
| « March 2006 | The Blog home page | May 2006 » |
|
Sunday, April 30, 2006
|
| A Democrat of Yesteryear |
|
Unlike John Edwards, who supported the Iraq War when running for president before abandoning his position to cozy-up with the Left, Sen. Joe Lieberman remains a profile in courage. From today's Washington Post: "I'm not surprised that there's a primary challenge," Lieberman conceded. According to a February poll by Quinnipiac University, 61 percent of state voters said invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do. But the former Democratic vice presidential nominee said he will not back down from his position. Perhaps Iowa Gov. Vilsack, Sen. Hillary Clinton and other members of the Democratic Leadership Council will get around to defending Sen. Lieberman a lot more than they have so far. After all, isn't the Lieberman challenge exactly what the DLC was created for in the first place? ![]()
|
| Powell v. Rumsfeld, Cont'd |
|
It's no secret that Colin Powell clashed with the defense secretary many times while he was running Foggy Bottom. And Powell's recent critical remarks on inadequate troop levels are not a case of Monday morning quarterbacking. He argued for more troops before the invasion, but most importantly, Powell (and others privately and publicly) pressed for more troops after the invasion in the face of a rapidly deteriorating security situation and an insurgency that was gaining steam. As General Sanchez put it two years ago when asked what he could do with two more divisions, "I'd control Baghdad" (see here for another example). Former US secretary of state Colin Powell said Sunday he had expressed concerns to President George W. Bush that they were not sending a large enough military force to Iraq before the US-led invasion in early 2003. From the Sunday Times of London: âThere 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. While Secretary Rumsfeld deserves a lot of credit for the many things that went well -- the speed of the toppling of Saddam and the Taliban, for example -- reassessing the size of the post-Iraq invasion force needed "to strangle the insurgency in its crib" wasn't one of them.
|
|
Friday, April 28, 2006
|
| Freedom for All Koreans |
|
The following op-ed by Jay Lefkowitz, the president's special envoy for human rights in North Korea, ran today in the Asian and European editions of the Wall Street Journal: The famous former Soviet dissident, Andrei Sakharov, said it well: "A country that does not respect the rights of its own people will not respect the rights of its neighbors." North Korea is a prime example of a regime that doesn't respect either. It would probably come as no surprise to Sakharov that a government that inflicts on its citizens repression reminiscent of the most cruel totalitarian rulers of the 20th century is today counterfeiting American currency, trafficking in narcotics, building a nuclear arsenal, and threatening other nations.
|
| The Save Darfur Coalition's Fantasy |
|
Nearly two years ago I attended a lecture by Samantha Power, author of "A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide" (a book I highly recommend), at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. She spoke on the same day the government of Sudan got a seat on the UN Human Rights Commission. On the negotiations to end the killing in Darfur, Power warned that peace talks are sometimes just cover so nations can look the other way at atrocious behavior. But how do you stop such behavior before it becomes a full-blown genocide and once it does how do you end it before eveyone is murdered or displaced? She answered that what is missing in Darfur, as it was in the Balkans and Rwanda, is the "political will" of the international community to act. Though, citing Iraq, she rejected a "militant unilateralist" approach in favor of a reformed UN armed with a robust force ready to intervene to prevent more Rwandas. This brings me to the superb piece, Crisis Intervention: Iraq, Darfur, and American Power, by The New Republic's Lawrence Kaplan. He writes:
Interestingly, former Clinton official Richard Holbrooke has separated himself from Democrats like Durbin, who have adopted the language of foreign policy "realists." Too bad Durbin and company aren't listening.
|
|
Thursday, April 27, 2006
|
| The "Footprint"... |
|
has evidently been too light in some places. From Stars and Strips: U.S. troops entered Mukhisa and the adjacent town of Abu Kharma on Sunday after hearing that the region is home to foreign fighters, members of Abu Musab al-Zarqawiâs group and financiers behind roadside bomb and mortar attacks, said Lt. Col. Thomas Fisher, battalion commander.... Sounds familiar, unfortunately. It is also why Col. McMaster pushed his "clear and hold" strategy while in Iraq rather than continue what some officers have derisively dubbed "whack a mole" operations. ![]()
|
| (Update) Mighty Windbags |
|
(From today's Boston Globe: "As record oil prices turn attention to the need for renewable fuels, momentum is building in Congress to buck Senator Edward M. Kennedy's bid to block the proposed Cape Cod wind energy project, potentially reviving efforts to construct the sprawling windmill farm in Nantucket Sound.... The maneuver to stop the wind farm 'is clearly a backroom deal, and they're going to get called publicly on it,' said John Passacantando, executive director of Greenpeace USA. 'The Democrats are going to kill the first big offshore wind farm in the United States because of their relationship with Ted Kennedy.'") Posted on April 25, 2006: Gas prices have skyrocketed and the 36th annual Earth Day just passed. So it's hardly surprising that many Democrats have taken the opportunity to bash the president's environmental and energy policies. Senator Minority Leader Harry Reid has demanded a "bipartisan national energy summit to solve the problem of Americaâs dangerous dependence on foreign oil...." And Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida delivered his party's radio address on Saturday. He urged a higher "mileage standard for all passenger vehicles," which is interesting because Democratic Sen. Carl Levin has often led the charge against stiffer mileage standards. Nelson further warned Americans, "We must confront some powerful interests, including the oil lobby" if we our to cut our "dependence on foreign oil." Like Sen. Nelson, Greenpeace is also confronting "some powerful interests." According to the National Journal, the group has taken on the Senate's premier liberal for his opposition to a proposed wind farm that "would provide 75 percent of the area's energy needs with clean and safe wind power." Greenpeace takes on a surprising target this week: Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. Of course, I don't blame Sen. Kennedy (or Sen. Kerry for that matter). I wouldn't want to sit on the porch of my beachfront mansion staring into a sea of turbine generators either.
|
| Texas, Immigration and the Economic "Doom and Gloomers" |
|
Texas shares a lengthy border with Mexico, and, in the last 20 years, the state has absorbed many immigrants. Yet, despite the remarks of Rep. Tom Tancredo and others, I was surprised to learn just how well the Texas economy has performed since President Reagan signed the 1986 immigration bill (setting aside the debate over whether the president should have signed the legislation). According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, the state's unemployment rate was 8.9 percent in 1986; at the end of 2005 it was 5.3 percent. Real wages have made substantial gains. In El Paso, for example, real wages increased from 647 million in 1986 to about 960 million in 2005. In the Dallas metro area, real wages rose from 7 billion in 1986 to over 11.8 billion in 2005. Here are some other interesting statistics: "Following recent revisions, data now show that Texas payroll employment grew more rapidly in 2005 than at any time since the tech bust. Jobs increased by 2.7 percentâhalf a percentage point stronger than the Dallas Fedâs early benchmark and 1.2 percentage points stronger than initially estimated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics" As CNBC's Larry Kudlow likes to say, the economic "doom and gloomers" on immigration have a tough case to make when it comes to Texas.
|
|
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
|
| The Victim Card |
|
Read the comments of New York Times editor Bill Keller here and then read the latest from Max Boot in the Los Angeles Times here (reg. req'd).
|
| Iran's Ahmadinejad is No Rogue |
|
In the past few weeks, a new story line on Iran has gained some currency. It goes something like this. The bluster of the provincial president doesn't truly reflect the mind-set of Iran's senior, grown-up leadership when it comes to acquiring nuclear weapons. If that's the case, someone should let Iran's senior clerics and chief nuclear negotiator in on the secret. From the New York Times: April 26, 2006 In other words, here's our "Grand Bargain": Let's us pursue our nuclear weapons in peace and quiet or we will give the Butcher of Darfur a nuclear boost.
|
| The NSA Leak and the 2004 Election |
|
Today's Wall Street Journal editorial looks at the "unseemly symbiosis between elements of the press corps and a cabal of partisan bureaucrats at the CIA and elsewhere in the 'intelligence community' who have been trying to undermine the Bush Presidency." The editors also note that there were "many selective election-year leaks of prewar Iraq intelligence fed to the likes of the [New York] Times's James Risen, who also won a Pulitzer this year--for helping expose the National Security Agency's anti-al Qaeda surveillance program." But even the NSA disclosure may have been intended as a pre-election leak. The New York Times revealed the program in December but noted it had delayed the article's publication for a year. According to the December 16, 2005 Times piece, The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted. So the original piece was set to run in December 2004. Assuming it took some time to put together, the original leak tipping off the Times may have occurred some time before the November election. The Times also noted, Aside from the Congressional leaders, only a small group of people, including several cabinet members and officials at the N.S.A., the C.I.A. and the Justice Department, know of the program. And what are the odds the leaker voted for Bush on November 2, 2004?
|
|
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
|
| Ever Heard of In-Q-Tel? |
|
Well, they're looking for a new CEO. From TechWeb News: Yoran, CIA's Venture Capital Chief, Resigns Send in those resumes.
|
| Mighty Windbags |
|
Gas prices have skyrocketed and the 36th annual Earth Day just passed. So it's hardly surprising that many Democrats have taken the opportunity to bash the president's environmental and energy policies. Senator Minority Leader Harry Reid has demanded a "bipartisan national energy summit to solve the problem of Americaâs dangerous dependence on foreign oil...." And Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida delivered his party's radio address on Saturday. He urged a higher "mileage standard for all passenger vehicles," which is interesting because Democratic Sen. Carl Levin has often led the charge against stiffer mileage standards. Nelson further warned Americans, "We must confront some powerful interests, including the oil lobby" if we our to cut our "dependence on foreign oil." Like Sen. Nelson, Greenpeace is also confronting "some powerful interests." According to the National Journal, the group has taken on the Senate's premier liberal for his opposition to a proposed wind farm that "would provide 75 percent of the area's energy needs with clean and safe wind power." Greenpeace takes on a surprising target this week: Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. Of course, I don't blame Sen. Kennedy (or Sen. Kerry for that matter). I wouldn't want to sit on the porch of my beachfront mansion staring into a sea of turbine generators either.
|
| The Alaska Pipeline's Bumpy Road |
|
Last night, PBS' American Experience chronicled the building of the Alaska Pipeline, which traverses some 800 miles from Prudhoe Bay to the port of Valdez. Planning for the pipeline began in 1968, but a mountain of legal challenges put off construction until 1975. Two years later oil began flowing south. What kick-started actual construction was the October 1973 Yom Kippur War and the subsequent OPEC oil embargo against the U.S. Relying so heavily on foreign energy sources, Congress figured out, wasn't such a good idea. From American Experience: July 17: With a vote of 50 to 49, the Senate narrowly passes the Gravel Amendment which declares that the Department of the Interior has fulfilled all the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, allowing Alyeska to move forward. Vice President Spiro Agnew casts the deciding vote. Some things never change on the independence front.
|
| (Update) Call it the Equivalent of a Republican Tax Hike |
|
(From today's Wall Street Journal: "Few things are less becoming in a political party than desperation, as Republicans are now demonstrating as they panic over rising oil and gas prices. If blaming private industry for Congress's own energy mistakes is the best the GOP can do, no wonder its voters may sit out the November election....There's been unconscionable behavior all right, most of it on Capitol Hill. A decent portion of the latest run-up in gas prices--and the entire cause of recent spot shortages--is the direct result of the energy bill Congress passed last summer. That self-serving legislation handed Congress's friends in the ethanol lobby a mandate that forces drivers to use 7.5 billion gallons annually of that oxygenate by 2012....These columns warned Republicans this would happen. As recently as last year, ethanol was selling for $1.45 a gallon. By December it had reached $2 and is now going for $2.77. So refiners are now having to buy both oil and ethanol at sky-high prices. In short, the only market manipulation has been by politicians.")
Gas prices are way up and it's not just because of soaring oil prices on the world market that are beyond our control. Under the GOP's watch and pushed farm state legislators, Congress mandated more ethanol use in our gasoline. The net result, as Irwin Stelzer explains, is tighter gas supplies and even higher prices at the pump. Finally, there is gasoline. In the good old American tradition of believing there is a solution to every problem, voters want to know what Congress is planning to do about gasoline prices, which are once again on the rise. Perhaps holding off until Congress was safely out of shouting range, the Department of Energy announced a precipitous drop in gasoline inventories, and released its forecast of gasoline prices. It expects the average price of regular grade gasoline to hit $2.73 next month, $0.57 and 26 percent higher than in May of last year. Part of this is due to the mandated increase in the use of ethanol, which is rising in price as producers find themselves hard-pressed to meet skyrocketing demand--up from 1.8 million barrels a month in 2002 to 7.4 million barrels this month. This is a perfect example of the law of unintended consequences--not unforeseen by experts, but neither foreseen nor intended by legislators. In order to blend ethanol into gasoline and still avoid violating air quality regulations, refiners must remove other components, with the net effect of reducing gasoline supplies by 1.7 percent in the face of increasing demand. Good job, Republicans. ADM may be happy but I doubt most voters are -- for now at least.
|
|
Monday, April 24, 2006
|
| (Update) The Assassination Campaign Against Moderate Muslim Scholars in Somalia |
|
(Agence France Presse has the latest,"Mogadishu tensions soar as Islamists declare jihad on warlords," from Somalia.) Posted on February 20, 2006: Since the early 1990s, al Qaeda has 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....
|
| 60 Minutes of Distortion |
|
Last night, CBS' 60 Minutes aired a segment on Iraq pre-war intelligence -- focusing on the Niger-Uranium controversy -- that was so slanted I half suspect that Democratic Senator Carl Levin produced it. Here are just a few examples: BRADLEY: (Voiceover) When he returned, Wilson told the CIA what he'd learned. Despite that, some intelligence analysts stood by the Italian report that Saddam Hussein had purchased uranium from Niger. But the director of the CIA and the deputy director didn't buy it. In October, when the president's speech writers tried to put the Niger uranium story in a speech that President Bush was scheduled to deliver in Cincinnati, they intervened. In a phone call and two faxes to the White House, they warned "The Africa story is overblown" and "The evidence is weak." The speech writers took the uranium reference out of the speech. Meanwhile, the CIA had made a major intelligence breakthrough on Iraq's nuclear program. Naji Sabri, Iraq's foreign minister, had made a deal to reveal Iraq's military secrets to the CIA. Tyler Drumheller [former CIA head in Europe] was in charge of the operation. Where to begin? Regarding the Niger reference, Bradley failed to inform millions of viewers what the Senate's 2004 Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq concluded on the issue: Conclusion 13 (page 73) 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 wiling or able to sell uranium to Iraq. Conclusion 12 (page 72) Until October 2002 when the Intelligence Community obtained the forged foreign language documents on the Iraq-Niger uranium deal, it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reporting and other available intelligence. Conclusion 19 (page 77) 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. And on Sabri, I guess it wasn't newsworthy to inform viewers of what else Sabri had to say. After all, are we supposed to believe Sabri on the nuclear program but discount his comments on biological and chemical weapons? According to the Washington Post, Sabri also told the CIA that Saddam was lying, that biological weapons research was underway, and that Saddam had dispersed chemical weapons to loyal tribes. Publicly Sabri was insisting that Iraq had no prohibited weapons of mass destruction. Privately, the sources said, he provided information that the Iraqi dictator had ambitions for a nuclear program but that it was not active, and that no biological weapons were being produced or stockpiled, although research was underway. 60 Minutes further reported: President GEORGE W. BUSH: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Again, Bradley doesn't mention that the "CIA continued to approve the use of similar [Niger-uranium] language in Administration publications and speeches, including the State of the Union." He also devotes only one line to what British intelligence concluded on the issue. The July 2004 Butler report stated 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. Somehow I think many viewers would have found this information of interest. Here are the "relevant" bits from the report, 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 Governmentâs dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bushâs 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: Finally, the case against Saddam Hussein was far broader than 60 Minutes, the New York Times and many others would have you believe. To recap, on March 18, 2003, the day before ground forces entered Iraq, the president confronted a range of concerns regarding Saddam's weapons programs, his connection to terrorism, his history of aggressive behavior, his use of poison gas, and his failure to comply with the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire agreement and subsequent U.N. resolutions. U.S. intelligence (as Powell Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson has noted but the media has ignored) and other foreign governments concluded at the time that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. On top of this were the findings contained in detailed U.N. reports. For example, on March 6, 2003, the United Nations issued a report on Iraq's "Unresolved Disarmament Issues." It stated that the "long list" of "unaccounted for" WMD-related material catalogued in December of 1998--the month inspections ended in Iraq--and beyond were still "unaccounted for." The list included: up to 3.9 tons of VX nerve agent (though inspectors believed Iraq had enough VX precursors to produce 200 tons of the agent and suspected that VX had been "weaponized"); 6,526 aerial chemical bombs; 550 mustard gas shells; 2,062 tons of Mustard precursors; 15,000 chemical munitions; 8,445 liters of anthrax; growth media that could have produced "3,000 - 11,000 litres of botulinum toxin, 6,000 - 16,000 litres of anthrax, up to 5,600 litres of Clostridium perfringens, and a significant quantity of an unknown bacterial agent." Moreover, Iraq was obligated to account for this material by providing "verifiable evidence" that it had, in fact, destroyed its proscribed materials (see more on Hans Blix and the "verifiable evidence" standard here). The same report noted "a surge of activity in the missile technology field in the past four years" and that while 817 of the 819 Scud missiles Iraq had imported had been accounted for, inspectors did not know the number of missiles Iraq had indigenously produced or still possessed. Similarly, while inspectors had accounted for 73 of Iraq's 75 declared "special" warheads, doubts remained that Iraqi officials were truthful about how many had actually been manufactured. It acknowledged that inspectors had found a handful of 122mm chemical rocket warheads but noted that this discovery may only be the "tip of the iceberg" since several thousand, in the inspectors' judgment, were still unaccounted for. It also stated that no underground chemical facilities had been found but added that such facilities may exist given the size of Iraq and that future inspections in this area would have to rely on "specific intelligence." Finally, the report declared that there appears to be no "choke points" to prevent Iraq from producing anthrax at the same level it did before 1991, that large-scale Iraqi production of botulinum toxin "could be rapidly commenced," and that given Iraq's history of concealment, "it cannot be excluded that it has retained some capability with regard to VX." And as we know today, Saddam's Iraq never complied with its disarmament obligations. In September 2004 then-Iraq Survey Group head Charles Duelfer issued a report which cited many violations of the sanctions regime and concluded that "Saddam pursued a strategy to maintain a capability to return to WMD production after sanctions were lifted by preserving assets and expertise. In addition to preserve capability, we have clear evidence of his intent to resume WMD production as soon as sanctions were lifted." Duelfer continued: As UN sanctions eroded there was a concomitant expansion of activities that could support full WMD reactivation. He directed that ballistic missile work continue that would support long-range missile development. Virtually no senior Iraqi believed that Saddam had forsaken WMD forever. Evidence suggests that, as resources became available and the constraints of sanctions decayed, there was a direct expansion of activity that would have the effect of supporting future WMD reconstitution.
|
|
Saturday, April 22, 2006
|
| The Leaker and the 2004 Election |
|
Mary O. McCarthy has reportedly been fingered for leaking the CIA's secret prisons operation to the Washington Post. She also apparently donated to the Kerry for President campaign and other Democrats as well, which, of course, she is free to do. Today's New York Times also reports that McCarthy returned to the Agency in 2004: H. Andrew Schwartz, a spokesman for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that Ms. McCarthy's relationship with the organization lasted from 2001 to 2003. Several associates of Ms. McCarthy say she returned to the C.I.A. in 2004, taking a job in the inspector general's office. CIA Director Goss said the prison disclosure, which appeared in the Washington Post in November 2005, severely harmed US national security. Were there any other leaks in the run-up to the 2004 presidential election that caused similar damage to ongoing U.S. intelligence operations? Buried in another New York Times piece on McCarthy is this intriguing line: Intelligence officials speaking on the condition of anonymity said that the dismissal resulted from ''a pattern of conduct'' and not from a single leak, but that the case involved in part information about secret C.I.A. detention centers that was given to The Washington Post.
|
|
Friday, April 21, 2006
|
| Airbrushing History and The Tank Man |
|
In the spirit of President Hu's victory lap around the U.S., reader John Manley sends along two interesting links. This one searches for images of Tiananmen on Google.com, while this one does the same search on Google.cn. By the way, no one knows what happened to the man, who Google.cn erases, in front of that tank. From Frontline's "The Tank Man": About midday, as a column of tanks slowly moves along Chang'an Boulevard toward Tiananmen Square, an unarmed young man carrying shopping bags suddenly steps out in front of the tanks. Instead of running over him, the first tank tries to go around, but the young man steps in front of it again. They repeat this maneuver several more times before the tank stops and turns off its motor. The young man climbs on top of the tank and speaks to the driver before jumping back down again. Soon, the young man is whisked to the side of the road by an unidentified group of people and disappears into the crowd. Perhaps someone at Boeing or Microsoft or Google can inquire as to what happened to this man after toasting the next business deal. I'm all for business investment but people like The Tank Man should not be forgotten. "China Rocks"!
|
| "China Rocks" |
|
From Yesterday's New York Times: Alan R. Mulally, president of Boeing's commercial aircraft division, introduced Mr. Hu to a group of 5,000 Boeing workers in an event that had the aura of a pep rally. After Mr. Hu made a glowing tribute to Boeing's tradition of innovation, Mr. Mulally said simply, ''China rocks.'' No doubt "China rocks." A few years back the Danish government sponsored a United Nations resolution calling attention to the poor human rights record of Beijing. The Chinese foreign ministry countered, the Washington Post reported, with this cheerful note: relations with Denmark would be "severely damaged in the political or economic and trade areas." In case that was too subtle, China added that the human rights resolution would "become a rock that smashes on the Danish government's head." And today, Denmark and China are at odds over the atrocious human rights violations going on in Darfur: From ABC News: The U.N. Security Council remained divided...on imposing punitive measures over the conflict in Darfur despite calls for sanctions against Sudanese allegedly blocking peace in the region.... "China Rocks"!
|
| "A Lot American BS" |
|
From Monday's The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer: LEHRER: In Washington, a White House spokesman condemned the attack and said it was the Palestinian Authority's responsibility to stop such attacks. ....
|
|
Thursday, April 20, 2006
|
| Sec. Rice: "A Nuclear-armed Iran would be a very Devastating Blow to Peace and Security" |
|
Yesterday, in an interview with Chicago-area newspapers, Secretary of State Rice made a point that Richard Clarke didn't find time to address in his recent New York Times op-ed. QUESTION: And because you also know that any armed intervention would inflame things throughout the Muslim world? Senator Hillary Clinton made a similar point -- "a nuclear-armed Iran would shake the foundations of global security to its very core" -- last September but hasn't said much on Iran lately.
|
| Three Cheers for the "Cuban-inspired Guerilla" |
|
From the Associated Press: Moderate leftist prepares to challenge Hugo ChĂĄvez
|
| Rumsfeld's Counterattack and Defending the Iraq War |
|
The counterattack by Secretary Rumsfeld and his staff against his critics has been impressive. The Secretary defended himself at length during a recent press conference. Senior active and retired officers defended him on television and in print. His office sent out fact sheets and called influential commentators to get the secretary's side of the story out. The message offensive was swift, disciplined and effective and put many of his critics back on their heels -- for now at least. But my question is why such a well-coordinated offensive hasn't been waged against critics who week after week and month after month have been pummeling the Bush administration's rationale for taking Saddam Hussein out. Democratic Senators Levin and Rockefeller, the New York Times, and most of the liberal establishment have been pounding away without a vigorous and sustained response from senior Bush officials. When he's on Rumsfeld is very effective in getting a message out, as we've just witnessed. But one rarely hears him during a press conference or in a speech forcefully challenge at length the following statements constantly by made anti-war critics: 1) Saddam Hussein wasn't a threat. And there many other charges that should rebutted. A Rumsfeld-inspired offensive on all these questions done with the same gusto, precision and reach of the last few days would certainly deliver a different message to the American people than they've been getting from the front-pages of the New York Times or on CNN. Getting such a message out -- week after week -- should also be a part of the Iraq war effort.
|
|
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
|
| For What It's Worth |
|
Since Jonathan Chait and others have turned their focus to Sen. McCain the last few days I'd like to add one point -- for now at least -- going back to 2001. (In the spirit of full disclosure, I was his legislative director back then.) Yes, McCain voted against the 2001 tax cut. But his collective reasons for doing so were far different than those of the Democratic caucus. Based on the "surplus" projection, he wanted to enact a smaller tax cut primarily targeting the lower- and middle class (including a child tax credit, a cut in the marriage tax penalty, payroll tax reform, and an estate tax cut capped at five million to reduce any negative impact on charitable giving), ramp up defense spending to substantially enlarge our air, land and naval forces (this was pre 9/11 I may add), fund the transition costs associated with moving toward some form of Social Security personal accounts to ensure its long-term solvency, shore up Medicare's solvency (which, I believe, is one reason why he recently voted against the prescription drug bill), and enact stiff spending reforms (pork-barrel projects, etc) because they were long overdue and would also act as a partial hedge against faulty "surplus" projection numbers.
|
| Some Things Never Change |
|
The new and improved UN Human Rights Council will likely include Fidel Castro, that great defender of human rights, as one of its members. From the Miami Herald: The new Human Rights Council replaced the previous Commission on Human Rights, where countries accused of rights abuses such as Cuba, Iran and Zimbabwe regularly became members and then worked to stop its condemnations....
|
| What About the Generals? |
|
Max Boot has an interesting take on the Rumsfeld v. Generals flare up in today's Los Angeles Times (reg. req'd): The retired generals, who claim to speak for their active-duty brethren, premise their uprising on two complaints. First, many (though not all) say we should not have gone into Iraq in the first place. Former Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold calls it "the unnecessary war," and former Gen. Anthony Zinni claims that "containment worked remarkably well."
|
| Hanoi Jane Won't Talk About Iraq |
|
Why? She explained last night on CNN's Larry King: "I don't want to give the right wing media and the right wing warmongers an ability to distract from the basic issue, which is that most Americans are opposed to the war and want to bring the troops home." With any luck, Moveon.org will put Fonda in one of their anti-war ads.
|
|
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
|
| Bernstein's Predictable Partisanship |
|
Get ready for another round of "Impeach Bush" talk. The deeply partisan Carl Bernstein has a new piece up on the Vanity Fair web site. Guess what? He's not a fan of the Bush Administration and like many others on the Left is doing his best to criminalize policy disputes. The ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. John Conyers, has already expressed his approval of Bernstein's diatribe on his blog: This is a fascinating article, drawing many comparisons of the abuses of power perpetrated by Nixon and Bush. Bernstein suggests that the creation of a special committee, like the Ervin Committee in the Nixon era, is the best way to address these abuses. While he does not mention House Resolution 635 by name, I am very pleased to have Mr. Bernstein endorse my legislative proposal. The Euston Manifesto Group sure has a lot of work ahead of it.
|
| Connecticut's Serious Senator |
|
As you've probably guessed, it isn't Sen. Christopher Dodd -- see here.
|
| Call it the Equivalent of a Republican Tax Hike |
|
Gas prices are way up and it's not just because of soaring oil prices on the world market that are beyond our control. Under the GOP's watch and pushed farm state legislators, Congress mandated more ethanol use in our gasoline. The net result, as Irwin Stelzer explains, is tighter gas supplies and even higher prices at the pump. Finally, there is gasoline. In the good old American tradition of believing there is a solution to every problem, voters want to know what Congress is planning to do about gasoline prices, which are once again on the rise. Perhaps holding off until Congress was safely out of shouting range, the Department of Energy announced a precipitous drop in gasoline inventories, and released its forecast of gasoline prices. It expects the average price of regular grade gasoline to hit $2.73 next month, $0.57 and 26 percent higher than in May of last year. Part of this is due to the mandated increase in the use of ethanol, which is rising in price as producers find themselves hard-pressed to meet skyrocketing demand--up from 1.8 million barrels a month in 2002 to 7.4 million barrels this month. This is a perfect example of the law of unintended consequences--not unforeseen by experts, but neither foreseen nor intended by legislators. In order to blend ethanol into gasoline and still avoid violating air quality regulations, refiners must remove other components, with the net effect of reducing gasoline supplies by 1.7 percent in the face of increasing demand. Good job, Republicans. ADM may be happy but I doubt most voters are -- for now at least.
|
| The BBC's "Militants" |
|
Britain's Daily Telegraph writes on the terrorist (or "militant" if you work at the BBC) suicide bombing in Tel Aviv: Ultimately, however, the weasel words of Hamas remind us of how right America and the EU were to cut off funding to the Authority. Hamas apologises for terrorism because, ceasefire notwithstanding, its "militants" are terrorists at heart.
|
|
Monday, April 17, 2006
|
| Dissent on the Left: The Euston Manifesto |
|
Though it hasn't garnered much media attention, there has been an interesting fight brewing within the political Left. Britain's Oliver Kamm got the ball rolling by writing a provocative piece in Progess, a journal published by British Labour Party members, arguing that the Left has abandoned its anti-totalitarian roots. Now, a "new democratic progressive alliance" has come together in the blogoshere to challenge others on the Left who are consumed with anti-Americanism and have a soft spot for tyrants. Kamm and many others have signed The Euston Manifesto. Drawing on the "lesson of the disastrous history of left apologetics over the crimes of Stalinism and Maoism, as well as more recent exercises in the same vein (some of the reaction to the crimes of 9/11, the excuse-making for suicide-terrorism, the disgraceful alliances lately set up inside the "anti-war" movement with illiberal theocrats)," the Manifesto's preamble states: We are democrats and progressives. We propose here a fresh political alignment. Many of us belong to the Left, but the principles that we set out are not exclusive. We reach out, rather, beyond the socialist Left towards egalitarian liberals and others of unambiguous democratic commitment. Indeed, the reconfiguration of progressive opinion that we aim for involves drawing a line between the forces of the Left that remain true to its authentic values, and currents that have lately shown themselves rather too flexible about these values. It involves making common cause with genuine democrats, whether socialist or not. Stay tuned...
|
| Zarqawi Concedes Strategic Defeat? |
|
This is the first time I've read such a categorical statement from a senior U.S. commander. From the Washington Times: Al Qaeda in Iraq and its presumed leader, Abu Musab Zarqawi, have conceded strategic defeat and are on their way out of the country, a top U.S. military official contended yesterday. The group's failure to disrupt national elections and a constitutional referendum last year "was a tactical admission by Zarqawi that their strategy had failed," said Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, who commands the XVIII Airborne Corps. "They no longer view Iraq as fertile ground to establish a caliphate and as a place to conduct international terrorism," he said in an address at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. But is this view part of a new U.S. intelligence assessment or just based on the general's own judgment?
|
| (Update II) Iran "Fantasies" at the New York Times? |
|
(This NYT piece, "New Worry Rises After Iran Claims Nuclear Steps," is not good news if true. "The assertion involves Iran's claim that even while it begins to enrich small amounts of uranium, it is pursuing a far more sophisticated way of making atomic fuel that American officials and inspectors say could speed Iran's path to developing a nuclear weapon," the Times reports. "Iran has consistently maintained that it abandoned work on this advanced technology, called the P-2 centrifuge, three years ago. Western analysts long suspected that Iran had a second, secret program â based on the black market offerings of the renegade Pakistani nuclear engineer Abdul Qadeer Khan â separate from the activity at its main nuclear facility at Natanz.") (The New York Times follows up their recent Iran editorial with a front-page piece today quoting nuclear analysts who say "nothing had changed to alter current estimates of when Iran might be able to make a single nuclear weapon, assuming that is its ultimate goal. The United States government has put that at 5 to 10 years, and some analysts have said it could come as late as 2020." But as we know intelligence estimates can overestimate AND underestimate a target nation's nuclear program.) Posted on April 11, 2006: The editors at the paper have weighed in on what to do about Iran's quest for nuclear weapons -- in two words, not much. Their argument boils down to this: Tehran is a decade away from a bomb; so all the "saber rattling" is unnecessary and counterproductive. We should encourage Iran's political evolution and let their government know that they're "better off" without nuclear bombs. Sanctions are not mentioned. They make no statement that Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, which puts them to the left of Howard Dean who has declared, "Under no circumstances will a Democratic Administration ever allow Iran to become a nuclear power." And they say nothing on the consequences should Tehran produce them. One person who has offered his thoughts on the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran is Gerard Baker of the Times (London), who wrote: If Iran goes nuclear, it will demonstrate conclusively that even the worldâs 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. I hope Iran is "about 10 years away from building" nuclear bombs as the editors claim, but how do they know with such certainty? They don't say where they got that number. In fact, their favorite weapons inspector, Hans Blix, has pegged the number at "five years" and the Los Angeles Times has reported that the number may be "within three years." Iran's Nuclear Steps Quicken, Diplomats Say Let's hope the intelligence on the status of Iran's nuclear program is better than the world had on Saddam's program in 1991 -- a Manhattan Project-sized nuclear program that went undetected by Western intelligence and the IAEA. It's also a bit ironic that the New York Times Iran editorial was published on the same day Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow at the Democratic Leadership Council, wrote the following: Is the position of the left that America should allow the genocide minded Iranian leader to go along his merry way toward obtaining weapons of mass annihilation until a donkey occupies the White House? One does not have to be a fan of W to recognize the "waiting for the donkey" position to be morally and strategically disastrous.... Give that man a raise!
|
|
Sunday, April 16, 2006
|
| Ignoring the Nuclear Elephant |
|
In today's New York Times, Richard Clarke and his Clinton-era NSC colleague Steven Simon write 856 words on why the U.S. should not use force, if necessary, against Iran's nuclear program. Though they raise very legitimate issues that should be virgorously debated, nowhere in the piece do they take a position on whether Iran should be allowed to build a nuclear weapon. And, if not, how do we stop it? Do they agree with Senator Clinton's warning that âa nuclear-armed Iran would shake the foundations of global security to its very core"? They don't say. How do they think Tehran will behave if it gets a nuclear bomb? Will they be bolder in sponsoring terror or more restrained? Will they assume a more aggressive posture in the Middle East or a less assertive one? Again, they don't say. It's seems rather odd that two senior NSC officials would ignore this nuclear elephant in the room and then chastise others for not asking the "hard questions" on Iran. They do write about how great the 1990s were. We learn that Iranian intelligence hit Khobar Towers, killing 19 Americans, but the Clinton White House decided against an overt retaliatory strike. They hit back covertly but the authors offer few details except to say that it allegedly "immobilized Iran's intelligence service." They also claim credit for ignoring Newt Gingrich's advice to pursue regime change in Iran. Instead they engaged Tehran, which led to "the election of the reformist Mohammad Khatami as president of Iran in 1997...." Of course, as Reuel Marc Gerecht explains, the Khatami regime was, for starters, "probably the period when the clerical regime made its greatest advances in its nuclear-weapons program." (Update: Monday's New York Times reports that "Dr. Khan had supplied Libya and North Korea with actual P-2 centrifuges in the late 1990's, and they repeatedly heard that he had done likewise with Iran.") Clarke isn't alone in trying to convince us just how great the Clinton years were. Last month, Madeleine Albright hammered away at the Bush administration's conduct of foreign policy but whitewashed that of her boss. Now it's Richard Clarke's turn -- though next time he'll perhaps answer some of the "hard questions" he chose to ignore in today's NYT.
|
|
Friday, April 14, 2006
|
| Murdered for Living "Like a German" |
|
From Reuters: A German court sentenced a man of Turkish origin to more than nine years in prison on Thursday for the so-called "honor killing" of his sister but found two other brothers not guilty of conspiring in the murder. George Will, in a recent Washington Post column, warned that the U.S. should avoid the mistakes many European nations have made in permanently marginalizing an immigrant underclass. He wrote: Conservatives should favor reducing illegality by putting illegal immigrants on a path out of society's crevices and into citizenship by paying fines and back taxes and learning English. Faux conservatives absurdly call this price tag on legal status "amnesty." Actually, it would prevent the emergence of a sullen, simmering subculture of the permanently marginalized, akin to the Arab ghettos in France.
|
| Not a Parody, Seriously |
|
From the (London) Telegraph: 'Islamic terrorism' is too emotive a phrase, says EU
|
|
Thursday, April 13, 2006
|
| Hillary's Iran Dilemma |
|
The fact that the Democratic Party's base is firmly against the Iraq war has put its leading presidential candidate in a tough spot on Iran. Will Senator Clinton continue to embrace a hawkish position on Iran or adopt a softer line? She voted for the Iraq war but, unlike Kerry and Edwards, hasn't abandoned (so far, at least) her position in support of the war -- support that has brought her withering criticism from the Left. Will she defy the anti-war base again on Iran? Last September, the senator stated, âa nuclear-armed Iran would shake the foundations of global security to its very core.â But she hasn't said much since, except to say that Bush should take the nuclear option "off the table" in reaction to Seymour Hersh's over-the-top New Yorker piece. Presumably she stands by her September position and would support the use of force should it be necessary to prevent a "nuclear-armed Iran" that would "shake the foundations of global security to its very core." But it's extremely doubtful that Democrats who oppose the Iraq war agree with Hillary's current position on Iran. They'd support sanctions but would rather live with a nuclear-armed Iran than with what they believe would be the consequences of an attack. This is probably why Hillary Clinton has been so quiet on Iran lately. Since her election, Hillary has positioned herself as a Scoop Jackson Democrat on many national security issues. But Scoop didn't win the Democratic presidential nomination in 1972; McGovern did. It's not clear today that Democratic activists have learned the lesson of McGovern, which is why Sen. Clinton faces a dilemma on Iran and why her road to the Democratic nomination won't be smooth sailing.
|
| (Update) Iran "Fantasies" at the New York Times? |
|
(The New York Times follows up their recent Iran editorial with a front-page piece today quoting nuclear analysts who say "nothing had changed to alter current estimates of when Iran might be able to make a single nuclear weapon, assuming that is its ultimate goal. The United States government has put that at 5 to 10 years, and some analysts have said it could come as late as 2020." But as we know intelligence estimates can overestimate AND underestimate a target nation's nuclear program.) Posted on April 11, 2006: The editors at the paper have weighed in on what to do about Iran's quest for nuclear weapons -- in two words, not much. Their argument boils down to this: Tehran is a decade away from a bomb, so all the "saber rattling" is unnecessary and counterproductive. We should encourage Iran's political evolution and let their government know that they're "better off" without nuclear bombs. Sanctions are not mentioned. They make no statement that Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, which puts them to the left of Howard Dean who has declared, "Under no circumstances will a Democratic Administration ever allow Iran to become a nuclear power." And they say nothing on the consequences should Tehran produce them. One person who has offered his thoughts on the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran is Gerard Baker of the Times (London), who wrote: If Iran goes nuclear, it will demonstrate conclusively that even the worldâs 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. I hope Iran is "about 10 years away from building" nuclear bombs as the editors claim, but how do they know with such certainty? They don't say where they got that number. In fact, their favorite weapons inspector, Hans Blix, has pegged the number at "five years" and the Los Angeles Times has reported that the number may be "within three years." Iran's Nuclear Steps Quicken, Diplomats Say Let's hope the intelligence on the status of Iran's nuclear program is better than the world had on Saddam's program in 1991 -- a Manhattan Project-sized nuclear program that went undetected by Western intelligence and the IAEA. It's also a bit ironic that the New York Times Iran editorial was published on the same day Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow at the Democratic Leadership Council, wrote the following: Is the position of the left that America should allow the genocide minded Iranian leader to go along his merry way toward obtaining weapons of mass annihilation until a donkey occupies the White House? One does not have to be a fan of W to recognize the "waiting for the donkey" position to be morally and strategically disastrous.... Give that man a raise!
|
| Vets for Freedom |
|
Wade Zirkle, executive director of Vets for Freedom and Iraq combat vet, writes in today's Washington Post: Earlier this year there was a town hall meeting on the Iraq war, sponsored by Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), with the participation of such antiwar organizations as CodePink and MoveOn.org. The event also featured Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), a former Marine who had become an outspoken critic of the war. To this Iraq war veteran, it was a good example of something that's become all too common: People from politics, the media and elsewhere purporting to represent "our" views. With all due respect, most often they don't. I'd bookmark Vets for Freedom and return often. Wade and his fellow vets have put together an excellent web site.
|
|
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
|
| Squeezing Iran |
|
The regime may be more vulnerable to comprehensive sanctions than many realize. Despite high oil prices, the mullahs are running an economy with little job growth and high unemployment. Radio Free Europe reports that Iran's president has been traveling around the country reassuring people on the economy. President Ahmadinejad has discussed the issue of unemployment -- estimated to be at least 11 percent and closer to 20 percent -- in several recent speeches, hinting at his recognition that he must satisfy voters' most immediate concerns. He announced in the northeastern town of Quchan on April 11 that 180 trillion rials (approximately $200 million) will be distributed in the provinces for job creation, IRNA reported. In a speech in Mashhad on April 10, he said, "Employment is one of the most important issues to be tackled by the nation and the government," state television reported. "There are so many young people who have a specialization. They have learned and studied but there is no employment opportunity for them." A sanctions-induced economic tailspin may convince many Iranians that their government's nuclear weapons quest isn't such a good idea. Of course, the most comprehensive sanctions would be those imposed by the UN Security Council. But that would require Russia and China to act responsibly so don't hold your breath. And even if the UN acted with speed and resolve in applying real sanctions it may not be enough to stop Iran's weapons program. But it's worth a try.
|
| The Saudi Two-Step |
|
Agence France Presse reports that, Saudi Arabia will exert all efforts to fight terrorism and its financiers, the kingdom's crown prince said, calling it a "disease" that threatens the whole world. Sounds good. Hopefully, this means the Saudi government will stop funding stuff like this.
|
| Blame Yourselves Republicans |
|
Some Republicans continue to whine that Democrats didn't allow them to take out the felony provision contained in the House-passed immigration bill. But why would Democrats help Republicans out? They want to retake the House and believe the felony language helps them in swing districts. House Republicans put the provision in the bill and now the leadership wants nothing to do with it. Perhaps next time they'll listen a bit less to Rep. Tancredo and Company. From the Associated Press: GOP Leaders to Drop Felony for Immigrants
|
|
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
|
| About that "Key Judgment" |
|
Will the New York Times run a front-page correction for what they reported in this piece based on information that federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald now says is incorrect? National Review's Byron York points out that earlier today Fitzgerald sent the following to the judge in the Libby case: We are writing to correct a sentence from the Government's Response to Defendant's Third Motion to Compel Discovery, filed on April 5, 2006. The sentence, which is the second sentence of the second paragraph on page 23, reads, 'Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium." That sentence should read, "Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, some of the key judgments of the NIE, and that the NIE stated that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium." The Washington Post has posted a piece on Fitzgerald's correction here.
|
| (Update) Joe Wilson's Forgetfulness |
|
(A reader emails on my April 9 "Joe Wilson's Forgetfulness" post: This is largely forgotten now but Joe Wilson initially misled the public on a key question when the story first broke in the summer 2003: Interesting, if the quotes and context stand up.
|
| (Update) Suffocating Prosperity, EU-Style |
|
(From Reuters: "France's students and trade unions prepared a victory parade [today] to mark the demise of a hated youth jobs law, with politicians and analysts split over whether the hope of labour market reform was dead too.... 'Alas, the hope for reform has been buried with them,' [the business daily La Tribune] wrote. 'No important reform can be undertaken in the 12 months ahead of us until the 2007 presidential election. And nothing says it will be easier after that.'") Posted on on April 6, 2006: Ireland, Hungary and Slovakia are doing something wrong. They enjoy healthy economic growth rates, attract new businesses, and --- gasp -- have low corporate tax rates. Today's Wall Street Journal reports that several European Union nations are "moving ahead with the long-taboo subject of creating common rules for corporate taxes, despite objections from low-tax nations such as Ireland and Slovakia.... Ireland and Slovakia have benefited from lower tax rates than their neighbors." The current corporate tax rate in Germany is 38.9 percent; France, 35; Italy, 33; U.K. 30; Slovakia, 19; Hungary, 16; and Ireland 12.5. An original EU member state, Ireland has been an economic juggernaut compared to its larger neighbors. This study by two Swedish academics singled out Ireland as one of the few bright spots in the last decade in an otherwise stagnant European economic landscape (former East Bloc nations were not included in their analysis). Fredrik Bergstrom and Robert Gidehag observe: Stark differences become apparent when comparing official economic statistics. Europe lags behind the USA when comparing GDP per capita and GDP growth rates. The current economic debate among EU leaders lacks an understanding of the gravity of the situation in many European countries. Structural reforms of the European economy as well as far reaching welfare reforms are well overdue. The Lisbon process lacks true impetus, nor is it sufficient to improve the economic prospects of the EU. Perhaps EU leaders should learn from Ireland and the nations of Central Europe (see Business Week's "Rise Of A Powerhouse") rather than seeking to penalize them for understanding how to compete in a global economy. Unfortunately, it's a lesson many French "students" have yet to grasp as they protest proposed changes in the nation's job-stifling labor laws.
|
| Iran "Fantasies" at the New York Times? |
|
The editors at the paper have weighed in on what to do about Iran's quest for nuclear weapons -- in two words, not much. Their argument boils down to this: Tehran is a decade away from a bomb, so all the "saber rattling" is unnecessary and counterproductive. We should encourage Iran's political evolution and let their government know that they're "better off" without nuclear bombs. Sanctions are not mentioned. They make no statement that Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, which puts them to the left of Howard Dean who has declared, "Under no circumstances will a Democratic Administration ever allow Iran to become a nuclear power." And they say nothing on the consequences should Tehran produce them. One person who has offered his thoughts on the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran is Gerard Baker of the Times (London), who wrote: If Iran goes nuclear, it will demonstrate conclusively that even the worldâs 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. I hope Iran is "about 10 years away from building" nuclear bombs as the editors claim, but how do they know with such certainty? They don't say where they got that number. In fact, their favorite weapons inspector, Hans Blix, has pegged the number at "five years" and the Los Angeles Times has reported that the number may be "within three years." Iran's Nuclear Steps Quicken, Diplomats Say Let's hope the intelligence on the status of Iran's nuclear program is better than the world had on Saddam's program in 1991 -- a Manhattan Project-sized nuclear program that went undetected by Western intelligence and the IAEA. It's also a bit ironic that the New York Times Iran editorial was published on the same day Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow at the Democratic Leadership Council, wrote the following: Is the position of the left that America should allow the genocide minded Iranian leader to go along his merry way toward obtaining weapons of mass annihilation until a donkey occupies the White House? One does not have to be a fan of W to recognize the "waiting for the donkey" position to be morally and strategically disastrous.... Give that man a raise!
|
| "Do No Evil" |
|
Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian takes a shot at Google and Yahoo for kowtowing to Beijing. From ComputerWorld: Taiwan President pans Google, Yahoo on free speech Strong criticisms on anniversary of activist's death
|
|
Monday, April 10, 2006
|
| Chavez's Thugs |
|
From the Associated Press: WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration may severely restrict the movements of Venezuela's ambassador if pro-government activists in Venezuela engage in any more ''thuggish'' activities against U.S. Ambassador William Brownfield, a spokesman said Monday. Meanwhile, Colombia's president remains a popular American ally who doesn't get nearly the same media attention as Chavez. I guess anti-Americanism makes for a better story line.
|
| The Terminator on the Border |
|
Schwarzenegger talks sense on immigration in today's Wall Street Journal: President Reagan memorably described his "shining city on a hill" as a place that "hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here." Perhaps because he'd been a border state governor, Reagan understood the challenges and the opportunities presented by immigration. He believed, as I do, that we can have an immigration policy that both strengthens our borders and welcomes immigrants.
|
| US Intell Believed Saddam was "Close to Acquiring Nuclear Weapons" at End of Clinton Administration |
|
With the Iraq nuclear issue back in the news, here's some background information that didn't make it into yesterday's New York Times piece that readers may have found of interest. Kenneth Pollack, former National Security Council official in the Clinton administration, commented in the January/February 2004 issue of The Atlantic Monthly on what U.S. intelligence believed regarding Iraq's nuclear program: The U.S. Intelligence Communityâs belief toward the end of the Clinton Administration [was] that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program and was close to acquiring nuclear weapons.... So before the controversy over Niger, uranium and aluminum tubes, US intelligence believed -- or at least told Pollack -- that Iraq had not only "reconstituted its nuclear weapons program" but was "close" to getting a nuke. Pollack also wrote: In the late spring of 2002 I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi WMD. Those present included nearly twenty former inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior people put a question to the group: Did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did. Three people added that they believed Iraq was also operating a secret calutron plant (a facility for separating uranium isotopes). Pollack's knowledge from his days in the Clinton administration must have been behind this quote he made to the New York Times on March 14, 2003 -- a quote made AFTER the IAEA issued its final pre-war report: âThe choice we have before us is we either go to war now or we will never go to war with Saddam until he chooses to use a nuclear weapon and he chooses the time and place. The question for me is not war or no war. Itâs a question of war now, when the costs may be significant, or war later when they may be unimaginable.â Of course, the rationale for removing Saddam from power was based on far, far more than Iraq's quest for nukes but the revisionist machine -- (Paul Krugman, the NTY editors, etc.) is working hard to portray it that way. More on this later...
|
| Keep On Truckin' |
|
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, co-founded by former Grateful Dead lyricist John Perry Barlow, makes a contribution to U.S. National Security -- specifically the NSA's al Qaeda spying operation.
|
|
Sunday, April 09, 2006
|
| Joe Wilson's Forgetfulness |
|
You've got to hand it to Joe Wilson. He has certainly cashed in on his celebrity as he tours college campuses making ludicrous statements. Wilson is also someone who is curiously forgetful about facts that involve his behavior and those surrounding his trip to Niger. ''It seems to me that first and foremost, the White House needs to come clean on this matter,'' Wilson In case you forgot, Joe Wilson once claimed a role in exposing the Iraq-Niger documents as forgeries. But that wasn't true, as the Senate's 2004 bipartisan Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq pointed out: Page 45 The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post articleâŠwhich said, "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'" Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. And media reports to the contrary, Wilson did not "debunk" the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium. In fact, most intelligence analysts believed his trip "lent more credibility" to reports that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger, and the CIA continued to approve the use of the Iraq-Niger-Uranium language "in Administration publications and speeches, including the State of the Union." 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 wiling or able to sell uranium to Iraq. Conclusion 12 (page 72) Until October 2002 when the Intelligence Community obtained the forged foreign language documents on the Iraq-Niger uranium deal, it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reporting and other available intelligence. Conclusion 19 (page 77) 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. And, for the record, the British have stood firm in their intelligence on the matter. 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. 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 Governmentâs dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bushâs 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: I wonder why none of this makes it into Mr. Wilson's speeches.
|
|
Friday, April 07, 2006
|
| Drawing Inspiration from a Beheading |
|
The enemy. From Reuters: MILAN - An Egyptian accused of helping plan the Madrid train bombings in 2004 indoctrinated young people in Spain and advocated martyrdom, an Italian investigator told a court on Friday....
|
| "Virtual University of Terrorism" |
|
From the Globe and Mail: Senior federal cabinet ministers will be handed a "snapshot" today of how terrorists have dramatically increased their Internet presence during the past year to create a "virtual university of terrorism."
|
|
Thursday, April 06, 2006
|
| Wonder if PM Thatcher Has An Opinion |
|
on this report from the Associated Press: Britain Nixes Argentina's Falklands Claim
|
| The Circus Act Rolls On |
|
| Suffocating Prosperity, EU-Style |
|
Ireland, Hungary and Slovakia are doing something wrong. They enjoy healthy economic growth rates, attract new businesses, and --- gasp -- have low corporate tax rates. Today's Wall Street Journal reports that several European Union nations are "moving ahead with the long-taboo subject of creating common rules for corporate taxes, despite objections from low-tax nations such as Ireland and Slovakia.... Ireland and Slovakia have benefited from lower tax rates than their neighbors." The current corporate tax rate in Germany is 38.9 percent; France, 35; Italy, 33; U.K. 30; Slovakia, 19; Hungary, 16; and Ireland 12.5. An original EU member state, Ireland has been an economic juggernaut compared to its larger neighbors. This study by two Swedish academics singled out Ireland as one of the few bright spots in the last decade in an otherwise stagnant European economic landscape (former East Bloc nations were not included in their analysis). Fredrik Bergstrom and Robert Gidehag observe: Stark differences become apparent when comparing official economic statistics. Europe lags behind the USA when comparing GDP per capita and GDP growth rates. The current economic debate among EU leaders lacks an understanding of the gravity of the situation in many European countries. Structural reforms of the European economy as well as far reaching welfare reforms are well overdue. The Lisbon process lacks true impetus, nor is it sufficient to improve the economic prospects of the EU. Perhaps EU leaders should learn from Ireland and the nations of Central Europe (see Business Week's "Rise Of A Powerhouse") rather than seeking to penalize them for understanding how to compete in a global economy. Unfortunately, it's a lesson many French "students" have yet to grasp as they protest proposed changes in the nation's job-stifling labor laws.
|
|
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
|
| Giuliani Supports Guest-Worker Program on National Security Grounds |
|
Opponents of President Bush's immigration position like to claim the high ground on national security. They rightly claim that we must secure our border, especially in a post 9/11 world. But at the same time many also contend that a guest-worker program would weaken U.S. security. Well, Mayor Giuliani argues that 9/11 is a reason why we need such a program. From today's Chicago Sun Times: Giuliani wants to 'regularize' immigrants to improve safety:
|
| Tora! Tora! Tora! -- Iraq's Pearl Harbor |
|
It's not hard to find comparisons between President Bush and Hitler on anti-war web sites or on signs carried in anti-war marches. But this may be the first time I've read a comparison of Bush's thinking to Tojo's from a well-known politician. In reviewing an upcoming book by Sen. Ted Kennedy on the president's foreign policy, the Boston Globe notes: Bush's decision to invade Iraq, Kennedy says, was an example of ''preventive war" -- attacking a nation to prevent it from developing the ability to threaten the United States. A similar manner of thinking led the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor in 1941, he writes, since Japan was seeking to block the US military buildup in the Pacific. Wonder if the Democratic leadership agrees with the senior senator from Massachusetts? How about all those Democrats who voted for the war?
|
| Kerry Flanks Hillary: Will She Stand Firm? |
|
The news from Sen. Kerry's op-ed today in the New York Times isn't his call to cut and run from Iraq. He's held that position for a while. The big question is whether Sen. Clinton will abandoned her position against setting troop withdrawal timetables. Anti-war Democrats have been pressuring her to do just that for many months. So will Sen. Clinton follow the lead of Sen. Lieberman or roll over for the Party's base like Sen. Kerry has done? Stay tuned...
|
| (Update) Social Conservatives, Sen. Sam Brownback and Immigration Reform |
|
(Interesting twist in the immigration debate among evangelicals reported in today's Washington Post.) Social conservatives couldn't have a better friend on Capitol Hill than the Senator from Kansas. On the cultural divide, he stands as far away from Sen. Kennedy as Pluto is from Mars. Yet, Brownback was instrumental in getting the immigration bill out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Upon passage, he noted the bill, which also tightens border security, isn't "amnesty," which some conservative critics have falsely claimed in much the same way liberals did in accusing Republicans of "cutting" programs when, in fact, they were just slowing the rate of spending growth. It's an effective rhetorical device but deeply misleading. Said Brownback: I am pleased that we were able to report out a bill that makes positive strides toward a guest-worker program and strong enforcement at the border and on the employer....Committee passage is a big step, but not the final step. Workable immigration reform is one of the biggest issues facing the country today and in the future, and we struck a good balance. We need to continue to work on this bill from the floor of the Senate to ensure that we donât make the mistakes of the 1986 amnesty bill or the 1996 enforcement-only bill, which together led to an explosion of the illegal immigrant population. David Brooks in today's New York Times also argues (Times Select, unfortunately) that social conservatives should speak up in support of the Brownback-backed immigration bill and not let opponents claim the moral high ground. Some highlights: The facts show that the recent rise in immigration hasn't been accompanied by social breakdown, but by social repair. As immigration has surged, violent crime has fallen by 57 percent. Teen pregnancies and abortion rates have declined by a third. Teenagers are having fewer sexual partners and losing their virginity later. Teen suicide rates have dropped. The divorce rate for young people is on the way down.
|
| (Update) Ask Virginia's Failed Gubernatorial Candidate about Immigration |
|
(Florida Gov. Jeb Bush weighs in on the immigration debate.) Posted on March 31, 2006: From the governor's election in Virginia last week, there's a bit of evidence that the Republican grip on the exurbs may be loosening.... [T]he outcome in Loudoun and Prince William should be alarming to Republicans. Located west of Washington, Loudoun is the second fastest-growing county in the country. Kilgore lost Loudoun by 51 percent to 46 percent. A year earlier, Bush did 10 points better.... The numbers in Prince William, south of Washington, were slightly better. Kilgore was defeated by 50 percent to 48 percent, slipping five points below Bush.... President Bush opposes the House-passed immigration bill because it isn't "comprehensive" and has asked for everyone involved in the debate to keep it "civil." Of course, he was talking to House Republicans. Having successfully run STATEWIDE in Texas and twice NATIONALLY, the president may have a better grasp on how to maintain Republican majorities than those from overwhelmingly safe districts who appear to be the most vocal on the immigration issue.
|
|
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
|
| The Attempted "Purge" of Senator Joe Lieberman |
|
That's how the Democratic Leadership Council's Marshall Wittmann characterized the Left's campaign to take down the Connecticut Senator in the August primary. Unlike Senators Kerry and Edwards, who long ago rolled over for the anti-war folks, Lieberman has stood his ground on the Iraq War. A while back, he even had the gall to remind his fellow Democrats, "We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril" -- outraging Howard Dean's brother and many other anti-Bush liberals. Nowadays, Lieberman occupies almost the entire Henry "Scoop" Jackson wing of the Democratic Party. In the early 1970s, "Scoop" Jackson of Washington co-founded the Coalition for a Democratic Majority, a group of hawkish Democrats who opposed the take over of the party by the McGovern folks. Today, as Wittmann observes, the party of McGovern lives on. From Wittmann's Bull Moose Blog: Monday, April 03, 2006
|
| Iran Steps Up Intelligence Activity in Southern Lebanon |
|
From the Telegraph: Iran has set up a sophisticated intelligence gathering operation in southern Lebanon to identify targets in northern Israel in the event of a military confrontation over its controversial nuclear programme.
|
| Reviewing Documents to Charge Saddam with Genocide |
|
The BBC reports that Iraqi prosecutors will formerly charge Saddam Hussein with "genocide over a 1980s campaign against the Kurds." Saddam's forces killed about 180,000 in the "Anfal" campaign, which made worldwide headlines after the poison gas attack on Halabja. The BBC also reports that investigators have reviewed "thousands of documents" that will help demonstrate that Saddam was complicit in the murderous campaign and authorized the poison gas attacks. But why would prosecutors waste their time reviewing "thousands of documents"? Haven't they read the latest New York Times editorial on the issue of reviewing documents? The editors are bored by it all -- see here and here. What a strange position for a truth-seeking newspaper to adopt.
|
|
Monday, April 03, 2006
|
| (Update) Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick... |
|
(According to the Associated Press, Hans Blix says don't sweat it. Iran is at least five years from getting a nuke.)
From today's Los Angeles Times: Iran's Nuclear Steps Quicken, Diplomats Say Let's hope our intelligence on the status of Iran's nuclear program is better than we had on Saddam's in 1991. From a Worldwide Standard post, January 13, 2006: 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 purposesâbut 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 âhot cellâ lab for extracting plutonium, and had arranged to buy large quantities of uranium from Brazil, Portugal and Nigerâall without any investment in a nuclear-energy program. In his 2002 book, The Threatening Storm, Clinton NSC official Kenneth Pollack wrote that Osirak âwas the key to Saddamâs nuclear weapons program and ... was due to go online within a matter of weeks.â The bombing set Iraqâs ânuclear bomb program back by several years,â but it also âtaught the Iraqis an important lesson. Thereafter, Saddam ordered a redoubling of the Iraqi program...camouflaged against detection.â (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 âits status as a full memberâ of the NPT because it was âthe desire of the military and security services not to attract any undue attention to Iraqâs developing nuclear program that would complicate procurement and development efforts.â 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 âscope and sophisticationâ of its program âresembled the Manhattan Project, the American effort that produced the first atomic bombâ; 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 importantâand disturbingâfinds 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 Saddamâs own public statements, Western experts consistently underestimated Iraqâs 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 âheavily compartmentalizedâ and employing a variety of deception techniques. For example, Iraq created a network of front companies to import nuclear-related materials âin quantities that were below the size that triggered controls.â 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 âaccurate understanding of the limitations of U.S. technical collection systems...â 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.
|
| Attention Professors Mearsheimer and Walt |
|
The vast ZOG conspiracy grows. You may want to incorporate this into your truly original study, "The Israel Lobby and American Foreign Policy."
|
| "Iraqification" and the "Footprint" |
|
Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former case officer in the CIA's clandestine service and current resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, offers his assessment on Iraq and US political/military strategy in today's Wall Street Journal: Americans aside, the attack in Samarra didn't blow apart the democratic Shiite consensus led by Ayatollah Sistani. The various, often mutually hostile, Shiite parties, are likely to plow ahead, however fitfully, to some political deal with the Sunnis and the Kurds, who both now know that the Shiites will no longer passively watch their women and children slaughtered and their holy sites desecrated. Sunni and Kurdish fear of Shiite power--a fickle but growing alliance between Sunni Arabs and Kurds was inevitable--is politically overdue and healthy for all concerned. This is a tightrope act, but the Sunni Arabs must internalize the fact that they cannot leverage the insurgency into power. If they continue to try, they will only convert Shiite "sheep" (the traditional Arab Sunni view of Arab Shiites) into rampant "lions," unstoppable by even the most revered, peace-promoting divines.
|
| How China's Growing Middle Class May Impact the World Economy |
|
Here's an interesting New York Times piece on how China's growing labor shortage will impact the world economy and swell the ranks of China's middle class: Persistent labor shortages at hundreds of Chinese factories have led experts to conclude that the economy is undergoing a profound change that will ripple through the global market for manufactured goods. You may also find this piece, "China Could Learn From Indiaâs Slow and Quiet Rise" by MIT professor Yasheng Huang, of interest.
|
|
Sunday, April 02, 2006
|
| (Update) Iran, Terrorism and the Bomb |
|
(From Reuters: "TEHRAN -Iran said it would test fire a powerful torpedo on Monday and more missiles on Tuesday as part of a week of wargames in the Gulf, a senior naval officer told state television.") If this piece is an accurate assessment of Iran's terror response should we hit its nuclear installations, how do we think they'll behave once they get one? Will they be bolder in sponsoring terror or more restrained? Will they assume a more aggressive posture in the Middle East or a less assertive one? I didn't find any assessments related to these questions in today's Washington Post article. We also learn from the Post's Dana Priest that Iran has been trying to dictate the foreign policy of Washington, London, Paris and Bonn by threatening terror attacks. Iran "certainly wants to remind governments that they can create a lot of difficulty if strikes were to occur," said a senior European counterterrorism official interviewed recently. One would think that such behavior should only reinforce the necessity of shutting down Tehran's nuclear weapons program.
|
|
Saturday, April 01, 2006
|
| Putting Democrats on the Defensive for a Change |
|
Today, in a joint press conference with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Secretary of State Rice was asked about how many "mistakes" she believed the U.S. has made in Iraq. In answering, Rice admitted mistakes were made but also stressed an extremely important point that Republicans on Capitol Hill should also make as much as possible. Rice said: The important thing is to get the big strategic decisions right and that I am confident that the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein and give the Iraqi people an opportunity for peace and for democracy is the right decision. Rice is right. The judgment to remove Saddam Hussein from power was the "right" strategic decision. Even so, Republicans, in the face of constant Democratic attacks about the Iraq war, have been far too defensive about the strategic necessity to topple Saddam. They hardly ever talk about it. For example, they don't talk about what the Middle East would look like today with Saddam in power. They don't talk about the Duelfer finding that Saddam was primed to pump out more wmd or that Saddam's terrorist connection was deeper than the media lets on, including preparations for attacks in Europe. Some Democrats opposed the war from the start, while many others supported the war resolution but now "regret" their vote. Fine. Democrats believe we should have left Saddam in power and "contained" him. Republicans should aggressively engage them on their position, as Sen. McCain did a while back. "Our choice wasn't between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war," he argued. "It was between war and a graver threat. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Not our critics abroad. Not our political opponents...." Republicans should explain to voters that leaving Saddam in place would have been the wrong strategic decision and that following the Democrats' troop "redeployment plan" today would also be the wrong strategic decision. President Bush made the right call. Saddam is gone. Now we must finish the job -- that's the message. Let the debate begin.
|

