Month: September 2006

Swift Program Auditor Found No Abuses

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

The program, started by the Bush administration weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, allows analysts from the Central Intelligence Agency and other American intelligence agencies to search for possible terrorist financing activity among millions of largely international financial transactions that are processed by a banking cooperative known as Swift that is based in Belgium.
The European Union panel will not call for the program to be stopped, officials said. But it is expected to recommend that additional safeguards be put in place to check how financial data are shared with American intelligence officials. For the last three years, a Washington consulting firm, Booz Allen Hamilton, has audited the program, but Mr. Schaar said his panel would recommend that an outside auditor from Europe be brought in to protect against abuses. …
The Bush administration has strongly defended the effectiveness and legality of the once-secret program as a tool in fighting terrorism, and it sharply criticized The New York Times for disclosing the arrangement in June. Although one government intelligence analyst was removed from the Swift team for conducting improper searches, officials at the Treasury Department and Booz Allen say they have not found any broader instances of abuse in the program.
Critics, including many privacy advocates and some banking industry executives, have questioned the propriety of giving American intelligence officials broad access, without court orders, to sensitive data.

The Swift program actually helped catch al-Qaeda terrorists, ending the career of the senior AQ leader in the Philippines as one example. It broke no laws and it worked, but the Times insisted on neutralizing it by sticking it on the front page of their paper. The original report never even bothered to allege any systemic abuses, and the one person discovered to have improperly searched the records had been dismissed.
Booz Allen came to the program to provide an independent look at the intel program and gave it a clean bill of health. That prompted the ACLU to attack Booz Allen as a government stooge dependent on federal contracts and run by former intel officers. However, they have produced no evidence for such allegations, and Booz Allen rejects them out of hand. It’s hard to figure what would satisfy the program’s attackers; certainly an investigation by a government inspector would hardly suffice, and Booz Allen has a sterling reputation.
The Times has been proven wrong yet again, no matter how they spin this. Even their own report here mentions that they cannot find any legal analysts that are willing to call the program illegal — but you have to go to paragraph 14 to find that out.

Line-Item Veto Presser To Pressure The Senate

Now that we have won major battles on the federal spending database and the new House rules on identifying earmarkers, we still have one more effort to shepherd to victory. The group Citizens Against Government Waste will hold a press conference this week in order to put pressure on the Senate to pass the line-item veto bill passed by the House last June. The Senate version, S.2381, has been stalled since May, and with the legislative session winding down, time may start running out for the new line-item veto.
I wrote about this for the Heritage Foundation Policy Blog today. Some feel the new approach taken by the line-item veto is too weak to overcome all of the excessive spending in Congress, but I argue that even a little bit helps:

The question about the line-item veto isn’t whether it would do damage to the Constitution, it’s whether it would get used. This administration has been the most reluctant in American history to veto legislation, although it has used the threat of veto. The Senate probably takes this proposal less seriously considering this track record and may have thought to put more effort into the other reforms as a result.
The White House already can simply choose not to spend the monies appropriated by Congress, especially the earmarks in conference and committee reports. In fact, the line-item veto won’t apply to such earmarks—only those line items listed in the official budget. And nothing will get trimmed if the White House refuses to challenge Congress on spending, an effort sadly lacking in this particular administration over the past six years. But, President Bush’s support for the line-item veto indicates that he wants to change that in his final two years in office as evidenced by the hard push OMB Director Portman and other administration officials are making for this change
While some may object to this version of the line-item veto as doing too little, it’s important not to let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

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

‘A Rather Hyperactive Imagination’

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

“Allen said he came to Virginia because he wanted to play football in a place where ‘blacks knew their place,'” said Dr. Ken Shelton, a white radiologist in North Carolina who played tight end for the University of Virginia football team when Allen was quarterback. “He used the N-word on a regular basis back then.”
A second white teammate, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he feared retribution from the Allen campaign, separately claimed that Allen used the word “n****r” [redacted by CQ] to describe blacks. “It was so common with George when he was among his white friends. This is the terminology he used,” the teammate said.
A third white teammate contacted separately, who also spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear of being attacked by the Virginia senator, said he too remembers Allen using the word “n****r,” though he said he could not recall a specific conversation in which Allen used the term. “My impression of him was that he was a racist,” the third teammate said.

Allegations this explosive would require responsible publications to get more than one source on the record. Michael Scherer and Salon failed to find even one other source to go public, nor did they reveal that Shelton’s political activities put him in opposition to Allen. Instead, they used Shelton and two supposedly frightened and anonymous UV alums to publish these scurrilous charges.
Scherer mentions that other teammates didn’t recall Allen as racist, but that glosses over what they had to day in response to these charges. Jon Henke, Allen’s New Media coordinator, manages to do what Scherer couldn’t be bothered to accomplish — to get several of them on the record. Not only do they expose this story as a nasty falsehood, they expose Shelton as a liar about how he got his team nickname. Shelton claims Allen called him “Wizard” because a Klan leader had the same last name, but their teammates recall that Shelton had the nickname before Allen ever arrived, and it had nothing to do with the Klan:

Joe Gieck, 35-year UVA trainer: “I seem to recall that Ken Shelton got the ‘Wizard’ nickname for his pass catching ability and before George Allen came to the University of Virginia.”
George Korte, UVA linebacker ‘70-’73: “Ken Shelton received his nickname because of his ability as a tight end to magically get open and catch the football not because he shared someone’s last name.”
Charlie Hale, UVA center ‘70-’73: I have always known him by the nickname, ‘Wizard’. I have always thought the name came from his ability to catch passes … or his ability to somehow get open in the field. Personally I believe that he was a true ‘Wizard’ because he always had the ability to sneak out after curfew and never get caught.”
Doug Jones, UVA defensive back ‘71-’74 and roomate of Ken Shelton: “I was on the University of Virginia football team with George Allen for the 1972 and 1973 seasons. During that time I never heard George Allen use any racially disparaging word nor did I ever witness or hear about him acting in a racially insensitive manner.”
George Korte, UVA linebacker ‘70-’73: “Contrary to Ken Shelton, I have kept up with George Allen the past thirty-five years. During this time, I have never known or heard him use racial epithets to describe blacks either in public or private. … George Allen did not use racial epithets or demonstrate racist attitudes towards blacks in the early 1970s.”
Charlie Hale, UVA center ‘70-’73: ““During the 34 years I have known George Allen I have never heard him use racial slurs or derogatory language to describe a person or group of persons.”

It appears that the Democrats and their political allies in the activist and media communities will do anything to derail Allen’s re-election, including making stories up about his racism. Not content to leave well enough alone after the “macaca” incident, which Allen handled poorly, they have sunk to using lies and innuendo in an attempt to damage him. And just like the Anita Hill episode, where the supposed outrages occurred far in the past, the mere allegation of his using the N-word will stick with him like glue.
It’s an outrage, and Salon for one owes us a big explanation for the fact-deficient reporting of Scherer. Putting out this kind of clumsy and obvious hit piece so close to the election reveals Salon as nothing more than a shill for the Democratic Party and Scherer as its character assassin. One has to wonder what Webb’s allies have planned next, after their attacks on Allen’s mother and grandparents and this disgusting smear attempt.

What’s On My Desk (At The Moment)

I have a number of books piling up on my desk these days, begging to be read. I’m in the middle of Conservatives Betrayed by Richard Viguerie, but I’m taking a long time finishing it due to other projects. I’m hoping to finish it soon and then contact the author for a brief chat on behalf of CQ readers. It’s a good read, and I’d recommend it to disaffected conservatives, although I’m not in complete agreement with his conclusions.
I just received Max Boot’s new book, War Made New, this weekend. Max is a favorite columnist and a CQ reader, so I hear. I’m looking forward to reading the history of technology in warfare and the impact it’s had on world history. It focuses on 1500 forward, so I presume the use of the longbow as the first effective surface-to-surface missile attack may not be covered.
Andrew Sullivan’s The Conservative Soul arrived last week, but I understand that a significant print error exists in the pre-release copies. I’m supposed to get another version soon. I’ve flipped through it briefly but I’ll wait for the corrected edition before commenting. Needless to say, Andrew writes well and provocatively, but that doesn’t necessarily equate to correctly.
On deck: David Limbaugh’s Bankrupt and H. W. Crocker’s Don’t Tread On Me.

Jules Crittendon: AP Plays For The Other Side

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

The AP was, in fact, a pioneer in balanced coverage. The concept was born with the AP in 1848 and tempered in the Civil War. The AP served newspapers of different stripes and had to keep politics out of it. …
I look at the AP copy I see nightly. The president of the United States gives a speech. The AP grants him a couple of fragmentary quotes before allowing his failed 2004 challenger and other opponents several full paragraphs to denounce him.
There is the bizarre work of Charles J. Hanley, an AP apologist for Saddam Hussein. He dismisses evidence of weapons programs and reports on the deep frustration Saddam felt when he could not convince the world of his good intentions, in those years when he was murdering his own people and playing a hard-nosed game of cat-and-mouse with U.N. weapons inspectors that led to their removal.
Last week, the AP gave us a lengthy series on the U.S. detention of terrorism suspects. The AP’s opinion was evident. Bilal Hussein was the poster boy. The salient fact that Hussein was captured with an al-Qaeda leader was buried. Al-Qaeda has killed and abducted dozens of journalists, Iraqi, American and European. Mainly Iraqi. I wonder: What’s so special about this particular Iraqi journalist that he could associate freely with al-Qaeda?

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

Pope Benedict Demands Reciprocity

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

Pope Benedict XVI told Muslim diplomats Monday that ”our future” depends on dialogue between Christians and Muslims, an attempt to ease relations strained by his recent remarks about Islam and violence.
The pontiff quoted from his predecessor, John Paul II, who had close relations with the Muslim world, when he described the need for ”reciprocity in all fields,” including religious freedom. Benedict spoke in French to a roomful of diplomats from 21 countries and the Arab League in his summer residence in Castel Gandolfo in the Alban Hills near Rome.
After his five-minute speech in a salon in the papal palace, Benedict greeted each envoy individually, clasping their hands warmly and chatting for a few moments with every one.
”The circumstances which have given risen to our gathering are well known,” Benedict said, referring to his remarks on Islam in a Sept. 12 speech at Regensburg, Germany. He did not address those remarks at length. …
Benedict cited John Paul II’s statement that ”Respect and dialogue require reciprocity in all spheres,” particularly religious freedom, a major issue for the Vatican in Saudi Arabia and other countries where non-Muslims cannot worship openly.

The Pope took exactly the right path in this meeting. He needs to ensure that paths to dialogue remain open and friendly between the Vatican and the various Muslim nations. However, the pontiff needs to start demanding a few points of his own, which he appears ready to do, in order to secure the rights of Christian minorities to practice their faith without interference.
These Muslim leaders that expressed such outrage over the Regensburg speech have little room for complaint. Human Rights Watch reported last year that the “Saudi religious police have continued to arrest and deport Christians for conducting private religious services. Saudi religious police continue to raid private homes where they suspect such services are taking place.”
Egypt, Freedom House reports, “has done little to protect Egypt’s ancient Christian community, by far the largest religious minority in the Middle East, and sometimes attacks them itself. No one was punished for the massacre of 21 Copts in the village of El-Kosheh four years ago. On March 23, the Coptic pope, Shenouda III, publicly condemned the escalating forced conversion of Christian girls, a major step since it is arguably illegal for him to criticize the government and he has previously been under house arrest for three years for doing so. In November 2003, security officials arrested 21 converts to Christianity, tortured several of them, and one died in custody.”
Many other examples abound, and those outraged Muslim leaders should perhaps stop worrying about 600-year-old dialogues and tend to their own failings . Pope Benedict has remained steadfast on this point, and he should press the point by talking about the oppression of Christians in these countries more openly. If the Muslims want to stop people from talking about forced conversions, then perhaps they can be shamed into preventing them in the first place.

UNIFIL Bigger But Just As Ineffective

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

One month after a United Nations Security Council resolution ended a 34-day war between Israel and Lebanon’s Hezbollah militia, members of the international force sent to help keep the peace say their mission is defined more by what they cannot do than by what they can.
They say they cannot set up checkpoints, search cars, homes or businesses or detain suspects. If they see a truck transporting missiles, for example, they say they can not stop it. They cannot do any of this, they say, because under their interpretation of the Security Council resolution that deployed them, they must first be authorized to take such action by the Lebanese Army.
The job of the United Nations force, and commanders in the field repeat this like a mantra, is to respect Lebanese sovereignty by supporting the Lebanese Army. They will only do what the Lebanese authorities ask.
The Security Council resolution, known as 1701, was seen at the time as the best way to halt the war, partly by giving Israel assurances that Lebanon’s southern border would be policed by a robust international force to prevent Hezbollah militants from attacking. When the resolution was approved, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, one of its principal architects, said the force’s deployment would help “protect the Lebanese people and prevent armed groups such as Hezbollah from destabilizing the area.”
But the resolution’s diplomatic language skirted a fundamental question: what kind of policing power would be given to the international force? The resolution leaves open the possibility that the Lebanese Army would grant such policing power, but the force’s commanders say that so far, at least, that has not happened.

We have returned to the same UNIFIL we have known for the past 28 years. Prior to the war this summer, UNIFIL did nothing but observe while Hezbollah built fortified positions adjacent to their own, and did nothing when they saw the terrorists launch attacks on Israel. These attacks violated the Blue Line the UN sent them to defend, but the UN never gave them orders to use force in that defense.
Now we have the same kind of force operating in the vacuum of UN military leadership. The UNSC sent an additional 5,000 troops — which is supposed to swell to 15,000 at some point — but failed to send them any orders that would allow them to operate independently. They do not want to be viewed as an “occupier”, so they do nothing that would even hint at enforcement of the cease-fire that convinced Israel to end its military operation against Hezbollah. They will not even stop vehicles that openly carry prohibited weapons across the border — which gives Hezbollah the opportunity to replenish its armaments and threatens the Lebanese sovereignty that UNIFIL supposedly protects with its laissez-faire strategy.
None of this comes as a great surprise. The UN followed its cease-fire resolution with an number of statements explaining why it wouldn’t bother enforcing it in the region, except of course as it applied to Israel. The most egregious example of this is the status of the captured Israeli soldiers, whom the resolution required to be returned unconditionally. Hezbollah has refused to do so unless the Israelis release hundreds of Palestinian criminals, and the UN has washed its hands of the issue.
The UN has pushed itself far out on a limb with this limp effort in the sub-Litani region. If the Israelis eject Olmert from office, which seems very likely, the UN will have to deal with Benjamin Netanyahu. And Bibi will view 1701 in an entirely new and critical light, especially if Hezbollah doesn’t cough up its prisoners. UNIFIL might find itself in the middle of a shooting war, one they could have avoided by ensuring compliance with the cease-fire its own leadership imposed on both parties but only enforced on the Israelis.

McCain Can’t Keep His Mouth Shut

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

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) named three measures that he said would no longer be allowed under a provision barring techniques that cause serious mental or physical suffering by U.S. detainees: extreme sleep deprivation, forced hypothermia and “waterboarding,” which simulates drowning. He also said other “extreme measures” would be banned.
McCain’s remarks were unusual because public officials involved in the lengthy public debate about U.S. interrogation practices have rarely made specific references to the CIA’s actions, choosing instead to make general claims about the need for rough interrogations or a desire to stop abusive behavior.
“It’s clear we have to have the high moral ground,” said McCain, a former POW tortured by prison guards in Vietnam, on CBS’s “Face The Nation.” “I am confident that some of the abuses that were reportedly committed in the past will be prohibited in the future.”

Bill Frist missed McCain’s appearance on CBS. He told ABC’s “This Week” that “no responsible person” would list the specific techniques allowed and disallowed in a public forum. Unfortunately, his colleague didn’t get that memo.
What kind of damage could this do? Islamists who watch American media will note the exceptions McCain listed and tell their operatives that they will not need to prepare for waterboarding and can prepare for less rigorous techniques. While it isn’t quite the same thing as telling them all of the approved techniques, it gives another edge to the Islamists — an edge we didn’t need to give them.
Serious and responsible people would understand this. Apparently, John McCain doesn’t qualify as either.

Palestinian Situation Crumbling

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

Four Palestinian armed groups on Sunday threatened to target any Palestinian government that recognizes Israel’s right to exist and attacked Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas for “succumbing” to US pressure.
The latest threat came as Abbas was preparing to travel to the Gaza Strip for another round of talks with PA Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh over the formation of a joint Hamas-Fatah government.
Abbas is demanding that the political program of the proposed government recognize Israel and honor all previous agreements signed between the Palestinians and Israel. Hamas leaders have rejected Abbas’s demand, saying they would never join a government that recognizes Israel and the Oslo Accords.
PA officials told The Jerusalem Post that Abbas was scheduled to arrive in the Gaza Strip on Monday to resume talks with Hamas’s Haniyeh about the possibility of forming a unity government. According to the officials, this would be Abbas’s final attempt to persuade Hamas to change its policies before he dissolves the Hamas-led government and calls early elections.

Elections may be the best option now for Abbas. The terrorist-led assembly has melted down the Palestinian economy and cut off all aid from Western governments with their hard-line refusals to engage Israel on a two-state solution. Even if Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh could agree to Abbas’ demands, the rank and file of Hamas would probably revolt and start taking their orders from Khaled Mashaal in Damascus.
Palestinians have to make the decision about whether they want to engage Israel in peace or annihilation. They elected Hamas instead of the somewhat more moderate Fatah early this year, sending Israel and the world the message that they wanted war. That choice destroyed their economy, and when Hamas refused to stop the missile attacks from Gaza and kidnapped Gilad Shalit instead, that choice brought them a more intense war than they have seen in years.
Do they still want war? An election would answer that question. If they reject Hamas and elect Fatah, they might intend on a peaceful coexistence. However, the best solution for Palestinians would be to reject all of these terrorist-based political parties and start forming another based on rational thinking and realistic expectations. If they did that and elected leaders who really worked for peace, then Israel would gladly start negotiating an end to the occupation.
The choice is theirs. Abbas should dissolve the PA government and force Palestinians to tell the world whether they want to act responsibly or whether they want total war. It would provide another moment of clarity in the ongoing meltdown in the territories.

The October Surprise Meme Arises Again

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

It should come as no surprise if the Bush Administration undertakes a preemptive war against Iran sometime before the November election.
Were these more normal times, this would be a stunning possibility, quickly dismissed by thoughtful people as dangerous, unprovoked, and out of keeping with our national character. But we do not live in normal times.
And we do not have a government much concerned with our national character. If anything, our current Administration is out to remake our national character into something it has never been.

Hart has it exactly backwards: we have an opposition party that has transformed itself into something completely outside the national character — which is why voters haven’t trusted them with power since 2000. This is nothing new. Recall 2004, when Madeline Albright and Teresa Kerry told people that the Bush administration had already captured Osama bin Laden and would announce it right before the presidential elections. Recall also that John Kerry told people that George Bush was secretly planning to reinstate the draft after the presidential election, which would have been more of a November surprise, even though the only people proposing it were Democrats Charles Rangel and Fritz Hollings. (In fact, Democrats insisted on considering a draft in 2005.)
Alos, let’s not forget the Howard Dean theory on 9/11 — that the Bush administration had advance knowledge of it but allowed it to happen in order to gain politically from the war, saying it was an “interesting theory” during his presidential run in 2003-4. The Democrats responded to this conspiracy-mongering by putting Dean in charge of their party.
Now we have yet another mainstream Democratic figure pushing through another October Surprise theory, and it’s even more ridiculous than the Osama rumor. For one thing, it ignores military logistics completely, a pretty embarrassing exposure of Democratic fecklessness on defense. Since we are about six weeks ahead of the midterms, the US would have to have already started mobilizing for the war; in fact, they would have had to do so weeks ago. Hart blithely notes that bombers and missile ships would have to be repositioned, but gives no context of the logistical efforts necessary to make that happen.
The paranoid fantasy also hinges on the notion that the Bush administration wants to go to war with Iran, when nothing the administration has done even hints at it. If anything, Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden have sounded much more hysterical alarms at the risk posed by Iran, accusing the Bush administration of “outsourcing” the efforts to contain the nuclear threat by working with the EU-3. Bush has tried patiently to work through the UN Security Council and the Europeans to get Iran back into compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty. He even approved the offer of a wide-ranging package of incentives that would supply Iran with nuclear power, and he and Condoleezza Rice have allowed Iran to shrug off at least two deadlines for responses to the package with no consequences whatsoever.
There is also the problem of declaring war without going to Congress. Hart’s explanation of how Bush will unilaterally decide to attack Iran sounds much like the kind of announcements we heard from Bill Clinton when he launched missiles at Iraq at two points in his presidency. However, the situation is much different than with Iraq. Clinton had authorization to enforce the terms of the 1991 cease-fire, and in the case of the first strike, responded to an attempt by the Iraqis to assassinate George H. W. Bush. The White House has no authorization to attack Iran nor any cease-fire to enforce. Bush would have to get Congress to authorize a strike on Iran, unless Iran launched an attack on the US. With the nutcases in Congress already spewing rhetoric about impeachment, Bush will not be inclined to hand them a case for it just before the midterms.
The entire notion of an October Surprise has gripped the Democrats ever since Jimmy Carter got the boot in 1980. Every election, they claim the Republicans have a nasty trick about to drop on the electorate — and every time they wind up with egg on their face. Perhaps the eeeeeevil mastermind Karl Rove has launched the same October Surprise each time: the collapse and exposure of their paranoid fantasies, showing that they have no business leading this nation. (via The Moderate Voice)