Show starts at 10 pm ET!
I’ve completed my interview with Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, one of the presidential contenders in the GOP that has not garnered as much attention. It’s not for lack of intelligence and commitment, as listeners will hear on tonight’s show. Huckabee makes the case for a principled conservative, answers some of his critics, and insists that the Republican Party should nominate a Republican for President.
Be sure to check out Mike Huckabee’s website for more information on his campaign.
In the second half of the show, I’ll be joined by NZ Bear to discuss CPAC and the Victory Caucus. We’ll also be taking your calls at 646-652-4889. Remember, the show airs live at 10 pm ET, and podcasts within minutes of its end.
Month: March 2007
CPAC Live Blog: Dick Cheney
I’m at CPAC’s final event of the night to watch Dick Cheney address the CPAC conference.
7:45 PM ET – Thanking the people who introduced him. He also acknowledged the people he met on his last trip, mentioning Bagram specifically, and encouraging all of us to remember and honor them. The conference’s chair has a daughter who just finished a tour in Iraq.
7:47 – “I’m probably the last non-candidate you’ll see this weekend.” Good laugh. Too bad John McCain didn’t say it.
7:51 – Reviewing the economy in the context of what has happened in the last six years. GDP has risen over 16%, an amount equal or greater than the entire economy of Canada. This shows the fallacy of economics as a zero-sum game. This has come from the tax breaks that allowed the economy to thrive.
7:53 – Revenues have risen by $520 billion in the last two years, the greatest two-year period in history.
7:55 – Earmark control is a key indicator for fiscal seriousness in Congress. So also is the permanent adoption of the Bush tax cuts. “No nation has taxed their way to prosperity.” Cheney implies to the CPAC conference that Bush will veto any tax increases. Of course, they don’t have to increase the taxes — merely avoid prolonging the Bush tax cuts.
7:58 – Energy policy next. Cheney says that we need to diversify our energy production, including opening up domestic sources of oil, such as ANWR.
8:00 – Judges and security are the two keys for the next two years, Cheney says. We have defeated all terrorist attempts to strike the United States, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen again if we don’t remain vigilant.
8:02 – We’ll be on the offensive against the Taliban this spring, Cheney promises. They want to beat the Taliban to the punch, and for good reason. He also notes that the Senate voted to confirm David Petraeus, and then tried to cut off the troops he said he needed to conduct an offensive in Iraq. Cheney says that every message we send has multiple audiences, and we cannot allow our enemies to believe they can outlast us.
8:06 – “If you support a war on terror, then it only makes sense to support sending troops where the terrorists are.” He also had a good line about how the strategic disaster that will accompany a retreat from Iraq is an “inconvenient truth”.
8:07 – Wrapping up the speech by thanking the activists of CPAC in making a better nation and a better world.
8:09 – Michael Steele followed Dick Cheney to the podium, and he cracked off the best line of the evenng: “In the words of Joe Biden, isn’t he articulate?”
CONCLUSION: Michael Steele again impresses in a short appearance at the dais. He did forget to introduce the clergyman who was to offer grace, but otherwise he was completely charming. The GOP really should have made him their national chairman; they missed an opportunity there.
CPAC Interview: Bill Simon, Rudy, & The Judges
Bill Simon paid a visit to Blogger’s Row here at CPAC in his new role as missionary for the Rudy Giuliani campaign. Simon once ran for governor in California, losing to Gray Davis, which helped set the stage for the historic case of buyer’s remorse that resulted in Davis’ recall and the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger. He struck me as a warm and friendly person who has focused on his new mission to win the nomination for Giuliani.
I had not been aware of his professional connection between Simon and Giuliani, but the two worked together in the US Attorney’s office in New York 22 years ago. I asked him what he learned about Rudy in the time the two worked together, and he said that he found teamwork, leadership, and accountability. Simon found Rudy to be a loyal but tough leader in the civil and criminal casework that his office handled.
Given the conservative skepticism towards Rudy, I asked Simon what he felt might make conservatives most comfortable with Giuliani. He spoke about Rudy’s commitment to fiscal discipline and focus on freedom. In the years that Giuliani ran New York City, crime went down and people began to feel as though the Big Apple could be a livable city. Social issues will come in second to security and leadership, Simon believes.
I asked Simon about the recent issue with judges. The Politico posted an article on Rudy’s track record on judicial nominations, and reported that Giuliani appointed more Democrats than Republicans to the bench as Mayor. Hower, Simon called this misleading. The mayor does not have a free hand in judicial appointments in New York City. An independent panel gives the mayor a choice of three candidates for each open seat, and the mayor has to select from those three. Rudy did not choose the candidates; he had to select one of three locked-in choices.
CPAC, The Silly Season
So far, we’ve spent most of our morning getting to know one another and prepping for some of the more anticipated events scheduled for later. I’ve been sitting between Jane and Mary Katherine Ham while I’ve prepped for my interview with Mike Huckabee, which means I’m having way too much fun. However, we’re not the only ones getting silly. So far, we’ve seen someone in a dolphin costume handing out anti-Mitt literature, someone else handing out Mitt flip-flops, and a line of men about a mile deep to see Michelle Malkin.
I’m hoping to get pictures of the lighter moments, and I’ll post them back here when I do.
Bullish On The Iraqis
I have a new essay up at American.com, a project of the American Enterprise Institute, about the new agreement on oil revenue in Iraq. The agreement opens the door to eventual reconciliation and a success for the US in the Middle East:
With most of American politics focused on the troop surge and partisan maneuverings over its implementation, another story has gotten lost: The Iraqis themselves have made important progress in a basic economic issue that has fueled the sectarian divide. …
Over the past three years, the politicians were unable to settle on an equitable and secure revenue-sharing plan that still allowed the Kurds and the Shi’ites to manage their own resources. But now things have changed. The Kurds, who had held out the longest, agreed to share their oil revenues on a basis that had already won support from the Shi’ites and the Sunnis. Two days later, the Iraqi cabinet approved the deal, and the Iraqi Parliament will likely vote it into law.
Does this address the fundamental differences that have produced dissent and Sunni insecurity in the past? It appears to. It takes the collection of oil revenues out of the hands of regional governments and invests it into the central government. The Sunnis may not control the central government any longer, but they have more representation in Baghdad than in Basra or Kirkuk. They also won central government oversight over oil contracts, ensuring that oil revenues could not be hidden or controlled by the regions. This turned out to be one of the major stumbling blocks, with the Kurds insistent that Baghdad not be allowed to force contracts on the regions or require approval from national bureaucrats. Instead, the parties agreed to give the national government the power to “prevent” contracts from being executed, a bit of wordsmithing that allowed the Kurds to acquiesce.
I’ve written about this a few times over the last week, but American.com allowed me to pull all my thoughts together into one place. Be sure to read it all.
Jim DeMint Visits Blogger Row
Senator Jim DeMint stopped by Blogger Row, in part to speak to his support for Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination. DeMint spoke for just a few minutes, but made the case that the federal government needs a strong CEO to straighten out the chaos and confusion of the bureaucracy. He likes what Mitt did in Massachussetts to find creative solutions that can gather bipartisan support, and feels that talent would be put to good use in the White House.
He covered a few other issues as well. I asked him to comment on the administration’s apparent reversal on negotiating with Iran and Syria on Iraq’s security. He responded that he had not heard of any reversal, but that he didn’t see a problem in attending a conference which included both nations and still excluded direct negotiation with Iran. After all, he said, we deal with a lot of bad players at the UN, too.
DeMint also talked about tax reform, telling us that the “courage” may not exist for meaningful tax reform, but he remains hopeful. He’s open to the national sales tax plan if it replaces the current income-tax system, especially since it will make collections easier and more transparent.
He also committed to a filibuster on the proposal to allow unions to organize on the basis of check cards rather than secret ballots. “We will not allow that one to pass,” he assured the bloggers.
Live On Blogger’s Row
I’ve managed to make it to CPAC’s Blogger Row, sponsored by Townhall, and it’s looking pretty sweet. We’re at one end of the exhibition hall, and we get a great view of the people passing through the hall. CPAC has set us up with a closed-circuit television for watching some of the events down here, rather than hiking up to the conference rooms.
I’ve met the blogger behind See Jane Mom, a delightful Southern mom with a great sense of humor. Robert Bluey, who’s blogging at Heritage, just arrived, and we have a few others starting to trickle into the area. I’ve alreay heard that Mitt Romney will be meeting with us later this morning for a chat.
I’m hoping to post a few pictures later, but at the moment, the camera won’t transfer pictures to the computer. I’m going to work on that, and start making plans on which events I will attend. They’re going to overlap quite a bit, and I want to leave enough space for blogging. More later …
Democrats Have To Double Down On Dollar Bill
Normally, committee assignments get approved by voice vote with no opposition. The political parties have plenty of incentives to allow themselves to police their own, and confrontation will breed more confrontation later. However, the Republicans have decided to risk it in order to force individual Democrats in the House to cast a vote approving the assignment of William Jefferson to the Homeland Security Committee, despite an ongoing corruption probe:
House Republicans plan to force a floor vote on the appointment of Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.), who is the subject of a federal bribery investigation, to a seat on the Homeland Security Committee.
The decision to put Jefferson on the panel was made by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), and House Democrats endorsed the move at a private meeting Tuesday night, but his appointment must be confirmed by a vote on the House floor. Such an action would normally be a formality, but Republicans said yesterday that they would pursue a rarely used maneuver to force a recorded vote on the matter. …
A spokesman for Pelosi said she opted to place Jefferson on Homeland Security because the panel oversees the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Jefferson had been a vocal critic of FEMA’s performance during Hurricane Katrina, which affected thousands of his constituents.
But his appointment must be formally approved by the House, and Republicans said they would take the rare step of challenging the vote and requiring members to record their votes so Democrats will be forced to go on the record in their support of Jefferson.
Such appointments usually are ratified on the House floor by unanimous consent.
It’s a good call in this case. The FBI found over $90,000 in cash sitting in Jefferson’s freezer, the alleged result of a bribe from an official of another country. Denny Hastert and Nancy Pelosi defended Jefferson against a subsequent FBI raid on Jefferson’s Capitol Hill offices, and the backlash was enough to get them both to eventually back away from Jefferson.
Pelosi says that Jefferson’s district deserves to have representation on the Katrina subcommittee. That may well be true, but unfortunately his district elected a corrupt politician who cannot be trusted with the assignment. Jefferson proved that during Katrina, when he shanghaied National Guard rescue personnel to help him clean out his house in the middle of the storm. Instead of saving lives, Jefferson had them saving sofas — hardly an endorsement of his good judgment on the cleanup efforts.
Peter King says he fails to see how Democrats can cast a vote in the open for Jefferson. We’ll see. If Pelosi continues to play the Katrina card, she may pull it off, but she leaves the Democrats open for attacks on the “culture of corruption” strategy they used in 2006.
Monday-Morning Quarterbacking on North Korean HEU
In 2002, the US discovered evidence that North Korea bought at least 20 uranium centrifuges from Pakistan, through the AQ Khan network, even though Pyonyang had agreed not to pursue nuclear weapons. The US accused North Korea of reneging on the Agreed Framework, as it determined that the Kim regime would use the purchases to develop their own program for highly-enriched uranium (HEU). Kim’s government rejected the charges, and the US suspended oil shipments to the energy-poor North. Less than a year later, Pyongyang admitted that they have been working on plutonium-based weapons for years and refused to negotiate an end to that program, a decision that resulted in last year’s nuclear test and an arsenal estimated at between six to fifteen nuclear weapons.
Now, new intelligence shows that the Kim regime may not have done much with the centrifuges they bought from Pakistan, and the New York Times and Senate Democrats are outraged over what they see as another intelligence failure:
For nearly five years, though, the Bush administration, based on intelligence estimates, has accused North Korea of also pursuing a secret, parallel path to a bomb, using enriched uranium. That accusation, first leveled in the fall of 2002, resulted in the rupture of an already tense relationship: The United States cut off oil supplies, and the North Koreans responded by throwing out international inspectors, building up their plutonium arsenal and, ultimately, producing that first plutonium bomb.
But now, American intelligence officials are publicly softening their position, admitting to doubts about how much progress the uranium enrichment program has actually made. The result has been new questions about the Bush administration’s decision to confront North Korea in 2002.
“The question now is whether we would be in the position of having to get the North Koreans to give up a sizable arsenal if this had been handled differently,” a senior administration official said this week. …
“The administration appears to have made a very costly decision that has resulted in a fourfold increase in the nuclear weapons of North Korea,” Senator [Jack] Reed said in an interview on Wednesday. “If that was based in part on mixing up North Korea’s ambitions with their accomplishments, it’s important.”
Context remains important here, which both Reed and the Times fail to consider. Intelligence is not an exact science, and conclusions have to be drawn on spotty evidence at times. The United States cannot allow itself the luxury of academic analysis paralysis; we have to prepare to meet danger before it becomes an unassailable fact, and that is especially true with nuclear proliferation.
No one disputes the fact that North Korea clandestinely bought 20 uranium centrifuges from Pakistan. That broke their part of the Agreed Framework, a violation that the US could not just ignore. After all, there are no other uses for uranium centrifuges than to enrich uranium, a process which the Kim regime supposedly had eschewed as part of the 1994 treaty. It seems a fairly reasonable conclusion that Kim didn’t spend his hard currency on the centrifuges just to put them in a museum, but to enrich uranium.
When confronted on this, Kim refused to acknowledge it. That left the US a couple of choices. One, we could continue to operate our side of the agreement and supply them with oil while we attempted to get them to acknowledge that they were pursuing HEU. The other was to cut them off and force them back to the table.
The Times gets another point dreadfully wrong. The way that David Sanger and William Broad tell the story, Kim didn’t start developing plutonium weapons until after we stopped shipping oil after the centrifuge purchase. That’s ludicrous. North Korea doesn’t have the expertise to develop plutonium weapons in less than four years. They had been working on the plutonium program ever since the Agreed Framework in 1994 left a huge hole where verification should have been. They had been cheating all along, and apparently wanted to see if they could add HEU to the plutonium program, and got caught.
Apparently no one has considered the possibility that the reason Kim doesn’t have an HEU program is because the US publicly called them out on their efforts. Had we jollied them along in 2002, they may have been farther along than Iran in building centrifuges. In any case, this outrage over a reasonable and prudent policy decision based on the intelligence and evidence in hand in 2002 is nothing more than another non-event, twisted for partisan ends.
Move Over, Omar
The Taliban have a new commander and a new public face for their terrorism. Mullah Dadullah has become the new rock star of the jihad in Waziristan, and his emergence could portend an especially tough spring for Afghanistan and its NATO defenders:
If Osama bin Laden likes being in the global spotlight, he’s likely a bit depressed in his hideout these days. The leader of the al-Qaida terrorist organization hasn’t made an appearance on the evening news for quite some time. What’s more, the Taliban no longer need bin Laden as a figurehead. Western intelligence agencies warn that the Taliban now have “their own star” in their struggle against Western soldiers and the Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai. The new nightmare from the Hindu Kush Mountains is called Mullah Dadullah. He sports a pitch black beard, always wears a military jacket and these days, he is omnipresent in the media. …
Western intelligence agencies believe the Taliban have used the winter to thoroughly tighten their organizational structure. Some Taliban commanders are even reporting that Taliban leader Mullah Omar — who disappeared from the scene entirely for years — is once again writing letters to his supporters, congratulating successful commanders and the parents of suicide bombers and reminding militants of their “Islamic duties” via audio recordings. For years, one-eyed Omar had disappeared without a trace — likely afraid of being tracked down by the CIA.
But Mullah Omar seems to be feeling more secure these days — as does Mullah Dadullah, who only recently outlined his vision for the coming months. Behaving almost like any normal politician, he invited al-Jazeera journalists to visit him in the mountains. His words were alarming despite being full of rhetoric and propaganda. Dadullah said he commands 6,000 men who have volunteered for suicide attacks, and that their offensive is “imminent.” He added that some of his men are already set off on their mission, which he described as a “bloodbath for the occupiers.” This week’s symbolic attack on US Vice President Dick Cheney is reason to fear that Dadullah is issuing more than just empty threats.
The Taliban have taken comfort in the internal divisions within the NATO alliance, especially those which demonstrate a lack of enthusiasm for manning the front lines. As a whole, they have engaged their supporters much more openly than any time since their ejection from Kabul. The films of their camps feature far more open faces, and the jihadis seem unafraid to give their full names.
Some of this is patently fake. Last week the terrorists tried to float a video showing that the Taliban had overrun a NATO camp, but it turned out to be a badly-produced hoax. The videos feature grenade launches ad nauseam, interspersed with some stock footage of damaged American military vehicles. Insh’allah, the tapes inform the viewer, the terrorists will hit us again. However, they don’t appear to note that five years after they got unceremoniously booted out of Afghanistan, they’re still on the outside looking into their former stronghold.
NATO faces some hard choices nonetheless. Dadullah plans on a strategy of suicide attacks across the country, a terrorist favorite that is hard to defense. Commanders at NATO announced that they would quickly mount an offensive to meet the threat, but fighting them in Afghanistan after they disperse will be nearly impossible. If NATO wants to do something effective, they’re going to have to attack their bases in Pakistan, if the Pakistanis continue to refuse to do it themselves. It’s no different than our own forward strategy to engage the terrorists on their home turf rather than fight them on our home ground.
Otherwise, we’d better be prepared to see the legend of Mullah Dadullah grow. Every successful suicide bombing will be seen as a major victory against the NATO forces by the jihadists — and by defeatists in the West. The time to act has arrived.