
| « December 2005 | The Blog home page | February 2006 » |
|
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
|
| President Bush Tonight: "We Will Not Sit Back and Wait to be Hit Again" |
|
Given the president's remarks, here is an interesting note on the NSA/FISA controversy sent in by a Worldwide Standard reader: President Bush's wiretaps were absolutely -- without any doubt -- NOT in violation of FISA, but you have to read between the lines of [Attorney General] Gonzales' 42-page legal report. The key: 1. Footnote #5, p.17 [To avoid revealing details about the operation of the program, it is assumed for purposes of this paper that the activities described by the President constitute “electronic surveillance,” as defined by FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1801(f).] 2. 50 USC Sec. 1801(f)(2), particularly the clause "…if such acquisition occurs in the United States…." 3. Footnote #6, p. 19 FISA’s legislative history reveals that these provisions were intended to exclude certain intelligence activities conducted by the National Security Agency from the coverage of FISA. According to the report of the Senate Judiciary Committee on FISA, “this provision [referencing what became the first part of section 2511(2)(f)] is designed to make clear that the legislation does not deal with international signals intelligence activities as currently engaged in by the National Security Agency and electronic surveillance conducted outside the United States.” S. Rep. No. 95-604, at 64 (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3904, 3965. The legislative history also makes clear that the definition of “electronic surveillance” was crafted for the same reason. See id. at 33-34, 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 3934-36. FISA thereby “adopts the view expressed by the Attorney General during the hearings that enacting statutory controls to regulate the National Security Agency and the surveillance of Americans abroad raises problems best left to separate legislation.” Id. at 64, 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 3965. Such legislation placing limitations on traditional NSA activities was drafted, but never passed. See National Intelligence Reorganization and Reform Act of 1978: Hearings Before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 999- 1007 (1978) (text of unenacted legislation). And Congress understood that the NSA surveillance that it intended categorically to exclude from FISA could include the monitoring of international communications into or out of the United States of U.S. citizens. The report specifically referred to the Church Committee report for its description of the NSA’s activities, S. Rep. No. 95-604, at 64 n.63, 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 3965-66 n.63, which stated that “the NSA intercepts messages passing over international lines of communication, some of which have one terminal within the United States. Traveling over these lines of communication, especially those with one terminal in the United States, are messages of Americans . . . .” S. Rep. 94-755, at Book II, 308 (1976). Congress’s understanding in the legislative history of FISA that such communications could be intercepted outside FISA procedures is notable. It appears the careful definition of "electronic surveillance" as used in FISA exempts the program from FISA. This is evident when you re-read the original New York Times article and realize that the government officials were not concerned about FISA but rather 4th Amendment violations. It's interesting that talking head law professors are not concerned about the Fourth Amendment, but rather about FISA. This strongly suggests that Bush is on firm legal footing. ![]()
|
| Iowa Gov. and DLC Chair Vilsack Won't Be Led Around by the Nose by the Far Left |
|
It may be dawning on some Democrats that letting the tail wag the dog has consequences. The left-wing blogosphere demanded that Democrats mount a filibuster against Judge Alito's confirmation, and naturally (see here), Sen. John Kerry led the charge. The result was a front-page headline, "Failed Filibuster Bid Worries Democrats," in today's Roll Call newspaper. Now, the Democratic leadership, cheered on by the same group that championed the filibuster, is ready to pounce on the president's NSA surveillance program in the weeks ahead. But, unlike Sen. Kerry, it appears that Gov. Vilsack, a prospective Democratic presidential candidate, is not about to be led around by the nose by the far left. From today's Des Moines Register: Vilsack: Opposing wiretapping dangerous for Democrats
|
| If Hamas Won't Renounce Terror, Tank their Stock Market |
|
Investor flight is a big worry for Hamas, who now must grapple with the economic consequences of their policies. Before the recent election, the Palestinian Stock Exchange was very bullish. In 2005, the Al-Quds index of the exchange produced gains of nearly 310 percent in 2005, putting its capitalization at about $5 billion -- a figure, Barron's claims, is "as big or bigger than stock markets in seven of the 10 new European Union members....." A fund manager attributed the run-up to the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and the "hope that billions of dollars in promised investments will flow from the G-8 countries." But since Hamas' election, Beirut's Daily Star reports that the index is off five percent with "many share offers failing to find buyers." And Hamas is clearly worried about more investor flight. Today's Daily Star further reports: Hamas seeks to reassure stock market investors Palestinian Financial Markets Plummet in Wake of threats to cut aid Elections have consequences. If Hamas won't reject terrorism and accept Israel's right to exist and the legitimacy of the peace process based on the concept of peaceful coexistence, the U.S. should use its leverage to nose drive the Al-Quds -- which, according to David Grayson of Auerbach Grayson & Company in New York, has also benefited from "institutional clients in the U.S. execut[ing] orders" on the exchange. The ball is in Hamas' court.
|
|
Monday, January 30, 2006
|
| In Putin We Trust? -- Part II |
|
From Stephen Hayes: A follow-up on Dan McKivergan’s post on Russia and Iran. Dan wrote of the worrisome prospect of the U.S. putting its trust in Putin on Iran: “We better have a Plan B if Moscow's recent past is prologue. “ The examples he and Mort Zuckerman provide are deeply disturbing. There are more. Russian intelligence services, for instance, trained Iraqi intelligence operatives as late as September 2002, even as Putin and his cronies spoke publicly of a “common goal” on Iraq between the U.S. and Russia. It’s September 2002. President Bush gives a speech to the UN making clear that his administration would hold Iraq to account for its defiance of UN resolutions. The Russian government, which for years had carried Iraq’s water on the UN Security Council, announced that it would not send troops in the event of war in Iraq and fought hard against U.S. and British efforts to confront Saddam Hussein. Nonetheless, Russia eventually endorsed UN Resolution 1441, which threatened “serious consequences” that would result from Iraq’s continued flouting of previous UN resolutions. Putin’s government spoke of its partnership with the U.S. on the war on terror. Putin spokesman Sergei Prikhodko declared: "Russia and the United States have a common goal regarding the Iraqi issue" – disarmament. And Russian Foreign Minister Boris Malakhov proclaimed that the U.S. and Russia “are partners in the anti-terror coalition.” Not quite. The San Francisco Chronicle’s Robert Collier wrote a series of articles in April 2003 on Russian double-dealing on Iraq. The articles provide a stark reminder of the perils in working with Putin’s Russia and of the need to expedite the exploitation of 2 million documents recovered in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan: A Moscow-based organization was training Iraqi intelligence agents as recently as last September -- at the same time Russia was resisting the Bush administration's push for a tough stand against Saddam Hussein's regime, Iraqi documents discovered by The Chronicle show. The “Moscow-based organization,” it turns out, was the SVR, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service. Russian intelligence officials have confirmed that Iraqi spies received training in specialized counterintelligence techniques in Moscow last fall -- training that appears to violate the United Nations resolution barring military and security assistance to Iraq. The Chronicle article continues: However, it seems likely that the Iraqi agents who were trained at the Moscow center were using their skills for other purposes. Found in the same Mukhabarat office with their personnel files and graduation certificates were a host of other documents, including orders for wiretaps and for break-ins at such sites as the Iranian Embassy, the five-star al-Mansour Hotel and private doctors' offices. Ronald Reagan’s famous aphorism about dealing with the Soviets was “Trust but Verify.” Perhaps it needs updating. “Don’t Trust.”
|
| Bankrolling Terror: Hamas Fundraising in the U.S. |
|
With Hamas' election success, I dusted off the following piece I wrote for Philanthropy magazine in December 1998 on terrorist fundraising inside the United States: Bankrolling Terror Worse yet, the so-called "Quranic case" does not appear to have been an isolated incident. An FBI special agent recently told the Chicago Tribune that the case is only "a chunk of the puzzle" in the Bureau's larger probe into the extent of U.S. nonprofits operating illegally as money laundering fronts for terrorists—even as the U.S. government pours billions of dollars into fighting terrorism. Stefan Leader, author of a recent article on the subject for Jane's Intelligence Review, estimates the amount raised for terrorists by nonprofits could be "in the millions of dollars, possibly more." An exact amount, says Leader, is impossible to pin down because of the clandestine nature of the fundraising, and the Quranic case is probably just the "tip of the iceberg of other activities we don't know about." Guns and Butter The FBI's section chief on International Terrorism Operations, special agent Dale L. Watson, confirms the prevalence of U.S.-based fundraising by terrorist groups. In recent congressional testimony, Watson spoke of a "significant and growing organizational presence" by "Palestinian Hamas, Iranian-backed Hezbollah, and Egyptian-based Al- Gama at Al Islamiyya" centering around "fundraising and low-level intelligence gathering." Oliver "Buck" Revell, former FBI deputy director for investigations and intelligence from 1979 to 1991, calls this fundraising a "very major undertaking" patterned on "what the IRA was able to do through NORAID [an IRA-aligned fundraising group] back in the 1970s and 1980s in the U.S." One advantage for a terrorist group using a 501(c)(3) front, adds Revell, is that "it gives an air of legitimacy to their fundraising" because "it's essentially [U.S.] government sanctioned as a legitimate charity." Steven Emerson, an investigative journalist and producer of the PBS documentary "Jihad in America" goes farther, describing "nonprofit charitable, religious, academic, and educational institutions" as the "primary vehicle through which radical groups have established a ‘legitimate' presence in the United States." At a February, 1998 Senate hearing, Emerson testified that "During the past seven years, there has been a proliferation of radical Islamic groups hiding under false cover using 501(c)(3) and other nonprofit status…. Sometimes the monies raised go directly to purchase weapons and military supplies, although most of the time the tax-free money raised in the United States goes to underwrite the social welfare budgets of groups like Hamas, freeing up local funds for terrorist operations." For instance, Hamas actually spends the vast majority of its funds for schools, mosques, medical clinics, orphanages, and other charitable activities on the West Bank and Gaza (estimates of its annual budget range up to $70 million with up to a third coming from Europe and the United States). Yet, in its quest to derail the peace process, the group also commits gruesome acts of violence, like blowing apart civilian buses. Hamas-sponsored charities also pay stipends to the families of suicide bombers and others "killed in action." Oliver Revell knows firsthand how hard it is for law enforcement to track money once it leaves the country, and if you ask him, there's no real way to make sure that a dollar given for charity ends up supporting charity: According to Revell, once the money "goes into [charitable] front organizations in Israel then it's diverted. It's difficult for even the Israelis to trace it." Leaders of the organizations in question, including Mohammed Mousa Abu Marzook, the current political leader of Hamas, take the time-honored approach—deny that charitable contributions fund military operations. But Marzook's credibility is somewhat in question. His name has surfaced in connection with the Tutanji killing. Target: Fundraising To attempt to put some pressure on domestic fundraising for terror groups, in 1996, President Clinton signed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which outlawed support of any type (including charitable giving) of recognized terrorist groups. Section 302 of that Act ("Prohibition on Terrorist Fundraising") aims to "cut off the dollars and, thus, the lifeblood of foreign terrorist organizations that are wreaking havoc and destroying lives all over the world," as Senator Orrin Hatch put it during floor debate on the measure. As amazing as this sounds, prior to 1996 a person under U.S. jurisdiction could legally raise money for a terrorist group as long as the funds went solely to that group's lawful charitable program. To prevent such organizations from raising funds in the United States, the Antiterrorism Act requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual list of groups the U.S. government classifies as "foreign terrorist organizations" (FTOs). Listed FTOs are then banned from receiving financial or material support from any entity under U.S. jurisdiction. Hamas is among the 30 organizations targeted by the latest Clinton Administration FTO list, as are the Abu Nidal Organization, Hezbollah, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, Gama'a al- Islamiyya, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Kach, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, and the Japanese Red Army. The FTO list is probably no more than a good start at cracking down on terrorist fundraising, however. "You do your best to disrupt these networks and shut off some of the channels," says Leader, "but it's unlikely you can shut them all down." According to Revell, a terrorist-created 501(c)(3) "does not identify their parent or their principal connection so if it's connected to Hamas, or Hezbollah, or Palestinian Islamic Jihad it's not going to so state in any of its literature." Revell also believes "much tighter scrutiny by the IRS over the granting of the 501(c)(3) status" would help law enforcement curb illicit fundraising. Fundraising as Free Speech? As the FBI attempts to cut off the foreign terrorist fundraising tentacles in the United States, a serious threat to law enforcement anti-terrorism efforts is coming from an unexpected source—the courts. Justices of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will soon decide whether a person on American soil can give material or financial support to groups classified by the president of the United States as "foreign terrorist organizations." In Humanitarian Law Project (and other U.S. nonprofits) v. Reno, American supporters of two of these FTOs—the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelan (Sri Lanka) and the Kurdistan Workers' Party (Turkey)—are challenging the constitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996 on First Amendment grounds. The plaintiffs want the freedom for anyone to raise funds for, and donate to, the terrorist charity of their choice. They will, however, have to overcome a significant precedent. In 1987, Minister Louis Farrakhan and Muhammad Mosque, Inc. made the same First Amendment argument to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in response to President Reagan's sanctions against Libya following terrorist bombings at the Rome and Vienna airports. Muhammad Mosque, Inc. wanted to repay a $5 million loan from the Libyan government but had been barred from doing so under the sanctions regime. The Court ruled that because Libya was considered a "state sponsor" of terrorism, any money sent to Tripoli could, in the end, aid terrorist activity: "We cannot ascertain what will happen to the money [supposed debt repayment] once it reaches Libya. Conceivably, the money could be used for purely innocuous purposes, or it could be used directly or indirectly, to subsidize the types of anti-United States activity that the sanction regulations aim to prevent." Not that anybody bothered to ask them, but the family of Sergeant Tutanji probably hopes the precedent holds. ![]()
|
| Will India overtake China? |
|
Frequent Weekly Standard contributor Dan Twining emails his thoughts on one of the most underreported economic stories out there. While China gets most of the attention on the business pages, India has quietly positioned itself to be a dominant player in the 21st century world economy. If fact, MIT's Yasheng Huang argues that India "might be more competitive than China" in the years ahead. Twining observes:
China's rise is changing the economic and strategic landscapes in Asia and beyond. But the rise of India is an equally compelling story, and one that promises to have similarly tectonic effects on the world economy and the global security order. In this piece, MIT professor Yasheng Huang picks apart some of the "China myths" prevalent among Western and Asian analysts -- myths that have obscured India's emerging dynamism and potential to outperform China in the long run. He even twists on its head the conventional wisdom that India should model its economic reforms on China's. Instead, he urges the Chinese government to take a close look on India's emphasis on education, transparency, and governance. "Unless China embarks on bold institutional reforms," he writes, "India may very well outperform it in the next 20 years."
|
| Kristol on a GOP Alito-Hayden Election Strategy |
|
"We saw Howard Dean earlier in your interview say that the eavesdropping program conducted under the supervision of Lieutenant General Hayden by the National Security Agency, entirely staffed by career employees -- that that somehow is pernicious, intolerably is kind of domestic spying on political enemies," Kristol said on Fox News Sunday. "The Democratic Party is at risk if the Republicans exploit this now. They either focus and make the case that the Democratic Party is the party that stands against men like Alito being judges and the leadership of people like General Hayden in terms of national security, and I think that's very dangerous for the Democratic Party if Republicans highlight this to the voters."
|
|
Sunday, January 29, 2006
|
| In Putin We Trust on Iran's Nukes? |
|
If so, we better have a Plan B if Moscow's recent past is prologue. A little over a year ago, the European Union slapped an arms embargo on the authoritarian regime in Uzbekistan for its refusal to allow a legitimate investigation into the shooting of hundreds of protestors there last May. But Moscow said it wouldn't honor it. The Kremlin has also been practicing so-called "pipeline politics" to put the screws on Kiev and other governments in the Caucuses. But Moscow's dealings with Iran are the most alarming. They have helped Tehran build better missiles and, as Mort Zuckerman explains in US News, have been critical in building Iran's nuclear capacity. Through its 900-mile border with Iraq, Iran is flooding its neighbor with money and fighters. It is infiltrating troublemakers into Afghanistan, supporting terrorism against Turkey, sustaining Syria, and had a hand in the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia.
|
| (Update) Will European Governments Appease Hamas and Destroy the Cycle of Democratic Accountability? |
|
David Brooks, in today's New York Times (sub. req'd), writes: If the Europeans refuse to isolate Hamas, if they forgive radicalism, they will destroy this budding cycle of accountability. They will reward the old revolutionary mentality. They will stop the momentum that makes this the most promising moment as well as the most dangerous. For this is the moment when a truly democratic movement might emerge, opposing both Hamas and the old Fatah. That didn't take long. From Sunday's Scotsman: EU nations urged to accept Hamas
|
|
Friday, January 27, 2006
|
| Will the Defense Department's Reorganization of the Army Increase its Combat Power? |
|
The Pentagon will soon release its Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) that will include details on the Army's force restructuring plan. Senior defense officials have resisted calls to permanently increase overall Army troop strength. They have argued that changes in the so-called "tooth-to-tail ratio" will add more combat capability without the need for more troops. But one study prepared for the Defense Department reportedly concludes that the Army's reorganization plan will decrease overall combat capability. According to InsideDefense.com, A study prepared for the Defense Department has found an Army plan to reorganize its forces into “brigade combat teams” will reduce net fighting capability rather than strengthen it, contrary to the service's vision. This Los Angeles Times piece, "Pentagon Planning Document Leaves Iraq Out of Equation," has more on the QDR. [W]hile some new lessons will be incorporated into the Pentagon review, the spending blueprint for the next four years will largely stick to the script Pentagon officials wrote before the Iraq war, according to those familiar with the nearly final document that will be presented to Congress in early February....
|
| Does It Really Matter If Iran Gets Nukes? |
|
Gerald Baker of The Times (London) thinks so. If Iran goes nuclear, it will demonstrate conclusively that even the world’s greatest superpower, unrivalled militarily, under a leadership of proven willingness to take bold military steps, could not stop a country as destabilising as Iran from achieving its nuclear ambitions.
|
| A "Face-Saving Strategy" on Iran or a Big Risk? |
|
From today's New York Times: President Bush and the Chinese government both declared their full support on Thursday for a Russian proposal to allow Iran to operate civilian nuclear facilities as long as Russia and international nuclear inspectors are in full control of the fuel.
|
|
Thursday, January 26, 2006
|
| Hans Blix Does A Lot of His Own "Spinning" on Iraq, Again |
|
The Swedish diplomat is back in the news lecturing everyone on Iran, North Korea and world disarmament. Naturally, he uses the Iraq War as an example of his disarmament efforts being short-circuited. In a speech hosted by the Arms Control Association, he bemoans the “hyping and spinning that takes place in international affairs” and then does a lot of "spinning" of his own by failing to mention other historical facts in the lead up to the Iraq War. According to the Global Security Newswire, [Blix] noted that there was little U.S. reporting on ElBaradei’s claims before the invasion of Iraq that a document alleging an Iraqi attempt to buy uranium was forged. The Bush administration used the document to make its case against Iraq, but after the war conceded that ElBaradei was correct. Nice piece of revisionism. In fact, the British report that reviewed this issue stated categorically that the president's uranium reference in his 2003 State of the Union address was "well-founded" and based on intelligence having nothing to do with the forged documents and ElBaradei's claim. Here are the relevant bits, on pages 123 and 125: We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: And: From our examination of the intelligence and other material on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa, we have concluded that: Blix continued: “We carried out 700 inspections at 500 different sites … and said to the Security Council, and said to the United States and the Brits that we find no weapons of mass destruction,” he said. “Out of these places that we visited, there were about three dozen places or sites that were given to us by intelligence agencies in different countries and in none of them could we find any weapons of mass destruction.” The "any" Blix is referring to includes the unaccounted for weapons of mass destruction -- the anthrax, VX, chemical & biological precursors, chemical rockets & shells, etc. -- that UN inspectors knew Saddam had produced but could not verify had been destroyed. The inspection regime agreed to by the Security Council was never about the number of inspections completed. It was about Saddam's regime actively engaging in disarmament and providing "verifiable evidence" to the Security Council that it had. The UN insistence on this "verifiable evidence" standard began in 1995 when Iraq was caught in a massive deception campaign to hide the scope of its weapons programs from the inspectors. From then on, the UN inspection team's conclusions on the state of Iraq's disarmament were to be solely based on "obtaining verifiable evidence including physical materials or documents; investigation of the successful concealment activities by Iraq; and, the thorough verification of the unilateral destruction events." In other words, Saddam had to prove he got rid of the stuff to ensure that he did not just stash it away somewhere beyond the eyes of the UN. Clinton Defense Secretary Cohen explained it this way in 1998: [Inspectors] have to find documents, computer disks, production points, ammunition areas in an area that size [California]. Hussein has said, 'we have no program now.' We're saying, 'prove it.' He says he has destroyed all his nerve agent. [W]e're asking 'where, when and how?'" Here's what Hans Blix said on the verification standard in late January 2003 –– though somehow I doubt he mentioned it in his speech. Resolution 687 (1991), like the subsequent resolutions I shall refer to, required cooperation by Iraq but such was often withheld or given grudgingly. Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance—not even today—of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace. As we know, the twin operation “declare and verify,” which was prescribed in resolution 687 (1991), too often turned into a game of “hide and seek.” Rather than just verifying declarations and supporting evidence, the two inspecting organizations found themselves engaged in efforts to map the weapons programmes and to search for evidence through inspections, interviews, seminars, inquiries with suppliers and intelligence organizations. Blix also gave some concrete examples of the difficulty in verifying Iraq's disarmament without the active help of Saddam's regime. For instance, The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions…. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for. The result, so far, is that no underground facility of special interest has been found. Although they may be easier to find than mobile facilities, they are still a difficult target and it is always possible that inspectors have missed a hidden entrance. Like mobile facilities, any dedicated underground CW or BW facility could also have been dismantled prior to inspection. UNMOVIC does not dismiss the possibility that such facilities exist and will continue to investigate reports as appropriate. Given the vast number of potential underground “sites” capable of hosting CW or BW production or storage facilities in Iraq, inspections in this area will have to be dynamic and rely on specific intelligence information…. The fact the Saddam Hussein never complied with UN disarmament resolutions led Defense Secretary William Cohen to state on CNN one month AFTER coalition forces entered Iraq: I am convinced that he has them. I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out. I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons. We will find them. When it comes to "spinning" Hans Blix should gaze into a mirror.
|
| Will We Appease Hamas or Stand Firm Against Hamas? |
|
The answer will determine if Hamas changes its terror-bombing stripes and engages in real peace efforts. But the fastest way that will happen, Middle East expert Dennis Ross says, is if the U.S. and Europe "stick together" in demanding that Hamas reject terrorism and accept Israel's right to exist and the legitimacy of the peace process based on the concept of peaceful coexistence. A united front, Ross argues, is the most effective way Hamas will get the message that if you don't change, you will be "cut-off from the outside world." He also made the point in a Fox News interview today that Hamas will try to drive a wedge between the U.S. and Europe as a means to gain some international recognition without renouncing their charter. Europe aside, what's clear is that the U.S. government can't conduct a credible War on Terror while at the same time work with a Palestinian government that supports terrorist attacks. The ball is in Hamas' court.
|
| A Deepening Sunni-al Qaeda Rift? |
|
From USA Today: The U.S. military cited incidents of insurgent infighting in a rare public description of a split:
|
|
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
|
| Call Hillary Clinton's Bluff on NSA's al Qaeda Surveillance Program |
|
Senator Clinton, who not long ago claimed she was duped into voting for the Iraq War resolution, is now opposed to the NSA operation. She says monitoring al Qaeda communications should be done in a "lawful way," but doesn't know if the current spy program broke any laws. I'm sure General Michael Hayden will be gratified with the New York senator's judiciousness. Sen. Clinton also believes the president's legal justification of the program -- that it's "rooted in the Constitution inherently" -- is "kind of strange because we have FISA and FISA operated very effectively and it wasn't that hard to get their permission." Fine (Though, the senator should review her own administration's position on "inherent" powers). If Sen. Clinton believes the NSA program as currently structured isn't necessary and others say it's unconstitutional, she and her House colleagues should seek to cut off congressional funding for it. Sen. Clinton won't want to do that, of course, which is why Republicans may want to force the issue.
|
| Slow Pearl Harbors |
|
As efforts continue to stop a nuclear-armed Iran and with a new Russian proposal out there, this recent Weekly Standard piece should be kept in mind by U.S. and EU-3 policymakers. Of course, this assumes that the collective goal is an Iran with no nuclear weapons. If nothing else, Roberta Wohlstetter's writings on Pearl Harbor and "slow Pearl Harbors" should remind us that, in using negotiations as a means to the end of disarming nascent nuclear-armed nations, or preventing nations from building nuclear explosives, we should be careful not to give up our end in order to obtain our means. For disasters, both foreseeable and unforeseeable, may follow.
|
| Why We Didn't Adequately Expand the Size of the US Army Post-9/11 Remains a Mystery |
|
From USA Today: [Retired Army officer Andrew] Krepinevich said in the interview that he understands why Pentagon officials do not state publicly that they are being forced to reduce troop levels in Iraq because of stress on the Army. "That gives too much encouragement to the enemy....
|
| Fighting Poverty in (EU) Style |
|
The Road to Euro Serfdom found this nugget from Britain's Sun: HUNDREDS of EU politicians and welfare officials enjoyed an extravagant weekend junket — to discuss poverty.
|
| (Update) Iran: Sanctions May Lead Us to Close Straits of Hormuz; Upgrade Air Defenses |
|
"This is the first time an Iranian official makes military threats in a public statement on Tehran's recent disagreements with the West," reports Haaretz. [I]f Europe does not act wisely with the Iranian nuclear portfolio and it is referred to the UN Security Council and economic or air travel restrictions are imposed unjustly, we have the power to halt oil supply to the last drop from the shores of the Persian Gulf via the Straits of Hormuz. And today's Telegraph reports: Iran is racing to dig a network of tunnels and upgrade its air defences to protect its nuclear facilities from possible attacks by America or Israel, it was reported yesterday....
|
|
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
|
| Kristol: President Bush should be "Very Aggressive" in Challenging NSA Surveillance Critics |
|
William Kristol made the following remarks on Fox News' "The Big Story" yesterday: "I think he's [President Bush} got the authority and I think he has an extremely strong legal case.... Al Qaeda released an audio of bin Laden Friday saying operations were being planned against us here in the United States. What the president is doing is authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on communications from al Qaeda terrorists abroad into the United States. Do his critics believe he shouldn't do that? Is that really their position? Is that their serious position? He should challenge them on that. I think he has an extremely strong position and should be very aggressive in not only defending it but in challenging the critics. What is it that they would have him do? Ignore the communications into the United States? ...Is the critics' position that we should not be intercepting these calls and that judges should be second-guessing career officials at the National Security Agency as to which calls they should intercept? Is the critics' position that we should have public discussions in Congress about our sources and methods about the ways in which we know what calls to intercept? What exactly do the critics want? I think the president needs to stick it to the critics a little bit and say what is it that you would have me do as president of the United States when we have been attacked in the United States and when al Qaeda is planning further attacks? ...I suppose you could right a law that says the president has a blank check, as he does overseas. No one doubts the president can intercept communications between Pakistan and Afghanistan, the question is what about communications from Afghanistan into the United States? Incidentally, when there are communications within the United States the president does go to the courts. This administration has gone to the FISA court more than any previous administration, because when they find out the al Qaeda guys are calling a certain number in the U.S., then they go to the court and say we need to tap this phone here in the U.S. I don't even know what kind of legislation you can write to authorize the variety of things the president has to do in terms of intercepting overseas calls coming into the United States. But I suppose maybe he should challenge Congress. Write legislation, give me this authority. I don't think I need it. But if it makes you feel better to give me the authority, give me the authority. What is most starting about this is here we have General Hayden, former head of the National Security Agency, appointed to that position by President Clinton, a career military man, career lawyers at the National Security Agency, no political appointees there, all of them testifying there have been no abuses. This is being done carefully and legally and has saved lives and prevented terror plots here in the United States. Let the critics explain, do they disbelieve General Hayden. Do they think he's a Republican political hack? The president really needs to call this criticism for what it is which is really cheap and irresponsible criticism of an important part of our national security."
"This is hot pursuit of communications entering or leaving America involving someone we believe is associated with Al Qaeda."
|
| The Free Fall of John Kerry |
|
As a Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Kerry had his staff remove a blog from the Kerry for President web site blogroll because of these comments. But Sen. Kerry now blogs on the same site he once banished because in those days a connection to the site was a political liability for a candidate running away from the ghost of Michael Dukakis. But with Hillary Clinton on the 2008 horizon, John Kerry apparently needs all the help he can get. But desperate as he is, one wonders if the senator has read the latest comment from his new blog buddy. The reason we hate Islamic fundamentalists is pretty much the same reason we're fighting to take back this country from the Republicans. They are two peas from the same pod, and diametrically opposed to everything we liberals stand for.
|
| Anti-Americanism Defeated Yet Again at the Polls |
|
"Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party defeated the long entrenched Liberal Party in Canadian elections on Monday," the New York Times reports. "A Conservative victory is a striking turn in the country's politics and is likely to improve Canada's strained relations with the Bush administration." But it wasn't supposed to be this way. Remember after the March 14, 2004 Spanish election when voters replaced Prime Minister José María Aznar with the Socialist Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero? Liberal editorialists and politicians claimed that other pro-Bush leaders were likely to follow Aznar's fate. The president's misadventure in Iraq had sparked a wave of anti-Americanism that would also topple other governments in Australia and Britain. But Australia's John Howard won a fourth term, while Tony Blair was elected to an unprecedented third. Subsequently, Germany's Gerhard Schröder ran on an anti-American platform, as did Canada's Paul Martin. And guess what? They lost. No doubt President Bush will gladly welcome Prime Minister Stephen Harper to the White House, just as he did when Germany's Merkel paid a visit a short time ago.
|
|
Monday, January 23, 2006
|
| How America Can Help Hong Kong's Democrats |
|
Kin-ming Liu, former Washington-based columnist for Hong Kong’s Apple Daily, writes in to the Worldwide Standard with some suggestions. He states: "The time is now to place Hong Kong on the front burner of President Bush's democracy enlargement agenda. The administration of Chief Executive Donald Tsang, squeezed by the growing demand for democracy in Hong Kong and ongoing disdain for it in Beijing, proposed some Beijing-backed political 'reforms' that were defeated recently by pro-democracy members of the Legislature Council. Beijing officials reacted to the defeat by accusing the U.S. of making 'rash comments on Hong Kong affairs for quite a period of time, violating the principle of non-interference in other countries' internal affairs.' Referring to Hong Kong as 'China's Hong Kong' and 'China's internal affairs,' Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang asked the U.S. to refrain from any comments or acts that would interfere in China's internal affairs and place obstacles in the way the Hong Kong government operates. A Hong Kong government official also expressed 'disappointment' with the U.S.: 'We would not wish any foreign governments to give the impression that they were meddling in Hong Kong's affairs.' Of course, the comments of U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack the day after the vote were, in truth, quite ordinary and tame: 'We believe the people and the Government of Hong Kong should determine the pace and scope of political reform in accordance with the Basic Law. The people of Hong Kong have repeatedly expressed their aspiration for progress towards democracy and their desire for a firm commitment to the implementation of universal suffrage. We support those goals and believe that the sooner a timetable for achieving universal suffrage is established, the better.' One could dismiss the above exchanges as diplomatic routine. But I believe the fact that China would even choose to rebuke such a non-revolutionary statement is telling. What Washington thinks of Hong Kong must matter to Beijing. Otherwise, why bother? In fact, to Beijing, what Washington thinks of Hong Kong always matters more than what the people of Hong Kong think of their own home. Chinese protests mean America is hitting where it hurts. Washington should increase and not decrease pressure at this point. It can’t be overemphasized that what the outside world is trying to do is simply to ask China to fulfill its own pledges on Hong Kong, not to make new demands or create new issues. Here are a few suggestions for consideration. 1. The issue of democracy in Hong Kong should be added to the sundry list of issues American officials raise with their Chinese counterparts every time they meet. 2. The U.S. Consulate-General in Hong Kong should raise its profile and be the first whistle blower of any further violation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. 3. Washington can always use the U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 as the basis to stop treating Hong Kong as a separate entity from China should Hong Kong lose its autonomy. Afterall, why should Hong Kong receive special treatment from the U.S. if its political climate is indistinguishable from that of other Chinese cities? 4. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House International Relations Committee should hold hearings on Hong Kong on a regular basis, particularly after the release of the annual U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act report and the State Department human rights report. Nothing beats congressional scrutiny on how China is treating Hong Kong and, more importantly, what the U.S. administration is doing about it. China no doubt wants to keep Hong Kong as an internal matter. But the Joint Declaration, signed in 1984, was an international agreement registered at the United Nations. Support of the agreement from the international community, America’s included, was widely sought and obtained by China. When China promised Hong Kong 'one country, two systems,' Beijing wanted the whole world to applaud. But when China breaks the promise of letting 'Hong Kong people run Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy,' Beijing now expects everyone to turn a blind eye. Will the world's governments blindly obey?"
|
| Has Tehran Accelerated its Enrichment Program in the Last 16 Months? |
|
Here are two pieces worth reading. Philip Sherwell reports in the Sunday Telegraph that, Iran has secretly extended the uranium enrichment plant at the centre of the international controversy over its resumption of banned nuclear research earlier this month, satellite imagery has revealed.... And Agence France-Presse reports: Iran may have received three shipments of sophisticated P-2 centrifuges capable of enriching uranium, diplomats said, which could support Western claims that Tehran is hiding sensitive nuclear work.
|
| Where's Rudy Giuliani on the NSA Surveillance Program? Has the White House Contacted Him? Will He Testify at the Congressional Hearings? |
|
With Congressional hearings set and as today's front-page New York Times story indicates, the NSA spying controversy isn't going to fade away. Opponents of the program claim the president broke the law, while supporters say the president has the constitutional and statutory authority to conduct the surveillance. There are also some who believe it's a close call but also maintain that the president has the unique responsibility to defend the nation and acted accordingly. But where does Mayor Giuliani stand? Will Sen. Arlen Specter invite the mayor to give his perspective on the program? My guess is that the mayor generally backs the president's decision to implement the surveillance and given his background is someone the American people should hear from.
|
|
Sunday, January 22, 2006
|
| Powell: "I Raised the Question" of a "Larger Troop Presence" in Iraq; "Every Word" in UN Speech "Approved by the CIA with No Political Pressure" |
|
The former secretary of state, in today's Sunday Times of London, ... On troop strength in Iraq: “There were enough troops to defeat the army. (But that) was only part of the battle. The difficult part was taking control of a very large country with 25m people and you have just taken out the whole government. And guess what: who then becomes the new government? You do, under the laws of land warfare. We were not able to take control, nor did we have the right political approach.
Wasn’t the inaccuracy of the intelligence the fault of politicos pressuring spooks to produce smoking guns? “I wanted to know what the truth was. When I prepared my UN speech I sat there for four days and nights: we went through everything, to make sure this huge presentation I was giving, watched by the whole world, was accurate. Every word was approved by the CIA with no political pressure. I tossed out things because they weren’t sufficiently sourced.”
|
|
Saturday, January 21, 2006
|
| Jimmy Carter's "so-called Terrorists" |
|
From the Jerusalem Post (January 20, 2006): Former US president Jimmy Carter expressed optimism Friday over Hamas's participation in next week's Palestinian parliamentary elections.
Since the beginning of the current wave of Palestinian violence, in September 2000, Hamas has perpetrated 52 suicide attacks, in which 288 Israelis were murdered and 1,646 were wounded. Among the more infamous Hamas suicide bombings and terrorist attacks were (the following is a representative, not exhaustive, list):
|
|
Friday, January 20, 2006
|
| What to Make of Ignatius' "Containing Tehran" Op-ed? |
|
The Washington Post's David Ignatius is always a must read if you want to know some of the foreign policy thinking percolating inside an administration. Today, he writes: They want to avoid, if possible, a situation that appears to be a Bush vs. Iran confrontation. The administration decided last year to work the nuclear problem through the European Union countries negotiating with Iran -- Britain, France and Germany -- in part to avoid making America the issue. Although the E.U. negotiations have failed to stop the Iranian nuclear program, administration officials hope to maintain a united front as the issue moves toward the United Nations. Of course, working the Iran problem through the E.U. for as long as we did before moving on to the Security Council has had a downside. It has given Iran more time to complete a workable nuclear weapon if that's Tehran's goal. But this gets to the second point that -- like Stalin and Mao -- "Ahmadinejad's extremism will eventually trigger a counterreaction." Are Bush administration officials suggesting that broad U.S. support for pro-democracy Iranian dissidents would be a mistake? That if we are patient more moderate elements like Rafsanjani and Khamenei will push the nutty former mayor of Tehran and his cronies aside? But even if that were to happen, can the U.S. tolerate such a regime armed with nuclear weapons as we did during and after the era of Stalin and Mao? Ignatius' piece, "Containing Tehran," appears to add to the confusion on what exactly is U.S. Iran policy.
|
| Is the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Bottling Up the "Iran Freedom and Support Act"? |
|
The Act's (S. 333) purpose is "to hold the current regime in Iran accountable for its threatening behavior and to support a transition to democracy in Iran." It would tighten sanctions on the current regime in Tehran and, among other things, support "efforts by the Iranian people to exercise self-determination over their form of government." Introduced last February by Senator Santorum [R-PA], the bill has 41 cosponsors, including 12 Democrats. Unfortunately, the Foreign Relations Committee hasn't had a single hearing on it. Why Chairman Lugar [R-IN] hasn't scheduled one is a good question. With the bill apparently stuck in committee, Senate supporters should seek to attach it to an appropriate piece of legislation that will be hitting the Senate floor in the coming weeks. Allen [R-VA], Bayh [D-IN], Boxer [D-CA], Bunning [R-KY], Burns [R-MT], Burr [R-NC], Coburn [R-OK], Cochran [R-MS], Coleman [R-MN], Collins [R-ME], Conrad [D-ND], Cornyn [R-TX], Craig [R-ID], Crapo [R-ID], DeMint [R-SC], DeWine [R-OH], Dole [R-NC], Dorgan [D-ND], Durbin [D-IL], Ensign [R-NV], Feinstein [D-CA], Inhofe [R-OK], Isakson [R-GA], Johnson [D-SD], Kyl [R-AZ], Landrieu [D-LA], Levin [D-MI], Lott [R-MS], Martinez [R-FL], McCain [R-AZ], Mikulski [D-MD], Nelson [D-FL], Nelson [D-NE], Sessions [R-AL], Snowe [R-ME], Stabenow [D-MI], Sununu [R-NH], Talent [R-MO], Thomas [R-WY], Thune [R-SD], Vitter [R-LA]
|
| EU Imperialists? |
|
From Reuters: Putin and Blatter accuse EU of imperialism MOSCOW, Jan 15 (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin and FIFA president Sepp Blatter on Sunday accused the European Union of "imperial" aggression in soccer. "As a FIFA chief I have a big problem. The EU tries to have too much influence on how football is run in EU countries and they are trying to extend that influence to the rest of Europe," Russian news agency Itar-Tass quoted Blatter as saying during his visit to the Kremlin. Last month, the European Commission, prompted by British sports minister Richard Caborn, launched an inquiry into European soccer, focussing on the regulation of agents, club financing, home-grown players and the continued investment into grass roots football and stadiums. The sports ministers of major European football nations such as Spain, France, Germany and Italy, were also involved in discussion on how to reform the game. Caborn said at the time that his initiative had the support of Blatter and his UEFA counterpart Lennart Johansson. But on Sunday Blatter said: "We can't allow 25 EU countries to dictate their rules to 207 nations worldwide."
|
|
Thursday, January 19, 2006
|
| (Updated) Sen. Clinton Talks Tough on Iran but Hasn't Explained Why the Clinton-Gore Administration Helped Arm Iran with "Highly Threatening Military" Equipment and Technology |
|
Presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton has some tough words on preventing Iran from getting nukes. "We cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons," she said. "In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations." The Russia the Senator refers to would be the same one Al Gore cut a deal with that emboldened "sales of missile and nuclear technology to Iran" and, if you believe Zbigniew Brzezinski and James Schlesinger, the sale "of highly threatening military equipment such as modern submarines, fighter planes, and wake-homing torpedoes." Both Carter administration officials signed this letter in October 2000: Statement by Former Secretaries of State, Defense, Directors of Central Intelligence and National Security Advisors on the Sale of Russian Weapons to Iran, October 24, 2000 UPDATE CIA Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Related to Weapons of Mass Destruction, 1 January through 30 June 2000: Russia also remained a key supplier for civilian nuclear programs in Iran, primarily focused on the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant project. With respect to Iran's nuclear infrastructure, Russian assistance enhances Iran's ability to support a nuclear weapons development effort. By its very nature, even the transfer of civilian technology may be of use in Iran's nuclear weapons program. We remain concerned that Tehran is seeking more than a buildup of its civilian infrastructure, and the Intelligence Community will be closely monitoring the relationship with Moscow for any direct assistance in support of a military program. Testimony of John A. Lauder, Director of the CIA's Nonproliferation Center, to Senate Foreign Relations Committee, October 5, 2000: Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin with a few comments on Russian aid to Iran's nuclear power and nuclear weapons program. The Intelligence Community judges that Iran is actively pursuing the acquisition of fissile material and the expertise and technology necessary to form the material into nuclear weapons. As part of this process, Iran is attempting to develop the capability to produce both plutonium and highly-enriched uranium.
|
| Howard Dean says America Can't "Win the War in Iraq," so Why is bin Laden Offering a Truce There? |
|
See here for BBC translation of bin Laden's remarks.
|
| Reagan Justice Official Explains Why Al Gore's View on NSA Surveillance is Dangerous |
|
Victoria Toensing in today's Wall Street Journal has an excellent piece (sub. req'd) that takes on critics of the Bush administration's NSA surveillance program. She points out, among other things, the folly of two of the most often heard arguments peddled by critics: 1) you can always go back and get a FISA warrant 72 hours after placing the tap; and 2) why did the president not ask Congress to change the FISA law. Even if time were not an issue, any emergency FISA application must still establish the required probable cause within 72 hours of placing the tap. So al Qaeda agent A is captured in Afghanistan and has agent B's number in his cell phone, which is monitored by NSA overseas. Agent B makes two or three calls every day to agent C, who flies to New York. That chain of facts, without further evidence, does not establish probable cause for a court to believe that C is an agent of a foreign power with information about terrorism. Yet, post 9/11, do the critics want NSA to cease monitoring agent C just because he landed on U.S. soil?
|
| White House Says Syria's Military Intelligence Chief Actively Supports Insurgency in Iraq, But What about Assad? |
|
Yesterday, the Bush administration went a step further in tying top Syrian officials to the insurgency in Iraq. In his daily press briefing, White House spokesman Scott McClellan stated: We remain deeply concerned about Syria's destablizing behavior in the Middle East and its continued support for terrorism. The regime in Syria has failed to comply with several Security Council resolutions. Today the Department of Treasury designated Assef Shawkat, pursuant to an executive order the President issued in May of '04. Among other things, this order allows the United States government to block the assets of individuals who play a role in Syria's support for terrorism. Of course, Shawkat works for President Bashar Assad, who, according to a September 26, 2005 Time article, is apparently quite familiar with insurgent leaders in Iraq. Starting in November 2003, tribal sheiks and Baathist expatriates held a series of monthly meetings at the Cham Palace hotel in Damascus. They were public events, supposedly meetings to express solidarity with the Iraqi opposition to the U.S. occupation. (The January 2004 gathering was attended by Syrian President Bashar Assad.) Behind the scenes, however, the meetings provided a convenient cover for leaders of the insurgency, including Muhammad Yunis al-Ahmed, the former Military Bureau director, to meet, plan and distribute money. A senior military officer told TIME that U.S. intelligence had an informant--a mid-level Baathist official who belonged to the Dulaimi tribe--attending the meetings and keeping the Americans informed about the insurgents' growing cohesion.
|
|
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
|
| "Time for 'Libya-plus' Sanctions on Iran" |
|
Saul Singer of the Jerusalem Post has an interesting piece on Iran here. But Iran is not Libya, Iraq, or North Korea. It does not consider itself a pariah state, nor is it as self-isolated from the world. Though an oil exporter, Iran must import 40 percent of its refined fuel from abroad. Cutting off diplomatic ties, scientific exchanges, and the right to participate in sports events, such as the 2006 World Cup, in addition to the menu of sanctions that were imposed on Libya, would deal a devastating blow to the legitimacy of the Iranian regime.
|
| Zbigniew Brzezinski's "Falling Dominoes" |
|
A friend of the Worldwide Standard sends along some thoughts on the recent op-ed piece, "The Real Choice in Iraq," penned by President Carter's national security advisor. He writes: In his January 8, 2006 op-ed in the Washington Post, Zbigniew Brzezinski, in enumerating his criticisms of the Bush Administration, wrote this: The administration's definition of 'defeat' [regarding Iraq] is similarly misleading. Official and unofficial spokesmen often speak in terms that recall the apocalyptic predictions made earlier regarding the consequences of American failure to win in Vietnam: dominoes falling, the region exploding and U.S. power discredited. I thought it might be interesting to find out specifically who Mr. Brzezinski may have had in mind in ridiculing the "apocalyptic predictions" (dominoes falling, the region exploding and U.S. power discredited) if America failed to win in Vietnam. It turns out he might have had in mind someone like the Director of the Research Institute on Communist Affairs and professor of law and government at Columbia University in the 1960s: Zbigniew Brzezinski. In a March 1, 1964 op-ed in the Washington Post ("'Neutral' Viet-Nam a Chinese Backyard: Noted Student of Communism Says De Gaulle Suggestion Would Be U.S. Defeat and A Handover to Peking"), Mr. Brzezinski responded to a press conference by French President Charles de Gaulle, who concluded that the United States was neither capable nor had the will to stay in Southeast Asia. President de Gaulle argued for the "neutralization" of South Viet-Nam -- de Gaulle's gracious way of handing the area over to the Chinese, Mr. Brzezinski said. And what did Mr. Brzezinski think of this recommendation? Not much. In his op-ed, Mr. Brzezinski wrote that it would "be nothing less than an American defeat. Furthermore, it would leave Southeast Asia without any countervailing political force to that of China. In effect, it would transform that area into a Chinese political back yard." And then, under the heading "A Row of Dominos" (!), Mr. Brzezinski wrote this: As a result it is certain beyond question that there would be immediate political instability in Thailand, whose northeast is already exposed to insurgency and whose politicians are already fearful that American commitments are not to be trusted. Malaysia, until two years ago an area of Communist insurgency, would be certain to fall, and the collapse of these states would have a direct impact on the present insurgency in Burma. Mr. Brzezinski concludes his op-ed this way: The effect of the policy of neutralization would be an escalation of international tension. One may also add that the loss of South Viet-Nam would be likely to have a very negative impact on the American domestic scene. It would reawaken extreme right-wing claims that there has been a new betrayal, and it could result in a new wave of extremism in two or three years from now. Next time Mr. Brzezinski might want to consult his own past writings in order to avoid sharply criticizing them.
|
| Ground Hog Day: Today's New York Times Ignores Key Parts of the Iraq-Niger Uranium Story |
|
Eric Lichtblau's piece, "2002 Memo Doubted Uranium Sale Claim," in today's New York Times reports on a high-level intelligence assessment by the Bush administration concluded in early 2002 that the sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq was "unlikely" because of a host of economic, diplomatic and logistical obstacles, according to a secret memo that was recently declassified by the State Department....The analysts' doubts were registered nearly a year before President Bush, in what became known as the infamous "16 words" in his 2003 State of the Union address, said that Saddam Hussein had sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. At the end of the piece, Ambassador Joe Wilson is quoted: Mr. Wilson said in an interview that he did not remember ever seeing the memo but that its analysis should raise further questions about why the White House remained convinced for so long that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Africa. Some points The assessment Lichtblau is referring to is most likely the 2002 assessment the Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research produced following Wison's Niger trip. But the reporter fails to mention the view held by MOST other intelligence assessments. According to the Senate's 2004 bipartisan Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq, The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq. (p. 73) Will the New York Times seek out these other assessments? The same Senate report also concluded: Even after obtaining the forged documents and being alerted by a State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analyst about problems with them, analysts at both the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) did not examine them carefully enough to see the obvious problems with the documents. Both agencies continued to publish assessments that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa. In addition, CIA continued to approve the use of similar language in Administration publications and speeches, including the State of the Union.(p. 77)
The analysts' doubts were registered nearly a year before President Bush, in what became known as the infamous "16 words" in his 2003 State of the Union address, said that Saddam Hussein had sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. In his 2003 address, President Bush stated: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. But the Times' reporting on State's INR assessment only addresses "the likelihood that Niger would try to sell uranium to Baghdad." But what about the Saddam "sought" part? Indeed, the British have stood by their assessment. In fact, the Butler report states that the president's uranium reference in his 2003 State of the Union address was "well-founded" and based on intelligence having nothing to do with the forged documents. The report also makes the distinction between "sought" and "purchased." Here are the "relevant" bits, on pages 123 and 125: We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: And, From our examination of the intelligence and other material on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa, we have concluded that: On another point, Saddam's relationship with Niger didn't begin in the 1990's. It goes back at least to the Osirak reactor days. According to the June 22, 1981 Newsweek, The Osirak reactor was theoretically only for research purposes—but Iraq twice refused a French offer to supply it with low-enriched uranium, insisting instead on weapons-grade, 93 per cent enriched fuel. Iraq was also operating an Italian-built “hot cell” lab for extracting plutonium, and had arranged to buy large quantities of uranium from Brazil, Portugal and Niger—all without any investment in a nuclear-energy program. Powerline has more here.
|
|
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
|
| "Very High" Chance of WMD Strike; Meanwhile, Liberal Democrats go after the Commander-in-Chief |
|
From the Associated Press: LONDON, England -- There is a "very high" probability that a terrorist group will strike using nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, a senior U.S. counterterrorism official said in comments published Tuesday.
|
| What Today's New York Times NSA Story Reveals about Intelligence Collection and F.B.I. Reform |
|
After exposing yet another top-secret program, the New York Times is now doing its best to portray the program as not having much intelligence value. Today's front-page story, "Spy Agency Data After Sept. 11 Led F.B.I. to Dead Ends," is the first of what will undoubtedly be a steady stream of other pieces where anonymous FBI sources leak against the NSA. But, if accurate, why is it surprising that much of the NSA data led to "dead ends" exactly? We still don't know everyone the 9/11 terrorists associated with and immediately following the attacks officials were worried that al Qaeda had inserted other "sleeper cells" inside the U.S. to carryout more attacks. The follow-on attacks never came but does that mean al Qaeda has no presence inside the U.S.? After our intelligence agencies failed to detect the 9/11 plot, we shouldn't presume that such cells might exist and use a variety of methods to detect them before they become operational? Do Democrats disagree? Do Democratic leaders agree with those saying that the president has no constitutional authority to authorize "wiretapping" outside of FISA? Adm. Bobby Inman, a former NSA director, makes a similar point on intelligence collection in the Times piece: It isn't at all surprising to me that people not accustomed to doing this would say, "Boy, this is an awful lot of work to get a tiny bit of information," [said Inman]. But the rejoinder to that is, Have you got anything better? And: Admiral Inman...said the F.B.I. complaints about thousands of dead-end leads revealed a chasm between very different disciplines. Signals intelligence, the technical term for N.S.A.'s communications intercepts, rarely produces "the complete information you're going to get from a document or a witness" in a traditional F.B.I. investigation, he said. Even so, while the Times claims "officials said the program had uncovered no active Qaeda networks inside the United States planning attacks," they also report that, some of the officials said the eavesdropping program might have helped uncover people with ties to Al Qaeda in Albany; Portland, Ore.; and Minneapolis. Some of the activities involved recruitment, training or fund-raising.... It's also worrisome that, according to the Times, the F.B.I. "has struggled over the last four years to expand its traditional mission of criminal investigation to meet the larger menace of terrorism." The Times further noted: The differing views of the value of the N.S.A.'s foray into intelligence-gathering in the United States may reflect both bureaucratic rivalry and a culture clash. The N.S.A., an intelligence agency, routinely collects huge amounts of data from across the globe that may yield only tiny nuggets of useful information; the F.B.I., while charged with fighting terrorism, retains the traditions of a law enforcement agency more focused on solving crimes. The 9/11 Commission considered reform at the F.B.I. a top priority in the reorganization of America's intelligence community. Unfortunately, change at the F.B.I. hasn't been easy. Consider what this April 2004 Congressional Research Service report said on past reform efforts: The FBI's current intelligence reform is not its first. Twice before -- in 1998, and then again in 1999 -- the FBI embarked on almost identical efforts to establish intelligence as a priority, and to strengthen its intelligence program. Both attempts are considered by some to have been failures. Post 9/11, we can't afford more intelligence reform failures.
|
|
Monday, January 16, 2006
|
| Did Al Gore Mention the Secret Deal He Cut with Moscow that Emboldened "Sales of Missile and Nuclear Technology to Iran" during his Diatribe Against the President Today? |
|
Al Gore is back in the news attacking President Bush's counterterrorist policies. But perhaps Gore's actions as vice president with regard to arming Iran should also be scrutinized. From the October 13, 2000 New York Times: The 1995 agreement allowed Moscow to fulfill existing sales contracts for specified weaponry, including a diesel submarine, torpedoes, anti- ship mines and hundreds of tanks and armored personnel carriers. But no other weapons were to be sold to Iran, and all shipments were to have been completed by last Dec. 31.
|
| Secretary Rice v. The Pentagon? Tension Over Troop Levels in Iraq Hasn't Gone Away |
|
As Amb. Paul Bremer reveals in his book, there was tension within the Bush administration on the issue of troop strength in Iraq while he was in Baghdad. A Washington Post piece, "Rice's Rebuilding Plan Hits Snag," yesterday indicated that the tension over troop levels remains. On Nov. 11, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made an unannounced trip into Mosul, Iraq, to grandly inaugurate a new concept for rebuilding the country that she said "will marry our economic, military, and political people in teams to help these local and provincial governments get the job done." But military historian Frederick Kagan argues in the current Weekly Standard that "the biggest danger in Iraq is drawing down too quickly." The president has repeatedly declared that the withdrawal will not adhere to any "artificial" political timeline. How can such statements be squared with a reduction in the U.S. presence at a time many regard as the tipping point in this war?
|
|
Sunday, January 15, 2006
|
| Update: The U.S. Should Increase its Covert "Propaganda" Efforts in Iraq, as it has in other Successful Wars |
|
Michael Schrage in today's Washington Post has an interesting piece, "Use Every Article In The Arsenal," related to this January 10, 2006 Worldwide Standard post: Many liberals want to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq, derail the current NSA surveillance operation tracking terrorist communications to the U.S., and remain outraged at U.S. covert "propaganda" efforts in Iraq -- Sen. Kennedy has called such efforts "a devious scheme." On this point, Reuel Gerecht argues in today's Washington Post that "the Bush administration shouldn't flinch from increasing its covert "propaganda" efforts in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. The history in the last great war of ideas is firmly on its side." Gerecht asks: Why did the United States spend so much covert-action money in Western Europe after World War II? Washington was unsure of Western Europe's commitment to democracy and its resolve to oppose the Soviet Union and its proxy European communist parties. The programs had to be clandestine: The foreigners involved usually could not have operated with open U.S. funding without jeopardizing their lives, their families or their reputations. Did these CA projects retard or damage the growth of a free press and free inquiry in Western Europe after World War II? I think an honest historical assessment would conclude that U.S. covert aid advanced both.
Yet revelations that U.S. forces in Iraq have surreptitiously purchased and placed stories in the local media to promote the quality-of-life improvements they have made possible and to highlight the country's democratic progress have provoked journalistic outrage here at home....
|
| Sen. John McCain: "There's Only One Thing Worse than the United States Exercising the Military Option, that is, a Nuclear-Armed Iran" |
|
From Agence France Presse: January 15, 2006 Sunday
|
|
Friday, January 13, 2006
|
| The "Monsters Who This Did This ... A Perfectly Knitted Baby Bonnet with Two Bullet Holes in It" |
|
The "monsters" were Saddam's Baathist thugs, reports Lewis M. Simons in the January National Geographic, and the baby was unearthed in one of the many mass graves discovered in Iraqi deserts since the March 2003 invasion. Simons went to Iraq to report on Camp Slayer, where scientists examine the "new forensic evidence of Saddam Hussein's murderous regime." He notes that Clark University's Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies estimates that the Baathist regime murdered up to 240,000 men, women, children and infants. Here are some of the victims and how they died: Patterns of neat bullet holes peppered skulls and garments, many of them the baggy trousers peculiar to Kurdish men. Staring at cardboard boxes filled with skulls in plastic bags and skeletons precisely arrayed on steel gurneys, inhaling the oddly metallic death smells.... Simon also notes: Initially, X [an Iraqi forensic scientist] gladly agreed to be identified in this story. But shortly before it went to press he got word to me of death threats against him and his family.... The threats most likely where made by Sunni supporters of Saddam Hussein, who are striving to diminish evidence against the former dictator. As Sen. John McCain has said, President Bush's "choice wasn't between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war. It was between war and a graver threat." Saddam was indeed a monster worth slaying.
|
| Saddam Came Close to Having a Nuke in '91; Today, Iran Follows Saddam's Nuclear Procurement Playbook |
|
It's easy to forget that the resolution authorizing force to kick Saddam out of Kuwait barely passed Congress. It's easy to forget that Iraq had passed frequent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections designed to ensure its compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or that its Manhattan Project-sized nuclear program went undetected by US intelligence. It's also easy to forget just how skilled Saddam became at deception post-Osirak. Some history -- Iraq ratified the NPT in 1969. Twelve year later, Israel bombed the Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad. According to the June 22, 1981 Newsweek, [t]he Osirak reactor was theoretically only for research purposes—but Iraq twice refused a French offer to supply it with low-enriched uranium, insisting instead on weapons-grade, 93 per cent enriched fuel. Iraq was also operating an Italian-built “hot cell” lab for extracting plutonium, and had arranged to buy large quantities of uranium from Brazil, Portugal and Niger—all without any investment in a nuclear-energy program. In his 2002 book, The Threatening Storm, Clinton NSC official Kenneth Pollack wrote that Osirak “was the key to Saddam’s nuclear weapons program and ... was due to go online within a matter of weeks.” The bombing set Iraq’s “nuclear bomb program back by several years,” but it also “taught the Iraqis an important lesson. Thereafter, Saddam ordered a redoubling of the Iraqi program...camouflaged against detection.” (Pollack would subsequently note this regarding Saddam's nuclear program.) After the Osirak attack, Iraq would pursue a secret nuclear weapons program that had gone undetected by Western intelligence and the IAEA until after the 1991 Gulf War. As former U.N. inspector David Kay wrote in a 1995 Washington Quarterly piece, Iraq would pursue this program while maintaining “its status as a full member” of the NPT because it was “the desire of the military and security services not to attract any undue attention to Iraq’s developing nuclear program that would complicate procurement and development efforts.” The fact that Hussein was able to conceal his nuclear program was even more remarkable given that: 1) as the Washington Post noted in October 1991, the “scope and sophistication” of its program “resembled the Manhattan Project, the American effort that produced the first atomic bomb”; and 2) Iraq had passed regular inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. On August 11, 1991, the Post reported that: International inspectors...unearthed one of the most important—and disturbing—finds of the post-Cold War era: a huge assembly line for the covert manufacture of equipment to make an Iraqi bomb. The Post also reported: Despite repeated warnings and Saddam’s own public statements, Western experts consistently underestimated Iraq’s scientific and technical capabilities. Inspection officials now believe Iraq was only 12 to 18 months from producing its first bomb, not five to 10 years as previously thought.Kay wrote that Iraq hid its program by keeping it “heavily compartmentalized” and employing a variety of deception techniques. For example, Iraq created a network of front companies to import nuclear-related materials “in quantities that were below the size that triggered controls.” Equipment was imported ostensibly for civilian purposes but was diverted to the nuclear program as well. (see here for UNMOVIC May 2003 report on Iraq's attempt to "conceal the extent of its import activities and to preserve its importing networks" for missiles, chems & bios) The Iraqis, Kay continued, had an “accurate understanding of the limitations of U.S. technical collection systems...” and exploited these vulnerabilities through various methods, including: construction of buildings within buildings... hiding power and water feeds to mislead as to facility use... diminishing value of a facility by apparent low security and lack of defenses... moving critical pieces of equipment at night.... Apparently, Iran has taken a page out of Saddam's nuclear weapons procurement book.
|
| April 6, 2003: Marines Capture Suspected Foreign Terrorist Training Camp; "Just One of a Number of Examples" Found in Iraq |
|
Evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime trained foreign terrorists surfaced soon after coalition forces entered Iraq. And, as this Wall Street Journal editorial explains, more evidence has mounted since. U.S. Marines entered Iraq's Salman Pak in early April 2003. Here's how Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks characterized what the Marines discovered during an April 6, 2003 briefing: This raid occurred in response to information that had been gained by coalition forces from some foreign fighters we encountered from other countries, not Iraq. And we believe that this camp had been used to train these foreign fighters in terror tactics. It is now destroyed.... The Associated Press (April 6, 2003) further reported: Hours after Marines occupied the base Sunday morning, a tour of the suspected terrorist training compound found a series of curious sights. The comments of Brig. Gen. Brooks are consistent with what the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes has reported: The former regime of Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq....
|
|
Thursday, January 12, 2006
|
| How the Left Spend Their Days |
|
While al Qaeda plots attacks on Americans, the political Left in the U.S. plots the impeachment of President Bush. The ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. John Conyers, demands a special committee be formed to "investigate impeaching" the president, and today he offers "kudos to my friend Liz Holtzman," a former Democratic congresswoman from New York, for penning The Nation magazine's current cover piece, "The Impeachment of George W. Bush." Ms. Holtzman writes: Mobilizing the nation and Congress in support of investigations and the impeachment of President Bush is a critical task that has already begun, but it must intensify and grow. The American people stopped the Vietnam War--against the wishes of the President--and forced a reluctant Congress to act on the impeachment of President Nixon. And they can do the same with President Bush. The task has three elements: building public and Congressional support, getting Congress to undertake investigations into various aspects of presidential misconduct and changing the party makeup of Congress in the 2006 elections. How about mobilizing a rally against bin Laden, Zarqawi & company? Nah. They have a bigger fish to fry. A short time ago, Sen. John McCain was asked about the "Bush lied us into war" line peddled by the anti-war crowd, including Ms. Holtzman, he responded: [I]t's a lie to say that the president lied to the American people. Will this crowd stop the "Bush lied" lie? Nah. It's part of their strategy to regain control of the House, so they can go after the president. As the editor of The Nation wrote: There are many reasons why it is crucial that the Democrats regain control of Congress in '06, but consider this one: If they do, there may be articles of impeachment introduced and the estimable John Conyers, who has led the fight to defend our constitution, would become Chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Wouldn't that be a truly just response to the real high crimes and misdemeanors that this lawbreaking president has so clearly committed? Fortunately, to paraphrase David Brooks in the New York Times today, voters are more interested in aggressively fighting the terrorists rather than the American counterterrorists.
|
| Europeans: Iran Talks Reach "Dead End," Should be Referred to UN Security Council |
|
From AP: The British, French and German foreign ministers said Thursday that negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program had reached a ''dead end'' and the Islamic republic should be referred to the U.N. Security Council.
|
| A Wider Crack in the Insurgency? |
|
From today's New York Times: The story told by the two Iraqi guerrillas cut to the heart of the war that Iraqi and American officials now believe is raging inside the Iraqi insurgency.
|
| Iran to the Security Council: Moscow's On Board, What about Beijing? |
|
"The Bush administration, working intensely to galvanize international pressure on Iran, has secured a guarantee from Russia that it will not block U.S. efforts to take Tehran's nuclear case to the U.N. Security Council," the Washington Post reports. "Still, Bush administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity saw the Russian decision as a victory and said they would spend the next several weeks lobbying China for a similar commitment. "We spent much of our time working on the Russians, but we're now moving the focus to China," said one administration official who would only discuss the backroom diplomacy on the condition of anonymity.
|
|
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
|
| VP Cheney Answers Questions on Iran's Pursuit of Nuclear Weapons and the Prospect of Economic Sanctions and Regime Change |
|
The Vice President made the following Iran related comments today in an interview on the Tony Snow Show: "Do you have any doubt that they're trying to build up a nuclear weapons program?" VICE PRESIDENT: No, I think it's pretty clear that that's their objective. If what they're really interested in is generating nuclear power, generating electricity from running reactors, they've been offered that opportunity, a guaranteed source of fuel that would be enriched only to the level necessary to run a civilian reactor. "Should the world be considering a serious economic embargo of Iran?" VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the next step will be probably to go before the U.N. Security Council. And that would be probably the number one item on the agenda would be the resolution that could be enforced by sanctions, were they to fail to comply with it. "Would it be fair to say that at least in the abstract we would like a regime change there?" VICE PRESIDENT: I think it would be fair to say we'd like the Iranian government to operate in a way that is consistent with the standards that we expect of members of the international community. Not only do they appear to be on the path to develop nuclear weapons, but this also has been one of the prime terror-sponsoring states in world. They've been the prime mover behind Hezbollah. They have got a track record with respect to supporting terror that is a very bad one, if I can put it in those terms.
|
| Vice President Cheney Today: "There was a Relationship that Stretched over Many Years between Saddam Hussein and the al Qaeda Organization |
|
Vice President Cheney made the following comments today on Saddam-al Qaeda links in an interview on the Tony Snow Show: Q Mr. Vice President, you have been spending a lot of time in recent days talking about the war on terror and how important it is to take it seriously. The Weekly Standard over the weekend published a long piece by Steve Hayes, who talked about emerging evidence of longstanding ties between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. You've heard it said many times there's no linkage between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. You've heard Democrats beat you and the President about the head and shoulders with this. Were there links to -- between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda?
|
| The Liberal Assault on ROTC and Military Recruiting Didn't End When Judge Alito Left Princeton |
|
As former judge and Fox News commentator Andrew Napolitano explained: [In the early 1970s] I was an officer of an organization called Concerned Alumni of Princeton, and this was an organization that sought to involve the opinion of the alumni in the governance of Princeton more than was being respected by the administration. It also sought to make sure that reserve officer training corps, commonly known as ROTC, stayed on the Princeton campus. It had been kicked off the Princeton campus....
|
| The New York Times On The GSPC Terrorist Arrests In Spain |
|
| The Media and Terrorist Training Camps |
|
From an editorial in today's Investor's Business Daily: The Dots Connect
|
|
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
|
| Ignore the Liberals; the White House Should Increase its Covert "Propaganda" Efforts in Iraq |
|
Many liberals want to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq, derail the current NSA surveillance operation tracking terrorist communications to the U.S., and remain outraged at U.S. covert "propaganda" efforts in Iraq -- Sen. Kennedy has called such efforts "a devious scheme." On this point, Reuel Gerecht argues in today's Washington Post that "the Bush administration shouldn't flinch from increasing its covert "propaganda" efforts in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. The history in the last great war of ideas is firmly on its side." Gerecht asks: Why did the United States spend so much covert-action money in Western Europe after World War II? Washington was unsure of Western Europe's commitment to democracy and its resolve to oppose the Soviet Union and its proxy European communist parties. The programs had to be clandestine: The foreigners involved usually could not have operated with open U.S. funding without jeopardizing their lives, their families or their reputations. Did these CA projects retard or damage the growth of a free press and free inquiry in Western Europe after World War II? I think an honest historical assessment would conclude that U.S. covert aid advanced both.
|
| Algerian Terrorists, bin Laden & Saddam's Training Camps |
|
From a December 3, 2001 USA Today piece>: Saddam, under intense international scrutiny after the Gulf War, also had strong ties to Khartoum, and Iraqi intelligence was well represented in the stew of Islamic radicals, insurrectionists and foreign agents pouring through the city. Fast forward to the current Weekly Standard cover piece, "Saddam's Terror Training Camps." Regarding the training of Algerian terrorists, in particular, Stephen Hayes has uncovered the following: THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials. Key Question By 1997, a splinter group emerged from the GIA (Armed Islamic Group) called the Salafi Group for Call and Combat, or GSPC. But exactly what was the relationship between the GSPC and al Qaeda? Some say not much; others say the GSPC had very close ties to bin Laden. Well, consider what the Center for Defense Information, a liberal think tank in Washington, DC, had to say on the issue of a connection between the GSPC and bin Laden: The Salafist Group for Call and Combat (GSPC) has emerged in recent years as a major source of recruiting and other support for al Qaeda operations in Europe. A splinter faction of the Algerian-based Armed Islamic Group (GIA), the GSPC is engaged simultaneously in efforts to topple Algeria's secular government and to organize high-profile attacks against Western interests on the continent.... To be continued...
|
| Iran Breaks International Seals at Nuke Site |
|
Will Iran be referred to the UN Security Council or will China and Russia thwart real action? BBC News reports that, Iran has removed international seals from a nuclear facility and will begin research there in the coming hours.
|
|
Monday, January 09, 2006
|
| "We Don't Want to Hear about History!" Shouted Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller |
|
One revealing anecdote from Ambassador Bremer's book, My Year in Iraq, involves West Virginia's Jay Rockefeller. On September 23, 2003, Bremer briefed the Senate Democratic caucus on Iraq. I started to explain why the supplemental appropriation was important by noting "the lessons of history," having in mind the failures following World War I and the success after World War II. Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia rudely interrupted, "We all know our history, Mr. Ambassador. Don't bother us with history." Of course, what Sen. Rockefeller could really have used was a review of recent history -- particularly on what he said on the Senate floor on October 10, 2002 in support of the resolution authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein. Given his strong grasp of history, it's rather odd he's forgotten it. Some highlights: As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun. September 11 demonstrated that the fact that an attack on our homeland has not yet occurred cannot give us any false sense of security that one will not occur in the future. We no longer have that luxury. And: Saddam's government has contact with many international terrorist organizations that likely have cells here in the United States. And: He could make those weapons [WMD] available to many terrorist groups which have contact with his government, and those groups could bring those weapons into the U.S. and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly. Rockefeller added: Some argue it would be totally irrational for Saddam Hussein to initiate an attack against the mainland United States, and they believe he would not do it. But if Saddam thought he could attack America through terrorist proxies and cover the trail back to Baghdad, he might not think it so irrational.
|
| New Bremer Book Challenges Sec. Rumsfeld on U.S. Troop Strength in Iraq; with More Troops, "I'd Control Baghdad" -- Gen. Sanchez, May 2004 |
|
The top presidential envoy to Iraq from May 2003 to June 2004, Ambassador Paul Bremer, is out with his new book, My Year in Iraq. What's clear from his memoir is that there were deep divisions among Bush officials -- particularly between Bremer and Sec. Rumsfeld -- on the issue of U.S. troop levels in Iraq going back to May 2003. Bremer also suggests that Sec. Powell was far more hawkish (and irritated) on getting the security situation in Iraq under control than media reports in the U.S. had indicated. For example, for months Bremer, and later Powell, pressed for an attack on the renegade Muqtada al-Sadr and his militia. In fact, when the attack on Muqtada was about to commence, Powell told the president, the vice president, and others: (Page 331) "It's not just a question of his militia. At the end of the operation, Muqtada's got to be gone."
(Page 10) The [Rand] analysis was stunning. I agreed with Secretary Rumsfeld's efforts to transform the American military to the meet the emerging challenges of the 21st century.... But did the situation on the ground in Iraq support the conclusion that we would need only a third of the occupation forces sugessted by the Rand study?
Don Rumsfeld flew back to Baghdad on Thursday, September 4 [2003].... (Page 209) "There's a tendency in DOD to equate an Iraqi policeman with an American soldier and to assume that what matters is the aggregate total number of people -- Coalition and Iraqis -- involved in security at any given moment. This is flat-out misleading." (Pages 356-7) On May 17 [2004], I had a meeting with General Sanchez to discuss the war. No doubt Sec. Rumsfeld will respond to Amb. Bremer in time.
|
| Senior Democratic Leadership Council Fellow: "We should be Grateful to the President and General Hayden" for Spying on al Qaeda |
|
Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow at the DLC in Washington, DC, wrote the following today on his blog, BullMooseblog.com: Intelligence Design
|
|
Sunday, January 08, 2006
|
| Europe's Hidden Conservatives |
|
Virginia's Gerard Alexander has an insightful piece in today's Chicago Sun-Times on the divide between European elites and average European citizens. Why are politics so different in Europe and the United States, considering that the two have wealthy economies and share a lot of cultural roots? Do Europeans and Americans really have sharply divergent views about war and peace, taxes and welfare, and trade and development? It's true that Europeans have become somewhat less religious than Americans and that European governments provide somewhat more public housing, retirement income, health care and other "social benefits" than the U.S. government does. These are differences. But they are also magnified out of proportion by the workings of democratic politics. In a democracy, major parties and coalitions craft their platforms and rhetoric to attract the "median voter," that is, the hypothetical voter at the exact center of the political spectrum, whose swing can determine an election. In most European countries, the median voter is, for example, both less religious and more dependent on government than the median voter in the United States.
|
| "A Loophole only a Terrorist could Love" |
|
This Wall Street Journal editorial explains why. Some critics have argued that the surveillance now at issue could have been conducted within the confines of FISA. But that doesn't appear to be true. FISA warrants are similar to criminal warrants in that they require a showing of "probable cause"--cause, that is, to believe the subject is an "agent of a foreign power." But if the desired object of surveillance is a phone number found on 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's computer, you may not even know the identity of its owner and you can't show probable cause....
|
|
Saturday, January 07, 2006
|
| Who were Zawahiri's Contacts in Saddam's Iraq? Why were U.S. Officials "Deeply Worried" that Iraq Might Give "Radical Islamist Groups" Biological Weapons to Attack the U.S. during the Clinton presidency? |
|
There are many questions contained in the 9-11 Commission report that remain unanswered. For example, page 66 of the report states: In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties on his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December. Has the intelligence community made any progress in getting answers to the following questions: Who were the "al Qaeda members"? A November 24, 1997 Time magazine piece, "America the Vulnerable," stated that: officials in Washington are deeply worried about what some of them call "strategic crime." By that they mean the merging of the output from a government’s arsenals, like Saddam’s biological weapons, with a group of semi-independent terrorists, like radical Islamist groups, who might slip such bioweapons into the U.S. and use them. Who were these officials? And did President Clinton base his November 15, 1997 remarks in Sacramento on the same intelligence that prompted government "officials" to be "deeply worried" about a Saddam-supplied bioterror attack on U.S. soil? think about it [Iraq's disarmament] in terms of the innocent Japanese people that died in the subway when the sarin gas was released; and how important it is for every responsible government in the world to do everything that can possibly be done not to let big stores of chemical or biological weapons fall into the wrong hands, not to let irresponsible people develop the capacity to put them in warheads on missiles or put them in briefcases that could be exploded in small rooms. And I say this not to frighten you.
|
| Terrorist al-Zawahiri "Touts U.S. Troop Cuts in Iraq" |
|
Just a thought but Bush administration officials may want to emphasize victory in Iraq a bit more and troop withdrawals a little less.
|
|
Friday, January 06, 2006
|
| Dukakis Democrats -- The DNC Follows the ACLU's Lead on NSA Surveillance |
|
DNC chair Howard Dean isn't about to let a war get in the way of playing politics. On the DNC web site, -- see here (scroll down a bit) -- you will find a picture of a grinning Dean standing next to a large stack of Freedom of Information Act requests with the caption: Shortly after the New York Times publicized the president's domestic-spying-without-a-warrant program, over 160,000 Americans signed a Freedom of Information Act Request along with Governor Dean in an attempt to determine just why President Bush believed he had the authority to undermine the Constitution. Earlier today Joe Sandler, DNC attorney, delivered each and every one of those FOIA requests to the Department of Justice. Several days earlier, the ACLU had sent along their FOIA requests to the Justice Department. ACLU Demands Records About Warrantless Spying by National Security Agency Of course, the ACLU has never been a fan of the NSA. From the July 29, 2001 Washington Post: In 1999, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence declared that the NSA was "in serious trouble," desperately short of capital and leadership. Civil libertarians, Internet privacy activists and encryption entrepreneurs -- not to mention the European Parliament and thousands, perhaps millions, of ordinary Europeans -- question the continuing need for such an agency, describing the NSA as an "extreme threat to the privacy of people all over the world," in the words of an American Civil Liberties Union Web site. Perhaps the Democrats can dust off Michael Dukakis for the 2008 race.
|
| Sudan Trafficked in Sophisticated Nuclear Weapons Material But Where Did it Go? |
|
"Hundreds of millions of pounds of equipment was imported into the African country over a three-year period before the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington in 2001 and has since disappeared," according to The Guardian. The paper has been reporting daily on the contents of a leaked European intelligence assessment. "The suspicion arises that at least some of the machinery was not destined for or not only destined for Sudan," the assessment says. "Among the equipment purchased by Sudan there are dual-use goods whose use in Sudan appears implausible because of their high technological standard...."
|
| Microsoft Kowtows to Beijing, Again |
|
From today's New York Times. Microsoft has shut the blog site of a well-known Chinese blogger who uses its MSN online service in China after he discussed a high-profile newspaper strike that broke out here one week ago.
|
|
Thursday, January 05, 2006
|
| Former Syrian Vice President: "the [Assad] Regime has No Chance of Surviving in the Long Term" |
|
Abdul-Halim Khaddam has more tough words for his former boss, Bashar Assad. Khaddam, who was deeply involved in the Syrian presence in Lebanon, said Assad's ''mistakes'' on the domestic and international front had weakened the Syrian regime beyond repair to the point where ''it can no longer reform itself. It has become like a model 1916 car.''
|
| The Clinton Folks Go to the White House to Discuss Iraq |
|
Madeleine Albright, William Cohen and William Perry and other former government officials met with the president today to confer on Iraq. This may be a good time to review the Clinton administration's case against Saddam Hussein. Some highlights: * The New York Times reported that at a November 14 [1997] meeting the "White House decided to prepare the country for war." According to the Times, "[t]he decision was made to begin a public campaign through interviews on the Sunday morning television news programs to inform the American people of the dangers of biological warfare." During this time, the Washington Post reported that President Clinton specifically directed Cohen "to raise the profile of the biological and chemical threat." * On November 16, Cohen made a widely reported appearance on ABC's This Week in which he placed a five-pound bag of sugar on the table and stated that that amount of anthrax "would destroy at least half the population" of Washington, D.C." * In an article ("America the Vulnerable; A disaster is just waiting to happen if Iraq unleashes its poison and germs," November 24, 1997), Time wrote, "officials in Washington are deeply worried about what some of them call 'strategic crime.' By that they mean the merging of the output from a government's arsenals, like Saddam's biological weapons, with a group of semi-independent terrorists, like radical Islamist groups, who might slip such bioweapons into the U.S. and use them." * In Sacramento, November 15, Clinton painted a bleak future if nations did not cooperate against "organized forces of destruction," telling the audience that only a small amount of "nuclear cake put in a bomb would do ten times as much damage as the Oklahoma City bomb did." Effectively dealing with proliferation and not letting weapons "fall into the wrong hands" is "fundamentally what is stake in the stand off we're having in Iraq today." * He [President Clinton] asked Americans to not to view the current crisis as a "replay" of the Gulf War in 1991. Instead, "think about it in terms of the innocent Japanese people that died in the subway when the sarin gas was released [by the religious cult Aum Shinrikyo in 1995]; and how important it is for every responsible government in the world to do everything that can possibly be done not to let big stores of chemical or biological weapons fall into the wrong hands, not to let irresponsible people develop the capacity to put them in warheads on missiles or put them in briefcases that could be exploded in small rooms. And I say this not to frighten you." * Cohen began a November 25, 1997 briefing on the Pentagon report by showing a picture of a Kurdish mother and her child who had been gassed by Saddam's army. A bit later, standing besides the gruesome image, he described death on a mass scale. "One drop [of VX nerve agent] on your finger will produce death in a matter of just a few moments. Now the UN believes that Saddam may have produced as much as 200 tons of VX, and this would, of course, be theoretically enough to kill every man, woman and child on the face of the earth." He then sketched an image of a massive chemical attack on an American city. Recalling Saddam's use of poison gas and the sarin attack in Tokyo, Cohen warned that "we face a clear and present danger today" and reminded people that the "terrorist who bombed the World Trade Center in New York had in mind the destruction and deaths of some 250,000 people that they were determined to kill." * Under a (Clinton admin.) White Paper's "nuclear weapons" section, it observed: "Baghdad's interest in acquiring nuclear or developing nuclear weapons has not diminished"; "we have concerns that scientists may be pursuing theoretical nuclear research that would reduce the time required to produce a weapon should Iraq acquire sufficient fissile material"; "Iraq continues to withhold significant information about enrichment techniques, foreign procurement, weapons design, and the role of Iraq's security and intelligence services in obtaining external assistance and coordinating postwar concealment." * At Tennessee State on February 19, Albright told the crowd that the world has not "seen, except maybe since Hitler, somebody who is quite as evil as Saddam Hussein." In answering a question, she sketched some of the "worse" case scenarios should Saddam "break out of the box that we kept him in. . . ." "Another scenario is that he could kind of become the salesman for weapons of mass destruction--that he could be the place that people come and get more weapons." * One of the lessons of history, Albright continued, is that "if you don't stop a horrific dictator before he gets started too far--that he can do untold damage." "If the world had been firmer with Hitler earlier," said Albright, "then chances are that we might not have needed to send Americans to Europe during the Second World War." * Secretary Albright held a briefing on Desert Fox and was asked how she would respond to those who say that unlike the 1991 Gulf War this campaign "looks like mostly an Anglo-American mission." She answered: We are now dealing with a threat, I think, that is probably harder for some to understand because it is a threat of the future, rather than a present threat, or a present act such as a border crossing, a border aggression. And here, as the president described in his statement yesterday, we are concerned about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's ability to have, develop, deploy weapons of mass destruction and the threat that that poses to the neighbors, to the stability of the Middle East, and therefore, ultimately to ourselves. A fuller report on what Clinton officials had to say about Saddam may be found here.
|
| "World War IV As Fourth-Generation Warfare" |
|
Policy Review has an interesting piece available only on its website, policyreview.org. Its author, Tony Corn, has a unique perspective on the "Global War on Terrorism," having served in U.S. embassies in Bucharest, Moscow, and Paris and at the U.S. Missions to the EU and to NATO in Brussels. The challenge confronting the West today is at once less than a full-fledged clash of civilizations and more than some unspecified war on terrorism: It is first and foremost an insurgency within Islam, which began in earnest in 1979, and for which the West remained, at least until 2001, a secondary theater of operations. From 1979 on, the revolution in Iran, the invasion of Afghanistan, the re-Islamization from above in Pakistan, the surge of Saudi activism in the Broader Middle East and the concurrent marginalization of Egypt within the Arab world (following the Camp David accords) combined to give birth to a qualitative and quantitative change of paradigm whereby pan-Arabism — the main movement in the Middle East since 1945 — was supplanted by pan-Islamism. But precisely because this insurgency within Islam is an insurgency, the terrorism paradigm — with its traditional focus on the criminal nature of the act and its exclusion of the political dimension — is largely irrelevant, save at the tactical level. The West is no more at war with terrorism today than it was at war with blitzkrieg in World War II or revolution during the Cold War. The West is at war with a new totalitarianism for which terrorism is one technique or tactic among many. At the operational and theater-strategic level, then, counterinsurgency is a more relevant paradigm than counterterrorism; and at the national-strategic level, the nexus between insurgency and weapons of mass disruption will have to be given at least as much importance as the much-discussed nexus between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction
|
| Japan and North Korean Missiles |
|
With a belligerent North Korea on its doorstep, Tokyo announces that it will jointly develop with the United States a sea-based interceptor missile for a missile defense system.
|
|
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
|
| October 11, 2001: Sleeper Cells and Rep. Nancy Pelosi |
|
On October 11, 2001, intelligence officials are worried that al Qaeda sleeper cells inside the U.S. may strike, while Rep. Pelosi apparently worries about the methods the NSA is employing to detect them. Her letter, dated Oct. 11, 2001, to then NSA head General Michael Hayden is quite astonishing. Think about it. America is at war, and the military is on full alert. Thirty days after the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon are hit, killing thousands, intelligence officials are still deeply worried that al Qaeda had inserted other "sleeper cells" into the continental U.S. to carryout more attacks, possibly with chemical or biological weapons. U.S. officials are doing all they can to rapidly detect these cells and destroy them before they can act or escape to a new location. From the Los Angeles Times, "U.S. Believes More Attacks Are Planned," September 30, 2001: U.S. intelligence officials believe that Osama bin Laden long ago began orchestrating a significant terrorist counterpunch to the expected U.S. retaliation for the attacks on New York and the Pentagon.... To prevent an attack, the NSA was apparently trying to get any relevant foreign intelligence it collected into the hands of the FBI as fast as possible. But the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee had a different perspective than General Hayden. From today's New York Times coverage of Pelosi's October 11, 2001 letter to Gen. Hayden: In the briefing, Ms. Pelosi wrote to General Hayden, "you indicated that you had been operating since the Sept. 11 attacks with an expansive view of your authorities" with respect to electronic surveillance and intelligence-gathering operations. Some may call this pre-9/11 thinking in a post-9/11 world. Republicans should welcome the debate.
|
| Will Russia and China Come to the Rescue of Iran's Radical Regime Again? |
|
Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, says Israel should be "wiped off the map" and apparently believes that the rest of the world will huff and puff but do little to stop Tehran's quest for nuclear weapons. From today's New York Times: Iran could be gambling that even if it restarts nuclear research activities, it would once again avoid international sanctions. Despite threats by both the United States and the Europeans to refer Iran to the Security Council for punitive action after it resumed activities at Isfahan, the countries were forced to back down in the face of opposition from China and Russia, which each have veto power there.
|
| A "Milosevic Solution" for Assad? |
|
The Washington Post's David Ignatius has some interesting comments from Lebanon's Walid Jumblatt on Tehran's close link to Damascus and the need for regime change in Syria.
|
|
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
|
| Rep. Pelosi Informed of NSA Surveillance Operation in October 2001 |
|
But it's unclear what Rep. Pelosi's position was on the program at the time. Her letter to then NSA director Gen. Michael Hayden leaves many questions unanswered. As a senior Republican Capitol Hill staffer told me: So let me get this straight: Pelosi knew about the NSA work back in October 2001—and her only problem with it was whether or not the President signed off on it? Does that mean that she believed the President has the authority to conduct this national security operation?
|
| James Risen's State of War & the Case of Abu Zubaydah |
|
Tom Joscelyn has an interesting take here on some of the anonymous sources cited in the New York Times reporter's new book.
|
| "Screw Them" -- Guess What Convention Will Be Hosting Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid as its Featured Speaker? (UPDATE) |
|
This one. Here is what the Daily Kos founder had to say a while back -- comments that got him removed from the Kerry for President web site blogroll. Wall Street Journal BY JAMES TARANTO Friday, April 2, 2004 5:08 p.m. EST (Update) From the Washington Post, April 11, 2004: 2 Victims In Fallujah Ambush Buried
|
| "Screw Them" -- Guess What Convention Will Be Hosting Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid as its Featured Speaker? |
|
This one. And below is what its founder had to say a while back -- comments that got him removed from the Kerry for President web site blogroll.
Wall Street Journal
|
| Liberals Explain Why they want Democrats to Regain Control of the House |
|
And it isn't to prosecute a more vigorous war against America's enemies. From The Nation: There are many reasons why it is crucial that the Democrats regain control of Congress in '06, but consider this one: If they do, there may be articles of impeachment introduced and the estimable John Conyers, who has led the fight to defend our constitution, would become Chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Wouldn't that be a truly just response to the real high crimes and misdemeanors that this lawbreaking president has so clearly committed? Here's more on Rep. Conyers.
|
|
Monday, January 02, 2006
|
| Because of U.S. Counterterrorism Efforts, "al-Qaeda Now Seems to Lack the Power to Conduct Another 9/11" |
|
New York Times reporter James Risen reaches this conclusion in his just released book, State of War. Let's see how many media outlets bother to quote it in their coverage of the book's other "revelations."
|
| Moussaoui, 9/11 & FISA -- How the Left Distorts History |
|
Gary Schmitt of the American Enterprise Institute has written extensively on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) -- see here and here. In the case of the 9/11 plot, Schmitt noted in the Washington Post that FISA might have prevented FBI agents from detecting and preventing the al Qaeda attack. Consider the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the French Moroccan who came to the FBI's attention before Sept. 11 because he had asked a Minnesota flight school for lessons on how to steer an airliner, but not on how to take off or land. Even with this report, and with information from French intelligence that Moussaoui had been associating with Chechen rebels, the Justice Department decided there was not sufficient evidence to get a FISA warrant to allow the inspection of his computer files. Had they opened his laptop, investigators might have begun to unwrap the Sept. 11 plot. But strange behavior and merely associating with dubious characters don't rise to the level of probable cause under FISA. Liberals claim that "FISA presented no barriers" to getting a warrant to examine Moussaoui's laptop. The failure to get one "was simply a case of a poorly trained agent" misinterpreting the law. Schmitt explains below why this latest FISA myth is nonsense. At first, “the myth” was that FISA played no role in the failure to examine Moussaoui’s laptop computer. But now that the quotes from the Joint Inquiry show that it was a central consideration, the new “myth” is apparently that FISA was misunderstood by "a poorly trained agent." If properly read, FISA was no problem at all.
|
|
Sunday, January 01, 2006
|
| In Case there was Any Doubt that Spain's Socialist Prime Minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Caved In to the Terrorists |
|
From today's Washington Post: After the March 11, 2004 train bombings in Madrid just before Spanish elections, a Norwegian think tank, Forsvarets Forskningsinstitutt, discovered an Islamist strategy paper on an obscure Web site that might have signaled the attacks ahead of time. The document said, "It is necessary to make utmost use of the upcoming general election in Spain in March next year. We think that the Spanish government could not tolerate more than two, maximum three blows, after which it will have to withdraw [troops from Iraq] as a result of popular pressure."
|
| The Truth About Iraq |
|
More straight talk from the New York Post's Ralph Peters. IRAQ made impressive progress in 2005. You wouldn't have known it from the daily news coverage or the surrender-now demands of left-wing extremists, but the long-suffering nation marched forward.
|

