
| « January 2006 | The Blog home page | March 2006 » |
|
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
|
| Khalid Shaikh Mohammed & the 2002 Bali Bombing |
|
Though hardly mentioned by the media nowadays, al Qaeda had set-up a global network long before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. Richard Clarke told PBS' Frontline that by the end of 2000 al Qaeda had a presence "in probably between 50-60 countries [and] that they had trained thousands, perhaps over 10,000 terrorists at the camps in Afghanistan." Many ended up in Southeast Asia. From the Associated Press: Official Ties al-Qaida to Indonesia Terror ![]()
|
| Parsing Howard Dean's Iran "Nuclear Power" Remark |
|
During a speech today accusing President Bush of being weak on defense, Dean stated that, under no circumstances will a Democratic Administration ever allow Iran to become a nuclear power. What is Dean exactly saying here? Why use the phrase "nuclear power"? Is this a "no tolerance" policy that Democrats would not allow Iran to acquire a single nuclear weapon? Or, is Dean saying Democrats would allow Iran to build nuclear weapons so as it didn't build enough of them to qualify as a "nuclear power"? Also, let's remember that it was the Clinton administration that rewarded North Korea -- see here -- by letting that government keeps its nuclear weapons and cheat on the "Framework" it signed. Republicans should ask Dean if he has something similar in mind for Iran.
|
| The Russia-China Alliance |
|
If Iran strikes a nuclear agreement with Russia, it won't be a shock to learn that Moscow also agreed (perhaps in a Gore-like secret side deal) to block any substantial Security Council action against Tehran. Beijing may also be in on the deal given China's huge energy interests in Iran. Such a deal would help Iran guard against the possibility that the West rejects the nuclear agreement and goes for UN sanctions against Tehran. To see the Moscow-Beijing alliance in action, look no further than Sudan. From ABC News: The U.N. Security Council remained divided Monday on imposing punitive measures over the conflict in Darfur despite calls for sanctions against Sudanese allegedly blocking peace in the region. Perhaps Bolton haters can lighten up a bit and support him on this one.
|
|
Monday, February 27, 2006
|
| Saddam & the "Afghan Arabs" |
|
Frequent Weekly Standard contributor Tom Joscelyn has some interesting material here on pre-war Iraq-al Qaeda contacts.
|
| (Update) The Anti-Chavez and Popular American Ally |
|
(Update II: Uribe supporters won big in yesterday's congressional elections, paving the way for passage of the U.S-Colombia free trade deal. With strong support in Congress and probable reelection in May, Uribe's offensive against the FARC will likely intensify. All of this is pretty remarkable given that just a few years ago the FARC greeted the newly elected president by firing mortars at the presidential palace while he took the oath of office inside. The attack, which killed dozens, led many analysts to offer grim assessments on Colombia's future. Uribe, who came to office after the fail of several "peace initiatives," has proven them wrong.) (Update: FARC terrorists continue their killing spree in their effort to destabilize Colombia's democracy. This time, AP reports, they gunned down eight unarmed town officials while they ate lunch.) Venezuela's Hugo Chavez gets lots of media attention with his anti-American rants. But in bordering Colombia, President Alvaro Uribe is a friend of America and an anti-terror ally. In a nation where tens of thousands have been killed and many more scarred physically and emotionally from decades of violence and terror, things are looking a bit brighter these days. Killings and kidnappings are down. Drug production has been cut. Foreign investment is rising; the economy has stabilized; and for the first time in almost a decade Standard & Poor’s boosted its rating for Colombian debt. Not bad for a man derided as a “hardliner” by his political opponents whose election, they warned voters, would be a disaster for Colombia. Right now, Uribe is on track to score another impressive election victory in May and that doesn't sit well with Colombia's FARC terrorists who on Saturday, the Associated Press reports, ambushed a civilian bus with gunfire, killing nine. "We don't understand how they can attack the unarmed civilian population in this way," Mendoza [Col. Jose Angel Mendoza, police chief of Caqueta state] said in an interview with RCN Radio.... Uribe's prospective reelection follows in the footsteps of other friends of America. Australia's John Howard won a fourth term, while Tony Blair was elected to an unprecedented third. German and Canadian voters followed up by rejecting candidates who ran anti-American campaigns. Now, that's quite a story. ![]()
|
| Democracy & Suicide Bombers |
|
"What the alternative to promoting freedom in the Middle East?" ask the editors of the Wall Street Journal today. They also point out that the years before September 11 coincided with the rise of al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah, the first World Trade Center bombing, the bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa and the USS Cole, the outbreak of the terrorist intifada in Israel, and September 11. Mr. Fukuyama may or may not be right that promoting democracy does not resolve the problem of terrorism in the short-term. What we know for sure is that tolerating dictatorship not only doesn't resolve the terrorist problem but actively nurtures it.... Indeed, Princeton economist Alan Krueger analyzed terrorism data collected by the U.S. State Department over the years. Here's what he found: Once a country's degree of civil liberties is taken into account ... income per capita bears no relation to involvement in terrorism. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, which have spawned relatively many terrorists, are economically well off yet lacking in civil liberties. Poor countries with a tradition of protecting civil liberties are unlikely to spawn terrorists. Evidently, the freedom to assemble and protest peacefully without interference from the government goes a long way to providing an alternative to terrorism. Tossing the president's democracy agenda overboard, as some critics advocate, would be a huge strategic blunder.
|
|
Sunday, February 26, 2006
|
| Iraq's Media Coverage of the Mosque Bombing v. Non-Iraqi Coverage |
|
State Department officials in Iraq produce a daily summary of overnight pan-Arabic and regional Iraqi TV news reports. Regarding the coverage of the mosque bombing, they note: The Iraqi media continues to be focused on pushing national unity and the idea that the government is in control and taking action. The pan-Arab media has offered a grimmer picture, but still not as dark as its Western counterparts, who continue to push the message that civil war in Iraq is just around the corner. The full summary follows: "OVERNIGHT PAN-ARABIC & REGIONAL IRAQI TELEVISION NEWS REPORT AS OF 0600, 26 February, 2006 Intent: This product is intended to provide information and situational awareness regarding the nightly news/early morning (from 2000 to 0600) broadcasts that are influencing Iraqi opinions and perceptions. Stations monitored are Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, Al Sharqiya, Al Fourat, and Al Iraqiya. Executive Summary: Overnight broadcast news was slow and focused mainly on repeating early evening stories, such as Al Sadr meeting with Association of Muslim Scholars (AMS) officials, the attack on the funeral procession of the slain Al Arabiya journalists, and the extension of the curfew. Details regarding the meeting at the Iraqi prime minister’s house of leading Iraqi figures did emerge, and it appears it was a productive gathering for building national unity. Curfew. Al Iraqiya reported throughout the night that the vehicular curfew had been extended in Baghdad from 6 am to 6 pm on Sunday, and that no vehicles are allowed to enter Baghdad during this time. Meanwhile, Al Sharqiya mentioned that Iraq has postponed the purchase of 1.5 million tons of wheat because of the curfew. Iraqi Leaders Meet. Al Iraqiya provided live coverage of a meeting at Prime Minister Al Jaafari’s residence between Iraqi government officials, Iraqi politicians, and leading clerics from all groups. The meeting lasted three hours, and the participants discussed how to ensure the current situation does not worsen into sectarian strife. The gathering finished with a joint prayer in which all participated. Al Sadr And AMS. Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya reported that Muqtadah Al Sadr and his supporters met with AMS leadership to absolve the Sadrist movement of any connection with attacks on Sunnis or Sunni mosques. The two sides held a joint press conference in which they blamed the “occupation” for the country’s current problems and called for a timetable for when the occupation would withdraw from Iraq. The meeting ended with a joint prayer. US Ambassador Says Risk Of War Diminished. Al Jazeera reported Ambassador Khalilzad said during a lengthy interview (not sure with whom) given on Saturday that there is still danger in Iraq, but the risk of war has been greatly diminished. He also added that America is ready to help Iraq in any manner and that Iraq’s failures are America’s failures too. Miscellanous. Al Fourat aired many protest images, and concentrated heavily on the female presence in the demonstrations, something our nightly monitor said was rare, as women are not normally seen in such processions with men. Meanwhile, Al Arabiya continued to focus heavy coverage on the death of its three journalists and their 25 February funeral procession that was attacked.
-- The curfew remain for Sunday starting 6am until 6am on Monday but for only cars and it's going to be no vehicles coming to or leaving from Baghdad. -- Aljaafari hold a meeting in his house with talibani and with the presence of US ambassador and top political leaders and after three hours meeting jaafari said:" The only enemy Iraqis have is terrorism , there is no Sunnis against Shiites, All or most expressed the importance of accelerating the political initiative without any delay". Sunnis politician who had pulled out of talks before attend the meeting. -- Alhakim urge Iraqis to calm down and united to not fail into terrorists (Attakfirieenes and Sadamieenes) trap. -- Foreign - Libyan minister in a phone call with Iraqis foreign minister condemn the attack on Samara -- The top Egyptian Sheikh of Al-Aazhar in a joint news conference with the Iraqi ambassador address people of Iraq to united and destroy the differentiation between sunnis and shiia's and be just a Muslims without secretarians. -- Atwar Bahjat funeral was attacked in Abu-Ghrib.
-- Religious leaders Sunnis and Shiites agree to united and they pray together for this accord to not attack each other. -- A joint press conference between MOI and MOD early afternoon they both confirm that they going to take a serious measures against terrorism and the media that support terrorist acts. -- ustrian airlines postpone their flights to Arbil north of Iraq -- raq postpones the purchase of 1.5 million ton of wheat because of the curfew.
-- Aljaafari meet with Kurdish and Arab Sunnis leaders at his house and call the Iraqis to unite and fight terrorism. -- Us Ambassador who has been criticized by shia's leaders this week for pushing to have Sunnis brought into government, said a unity government would help avert the risk of civil war, the risk he said had diminished on Saturday "There is still a danger" He told the reporter "But the risk of going to war because of the bombing has diminished." In a lengthy interview he assured Iraqis that Washington was ready to help in any way:" The USA has a lot invested in Iraq. Iraq's failures are ours" -- Earlier, Moktada Alsadr aides meet with Sunnis religious and political leaders and call for Muslim unity. -- Bush urges all Iraqi leaders on all sides to work together.
-- Frequently showing today demonstrations of people protesting and the camera was concreting on the heavy presence of women and this is unusual in Islam word Women don appear out with men in such occasions and without any comment. -- Prayers and Koran lectures -- Few times they show the joint press conference of MOD and MOI. -- Out of the air staring midnight.
-- Funeral of Atwar Bahjat take the big part in today broadcasting the funeral was attacked three death and four injuries. on the way back a car bombing explode the convoy change direction to faluja instead to Baghdad -- Joint press conference of MOD and MOI. -- Showing some sad pictures of women crying for death and of there love one in Iraq and Palestine. -- Sunnis and Muqtadah Alsadr Shiite leaders meet earlier to promote peace with a joint accord and blaming what is going one on the occupation asking the coalition to give agenda of pulling of Iraq as soon as possible, and they end the meeting with a joint prayer."
|
| McCain on Castro's Dictatorship |
|
From Sunday's Chattanooga Times Free Press: Friday afternoon, McCain attended a crowded Latin Builders Association lunch [in Miami].
|
|
Friday, February 24, 2006
|
| A Noam Chomsky Fan in Baghdad |
|
Lawrence Kaplan is back from Iraq and reports in the current New Republic on what he found, including this strange encounter with Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafiri. As a television in the corner of the room conveys images of the carnage outside, Jafari admits to being partial to the works of Noam Chomsky. Why won't Chomsky come to Iraq? he asks. The commissioners don't know what to say. And, apart from expressing doubts about a Chomsky visit, neither do I.
|
| Port Politics |
|
Some politicians and others have argued that allowing the U.A.E.'s DP World to manage six major US ports would inject an additional layer of security risk that we don't need. The White House disagrees. But for argument's sake, let's assume the deal will be scuttled on "security grounds." Opponents will claim victory. But they shouldn't if they're serious about their argument. Each year millions of containers are off-loaded at US ports. But a port's vulnerability doesn't begin at docking. It's just as vulnerable as soon as a ship enters its harbor. Hundreds of containers are on a ship, so a weaponized one buried deep inside isn't likely to be detected before detonation. That's why the Bush administration created the Container Security Initiative to monitor US-bound cargo as it's loaded onto a ship at a foreign port. DP World's takeover of the British firm, P & O, will add about two-dozen foreign ports to their current operations, which span the globe. Doesn't DP World's management of these ports also add security risk? Shouldn't opponents of the deal like Senators Clinton and Frist also be calling for a separate security regime for all ships entering US ports that have docked at a DP World foreign port beforehand or are they just playing politics? Congress is right to review the pending deal but it would be nice if they do so in a responsible way.
|
|
Thursday, February 23, 2006
|
| "The Mainstream Press has Capitulated to the Islamists" |
|
William Bennett and Alan Dershowitz write in today's Washington Post on the hypocrisy of the major media on the cartoon issue. The Vatican also weighs in on the controversy today.
|
| How About an Independent Investigation into Port Security Congressional Pork Barrel? |
|
"Port security has been totally neglected," said New York Sen. Chuck Schumer during a press conference with his fellow Democrats in July 2004. But as with so many other federal programs -- from the Army Corps to education, transportation and health care -- Congress, on a bipartisan basis, is also guilty of negligence. Spending is often not prioritized and is doled out according to a politicians' wishes leading to ridiculous results, such as the one described in this 60 Minutes episode in July 2005. KROFT: The 9/11 commission recommended that homeland security money be allocated to protect the most vulnerable strategic targets from attacks that would cause the most casualties or economic damage.
|
| Slow Talking Us into Another North Korea? |
|
Iran's talks with Moscow and now Beijing appear to be moving forward with Tehran "sounding more receptive to an enrichment joint venture with Russia...." But is any deal better than no deal? Back in 1994, Sen. McCain was a vocal opponent of the deal President Clinton struck with North Korea. He told PBS's Robert MacNeil that the US would come to "regret [the deal] very, very much" because Pyongyang gets to keep the handful of nuclear weapons it had already likely produced but also much more. McCain continued that even though North Korea has "violated the nonproliferation treaty egregiously time and time again, ... we are now rewarding them.... And not only are we saying it's okay to Korea, but we'll be saying that it's okay to Iran and other countries who will demand a similar deal." Today the Russians are doing the primary negotiating, but in the end Washington and Europe will have to make a judgment on whether to sign on to any deal struck. To this end, Gary Milhollin and Valerie Lincy of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control have offered some useful yardsticks in which to judge any "breakthrough" agreement.
...There is little doubt what this cooling-off period is intended for: further negotiations on a proposal that would have Iran shift its large-scale, energy-related uranium enrichment work to Russia.
|
|
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
|
| Keep Up the Good Work, Ambassador Bolton |
|
UN Ambassador John Bolton remains focused on reform in the face of the usual obstructionism that pervades Turtle Bay.
|
| What a Phony Dubai Debate |
|
I haven't made up my mind on whether the Dubai deal harms U.S. national security. I'll wait to hear what Bush officials have to say tomorrow before the Senate Armed Services Committee. But many others, who have obviously studied the pending deal with a fine toothcomb, have. Hotline reports that Ol' Blood n' Guts Martin O'Malley, the Democratic mayor of Baltimore and gubernatorial candidate, invoked the Stars & Strips in his call to arms. "We want to turn over the Port of Baltimore, the home of the 'Star Spangled Banner,' to the United Arab Emirates? Not so long as I'm mayor, and not so long as I have breath in my body." Give me a break. I don't remember the mayor fighting to his last "breath" efforts by many in his party to shut down the NSA program monitoring al Qaeda communications to people inside the U.S. -- perhaps even Baltimore. Others, as today's Wall Street Journal points out, are stoking the Dubai issue to bolster their protectionist cause. I doubt most of the people making categorical statements on the wisdom of the deal have a clue as to the nuts and bolts of port operations/security, the role the U.A.E. has played in the war on terror, or if there is another intelligence component to this that hasn't been made public. The current deal may or may not be a good idea but the debate, so far, is about as phony as Washington can get. In the end, my guess is that a compromise will be struck allowing an amended deal to move foward.
|
| What a Classy Letter to Send to the President of the United States |
|
North Carolina Republican Sue Myrick sent, and released to the press, the following "letter" to President Bush: February 22, 2006 One can disagree with the Dubai deal, but cheap media stunts like this one are usually reserved for Democrats.
|
|
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
|
| (Update) What Newly Released al Qaeda Letters on Somalia/U.S. Withdrawal Tell Us |
|
(Austin Bay has more here related to my post from last week) The Combating Terrorism Center at West Point has posted on its web site several al Qaeda-related documents that have been "captured in the course of operations supporting the GWOT." Two letters, dated September 30, 1993 and May 24, 1994, relate directly to al Qaeda operations in Somalia. The letters are from "Hassan al-Tajiki" to the "African Corps." Assuming their authenticity, the letters are consistent with the propaganda of bin Laden in the 1990s that Mogadishu and other events showed that America was "a paper tiger" and "a weak horse." He and his followers would use such imagery as a recruiting tool for al Qaeda, "the strong horse" in bin Laden's words, throughout the 1990s. In fact, though little reported in the media, al Qaeda had recruited and trained thousands before September 11, 2001. Indeed, Richard Clarke told PBS' Frontline that by the end of 2000 al Qaeda had a presence "in probably between 50-60 countries [and] that they had trained thousands, perhaps over 10,000 terrorists at the camps in Afghanistan." The September 30, 1993 letter called for attacks "to expel" US forces "from Somalia." (Later, a U.S. government indictment charged that bin Laden and other al Qaeda members had trained those who attacked the U.S. Rangers.) Therefore, the most important need is to expel them from Somalia, even were a semi-Islamic, semi-democratic, semi-etc. government subsequently to assume power.... The May 24, 1994 letter congratulates the Africa Corps for the "great victory" in the American withdrawal. It notes that the "victory in Somalia over the Americans has profound implications ideologically, politically, and psychologically..." and that the U.S. "fled in panic before their true capabilities could be exposed." Furthermore, "the Somali experience confirmed the spurious nature of American power and that it has not recovered from the Vietnam complex. It fears getting bogged down in a real war that would reveal its psychological collapse at the level of personnel and leadership. Since Vietnam America has been seeking easy battles that are completely guaranteed." We congratulate you, ourselves, and all Muslims for that great victory in the land of Islamic Somalia.... What's clear is that the supposed "stability" of the 1990s was illusory.
|
| McCain: Bush "has earned our trust in the war on terror...deserves the presumption that his administration would not sell our security short" |
|
Sen. McCain released the following statement on the Dubai port controversy: “We all need to take a moment and not rush to judgment on this matter without knowing all the facts. The President’s leadership has earned our trust in the war on terror, and surely his administration deserves the presumption that they would not sell our security short. Dubai has cooperated with us in the war and deserves to be treated respectfully. By all means, let’s do due diligence, get briefings, seek answers to all relevant questions and assurances that defense officials and the intelligence community were involved in the examination and approval of this transaction. In other words, let’s make a judgment when we possess all the pertinent facts. Until then, all we can offer is heat and little light to the discussion.”
|
| Tension Inside the Bush Administration Over Troop Levels in Iraq Hasn't Gone Away |
|
According to Time magazine, Pentagon officials have been saying for some time that Iraqis must take more responsibility for securing their country. But can these local forces protect its critical infrastructure without U.S. help? Top American officials disagree, and that has caused friction between the State and Defense departments and may complicate the planned reduction of U.S. troops. A Washington Post piece a month ago indicated similar friction.
|
| Confusing Times |
|
From the BBC: A curfew has been imposed in Bauchi in northern Nigerian after at least 13 people were killed in a sectarian riot. It began as an argument between a teacher and a pupil over the confiscation of a Koran in school. From the caption accompanying a photo in a Washington Post piece on rioters in Afghanistan: "Ataullah Najafi, ... in Herat, in West Afghanistan, shows the remains of hundreds of Korans burned by Sunni rioters who descended on the mosque on Feb. 9.
|
| In a State of Denial |
|
A few disgruntled folks at the State Department have again run to the Washington Post to air their grievances -- anonymously, of course. This time they're not happy with Secretary Rice's reorganization plan that reportedly doesn't include rogue operators walking the halls of Foggy Bottom. Rice and her top aides have sought to heal the damaging rifts that existed with the Pentagon and other agencies. Some State Department officials privately acknowledge that they used to be thrilled by the department's reputation as a renegade in President Bush's first term, but they say the message has become clear in the past year that such attitudes are no longer acceptable. "Thrilled" at sticking to their boss, the elected President of the United States? But the Post story gets better. A paragraph later one of the anonymous officials claims that they're really just professionals with no political axe to grind. "The suspicion is we would undermine the policy," said one of the officials who have felt sidelined. "That is what all of us find most offensive. We are here to serve any administration." But apparently, as the Post piece reveals, going around the back of their immediate boss was not "offensive" to their collective conscience. What was "offensive" to them was the White House's skeptical view of IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei, along with other "administration positions," which had made "several" of them "embarrassed for the United States." Thank you, Secretary Rice.
|
|
Monday, February 20, 2006
|
| Gingrich Likens Dubai Port Deal to "Panama Canal Treaty" |
|
Newt Gingrich pulled no punches late today when asked about the pending port deal by radio host Sean Hannity. Gingrich was a vocal critic of the Panama Canal Treaty in his younger days. And the architect of that treaty, Jimmy Carter, has endorsed the port deal.
|
| An Anti-Corruption Offensive the Left and the Right Should Embrace |
|
It was odd that one of the biggest barriers to lifting nations out of chronic poverty -- rampant government and business corruption -- didn't appear on the radar screen at the World Economic Forum at Davos a few weeks back. There wasn't a single panel discussion on a problem that some say costs poorer nations up to twenty-five percent of their national income. Nonetheless, instigated by people tired of empty promises, horrible living conditions, and out-right thievery an anti-corruption wave, has gathered some momentum. The BBC reported on this campaign over the weekend. While today's Washington Post reports on anti-corruption efforts in Kenya -- "'We're a thirsty land of empty promises. Other countries have droughts and you never see their people dying,' Ciira said in this town 50 miles northwest of Nairobi. As she spoke, people gathered around her, some waving copies of one of Kenya's daily newspapers, the Nation, with a three-page spread detailing the largest scandals." -- and at the World Bank under the leadership of Paul Wolfowitz. The bank has frozen lending to Chad, whose government had reneged on a promise to spend its oil revenue on poverty reduction. Although Chad is a small country, the frozen loans were high-profile: They were an attempt to defy the "curse of oil" and make petrodollars serve development. It took some courage to admit that the curse of oil remained unbroken.
|
| The Assassination Campaign Against Moderate Muslim Scholars in Somalia |
|
Since the early 1990s, radical Islamists have targeted Somalia. Back then, American forces and U.N peacekeepers were the target. Today, as in other regions of the world, they are also increasingly aiming their gun sights on moderate Muslims. From the BBC: The fighting pits a new group, the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism, against the Islamic Courts' militia....
|
| Two Washington Post Editorials on Democracy Promotion Worth Reading |
|
|
Sunday, February 19, 2006
|
| A New Fatwa for Iran's "Peaceful" Nuclear Program? |
|
"Iran's hardline spiritual leaders have issued an unprecedented new fatwa, or holy order, sanctioning the use of atomic weapons against its enemies," reports the Telegraph. In yet another sign of Teheran's stiffening resolve on the nuclear issue, influential Muslim clerics have for the first time questioned the theocracy's traditional stance that Sharia law forbade the use of nuclear weapons.
|
| Forty Percent of British Muslims want Sharia Law Introduced |
|
Britain's Sunday Telegram reports on the results of a recent poll of British Muslims here.
|
| A Disgraceful Act Against a Medal of Honor Recipient |
|
And these are the kind of people the University of Washington "wants to produce" nowadays? I hope not. From the Wall Street Journal's John Fund: 'Pappy' Shot Down by Campus Ignoramuses
|
|
Saturday, February 18, 2006
|
| "Paradox of Poverty in the Midst of Plenty" |
|
The BBC reports on the anti-corruption campaigns being launched by many African nations. Corruption costs African countries an estimated 25% of its combined national income, Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo said - some $148bn a year.
|
| No Talks, No Recognition, No U.S. Taxpayer Money |
|
Newly-elected members of Hamas have been officially sworn in and now control the Palestinian parliament. But spokesman Sami abu-Zuhri says Hamas isn't interested in peace initiatives. From the BBC: "Hamas rejects negotiations with the occupation under the current circumstances, while occupation and aggression continues," he said. 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. government should also consider discouraging private investment in their financial markets.
|
|
Friday, February 17, 2006
|
| Truckloads of Arms and Missiles from Syria to the "Lebanese Resistance"? |
|
From Reuters: The United Nations on Tuesday asked Lebanon to explain reports of arms shipments crossing the Syrian border destined for the Lebanese guerrilla group Hizbollah.
|
| (Update) "Politicized" Intelligence and the CIA |
|
(Update II: Today's Wall Street Journal has a piece by a former CIA intelligence officer on the "dodgy disclosures" of Paul Pillar and how his actions "will end up making the CIA even less relevant than it is today--if that is possible.") (Update I: Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) told Tim Russert on Sunday's Meet the Press that Paul Pillar said nothing about subtle political pressure on analysts when he was interviewed as part of the committee's investigation of pre-war intelligence. "Now we interviewed over 250 analysts during the WMD—the WMD inquiry, including this gentleman [Mr. Pillar]. Not one, except him now, post after all this is done, said that they were pressured in any way. And that was backed up by the WMD commission.") Not surprisingly, the Washington Post's Walter Pincus reports on an upcoming Foreign Affairs piece by Paul Pillar, the CIA's national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005. Pillar's views are old news, of course, as Stephen Hayes points out. He believed that "containment" was working and that Saddam could have been kept "in his box" -- a favorite phrase of Secretary of State Albright during the Clinton years. Fine. But the president, elected by the voters to make policy judgments, and many others disagreed then and still do today with Pillar's "in his box" assessment -- see here. Since the Iraq invasion, Pillar hasn't apparently been shy in letting people know "privately" and also publicly about the wisdom of the CIA and the ignorance of the Bush White House. Pincus writes: The Bush administration, Pillar wrote, "repeatedly called on the intelligence community to uncover more material that would contribute to the case for war," including information on the "supposed connection" between Hussein and al Qaeda, which analysts had discounted. Of course, Mr. Pillar's dismissive comments are puzzling given that, at the time, U.S. intelligence had no high-level, human assets in Saddam’s inner circle let alone inside the top ranks of al Qaeda. For example, consider these two congressional reports, the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 (pp. 90, 91), and the Report on U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq (pp. 322, 323, 351, 355): “The U.S. Intelligence Community was not able to penetrate al Qaeda’s inner circle successfully before September 11, despite the fact that human penetration of that organization was considered a priority.” But then again, perhaps the people who wrote these reports were "subtly" pressured to reach these conclusions.
|
|
Thursday, February 16, 2006
|
| The Connection between the Spring 1995 Saddam Tape and the March 2003 Invasion |
|
Not that facts matter anyone more in the Iraq debate, but Nightline's report last night on Saddam's tape-recorded meetings, specifically the April/May 1995 one, is key to understanding the 2003 decision to invade. On the tape, Saddam's son-in-law, Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamal, briefs Saddam on his efforts to hide weapons information from UN inspectors. A short time later, in August, Kamal would defect to Jordan. His defection would fully expose the massive concealment campaign the Iraqi government had conducted of its weapons programs. UNSCOM chief Richard Butler told to the Security Council “that a program of concealment, run at a very senior level in Iraq, must have operated successfully for over four years without detection by the Commission.” He added that with the defection, [i]mmediately, the entire basis upon which the Commission was conducting its assessments and analysis was undermined. It became clear that Iraq’s declaration of March 1992 was itself a fraud; everything had NOT been declared to the Commission; everything had not been destroyed. 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 UNMOVIC head Hans Blix said on the verification standard in late January 2003. 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. 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.
|
| Will the Successes of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Iraq Endure? |
|
Tom Ricks of the Washington Post reports on the achievements of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Iraq under the command of Col. H.R. McMaster. It's an encouraging read until the concluding paragraphs. Even now, McMaster said, he understands that his success is "fragile." The city's mayor, Najim Abdullah Jabouri, is unhappy that McMaster and his unit are leaving Iraq this month. "A surgeon doesn't leave in the middle of the operation!" the mayor said intently to McMaster over a recent lunch of lamb kabobs and bread. He waved his finger under the colonel's nose. "The doctor should finish the job he started."
|
|
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
|
| What Newly Released al Qaeda Letters on Somalia/U.S. Withdrawal Tell Us |
|
The Combating Terrorism Center at West Point has posted on its web site several al Qaeda-related documents that have been "captured in the course of operations supporting the GWOT." Two letters, dated September 30, 1993 and May 24, 1994, relate directly to al Qaeda operations in Somalia. The letters are from "Hassan al-Tajiki" to the "African Corps." Assuming their authenticity, the letters are consistent with the propaganda of bin Laden in the 1990s that Mogadishu and other events showed that America was "a paper tiger" and "a weak horse." He and his followers would use such imagery as a recruiting tool for al Qaeda, "the strong horse" in bin Laden's words, throughout the 1990s. In fact, though little reported in the media, al Qaeda had recruited and trained thousands before September 11, 2001. Indeed, Richard Clarke told PBS' Frontline that by the end of 2000 al Qaeda had a presence "in probably between 50-60 countries [and] that they had trained thousands, perhaps over 10,000 terrorists at the camps in Afghanistan." The September 30, 1993 letter called for attacks "to expel" US forces "from Somalia." (Later, a U.S. government indictment charged that bin Laden and other al Qaeda members had trained those who attacked the U.S. Rangers.) Therefore, the most important need is to expel them from Somalia, even were a semi-Islamic, semi-democratic, semi-etc. government subsequently to assume power.... The May 24, 1994 letter congratulates the Africa Corps for the "great victory" in the American withdrawal. It notes that the "victory in Somalia over the Americans has profound implications ideologically, politically, and psychologically..." and that the U.S. "fled in panic before their true capabilities could be exposed." Furthermore, "the Somali experience confirmed the spurious nature of American power and that it has not recovered from the Vietnam complex. It fears getting bogged down in a real war that would reveal its psychological collapse at the level of personnel and leadership. Since Vietnam America has been seeking easy battles that are completely guaranteed." We congratulate you, ourselves, and all Muslims for that great victory in the land of Islamic Somalia.... What's clear is that the supposed "stability" of the 1990s was illusory.
|
| Score Another One for Riyadh |
|
First, Al Gore's pandering and now the EU's citadel of strength, Javier Solana, does the same in that paragon of religious tolerance otherwise known as Saudi Arabia. From Australia's The Age: EU chief tries to calm cartoons dispute February 14, 2006
|
|
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
|
| Evaluating the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review |
|
Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations weighs in, and Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute does the same here.
|
| Who Paid Al Gore? |
|
Vice President Gore is probably collecting lots of cash nowadays in speaking fees. There's nothing wrong with that, of course. But it would be interesting to know who paid Gore to travel to Saudi Arabia, the breeding ground of Islamic extremism, to accuse America of committing "terrible abuses" against Arabs after September 11. Who exactly invited him and who paid his expenses and fees? I'm sure Gore, who was an advocate for transparency while in government, would gladly release this information if asked by the media.
|
| Two Different "Protests" in Lebanon |
|
Many of the so-called cartoon protests have drawn perhaps a few thousand radical Islamists at best. Their protest tools include organized acts violence and threats to kill those who publish material they don't like. But in Lebanon, the contrast between violent and non-violent protest could not be greater. On February 5, Muslim extremists, numbering perhaps in the thousands and cheered on by the Assad government, torched the Danish embassy in Beirut. But today, hundreds of thousands of mainly Sunnis marked the first anniversary of the Syrian orchestrated assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in a very different way. From the AP: Hundreds of thousands of flag-waving Lebanese packed a square in central Beirut on Tuesday to mark the anniversary of the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a momentous event that ended Syria's long domination of its smaller neighbor....
|
|
Monday, February 13, 2006
|
| NY Times Publishes Hit Piece on the International Republican Institute but won't let them Respond |
|
Most Americans haven't heard of the International Republican Institute, but for over 20 years IRI has helped advance democracy in the world. IRI has monitored elections in over 160 nations with little or no history in democracy -- and supports democracy efforts in many others. But the New York Times published a lengthy piece, "Mixed U.S. Signals Helped Tilt Haiti Toward Chaos," two weeks ago highly critical of IRI's role in Haiti, accusing IRI of undercutting official U.S. policy there and worse. IRI's president, Lorne Craner, penned a response to the Times' accusations but they have refused to print it without "substantive edits." As a result, Craner responds to the New York Times in today's Washington Times. Also, a point by point rebuttal may be found on the IRI web site. The entire text of the Washington Times piece follows: A false picture of Aristide By Lorne W. Craner "Mixed U.S. Signals Helped Tilt Haiti Toward Chaos," claimed a recent New York Times headline. The three-page article charged that rogue Bush administration officials connived with the International Republican Institute to undermine democracy in Haiti. I sent a 189-word response to the Times. They refused to print it without substantive edits, in part, they said, because "the News Department disputes the accuracy of" a sentence in my letter. The Times contends that IRI "undercut the official United States policy and the Ambassador [Dean Curran] assigned to carry it out." IRI allegedly did so in collusion with rogue administration officials who differed with Secretary of State Colin Powell's Haiti policy. "As a result the United States spoke with two sometimes contradictory voices," which, says Mr. Curran, "made efforts to foster political peace 'immeasurably more difficult.' " The article charges that IRI consorted with rebels who overthrew President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Mr. Aristide is depicted as a man who "wanted to raise the minimum wage and force businesses to pay taxes" but "did not know much about the games that politicians play." The article's problems start with its title. Haiti did not tilt toward chaos in 2004. Sadly, it has been chaotic for most of the last two centuries. Second, the article's underpinning, that a rogue group under Colin Powell opposed his Haiti policy, was contradicted by Mr. Powell himself before the article was published. Asked in an e-mail from the Times if there was a policy difference between him and the officials, Mr. Powell responded: "I don't accept that view." The Times neglected to mention Mr. Powell's response, maintaining the article's false foundation. Third, former Ambassador Curran's complaints about IRI are echoed by neither his predecessors nor his successors (indeed, the Times cropped Mr. Curran's predecessor, who praised IRI, from a photo of IRI officials). Furthermore, both the Clinton and Bush administrations granted every IRI request for Agency for International Development Haiti funding. Mr. Curran's charges are backed by three Haitians, all of whom are onetime Aristide allies and have obvious motivations to criticize IRI. More to the point, IRI did not "undercut" Mr. Curran by urging Haiti's opposition to forego negotiations with Mr. Aristide. In fact, IRI's vice president (at the request of one of the rogue officials) phoned opposition leaders to urge them to reach an accommodation with Mr. Aristide. If Mr. Curran did feel "undercut" by rogue officials or IRI, why did he fail to raise the issue directly with Mr. Powell or through the State Department's "dissent channel"? Used more than 200 times since 1971, it enables any foreign service officer to send policy dissents straight to the secretary. A fourth problem is the charge that IRI consorted with the rebels who overthrew Mr. Aristide. The source, an accused death-squad leader, is hardly the quality one once expected of the Times. As the article notes, the charge was investigated and found false by AID's inspector-general. A fifth problem is the depiction of Mr. Aristide, whose tendencies are gently implied ("Aristide... had little experience with the give and take of democracy"). The article's author, Walt Bogdanich, said recently "Haiti doesn't have a democracy and hasn't had one in two years" since Mr. Aristide's 2004 departure. Past Times editorials were more honest. The November 2000 Times editorial "Haiti's Disappearing Democracy," said Mr. Aristide's "almost certain return to power in Sunday's elections was achieved by trampling on democratic procedures. The weeks before the voting were marred by bombings and other politically motivated violence." A February 2004 editorial, "Haiti's Descent," said "Aristide was once hailed as Haiti's democratic champion. Now, his second presidency is declining into despotism." For the reasons those editorials detailed, IRI did, as charged, work solely with Haiti's democrats from 2001-2004. President Reagan did not help create IRI to work with those practicing "despotism." Doing so would also contravene longstanding AID policy. Career AID officials approved IRI's approach to helping level Haiti's political playing field, and knew who IRI was training because they attended every session. Last but not least, in stringing together disparate rumors while omitting contradictory facts, the Times merely echoed 2004 Mother Jones and Salon.com articles. The author of the latter says the Times "story was remarkably similar to a story I wrote nearly two years ago. On Jan. 3, 2005 a New York Times staffer named Ursula Andrews e-mailed me, asking for help with research. I was excited that the newspaper of record was finally picking up on the story and complied with their request. When the Times published its story, it contained no citation of my work." IRI is not the reason for Haiti's chaos, or the reason Mr. Aristide had to flee. No one would have been happier than IRI if democracy had advanced under Mr. Aristide. Instead, as Mr. Powell states, Mr. Aristide was "a man who was democratically elected, but did not govern democratically, or govern well." And he has to bear a large burden, if not the major burden, for what has happened.
|
| Hillary Clinton's Sister Souljah Moment? |
|
Does Hillary Clinton agree with the remarks made by Vice President Gore at the Jiddah Economic Forum? Does she believe it was appropriate that Al Gore told "mainly Saudi audience ... that the U.S. government committed 'terrible abuses' against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks"? Does she agree with Gore that "Arabs had been 'indiscriminately rounded up' and held in 'unforgivable' conditions" and that "the Bush administration was playing into al-Qaida's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications."? If the Senator doesn't, will she let the public know that Gore's comments do not reflect the view of other Clinton administration officials?
|
| The Project on Transitional Democracies Announces Bid for RosUkrEnergo. But who are the Owners? |
|
Outside of its current shareholders, no one is exactly sure. RosUkrEnergo is a Swiss-registered company, formed in the aftermath of the Kremlin's cut off of the Ukrainian gas supply in January, that is now supposed to be the guarantor of Ukraine's gas supply -- and make billions and billions doing so. But who will get these billions is a good question. Bruce Jackson, who heads The Project on Transitional Democracies, believes the money belongs to "the people of the Ukraine" and wants to make sure that happens. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
|
|
Sunday, February 12, 2006
|
| Richard Clarke Joins Gov. Mark Warner's Content-Free Presidential Run? |
|
The Sunday Times in Britain reports that the onetime counterterrorism czar and Kerry '04 supporter, Richard Clarke, has been coaching former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner on national security affairs. For his part, Warner has learnt not to question the decision to invade Iraq. As a former governor, rather than a senator like Clinton, he does not have to explain away any embarrassing votes for or against military intervention.
As to foreign policy, though, Warner has been virtually content free. For example, on Iraq he won't say how he would have voted on the war authorization had he been in Congress at the time. He won't tell voters if he would have regretted his vote today had he supported the authorization back then. He won't say whether he believes the president made the right decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power in March 2003 or whether he believes the President should have given UN inspectors more time. Guess he's waiting to see how things look in Iraq a year or so from now. One New Hampshire Democrat, who recently heard a Warner campaign pitch, put it this way: Some confessed to mild disappointment. “He was okay,” said one, who did not wish to be named. Another, Stuart West, said Warner was too right-wing. “He avoided gay marriage and women’s rights. And did he condemn the war? No.” Stay tuned.
|
|
Saturday, February 11, 2006
|
| The American Bar Association's Phony NSA Surveillance Poll |
|
On CBS News radio this morning, I listened to an interview with someone from the ABA who cited the results of a recent poll the group commissioned on the NSA surveillance program. You won't be surprised to learn that the ABA poll, unlike other polls, found that a majority of Americans oppose the program. But to get these results they had to "cook the books." The poll results were weighted for age, sex, race and geography but apparently not political affiliation/leanings. But even if one assumes the political distribution was about right, the poll questions, as you'll see here, were misleading, to put mildly, and omitted key facts. For example, perhaps you didn't know that the president, through the NSA program, has suspended "the constitutional freedoms of people like you." And somehow the pollster forgot to mention the name "al Qaeda" or the fact that the program is attempting to rapidly intercept communications from an al Qaeda terrorist outside the U.S. to a person inside the U.S. You know, the situation where an al Qaeda terrorist is picked-up in Malaysia with his pockets stuffed with American phone numbers and names -- or perhaps with those names and numbers on his computer hard drive. Here's the ABA's press release announcing the poll results: CHICAGO, Feb.10, 2006 – According to a poll commissioned by the American Bar Association and released today, 52 percent of respondents said that in the fight against terrorism, the President of the United States alone cannot suspend constitutional freedoms, with an additional 25 percent saying he must obtain authorization by a court of law or Congress. Thus 77 percent of Americans express deep reservations about the president’s secret surveillance program.... Nice spin, Mr. Greco. Howard Dean couldn't have done a better job.
|
|
Friday, February 10, 2006
|
| (Update) "Politicized" Intelligence and the CIA |
|
(Update: Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) told Tim Russert on Sunday's Meet the Press that Paul Pillar said nothing about subtle political pressure on analysts when he was interviewed as part of the committee's investigation of pre-war intelligence. "Now we interviewed over 250 analysts during the WMD—the WMD inquiry, including this gentleman [Mr. Pillar]. Not one, except him now, post after all this is done, said that they were pressured in any way. And that was backed up by the WMD commission.") Not surprisingly, the Washington Post's Walter Pincus reports on an upcoming Foreign Affairs piece by Paul Pillar, the CIA's national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005. Pillar's views are old news, of course, as Stephen Hayes points out. He believed that "containment" was working and that Saddam could have been kept "in his box" -- a favorite phrase of Secretary of State Albright during the Clinton years. Fine. But the president, elected by the voters to make policy judgments, and many others disagreed then and still do today with Pillar's "in his box" assessment -- see here. Since the Iraq invasion, Pillar hasn't apparently been shy in letting people know "privately" and also publicly about the wisdom of the CIA and the ignorance of the Bush White House. Pincus writes: The Bush administration, Pillar wrote, "repeatedly called on the intelligence community to uncover more material that would contribute to the case for war," including information on the "supposed connection" between Hussein and al Qaeda, which analysts had discounted. Of course, Mr. Pillar's dismissive comments are puzzling given that, at the time, U.S. intelligence had no high-level, human assets in Saddam’s inner circle let alone inside the top ranks of al Qaeda. For example, consider these two congressional reports, the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 (pp. 90, 91), and the Report on U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq (pp. 322, 323, 351, 355): “The U.S. Intelligence Community was not able to penetrate al Qaeda’s inner circle successfully before September 11, despite the fact that human penetration of that organization was considered a priority.” But then again, perhaps the people who wrote these reports were "subtly" pressured to reach these conclusions.
|
| And Democrats Don't Use National Security to Gain Political Advantage? |
|
Jim VandeHei reports in today's Washington Post that Vice President Cheney suggested last night that the debate over spying on overseas communications to or from terrorism suspects should be a political issue in this year's congressional elections.... VandeHei continued: His comments reflected the emerging GOP plan to make national security and terrorism the centerpiece of House and Senate elections. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove telegraphed the strategy last month when he told a Republican audience that "we are dealing with two parties that have fundamentally different views on national security." And Democrats haven't been using Iraq, Iran, the failure to get OBL, the Patriot Act, the NSA surveillance program and on and on in an effort to gain political advantage? Please. Remember Sen. Harry Reid's stunt a while back forcing the entire Senate into a secret session on Iraq? The problem for Democrats is that the majority of voters don't agree with them, as Sen. Kerry found out.
|
|
Thursday, February 09, 2006
|
| Cartoons Published in Egypt last October? |
|
Andrew Sullivan has the story here.
|
| Howard Dean's Foot-in-Mouth Disease Reappears |
|
So while others in America are worried about an Iranian nuclear weapon, the nation's top Democrat has other anxieties about Iran that keep him up at night. Forget about the Iranian president's desire to "wipe" Israel off the map and threat to choke off oil supplies to the West, Chairman Dean is more concerned with an elected president of the U.S. turning our nation into a fundamentalist dictatorship. Consider the following from today's ABC News' The Note: while discussing domestic surveillance on ABC's Good Morning America, DNC Chairman Howard Dean said many in the Republican Party disagree with the President, adding that all Democrats are asking is that "we don't turn this country into a country like Iran, where the president of Iran can do everything he wants at any time." Pathetic, but I'm sure Sen. Kerry agrees with him.
|
| And to Think He Almost Became President |
|
From his gimmicky "Home from Iraq by the Holidays" troop withdrawal plan to his filibuster yodel from the Swiss Alps, Sen. John Kerry's free fall continues. In today's Washington Post, Kerry now trots out this gem concerning the violent assault directed at a newspaper published in a free society. "These and other inflammatory images deserve our scorn, just as the violence against embassies and military installations are an unacceptable and intolerable form of protest." As Marshall Wittmann over at the Democratic Leadership Council points out, It is a delusion to believe that these mobs will be appeased by a moral equivalent condemnation of both the cartoons and the violence. Democrats, in particular, must make it clear that this has nothing to do with "offensive" cartoons and everything to do with a war against Western values. Of course, Kerry's moral equivalence characterization is exactly wrong. His weak-kneed remark will only embolden the radical elements and further undermine Islamic moderates. His words must be music to the ears of people like Mr. Abu-Laban, who, the Wall Street Journal reports, is under pressure "for results." Under pressure from young radicals for results, Mr. Abu-Laban, the Copenhagen cleric at the forefront of the campaign, and several others formed the "European Committee for Honoring the Prophet," an umbrella group that now claims to represent 27 organizations across a wide spectrum of the Islamic community. (Moderate Muslims dispute this and say the group has been hijacked by radicals.) Thank you Ohio voters!
|
|
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
|
| Former Sec. of State Eagleburger on Cartoon Violence: "The Democratic World...Needs to be Awakened to the Fact that We Now have a Serious Threat of Radical Islam." |
|
In an interview yesterday with Neil Cavuto of Fox News, the Secretary of State under the first President Bush didn't pull any punches. CAVUTO: What do you make of the ferocity of the response to this cartoon?
|
| Today's NY Sun Iraq-WMD Piece and ISG Inspections |
|
In his latest piece on Iraq's WMDs, the New York Sun's Eli Lake reports on the work of David Gaubatz, a former member of the Air Force's Office of Special Investigations. He writes: A former special investigator for the Pentagon during the Iraq war said he found four sealed underground bunkers in southern Iraq that he is sure contain stocks of chemical and biological weapons. But when he asked American weapons inspectors to check out the sites, he was rebuffed.... While at this point we have no way of verifying Mr. Gaubatz's bunker claims, we do know that ISG inspections were not extensive and were plagued by many problems. As Duelfer's September 2004 report noted, the ISG “fully evaluated less than one quarter of one percent of the over 10,000 weapons caches throughout Iraq, and visited fewer than ten ammunition depots identified prior to OIF [Operation Iraqi Freedom] as suspect CW [Chemical Weapons] sites.” In addition, the ISG had inspected approximately 10 percent “or less of the total Iraqi munitions stocks” that were estimated at over 600,000 tons. Rather than visiting every site, inspectors sought out those sites “most likely associated with possible storage or deployment of chemical weapons.” In the end, the Duelfer report stated, the ISG visited only two dozen or so sites. Out of 104 ammunition storage points within the "Red Line" ringing Baghdad, the ISG used “indicators of CW—such as possible decontamination vehicles—to narrow the search to 26 sites.” The result of this search uncovered “no caches of CW munitions.” The Duelfer report concluded: “[A]lthough only a fraction of the hundreds of thousands of tons of Iraqi munitions were inspected, ISG has a high confidence that there are no CW present in the Iraqi inventory.” The report also declared that the “security situation in Iraq has limited the physical verification of Iraq’s unilateral destruction claims—by excavating and counting weapon fragments, for example.” And it noted that the "the amount of inspections ISG was able to carry out was consistent with the resources available, and the safety factors involved in carrying out the inspections of munitions facilities."
|
| That's Some Bumper Sticker |
|
A former advisor to Vice President Al Gore offers a Pattonesque battle cry for Democrats: If Democrats get sucked into a debate over tactics in the war on terror, they will lose. But it's hard to see how they lose if they wage the debate over the rule of law and if they show their willingness to amend the law to strengthen the war on terror. Democrats better be careful, though. The ACLU may sue them for copyright infringement.
|
|
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
|
| Democrats, Please Follow |
|
this campaign advice and make RNC chair Ken Mehlman a very happy man.
|
| "China's Rise is Similar to that of Democratic India"? |
|
Somehow I doubt Director Negroponte actually believes this. From The Washington Times: A new Pentagon strategy report and recent congressional testimony by the director of national intelligence show the Bush administration remains divided on the threat posed by China's rise. The Quadrennial Defense Review report made public last week bluntly states that China is the greatest potential challenge to the U.S. military and is rapidly building up its military. John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, by contrast, stated in an annual intelligence threat briefing for Congress that China's rise is similar to that of democratic India.... Mr. Negroponte's softer comments on China contrast with those of CIA Director Porter J. Goss last year when he told the same committee that China's modernizing military forces 'threaten' U.S. forces and interests in Asia. Oh, and here's the latest on China's missile build-up opposite democratic Taiwan.
|
| Remember "What Happened" to Theo Van Gogh |
|
A piece (sub. req'd) in today's Wall Street Journal, "How Muslim Clerics Stirred Arab World Against Denmark," isn't good news for European governments seeking to avoid future problems by groveling as the European Union's justice minister recently did in suggesting a tighter code of media conduct. Young Islamic radicals are getting better organized under the leadership, in this case, of a cleric who consorted with a 1993 World Trade Center conspirator. In Aarhus, Demmark's second-largest city, a radical cleric gave an interview denouncing Mr. Rose and reminding him of "what happened" to Theo Van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker murdered in 2004 by a Dutchman of Moroccan descent. Mr. Rose got a security briefing from police and had his telephone number and address delisted.
|
|
Monday, February 06, 2006
|
| A Taliban Waiting Game? |
|
Sean Naylor has an interesting piece in the latest Armed Forces Journal. Will U.S. forces leave Afghanistan too soon? He writes: The Taliban forces are playing a clever waiting game. According to U.S. Special Forces (SF) officers, whenever possible, the insurgents are lying low, avoiding high-profile attacks on U.S. and coalition forces. Their aim, the SF officers say, is to convince U.S. commanders and their political masters that the Taliban no longer poses a major threat to stability in Afghanistan and that it’s time to withdraw U.S. forces from the country. If that happens before Afghan government forces are ready to assume full responsibility for the country’s security, the officers say, a war that all commanders claim they are winning could still be lost.
|
| Three Cheers for John Bolton |
|
From the Washington Post's "In the Loop" column: "U.N. Ambassador John Bolton , who's president of the Security Council this month, is making some headway in imposing law and order at the notoriously fractious council -- but it's not been easy. At his first session last week, Bolton tried to impose fresh discipline and some new practices. First, he asked top U.N. staff to provide the council with daily briefings on the latest peacekeeping crises, irking council members who abhor changes and sparking groans from staff. Then, he proposed discussions on corruption in U.N. peacekeeping, which is proving unpopular -- the issue's not considered a threat to international peace and security by some. Most controversial of all, he insisted that all 15 Security Council members show up to meetings on time, at 10 a.m. Asked Thursday by a reporter whether he really thought he could start the council meetings on time, Bolton said he had failed. 'I took a list of when they came in. We started just before 10:15. I brought the gavel down at 10. I was the only one in the room, though.'" While the far left isn't happy with Ambassador Bolton's reform efforts, the rest of America wants him to succeed.
|
| A Rather Odd UN Statement on those Cartoons |
|
From today's Beirut Daily Star: "The secretary general is alarmed by the threats and violence, including the attacks on embassies, that have occurred in Syria and Lebanon and other countries over the past few days," a statement attributed to Annan, issued by his spokesman Stephane Dujarric, said. Shouldn't the Secretary General's spokesman just make a categorical statement against the violence rather than adding the "least of all" qualification?
|
|
Sunday, February 05, 2006
|
| The President's Constitutional Powers and the NSA Surveillance Program |
|
This 24-page brief on the president's constitutional authority to conduct the NSA surveillance provides a strong and detailed legal defense of the president's actions. Its author is a former career national security official who served during the Clinton administration, as well as the current administration. And over at National Review Online, Andrew McCarthy has an excellent post, "IS THE PRESIDENT 'ABOVE THE LAW?' (scroll down a bit)," on the amnesia of several former Clinton administration officials on the FISA issue.
|
|
Saturday, February 04, 2006
|
| Shedding Light on the CIA |
|
This piece, "Iraq, Niger, and the CIA," from the current National Journal is linked to by Rep. John Conyers on his blog. Rest assured, Rep. Conyers, who spends lots of time pushing the president's impeachment, wouldn't link to any piece if he believed it flattered the White House. But apart from whether the Journal article accurately reflects the actions and motivations of Bush officials, the piece surely doesn't put elements of the CIA -- an agency many on the Left have nowadays come to love -- in a very good light either. Here's why. The article notes: CIA analysts wrote then-CIA Director George Tenet in a highly classified memo on June 17, 2003, "We no longer believe there is sufficient" credible information to "conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad." The memo was titled: "In Response to Your Questions for Our Current Assessment and Additional Details on Iraq's Alleged Pursuits of Uranium From Abroad." Of course, Libby's lack of confidence in CIA weapons assessments is understandable. After all, the CIA was clueless on Saddam's nuclear program in 1991 -- a program that "resembled the Manhattan project" as the Washington Post described at the time of its discovery. The Agency also played a big role in producing the infamous 2002 NIE on Iraq's wmd programs. And despite the best efforts of many inside the beltway to blame the flawed NIE on White House pressure, two commissions found no evidence to support the allegation. From the Silberman/Robb Commission: The Commission has found no evidence of "politicization" of the Intelligence Community's assessments concerning Iraq's reported WMD programs. No analytical judgments were changed in response to political pressure to reach a particular conclusion. And the Senate's 2004 prewar intelligence report: The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities. So it's tough to get a good handle on whether the CIA "minimizes" or "maximizes" its threat assessments -- at least based on its Iraq performance. Anyway, the Journal piece also notes that by June 2003 the CIA told policymakers that "[s]ince learning that the Iraqi-Niger uranium deal was based on false documents earlier this spring, we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq purchased uranium from abroad." This was quite a reversal from its previous reporting. In the run-up to the Iraq War, the CIA had consistently approved the uranium language that was used in the speeches of administration officials. Again, according to the 2004 Senate intelligence report, 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) 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) But even if the CIA eventually changed its Niger assessment (though, the full text of June '03 memo has yet to be made available to the public), the British have stood firm in their intelligence. In fact, the July 2004 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: No doubt, the Iraq-Niger matter isn't going away anytime soon.
|
|
Friday, February 03, 2006
|
| About those WMDs |
|
Today's New York Sun has an interesting quote from Wayne White, the former deputy director in the Office of Analysis for Near East and South Asia in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. Mr. Feith's view that questions remain about Iraq's weapons program is also held by the State Department's chief of Iraq intelligence between 2003 and 2005, Wayne White. In an interview this week, Mr. White, said, "Just as the pre-war WMD intelligence was largely wrong, the conclusion after the war that absolutely nothing was in Iraq could also be wrong." White's observations were also reflected in a New York Times piece published last March. The article, “Looting at Weapons Plants Was Systematic, Iraqi Says,” reported on a “highly organized operation,” which apparently took place from mid-April to mid-May 2003 at Iraqi weapons sites, “as teams with flatbed trucks and other heavy equipment moved systematically from site to site,” collecting “tons of machinery...capable of making parts for missiles as well as chemical, biological and nuclear arms....” To be continued?
|
| The Democrats Sisyphus |
|
In September, Roll Call reported that the House Minority Whip, Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD), had cobbled together a dozen or so of his colleagues "to shape the Democratic strategy on national security issues and battle perceptions that the party is weak on defense." The No. 2 House Democrat, a moderate who supported U.S. involvement in Iraq, said he believes Democrats lost the “national election because of national security” and because of a “lack of confidence of the American public.” He added that many voters had doubts that Kerry and the Democrats were committed to defeating terrorism. Hoyer, of course, is right. But, as Sen. Lieberman is finding out, the Democratic faithful are not buying Hoyer's line. And apparently neither is one of the members of Hoyer's own group, the one-time deputy of the "centrist" Democratic Leadership Council, Rep. Ellen Tauscher (CA). She has co-sponsored legislation with Rep. John Conyers (MI), ranking member on the Judiciary committee, calling for the termination of the NSA's terrorist surveillance program -- a program Gen. Hayden says "has been successful in detecting and preventing attacks inside the United States." Tauscher calls the Bush administration's actions "despicable" and is "deeply disturbed" by it all. Meanwhile, her ally spends his days pushing for the impeachment of the president and accusing the White House of "defrauding" the nation into war. That stone is getting bigger by the day.
|
| Intelligence Officials Talk Threats, Democrats Talk... |
|
Here's what Senate Intelligence committee chairman Pat Roberts had to say at yesterday's hearing on "Current and Projected National Security Threats to the United States." I am concerned that some of my Democrat colleagues used this unique public forum to make clear that they believe the gravest threat we face is not Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, but rather the president of the United States.
|
|
Thursday, February 02, 2006
|
| The Sound of Silence |
|
Where are all the Democrats demanding an investigation to catch the person who did "very severe" damage to U.S. national security? Realclearpolitics.com notes this item from CBS News: U.S. intelligence officials told Congress Thursday that disclosure of once-secret projects like President George W. Bush's no-warrant eavesdropping program have undermined their work. One aspect of the program's mission has been to identify any sleeper cells that may be operating inside the U.S. -- a worry that began immediately after the September 11 attacks.
|
| German Report on Illegal Arms Exports to Iran |
|
From BBC Worldwide Monitoring: Iran is massively rearming its nuclear, biological and chemical weapons arsenal. This is the result of the first situation report by the Federal Office of Criminal Investigations and the Customs Office of Criminal Investigations (BKA, ZKA) about illegal arms transfers by German companies. "Indications are mounting that point to a secret military nuclear programme" by the mullah regime in Tehran, the confidential report says. Against this background, customs investigators are investigating six German companies, which illegally conducted 20 deliveries via Russia for the construction of the Iranian unclear power plant in Bushehr.
|
| More Bad Advice from Jimmy Carter |
|
Music to the ears of Hamas and exactly the WRONG policy approach -- see here. "Hamas deserves to be recognized by the international community, and despite the group's militant history, there is a chance the soon-to-be Palestinian leaders could turn away from violence, former President Jimmy Carter said Wednesday," CNN reports. "'If there are prohibitions -- like, for instance, in the United States, against giving any money to a government that is controlled by Hamas -- then the United States could channel the same amount of money to the Palestinian people through the United Nations, through the refugee fund, through UNICEF, things of that kind.'"
|
|
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
|
| What Chris Matthews Didn't Tell His Viewers |
|
While interviewing Mayor Giuliani last night on MSNBC, Matthews stated: ...let me just make this historic point, which is factual. True enough. But as Stephen Hayes point out, Matthews didn't tell the whole story. Bin Laden did offer the Saudi regime protection...in 1990. But I'm not sure why that is somehow more important than the... Tom Joscelyn has more here.
|
| (Update) Where's Rudy Giuliani on the NSA Surveillance Program? Has the White House Contacted Him? Will He Testify at the Congressional Hearings? |
|
Two weeks ago, I wrote: 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. Well, last night the mayor strongly endorsed the president's actions. From Fox News: COLMES: Let's talk about the war on terror. He used the phrase -- you know, he didn't use domestic surveillance or domestic spying. He called "terrorist surveillance." Isn't he trying to reframe the issue by using phraseology that is not what it really is? From MSBNC: GIULIANI: The fact is that the evaluation of intelligence is an art, got a science. And you know, you try to gather as much intelligence as you can. You try to figure out what`s going on inside a country.
|
| Is Iran's "Civilian" Nuclear Program Run by its Military? |
|
It certainly appears so. From today's New York Times: The International Atomic Energy Agency says it has evidence that suggests links between Iran's ostensibly peaceful nuclear program and its military work on high explosives and missiles, according to a report from the agency that was released to member countries on Tuesday and will be debated on Thursday....
|

