no longer a matter of pushing al-Qaida out of Ramadi, for example, but rather — now that they have been pushed out — helping the local police and the local army have a chance to get their feet on the ground and set up their systems."

The most remarkable part of the story shows the increasing confidence of the military that they have finally hit on the right strategy and the right leadership in Iraq. While the Senate will debate the Iraq war in an all-nighter tonight in a Democratic effort called by an aide the No Sleep Until We Retreat event, Pace talked about increasing the number of American combat troops in Iraq to push towards success more quickly. The Pentagon studies these questions as part of its contingency planning, but this is the first indication that they may see enough progress to warrant a larger investment in Iraq.

Of course, what Pace means is the military success in fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq and in clearing cities like Ramadi and Baqubah of terrorists. He also praised the work of General David Petraeus in Baghdad in clearing militia control of neighborhoods. Pace, who has not shied away from less positive remarks in the past, seems highly impressed with the results of military efforts by both American and Iraqi units under Petraeus' command.

Pace noted that these results have not prompted reform to the degree we anticipated. However, in one sense, that may become a secondary consideration. Given the nature of the threat to the US that AQI represents, the efforts in Iraq make a lot more sense -- and since they seem to be effective, it makes sense to at least continue with Petraeus' counterinsurgency efforts there. We can continue to press for political reform, but we should not toss out all of our successes so far this year in stabilizing the Sunni areas of Iraq and in the capital.

What will the Democrats have to say to Pace and the generals in Iraq about this tonight?

UPDATE: CQ reader Leo T points out that new UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has warned the US about conducting a precipitate withdrawal from Iraq:

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged U.S. policy-makers yesterday to exercise "great caution" in considering any rapid withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq.

"It is not my place to inject myself into this discussion taking place between the American people, government and Congress," said Mr. Ban, who was expected to repeat the message during meetings on Capitol Hill today.

"But I'd like to tell you that a great caution should be taken for the sake of the Iraqi people," he said at a U.N. press conference. "Any abrupt withdrawal or decision may lead to a further deterioration."

Actually, Leo asked, "Is UN totally irrelevant, or is someone in blogosphere going to comment on SecGen’s statements re US pullout?" The answer might be "yes" to both.

Ban doesn't exactly endorse a long-term counterinsurgency effort in this statement, but he's asking the anti-war faction a question they thus have refused to answer. If the US retreats, how do they expect to keep a genocidal free-for-all from erupting in our wake? While the same people recall the collective failure in Rwanda and the ongoing genocide in Darfur -- conducted by radical Islamists -- and push for American intervention in the latter, they have no answer for the obvious calamitous consequences of an American pullout from Iraq.

Do you suppose the Democrats will address Ban's warning in tonight's marathon session?

Polls Show Little Movement In Presidential Races

The weekly poll numbers have come out from Gallup and Rasmussen, and the news is that there is not much new. Hillary's lead has remained constant for two months now, and it looks like the race has concluded for the Democrats' top slot on the ticket. The only suspense is who will get to bask in Hillary's glory at the bottom of the ticket, and get free passes to funerals if elected.

The GOP looks a little more murky. The two polls disagree on the frontrunner, as I note at Heading Right. We discover that a dead man has not reached rigor mortis after all. Also, a surprising figure has surged to the top of the second tier in this week's poll, replacing Mike Huckabee and probably disquieting the power structure of the GOP -- or at least delighting his legion of on-line fans.

NIE: AQ Still Top Threat

The Associated Press reports that the national intelligence estimate says that al-Qaeda remains the biggest terrorist threat to the American homeland. The NIE also warns that Hezbollah in Lebanon may also start planning attacks on America in the near future if it thinks we may attack Iran, and that non-Muslim terrorists may soon join the fray:

The terrorist network Al-Qaida will likely leverage its contacts and capabilities in Iraq to mount an attack on U.S. soil, according to a new National Intelligence Estimate on threats to the American homeland. ...

Al-Qaida is likely to continue to focus on high-profile political, economic and infrastructure targets to cause mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, economic aftershocks and fear. "The group is proficient with conventional small arms and improvised explosive devices and is innovative in creating new capabilities and overcoming security obstacles."

The group has been able to restore key elements it would need to launch an attack on U.S. soil: a safe haven in Pakistan's tribal areas, operational lieutenants and senior leaders.

The group will continue to seek weapons of mass destruction — chemical, biological or nuclear material — and "would not hesitate to use them."

Lebanese Hezbollah, a Shiite Muslim extremist group that has conducted anti-American attacks overseas, may be more likely to consider attacking here, especially if it believes the United States is directly threatening the group or its main sponsor, Iran.

Non-Muslim terrorist groups probably will attack here in the next several years, although on a smaller scale. The judgments don't name any specific groups, but the FBI often warns of violent environmental groups, such as Earth Liberation Front, and others.

The NIE specifies that the main threat from AQ comes from Iraq. It calls AQI the most visible and capable unit of AQ, and the intel community believes it will expand its operations as soon as it is able. The other units of AQ have been hamstrung by global cooperation in the war on terror, but the report frets that AQ can outlast that cooperation.

This will put some pressure on Congress this summer to consider its Iraq operations carefully. It makes the likelihood of a complete withdrawal less likely; the US has to keep pressure on AQI to prevent them from gaining enough strength to launch attacks here. It could, though, allow Congress to press for an AQI-only policy in Iraq, where the American military presence in Iraq gets reduced and redeployed to the Sunni areas only to fight AQI. That would probably not satisfy the anti-war wing of the Democrats and certainly would not please those who see Iraq as an opportunity to establish democracy in the Middle East, but might allow the current Salazar amendment to gain the middle ground.

The addition of non-Muslim groups should intrigue readers. It's not a big surprise that groups like Earth Liberation Front use terrorism for political purposes, although they don't usually kill people in their attacks. What's most interesting about this is that these groups have grown from a law-enforcement issue to one that attracts the notice of intelligence agencies. The age of terror has taught these groups that spectacular attacks get grievances noticed. When papers like the New York Times refuse to print editorial cartoons because it might offend Muslims, even though the images form a core part of the story they report, that gets noticed. When AQ videos go viral on the Internet, it teaches a lesson to other groups -- that violence allows one's message to get wide dissemination, and even support.

AQ's the top threat -- for now. When every unhinged grievance group learns these lessons, they may drop down the list.

Who Knew Whole Foods Market Sold Spam?

The CEO of Whole Foods Market apparently likes role playing, especially on the Internet. In fact, he likes it so much that he donned the full sock-puppet, praising his company and his own good looks while pretending to be someone else entirely on Yahoo message boards. The SEC has begun an informal investigation into his activities:

On the Internet nobody knows you’re a dog — or the chief executive of a Fortune 500 company.

Or so thought John Mackey, the chief executive of Whole Foods Market, who used a fictional identity on the Yahoo message boards for nearly eight years to assail competition and promote his supermarket chain’s stock, according to documents released last week by the Federal Trade Commission.

Mr. Mackey used the online handle “Rahodeb” (an anagram of his wife’s name, Deborah). In one Internet posting sure to enter the annals of chief-executive vanity, Mr. Mackey wrote as Rahodeb, “I like Mackey’s haircut. I think he looks cute!” ...

For executives like Mr. Mackey, sock-puppeting is probably more gratifying than effective in swaying opinion or stock prices — until they get caught. Then it is embarrassing, and for chief executives, at least, potentially illegal. Laws carefully prescribe what executives of public companies can say. The Wall Street Journal reported on its Web site Friday night that the Securities and Exchange Commission had begun [an informal] inquiry into whether Mr. Mackey violated security laws with the posts.

Mackey, it turns out, was too cute by half. His competitors now can go back through years of message-board postings and sue for any false or misleading information Mackey may have posted. If he put out false or confidential information in an attempt to boost his stock price, he could go to prison. The Times notes that Conrad Black just got convicted on a similar allegation.

On one hand, we can get a chuckle at chuckleheads like Mackey who play games on the Internet in hope of boosting his fortunes with comments about cute haircuts. However, what does it say about how Wall Street execs see investors? Do they think all of us are suckers who will buy Whole Foods stock just because Mackey has a cute 'do? Every day I receive dozens of spam stock tips in my e-mail, so someone somewhere apparently thinks they can sell saps on at least some of it.

Backscratching, Hillary Style

Tom Vilsack dropped out of the Democratic presidential race in February, one of the first significant also-rans to acknowledge reality. The former governor of Iowa endorsed Hillary in March, giving her a boost in the key state. However, that seems to have come as part of a quid pro quo, as her backers have piled contributions onto the defunct Vilsack candidacy -- and some of the money wound up in Vilsack's pockets:

Shortly after endorsing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign, former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack received nearly $90,000 in donations to his defunct presidential campaign from some of Clinton's major backers, campaign finance reports show.

The donations, disclosed in Federal Election Commission filings over the weekend, came from Clinton fundraising bastions of New York, California, Texas, and Washington, D.C.

None came from Iowa, where Vilsack served two terms as governor. ...

In May and June, at least 45 Clinton donors contributed $87,000 to Vilsack's presidential campaign account. Vilsack used part of the money to repay himself $55,000, part of a personal loan he had given to his campaign. He paid other bills as well.

Vilsack received $87,000 in Q2 when he wasn't running for the nomination. He gained this money from 45 Clinton donors, which means most of them maxed out their $2300 contribution limit to Vilsack after he stopped campaigning. Despite having $146,000 in the red, apparently one of the first bills to get paid was the entirety of the $55,000 loan he himself made to the campaign, while leaving around $59,000 in other debts waiting to be cleared.

My, my, my. If it sounds like a quid pro quo and looks like a quid pro quo -- and pays off like a quid pro quo -- wouldn't this be a quid pro quo? Vilsack got healthy in a hurry, at least personally.

The most interesting part of these transactions is that none of them came from Iowa sources, Vilsack's own constituency. Why wouldn't Vilsack be asking Iowans to help him defray the costs of his campaign? For that matter, why didn't Hillary's Iowa donors come to Vilsack's assistance?

It's not the first time Hillary has bought an endorsement in this race, and I suspect it won't be the last. It's interesting to see who's for sale, though, and for how much.

Iran Hosts AQ Council: NIE

The national intelligence estimate will state that the Iranians have an active cell of al-Qaeda leadership in their eastern mountain area, Eli Lake reports today in the New York Sun. The same Quds force that has assisted Shi'ite and Sunni terrorists in Iraq has allowed the senior AQ figures to operate since the fall of the Taliban in 2001, and they have ties to the Iraq branch of AQ as well:

One of two known Al Qaeda leadership councils meets regularly in eastern Iran, where the American intelligence community believes dozens of senior Al Qaeda leaders have reconstituted a good part of the terror conglomerate's senior leadership structure.

That is a consensus judgment from a final working draft of a new National Intelligence Estimate, titled "The Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland," on the organization that attacked the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. The estimate, which represents the opinion of America's intelligence agencies, is now finished, and unclassified conclusions will be shared today with the public. ...

In the estimate's chapter on Al Qaeda's replenished senior leadership, three American intelligence sources said, there is a discussion of the eastern Iran-based Shura Majlis, a kind of consensus-building organization of top Al Qaeda figures that meets regularly to make policy and plan attacks. The New York Sun first reported in October that one of the Shura Majlis for Al Qaeda meets in the federally administered tribal areas of Pakistan, one of the areas the Pakistani army this week re-engaged after a yearlong cease-fire. Both Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, participate in those meetings.

The other Shura Majlis is believed to meet in eastern Iran in the network established after Al Qaeda was driven from Afghanistan in 2001.

No one in the intel community disagrees with the notion that some AQ leaders fled into Iran, nor about their activities there. As Lake reports, the military has intercepted both signal intel and messengers from AQ in Iran coming into Iraq. They worked closely with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi since shortly after their flight from Afghanistan to structure AQI.

What the analysts debate is the extent to which the AQ cell operates as an independent part of the leadership structure and the extent of Iranian sponsorship of the group. The letter intercepted by US forces from Ayman al-Zawahiri scolding him for his bloodthirstiness shows that Zawahiri, at least, considered his branch superior to that which had handled Zarqawi to that point.

The second issue seems rather moot, however. If the Iranians know they are there -- and they do, since they attempted to trade them in 2003 for information on an opposition group -- then they have responsibility for their operations and attacks as a matter of sovereignty. And it seems absurd in any case to presume that the Quds force, which is a branch of the Iranian military, somehow manages to be the only part of the Iranian theocracy which runs independent of the mullahs.

The question becomes what we do about the al-Qaeda cell in eastern Iran. If they have protection from the Quds force, it won't be easy to take them out. Iran's eastern region resembles that of Afghanistan and Pakistan, rugged mountain territory in which stealth attacks would be difficult to conduct. Any other kind of operation will be (rightly) seen as a declaration of war on Iran -- in which case we would have to attack a range of other targets first in order to protect our military.

It creates an even bigger conundrum than Waziristan. We could reach the AQ assets there with our forces in eastern Afghanistan with more stealth and less risk of engagement with the Pakistani military, as our assets are already arrayed in that area. In this case, we'd have to go for the entire full-scale war, which would create a choice for us as to whether we'd like to let Iraq go or the bin Laden-Zawahiri AQ cell go, or both, in order to chase down the Adel cell in Iran and fight it out with the Iranian mullahs on their home turf. We should take care of current business first before expanding beyond our capabilities in the region -- but keep our eyes open for opportunities to work below the radar to shut down this AQ leadership cell.

Legal Bleg

I just got off the phone with a friend of mine from my teen-age years and who reads CQ on a regular basis. Unfortunately, she has had to start divorce proceedings, but has no representation. Her husband won't pay support for their several children unless she asks him for it, and she's had to go on public assistance in the meantime. Hopefully, one or more of our CQ friends in Utah can give her a hand in accessing legal resources in Utah so that she can make sure she protects her interests and the interests of her children.

Please e-mail me anything I can forward to her, with the subject line, "Legal assistance". She can also use your prayers, and thanks in advance for either.

When Graft Had Class

The passing of Lady Bird Johnson produced a slew of complimentary obituaries and remembrances of the former First Lady. Normally, Christopher Hitchens would supply the antidote for all of the flowing saccharine, but Hitchens is on assignment this week. Instead, Jack Shafer at Slate offers the belated rebuttal, pointing out Lady Bird's role in amassing the Johnson fortune through a quaint form of graft, but one that may have some resonance in today's political issues:

In 1943, the year Lady Bird Johnson purchased KTBC, the Federal Communications Commission, which reviewed all broadcast-license transfers, was close to being abolished, Caro writes. Lyndon Johnson used his political influence in both Congress and the White House to prevent that from happening. The FCC was among the most politicized agencies in the government, Caro asserts, and it knew who its friends were.

Johnson socialized with FCC Commissioner Clifford Durr at the time, "sometimes at Durr's home, sometimes at his own," although Durr says Johnson never mentioned Lady Bird's application for KTBC's license. Lady Bird, however, directly approached Durr about the station, and Lyndon phoned James Barr of the FCC's Standard Broadcast Division. "He wanted to get a radio station, and what I remember is, he wouldn't take no for an answer," Caro quotes Barr. ...

Once Lady Bird completed her purchase of KTBC, the "five years of delays and red tape, or delays and unfavorable rules" from the FCC that had stymied the previous owners "vanished … and slowness was replaced by speed," according to Caro. In short order she got permission to broadcast 24 hours a day (KTBC had been a sunrise-to-sunset station) and move it to 590 on the dial—"an uncluttered, end of the dial" where it could be heard in 38 surrounding Texas counties. It was no coincidence. Lyndon and Lady Bird recruited a new station manager, promising 10 percent of the profits, and Lyndon told him that the changes in the license restrictions that would make KTBC a moneymaker were "all set." In 1945, the FCC OK'd KTBC's request to quintuple its power, which cast its signal over 63 counties.

When Lyndon visited William S. Paley, president of CBS radio, and asked if KTBC could become a CBS affiliate and carry its lucrative programming, he didn't have to spell out why the request should be granted. The radio networks feared the regulators in Washington as well as the members of Congress who regulated the regulators. KNOW in Austin had been repeatedly denied the affiliation because a San Antonio "affiliate could be heard in Austin." CBS Director of Research Frank Stanton approved Johnson's request.

Johnson shook down powerful companies to advertise on the station. Local businesses that wanted Army camps to remain located in Austin knew one way to secure Lyndon's help was to advertise on KTBC.

Well, isn't this all about Lyndon Johnson? Why bring Lady Bird into the story? Because without Lady Bird as a front, LBJ couldn't have pulled it off. She used an inheritance received from a relative to buy the radio station, and that allowed her to keep ownership -- and an obvious conflict of interest -- away from LBJ himself.

Meanwhile, LBJ himself used his leverage to ensure that his wife's broadcast assets remained highly profitable. The radio station led to establishing Austin's first TV station in a bid with only one participant -- Lady Bird Johnson. With the FCC heading for the scrap heap in the 1940s, LBJ provided a necessary bulwark against obsolescence. The agency made sure that any requests for better frequency assignments and power output got expedited and approved, making the stations even more lucrative for the Texas couple.

Now, had LBJ allowed the FCC to get cut from the federal government, it might have negated an argument that has appeared this year. Without the FCC in the 1940s, the Fairness Doctrine may never have been codified. It certainly couldn't have been enforced. Interestingly, after LBJ's rescue, no one has seriously challenged its existence.

Lady Bird undoubtedly deserved the outpouring of praise she received, but the truth of her role in enriching her family by her husband's manipulation of governmental agencies should also be made clear. Jack Shafer manages to do it with a little less vitriol than Hitchens.

It's A Party, And Hamas Is Not Invited

Most if not all of the American presidents of the last two generations have attempted to make peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. They have all met with failure, mostly due to a failure to recognize that the Palestinians didn't want peaceful coexistence with the Israelis, and the failures have reflected poorly on American administrations from both parties. Now George Bush has called for a regional peace conference, probably hoping for some legacy of accomplishment in an area where others have fallen short:

Declaring a "moment of choice" in the Middle East, President Bush said Monday he would call Israel, the Palestinians and others in the region to a peace conference aimed at restarting stalled talks and moving faster toward a Palestinian state.

Such a session could result in Israelis sitting at the same conference table as countries such as Saudi Arabia that do not recognize Israel diplomatically.

Bush said the conference, open to countries in the region that support a two-state solution to the long Israeli-Palestinian standoff, would be headed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

He also pledged more U.S. financial support for the moderate Palestinian government of Mahmoud Abbas and called for the convening of a group of "donor" countries to increase international financial aid, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan.

Hamas shouldn't wait by the mailbox for an invitation. Bush specifically told Palestinians that they had a choice between militant Islamist theocracies or an independent state. Hamas mocked his call for a peace conference as a "false promise," and claimed Bush divided their lands into two territories. Of course, Bush didn't tell Hamas to make their power grab for Gaza, but Hamas has a problem with "false promises" that far exceeds anything from any Western power.

Israel has already reacted positively to the statement, and one will expect Egypt and Jordan to follow along, since they already have diplomatic relations with Israel. The surprise may be that the rest of the moderate Arab states could join the conference. The White House strongly hinted that they had agreements with the other states to come to a conference that includes Israel for the first time. That would probably not include Syria and Lebanon, which would negotiate separately at a later date, depending on the circumstances.

Will this work? It seems like a propitious moment. Abbas has to deliver on some sort of normalization while Hamas is on the sidelines. If he can create a state with the right conditions, he could consolidate power in the West Bank and completely discredit Hamas, which already has credibility issues. The region appears tired of the Palestinian question, and Ehud Olmert would like to bring peace to Israel, if the conditions are right.

However, plenty of potential showstoppers remain. The final status of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount will create plenty of conflict, as will the long-established Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which house over 200,000 Israelis.

Britain Escalates Diplomatic Row Over Litvinenko Assassination

Britain has decided to escalate the diplomatic crisis over Russia's refusal to extradite the suspect in the Litvinenko assassination. The UK will expel four Russian diplomats in protest over the protection given to Andre Lugovoi:

David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, today announced that four Russian diplomats will be expelled following Moscow's failure to hand over the man suspected of murdering Alexander Litvinenko.

The Russian foreign office has reacted by labelling the expulsion "immoral", and claims it will have serious consequences.

Speaking in the House of Commons, Mr Miliband said that Russia's failure to cooperate with the extradition of Andrei Lugovoi was "extremely disappointing".

That may not be the end of the retribution, either. The new government of Prime Minister Gordon Brown says it will now review its relationship with Russia "on a range of issues," which comes close to hinting at a complete diplomatic break. Britain has also arranged for a series of extradition agreements which could snare Lugovoi if he attempts to travel outside of Russia.

Lugovoi's response was inadvertently hilarious. He objected to the public accusation of murder leveled by Millband. He told Britain's Channel 4 news that he would take Millbrand to court. Lugovoi is apparently unaware that he'd need to do that in Britain, and it would require his own appearance in a British court. If that's what it takes to get Lugovoi to the UK, Millbrand would probably have no complaint.

Russia will now probably expel British diplomats in response. The number expelled should give some indication of how far they want to pursue this. Britain is the largest investor in Russia, and Putin has enough problems with the economy without risking serious divestment. If they match the number that Britain has expelled, it will show that Putin does not want to escalate the tension between the two nations. If it's less than four, it may be seen as an offer of truce.

Britain may not accept it. It's become clear that they see the assassination as a tremendous insult to their sovereignty -- which it was -- and the British see it as directed by the Putin government. They want Lugovoi, and at this point, it appears that the UK has no problem hanging the entire diplomatic relationship on whether Putin extradites him.

CQ Radio: Senator Norm Coleman, NZ Bear, On Fairness Doctrine

Today on CQ Radio (2 pm CT), we'll have a number of guests talking about the Fairness Doctrine. Our friend NZ Bear of the Truth Laid Bear will join me as co-host and will discuss his Fairness Doctrine website, where people can stay abreast of FD developments. The NRSC's communications director, Rebecca Fisher, will join us for a few minutes in the first half to talk about their new site and their petition, and we believe that Senator Norm Coleman will join us in the second half. Last week, the Democrats blocked Coleman from offering legislation banning government control of political speech, and we'll ask him what his plans are next.

This comes at a critical time for free speech. One third of Americans believe that the government should control political speech not just on the airwaves, but also on the Internet, according to a recent Rasmussen poll (via QandO). Call 646-652-4889 to join the conversation -- while you still can!

UPDATE: Senator Norm Coleman had a last-minute conflict on his schedule and could not join us. Hopefully we can get Senator Coleman later this week.

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

Rudy Launches His Gravitas Offense

Rudy Giuliani's ability to win the Republican primary hinges on convincing GOP voters that he supports federalism and constructionist views on the Constitution. It takes his socially-liberal policy views off the table to a large extent if he can convince Republicans of his sincerity on those points, and nowhere will that be more evident than in his appointments to the bench. His new effort in that regard seems solidly calculated to confirm that commitment:

GOP frontrunner Rudy Giuliani will unveil his "Justice Advisory Committee" this week on a two-day swing through heavily Republican western districts of Washington, D.C., home of the first presidential caucuses in 2008.

The committee signals an important moment for building his relationship with social conservatives a he tries to convince skeptical Iowans he can compete seriously in the caucuses.

Former U.S. solicitor general under President Bush, Ted Olson, will chair the panel. Former Bush administration Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson and filibustered judicial nominee Miguel A. Estrada will be among the "who's who" of conservative legal and judicial advisers to Giuliani.

Those names will go a long way towards reassuring primary voters on Rudy's direction on judicial nominations. Ted Olson has a long and distinguished record as Solicitor General, as well as a very personal stake in the global war on terror; his wife, Barbara, was among those murdered at the Pentagon on 9/11. Conservatives rallied to Miguel Estrada when Democrats filibustered him a few years ago, although they were disappointed when Estrada withdrew from a second nomination rather than wait for Republicans in the Senate to defend him a little more vigorously.

As with Rudy's selection of foreign-policy advisors, it underscores the serious approach towards the campaign taken by the current front-runner. He has not only selected advisors that carry impressive credentials, pointing out his skill as an executive, he also shows that he attracts talent. Having Charles Hill and Ted Olson chair critical advisory panels for his primary campaign makes a big statement.

Tomorrow, Team Rudy will announce the rest of his judiciary team at a press conference. Other candidates do not seem to have caught up to this gravitas offense in either party. His new appointments could quickly snap up a lot of talent before his opponents have a chance to even start making similar offers.

UPDATE: Originally, I wrote that Rudy would be at the press conference. He won't; he's campaigning in Iowa this week.

Thompson Building A Winning Hand

Everyone wants to know why Fred Thompson hasn't officially declared his candidacy yet. After all, with Jim Gilmore's departure, the Republicans have an empty podium for the next debate. Why doesn't Fred jump in and start getting tested?

One answer could be that Fred wants to hit the hustings in the top spot -- and that's he's building his coalition carefully before his launch. US News reports that Fred has had some success in getting evangelical groups to consider supporting him, reaching out to one group that could give him instant momentum. At Heading Right, I look at advantages he might have over some of the other GOP candidates, and the strategy of holding cards close to the vest until one gets a winning hand.

UPDATE: The Democrats think Fred has other motivations for his long flirtation:

The “Law & Order” actor and former U.S. senator from Tennessee is delaying his formal entry into the race in part because his current status makes him less of a target and lets other candidates continue to get chewed up. “We’re in no hurry,” one close adviser said mischievously.

But there’s another big reason. If he were to formalize his candidacy beyond its current “testing the waters” status, Friends of Fred Thompson Inc. would have to reveal its contributions and expenses this week.

Thompson’s aides say they will not file such a report, and the Democratic National Committee plans to argue aggressively in coming days that he should. Democratic aides argue that Thompson could be violating campaign finance laws by “ducking” a full filing.

The Thompson campaign organization already voluntarily complies with restrictions meant for declared candidates. They cap all donors at $2300, the limit for the primary race, and they have committed to raising no soft money. They may incorporate as a 527 this month rather than declare as a candidate, which will put them in the same tax status as other candidates.

Otherwise, the complaints sound like sour grapes. No one said that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or anyone else had to declare 22 months before the general election and 12 months before the first primary. They could have all decided to wait until the summer or fall to officially declare their candidacies -- but they would then have had to risk other candidates grabbing momentum away from them.

Obviously, Thompson hasn't worried about that problem, and apparently for good reason. That may make the Democrats and other Republicans irritated by Fred's plan to keep his options open, but they only have themselves to blame.

Military Solution For Iran?

The Guardian reports that the Bush administration, led by Dick Cheney, has decided to emphasize the military options in dealing with Iran. This would change the policy from last year's decision to emphasize the diplomatic approaches to ending the Iranian nuclear program, and it apparently comes over the objections of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates:

The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.

The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo." ...

Last year Mr Bush came down in favour of Ms Rice, who along with Britain, France and Germany has been putting a diplomatic squeeze on Iran. But at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. "The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern," the source said this week.

Nick Burns, the undersecretary of state responsible for Iran and a career diplomat who is one of the main advocates of negotiation, told the meeting it was likely that diplomatic manoeuvring would still be continuing in January 2009. That assessment went down badly with Mr Cheney and Mr Bush.

First, it's difficult to assess this report. The Guardian doesn't use any named sources for most of its assertions, and it's not as if the Guardian has tremendous access to the Bush administration. In fact, it looks as if the entire story came from a single "Washington source", which makes it somewhat less than compelling.

If true, however, it's a mistake on several levels. One major problem is that we have enough on our plate in Iraq, and opening a second hot war will stretch us in a manner unlike anything we have experienced in recent years. Some might argue that we could use our navy to attack Iran, and we do have three carrier groups in the Persian Gulf. However, the Iranian response would likely come on the ground, against our troops in Iraq, and perhaps against the British in the south. We have our hands full in trying to secure Iraq against internal forces, let alone a full-blown invasion from Iran.

Besides, our raison d'etre in Iraq is to stop a wider war from exploding in the Middle East. Not only would an attack prompt exactly what we hope to avoid, but it would likely radicalize the Iraqi Shi'ites, who would not appreciate the US using Iraq as a military base against their natural allies in Iran. We'd have to pull back to the west in Iraq, and we could lose the use of Iraqi ports on the Gulf as a result.

The radicalization of the Iraqis would be a secondary consideration. An attack on Iran would radicalize the Iranians all over again. Right now they feel an increasing disconnect between themselves and their largely inept leadership. That disconnect will dissipate in an instant if Iran gets attacked by a foreign power. All of our efforts to promote a democratic movement in Iran, which have been too limited by half, will get wasted in an attack. Creating 70 million radicals should be something to avoid, not something to actively pursue.

According to the Guardian, the reason Cheney and Bush have decided on this course is because they don't trust any of their potential successors to deal with Iran properly. As Rick Moran notes, that's a fairly arrogant thought, if true. At the least, their successors would have to inherit a potential military catastrophe if they decide to attack Iran, and apparently they would trust the succession with that much -- so why rush into precipitate action now?

And that assumes we can knock out their nuclear capabilities on the first strike, or even a series of strikes. From what we know, that's very unlikely. They learned from the Israeli strike on Osirak and put everything underground and dispersed their assets. We can set them back with surgical strikes, but we can't know for sure how badly and for how long. With a radicalized populace, they'll have a lot more political breathing room for reconstituting it after we stop bombing them.

We shouldn't discount the military option, of course, but that doesn't mean we should use it in the near future, either. We need to have Iraq stabilized and our forces greatly reduced before we could tackle the much larger nation of Iran. We'd have to have exhausted our diplomatic and economic options. For instance, we had a better setup to take out Kim Jong-Il's nuclear infrastructure over the last few years, but we rightly opted for a multilateral diplomatic approach. We still have time to do this right, in a manner that would create a friendship between liberty-loving Iranians and the West and undercut the mullahcracy.

UPDATE: Jules Crittenden isn't impressed, either -- and Allahpundit compares Bush and Cheney with Martin and Lewis. He finds them less amusing, apparently.

UPDATE II: A couple of commenters accuse me of "growing" as a blogger by opposing military intervention against Iran unless as a last resort. That's rather amusing, as I have always held that position, as a check of my archives would rather quickly confirm. I'm for keeping the option on the table, but only using it if we have no other choice.

Iran is a much more difficult target than Iraq. For one thing, it's three times as large, with three times the population. It's more mountainous, and their military assets are more dispersed. Attacking it in any meaningful manner will require more troops than we have in Iraq. Dropping bombs in Iran will do little to rid ourselves of the mullahcracy, even though it might damage some of their nuclear network -- and we couldn't even confirm that without invading Iran on the ground to find it all. Bombing Iran will only give political support to the current regime, especially with the kind of surgical strikes we would deliver.

And let's not forget that we already have a two-front war (Iraq and Afghanistan). Now's not the time to open a third front, not without a much larger regular military than we have now.

The best way to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the mullahs is to work to overthrow them. That won't happen through an invasion, as satisfying as military action might be to some.

A Tale Of Two Cities

The City Journal has a fascinating look at the counterterrorism operations in the nation's two largest metropolitan areas, New York and Los Angeles. Judith Miller, formerly of the New York Times, compares and contrasts the approaches both take in protecting their residents from terrorist attacks. Differing geography, laws, and culture make the effort unequal in ways that Angelenos may not know -- but which could put them at a much higher risk:

Three time zones, 3,000 miles, and a cultural galaxy apart, New York and Los Angeles face a common threat: along with Washington, D.C., they’re the chief American targets of Islamic terror. And both cities boast top cops, sometime rivals—the cities are fiercely competitive—who know that ensuring that a dog doesn’t bark will determine their legacies. After investing millions of dollars in homeland security, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly of New York and Chief William J. Bratton of L.A. can both claim counterterror successes. What can we learn from their approaches? And will they be able to continue preventing terrorist attacks in their cities?

On the face of it, the nation’s two biggest metropolitan forces seem to have adopted kindred counterterrorism strategies. Both have roving SWAT or “Emergency Service Unit” teams, equipped with gas masks and antidotes to chemical and biological agents. Both have set up “fusion” centers to screen threats and monitor secret intelligence and “open-source” information, including radical Internet sites, and both have started programs to identify and protect likely targets. Both have tried to integrate private security experts into their work. Both conduct surveillance that would have been legally questionable before September 11. Both have sought to enlist support from mainstream Muslims and have encouraged various private firms to report suspicious activity.

Yet despite such similarities, the terror-fighting approaches of New York and L.A., like the cities themselves, reflect very different traditions, styles, and, above all, resources. New York, which knows the price of failure and thus has a heightened “threat perception,” sets the gold standard for counterterrorism—and has the funding and manpower to do it. Kelly, 65, views his highest priority as ensuring that al-Qaida doesn’t hit the city again. “When your city has been attacked, the threat is always with you,” he tells me. Deploying its own informants, undercover terror-busters, and a small army of analysts, New York tries to locate and neutralize pockets of militancy even before potentially violent individuals can form radical cells—a “preventive” approach, as Kelly calls it, that is the most effective way that police departments, small or large, can help fight terror.

In L.A., a city that has never been attacked, terrorism is a less pressing concern than gang violence and other crime. Lacking the political incentive, and hence the resources, to wage his own war on terror, Bratton, 59, has instead pooled scarce funds, manpower, and information with federal and other agencies—an approach that federal officials hold up as a model for police departments that can’t afford New York’s investment.

New York City, as might be expected, reacted to 9/11 by creating almost a national system of defense and intelligence. They spent $200 million on intel operations, and even started posting agents abroad to investigate connections to radical groups in their jurisdiction. The city already had a large police force, with over 36,000 sworn officers and more than 14,000 civilian employees. This made it easier to create a large intelligence office and to commit serious resources to it -- even to the point where its operation created conflict with the FBI for its first few years, which has only recently abated.

Los Angeles presents many more obstacles to counterterrorism, especially in the area of intelligence. Thanks to abuses by the LAPD in the past in surveilling citizens, the city and state has tough laws restricting local police and intel operations. Even more significantly, though, the LAPD is completely underresourced, and jurisdictional lines create confusion. Unlike New York, whose 36,000 officers cover a relatives moderate area, the LAPD has 450 square miles to protect. The county sheriff's department, whose jurisdictional areas entwine with the LAPD, has more sworn officers than the LAPD -- sixteen thousand to twelve thousand. As Miller notes, the Highway Patrol has jurisdiction of all the freeways in California, and the ports have their own police department.

Miller reports that the LAPD's leadership has done its best to plan around the shortcomings. However, at some point there is no substitute for boots on the ground, a fact that Angelenos know from the gang warfare constantly conducted there. Los Angeles County had as many people murdered in the three years prior to 9/11 as New York did on 9/11 itself, and over 40% of those were gang-related. Over 3,000 gang-related murders took place between 1995 and 2000. With that kind of blood on the streets, resources will get directed to where the bleeding is and not where it might be.

Be sure to read all of Miller's excellent report. New York has done a good job in securing the city. While the LAPD and LASD have done the best they can, the citizens of Southern California had better start considering giving them the resources and the authority they need to properly protect the area from terrorist threats.

Hamas Support Melting Away

The degree of the self-inflicted catastrophe that Hamas created with its rebellion has come into clearer focus after polling Gaza voters. The territory used to serve as Hamas' political power base, but now a plurality of voters support their rival, Fatah. Even worse, two-thirds of previous Hamas voters would not repeat that mistake:

The violent takeover of the Gaza Strip has cost Hamas some support there and bolstered its rival, Fatah, according to a poll released Sunday.

Hamas swept through Gaza last month, vanquishing numerically superior forces aligned with Fatah leader and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, who responded by dismissing the Hamas-led government and installing a new one with his backers.

The poll of Gaza residents shows a backlash. Hamas got only 23 percent support, down from 29 percent in the previous survey last month, while Fatah climbed from 31 percent to 43 percent.

The poll, the first major survey since the Hamas takeover, also showed that 66 percent of Hamas supporters said they would vote Fatah if it undertook reforms.

On one level, this poll is irrelevant. Hamas didn't conduct a coup to hold an election, which Gazans apparently have just discovered. An increasing awareness of Hamas' "authoritarian" nature is one of the reasons for the disaffection in the poll, which should have come as no surprise to anyone who knows the track record of radical Islamist movements.

Mostly, though, Gazans have reacted to the pragmatic reality around them. Gaza's economy had tanked before the coup, thanks to their election of an unrepentant terrorist group to power. It has declined sharply from that point since the coup. While the Gazans see aid returning to the Hamas-less West Bank, the closing of commercial crossings at Karni and Rafah have cut deeply into their finances. The World Bank estimates that Gaza has lost $20.6 million in a single month due to the disappearance of Fatah security at Karni. Israel won't reopen Karni with masked Hamas gunmen staffing security positions on the other side.

The resulting price hikes and food shortages will only get worse as a result, and the only way to change that will be to get rid of Hamas. Egypt won't open Rafah to any great degree for the same security reasons as Israel. Gaza can't get shipments anywhere else; the Israel military controls Gaza's coastline.

As a result, Fatah has become much more popular in Gaza than ever before. They have almost double the support of Hamas, although interestingly one-third of Gazans support neither party. Mahmoud Abbas has an almost two-to-one advantage over former PM Ismail Haniyeh in voter trust, 63-37. Even more significantly, Sallam Fayed -- the new PM that Hamas declared illegitimate -- has a 62-38 advantage in trust among Gaza voters.

Hamas made a huge mistake with the Gaza coup. They allowed themselves to get isolated in governing and showed what a disaster they are in that position. Not only did the coup itself discredit them as rebels, but the aftermath will discredit them for years, if not longer, as political leaders. The West needs to keep Gaza isolated until the Gazans end Hamas' rule themselves.

Waziristan Tribes To Musharraf: It's On

Events over the last few days have indicated that Pervez Musharraf has rethought his hands-off deal with radical Islamists in Waziristan. After the Red Mosque siege and seizure, the Waziris have apparently concluded the same thing. Today they announced that the Waziri tribes would wothdraw from the agreement and, in effect, declared war on Pakistan:

Pro-Taleban militants in Pakistan's North Waziristan region say they have ended their truce with the government.

In a statement issued in Miranshah, the main town, the militants accused the government of breaking the agreement.

It came as Pakistan deployed more troops in the area fearing "holy war" after the storming of the militant Red Mosque last week that left 102 dead.

More than 50 Pakistanis, including soldiers and police recruits, have died in three attacks in the last two days.

The announcement was more or less a formality. The Taliban and al-Qaeda had obviously unleashed their terrorists in the aftermath of the Red Mosque seizure. Bombs have gone off around Pakistan over the last couple of weeks, killing dozens and inspiring the usual groups to launch protests against the Musharraf government.

Now, however, this will probably serve to strengthen Musharraf. The extremists have not gained the sympathy of the middle class after the imams at the Red Mosque started taking hostages and imposing Taliban rule in the neighborhood. Most see Musharraf's action as a positive step against radical elements, and the wave of terror attacks in its wake will not likely change their minds.

It also might give Musharraf some room to allow limited NATO missions in Waziristan. That would give Musharraf an opportunity to end the rebellion without sacrificing his own troops, and it would also satisfy long-standing demands by the US and UK to take action against known Taliban and AQ camps. The radicals will probably try to move their assets out of their established camps -- which means that Musharraf had better give that green light quickly.

Zawahiri wanted a fight, and now he'll get one. Don't expect Musharraf to cut deals with these people again.

A Case Of Missing Context At The Gray Lady

Nouri al-Maliki may have provided a push for Congress to get more aggressive with the White House over troop withdrawals in Iraq yesterday. However, the Prime Minister sounded a rather contradictory note, expressing confidence in Iraq's ability to secure itself while pleading for more time and pledging more progress on political reform. The New York Times reports on only one of these contradictory statements:

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki declared Saturday that Iraqi forces could secure the country on their own “any time” American troops decided to withdraw, his first response to the White House report this week that found his government falling well short of many political reforms and military goals sought by Congress.

Mr. Maliki has been under attack by American officials and many Iraqi politicians for leading a government mired in disputes and unable to make progress on major legislation seen as crucial to stabilizing the country. Support is growing in Congress for an American troop pullout that would leave Iraqi forces that are already plagued with sectarianism, absenteeism and other problems to battle the Sunni Arab insurgents and Shiite militias that dominate parts of the country.

The White House report found that Iraq failed to make satisfactory progress meeting 8 out of 18 major milestones, such as passing an oil revenue-sharing law and ending favoritism in the security forces. Such favoritism toward Shiites, the report found, even included evidence of Maliki advisers in the Office of the Commander in Chief distributing “target lists,” primarily of Sunnis who were to be arrested, directly to lower-level commanders.

“We say with confidence that we are capable, God willing, of taking full responsibility for the security file if the international forces withdraw in any time they wish,” Mr. Maliki said.

Readers who want the whole story have to read the Los Angeles Times to find out what else Maliki said about the Iraqi position:

Maliki, a Shiite, put on a brave face in the wake of the rising demand in the U.S. among Democratic and Republican legislators for withdrawal from Iraq.

He pleaded for time, pledging to achieve the passage of legislation that Washington has demanded as a condition of its continuing support, including an oil revenue sharing law, a revised constitution and the easing of government work restrictions for former supporters of President Saddam Hussein, who was captured, tried and executed after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Maliki also said that Iraqi security forces could use more training from U.S.-led forces and needed more weaponry.

Perhaps someone could ask the layers of editors and fact-checkers at the Gray Lady why this got left out of their report. It adds another dimension to the story, a context which shows a politician trying to reassure his constituency that their government can survive an American pullout -- not endorsing one, as the Paper of Record's report implies. Maliki has to make sure that Iraqis do not lose confidence in the government in order to keep the tribes from throwing in with the various insurgencies for their own perceived protection, once we do withdraw.

The real news story is that Maliki has asked the Congress to remain patient. He has not given up on passing reform through the National Assembly, and understands that the US wants to see that reform start as soon as possible. Unfortunately, both papers chose to de-emphasize that part of the story, and in the case of the New York Times, overlook it altogether.

At this point, Congress will likely take the New York Times approach to Maliki's statement. Clearly more Republicans have joined Democrats in looking for an easy way out from Iraq, and a statement of readiness from Maliki will provide an excuse to at least pull out of Baghdad. His pleading for more time will get ignored in the coming weeks by members of both parties just as it was by Richard Oppel, Jr.

UPDATE: CNN reported the request for more time and patience as well:

"We are not talking about a government in a stable political environment, but one in the shadow of huge challenges," al-Maliki said. "So when we talk about the presence of some negative points in the political process, that's fairly natural."

Al-Maliki said his government needs "time and effort" to enact the political reforms that Washington seeks -- "particularly since the political process is facing security, economic and services pressures, as well as regional and international interference."

But he said that if necessary, Iraqi police and soldiers could fill the void left by the departure of coalition forces.

The context is a bit different than what the NY Times story suggests, isn't it? Sometimes bias involves what's left out of a story more than what's put into it.

Liddle On The BBC And Barking Mad Englishwomen

I must admit, I have not had the pleasure of reading Rod Liddle's writing in the past, but after today's column in the Times of London, I'll have to catch him more often. He tackles a number of topics, but manages to skewer both the BBC and the new Mrs. bin Laden with a masterful display of Fleet Street scorn.

First, Liddle takes up the recent case of BBC bumbling, where the network ran a doctored clip from their upcoming documentary that made it look as though Queen Elizabeth II stormed out of a photo shoot in a fit of pique. The BBC had to issue a profuse apology for misleading its viewers, and hilariously asked its producers to report any other cases of the BBC misleading viewers in their promos. That opened the floodgates for Liddle (via Memeorandum):

By lunchtime on Friday the queue of contrite producers outside Bennett's office stretched down Wood Lane and into the Goldhawk Road. The team behind The Crouchers and several other situation comedies confessed to having misled the public into believing that their programmes might contain some humorous element, when this was very far from the case. The executives behind the reality shows Celebrity Dog Handlers on Ice and I'm an Exhibitionist Moron, Give Me Some Money admitted suggesting that their programmes came under the heading public service broadcasting and were therefore worthy of the statutory licence fee, rather than ratings chasing dross. ...

Then came the television news teams ’fessing up that they may have inadvertently misled the public over the single European currency, the inherent competence and decency of Hamas, Fatah and the Taliban, the desirability of unconstrained immigration and the notion that bunging loads of money in aid to Africa would solve that continent’s problems. Oh, and a whole bunch of other stuff about the dangers of smoking and global warming and being fat. The BBC’s “gypsy unit” turned up too, to confess that not everyone who had reservations about encroachment by Britain’s traveller community were necessarily racist middle-class bigots. They were late, though, because their cars had been nicked.

Next on the agenda is the strange case of Jane Felix-Browne, the 51-year-old grandmother whose sixth and most recent marriage is to Omar Ossama bin Laden, the 26-year-old son of the al-Qaeda leader. Sonny hasn't seen Pop since 2002, not because Sonny has rejected Pop's life calling, but because of a disagreement over "tactics", according Felix-Brown, now calling herself Zaina Mohamad al-Sabah. Liddle figures that this could be a new and very effective tactic in the war on terror:

This is the way forward, though. Never mind the cluster bombs and Challenger tanks, the way to defeat Al-Qaeda is to dispatch legions of barking mad Englishwomen to mate with them, thus seriously compromising the jihadist gene pool and perhaps destroying the terrorists’ resolve and even their will to live.

It's an example of British punditry at its snarky best. Be sure to have a laugh this morning.

Red Mosque An Al-Qaeda Operation

The Times of London reports today that the Red Mosque leadership -- now reaching room temperature in Islamabad -- took orders from al-Qaeda's senior leadership. Pakistani intelligence officials found letters from Ayman al-Zawahiri to the two brothers who ran the mosque, and that eighteen foreign fighters joined the mosque just before it took hostages and set up the standoff:

AL-QAEDA’S leadership secretly directed the Islamic militants whose armed revolt at the Red Mosque in Islamabad ended last week with more than 100 deaths after it was stormed by the Pakistan army.

According to senior intelligence officials, the troops who finally took control discovered letters from Osama Bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri. They were written to Abdul Rashid Ghazi and Abdul Aziz, the brothers who ran the mosque and adjacent madrasah.

Government sources said up to 18 foreign fighters -- including Uzbeks, Egyptians and several Afghans -- had arrived weeks before the final shootout and set up firing ranges to teach students, including children, how to handle weapons.

The arrival of the foreign fighters appears to be the key as to why talks broke down between Ghazi and the Pakistani military. Zawahiri sent them not only for training, but to bolster the will of Ghazi and his mosque's contingent. They drilled them on weapons and tactics and ensured that Ghazi would not capitulate to Musharraf. They may have taken an even more active role than that during negotiations, as the military had thought a deal was close to fruition at one point.

Why did AQ want the Red Mosque to get attacked? They wanted a high-profile martyrdom operation. Zawahiri wanted to wave a bloody shirt in Pakistan and get the populace aroused, and the only way to do that was to have the government kill some radical imams. The AQ leader instructed Ghazi and the mosque's leadership to conduct operations that would get a big response from the government and essentially force Musharraf to act.

It worked, but not as well as Zawahiri would have hoped. A few lunatics conducted suicide-bomb attacks and killed a few dozen people during and after the standoff, but no massive uprising on behalf of the radicals has been seen. Instead, it may have pushed Musharraf towards more direct action against Zawahiri and an end to the autonomy of the tribes in Waziristan. Musharraf has sent the army north to the frontier, and they may not stop until they reach Zawahiri himself. Alternately, Musharraf might invite the US to conduct smaller-scale military operations against AQ and Taliban areas in Waziristan in order to reduce the threat of further mischief by Zawahiri.

Zawahiri may have forced Musharraf to act. He may wind up regretting it.

Fatah Militants Renounce Terror Against Israel

Mahmoud Abbas has worked quickly to consolidate power in the West Bank after shedding Hamas and Gaza last month. Abbas has had Israel remove 178 Fatah militants from their wanted lists, and in exchange, all of them have publicly renounced terrorism against Israel. Abbas also won another concession that may not please Israelis at all -- and could threaten Olmert's already weak position:

Scores of Fatah militants in the West Bank have signed a pledge renouncing attacks against Israel in return for an Israeli promise to stop pursuing them, a Palestinian security official said Sunday.

The deal would grant amnesty to 178 Fatah gunmen who will join the official Palestinian security forces, and Israel will remove them from its lists of wanted militants, the official said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to divulge details of the agreement. ...

And in another gesture of support, Israel agreed to Abbas' request to allow Nayef Hawatmeh, an exiled Palestinian militant leader, to enter the West Bank this week for a meeting of a top Palestine Liberation Organization policy-making body, a step that Abbas hopes will provide him added legitimacy among Palestinians.

Hawatmeh heads the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a small and nearly forgotten PLO faction best known for commandeering a school in the northern Israeli town of Maalot in 1974. The attack left 24 Israelis dead, most of them children, and helped shaped the attitudes of a generation of Israelis about the Palestinian leadership.

Both Abbas and Ehud Olmert apparently see this as a last chance for both leaders to make some sort of peace deal that will complete the isolation of Hamas' radical Islamists. Hamas apparently understands this as well, as it released a statement immediately afterwards proclaiming this agreement as an attempt "to destroy the spirit of the resistance[.]" More importantly, Hamas realizes that any agreement between Israel and the West Bank allows Israel to focus its military strength on Gaza and Hamas.

Abbas has cut Gaza loose, and Hamas knows it. Hamas badly miscalculated their appeal in the West Bank, and in taking Gaza allowed Abbas to marginalize them as traitors and rebels. It resolved Abbas' biggest headache and has gained him all of the international support Hamas lost when they refused to renounce terrorism and recognize Israel.

Israel has reason to engage Abbas now in hopes of ending the West Bank occupation on the best possible terms, now that Hamas and its extremists have been removed from the equation. However, this last concession may seriously inflame the Israelis. The DFLP has a well-deserved nasty reputation after Maalot, and it remains one of the worst atrocities in the long-running conflict. Hawatmeh's organization deliberately targeted those children in 1974, and the acquiescence of an Israeli government giving a DFLP leader safe passage will likely cause a backlash against Olmert.

For Abbas, though, it will give him even more legitimacy and draw with the Palestinians. It will show him as a man who can gain painful concessions from the Israelis, and in the long run could open the door to a real solution in the West Bank. That's still a long shot, especially since Abbas has been a master manipulator for years with these kinds of processes. The rise of Hamas may have forced his hand now, and if Abbas can deliver peace in the West Bank at some point, he will have gone a long way towards discrediting the radical-Islamist movement in the Middle East.

Kim Shuts Down Yongbyon

North Korea announced that it has closed their nuclear reactor at Yongbyon, an essential step in their nuclear disarmament that many had despaired of Kim Jong-Il ever taking. The closure follows the delivery of over 6,000 tons of fuel oil and the transfer of $25 million in previously frozen funds. The IAEA has sent its inspectors to the plant to verify its closure and to monitor its status:

After four years of off-and-on negotiations, North Korea said it began closing down its main nuclear reactor Saturday, shortly after receiving a first boatload of fuel oil aid.

The closure, if confirmed by U.N. inspectors, would mark the first concrete step in a carefully orchestrated denuclearization schedule that was agreed on in February, with the ultimate goal of dismantling North Korea's nuclear weapons program in exchange for fuel and other economic aid, and increased diplomatic recognition.

More broadly, it constituted the first on-the-ground accomplishment of six-nation negotiations that have been grinding away with little progress since 2003 under Chinese sponsorship. The talks -- including North and South Korea, Russia, Japan, the United States and China -- are likely to resume next week in Beijing to emphasize the parties' resolve to carry out the rest of the February agreement and eventually create a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.

If the IAEA confirms the shutdown, it will be the most significant step taken by the DPRK since they admitted to cheating on nuclear-weapons development in 2002. That caused the Bush administration to declare the 1994 Agreed Framework a dead letter and ended direct negotiations between the US and the Kim regime.

Instead, George Bush insisted on multilateral talks, a process which has come under heavy criticism over the last few years, even while the same critics attacked the adminstration for its supposed unilateralism in Iraq and the Middle East. This approach appears to have paid off, however. Bush's engagement of China, with all of its economic and diplomatic leverage in Pyongyang, forced Kim to take the talks seriously. An angry China would create a disaster for Kim, as his nation already starves and can hardly afford to become even more economically isolated. After testing one nuclear device, apparently to save a little face -- it turned out to be mostly a dud -- Kim wound up capitulating his nuclear program in the talks.

Still, we've been down this road before with Kim. No one expected him to just walk away from his nukes in the same manner Moammar Ghaddafi did in Libya in the wake of Saddam Hussein's capture. The closure of Yongbyon is very significant in this regard. If Kim wanted to continue manufacturing nukes, he'd need Yongbyon to produce the fissile material. Once that closure becomes permanent, which the IAEA will confirm through the destruction of the plant's internal facilities, Kim will be out of the nuke manufacturing business -- at least for plutonium-based weapons.

In other words, this is a good start, and a rather significant win for the US and the Bush administration. The highly-flawed Agreed Framework has been replaced by a system that requires verification and uses the pressure of China, South Korea, Japan, and Russia to enforce the agreement. If the rest of the process runs as smoothly, we may have defanged the DPRK and might even be on our way to opening up the last of the Stalinist regimes.