May 19, 2008 • Vol. 13, No. 34
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« September 2006 |
Main
| November 2006 »
The nation's largest veterans organization, The American Legion, released the following statement a short time ago:
American Legion to Sen. Kerry: Apologize Now
INDIANAPOLIS, October 31, 2006 - The National Commander of The American Legion called on Sen. John Kerry to apologize for suggesting that American troops in Iraq are uneducated.
“As a constituent of Senator Kerry’s I am disappointed. As leader of The American Legion, I am outraged,” said National Commander Paul A. Morin. “A generation ago, Sen. Kerry slandered his comrades in Vietnam by saying that they were rapists and murderers. It wasn’t true then and his warped view of today’s heroes isn’t true now.”
While addressing a group of college students at a campaign rally in Pasadena, CA., Monday, Kerry suggested that they receive an education or “if you don’t, you’ll get stuck in Iraq.”
“While The American Legion shares the senator’s appreciation for education, the troops in Iraq represent the most sophisticated, technologically superior military that the world has ever seen,” Morin said. “I think there is a thing or two that they could teach most college professors and campus elitists about the way the world works.
“And while we are on the topic of education, why doesn’t the senator and his comrades in Congress improve the GI Bill so all of today’s military members – reserves and guard included – can achieve the educational aspirations that the senator so highly values?” Morin said. “The senator’s false and outrageous attack was over-the-top and he should apologize now.”
Vets for Freedom has also released a statement on Kerry's remarks.
Sen. McCain released the following statement today in response to Sen. John Kerry's patronizing remarks on Monday:
Senator Kerry owes an apology to the many thousands of Americans serving in Iraq, who answered their country's call because they are patriots and not because of any deficiencies in their education.
Americans from all backgrounds, well off and less fortunate, with high school diplomas and graduate degrees, take seriously their duty to our country, and risk their lives today to defend the rest of us in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
They all deserve our respect and deepest gratitude for their service. The suggestion that only the least educated Americans would agree to serve in the military and fight in Iraq, is an insult to every soldier serving in combat, and should deeply offend any American with an ounce of appreciation for what they suffer and risk so that the rest of us can sleep more comfortably at night.
Without them, we wouldn't live in a country where people securely possess all their God-given rights, including the right to express insensitive, ill-considered and uninformed remarks.
Kerry’s remarks are a disgrace, but not surprising. Though ineptly delivered, Kerry’s line on the uneducated, poor soldier is a myth routinely pushed by the Left. From the March 12, 2006 New York Times:
The American military does not depend on poor recruits to sustain itself, argues Tim Cavanaugh in ''Middle-Class Warfare: Military Recruits and Poverty'' in Reason magazine.
In different ways, Democrats and Republicans both subscribe to the notion that recruits are poor kids driven to enlist by desperate financial conditions. Most recently, it's been an argument for the draft: Impose conscription, the idea goes, and it won't just be poor kids going to war.
Now the conservative Heritage Foundation has analyzed enlistee demographics by looking at household incomes in the zip codes recruits come from. The results indicate a pool of recruits drawn mainly from the middle class. The largest group of new recruits in 2003 -- 18 percent -- came from neighborhoods with average annual household incomes of $35,000 to $40,000, compared to a median household income of $43,318. In all, the top two-income quintiles (comprising households with incomes starting at $41,688) produced 45 percent of all recruits in 2003. A mere 5 percent came from neighborhoods with average incomes below $20,000 per household.
The Heritage findings make sense: While the military offers some attractions in terms of education, training and life experience, the effort and commitment required are so great that service in the enlisted ranks will always lose a cost/benefit comparison with even the most humble minimum-wage job. Noneconomic, nonrational motivations such as patriotism, self-esteem building, or just the desire to change one's life are more compelling factors in the decision to join up.
Good for McCain for nailing Kerry on it.
Given the Security Council's routine dithering, it's good to see the Bush administration steadily building a parallel and flexible structure to deal with threats rather than just debate them at Turtle Bay. On Monday, the New York Times reports,
more than two dozen countries, including three gulf states, practiced intercepting and searching vessels suspected of trafficking in unconventional weapons in major military maneuvers on Monday that emphasized their coordination and willingness to aggressively block the spread of arms.
The daylong exercise, about 20 miles outside Iranian territorial waters, seemed to signal to Iran, too, that a coalition of Western powers and neighboring states was intent on denying it access to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, even on its doorstep….
“This is ultimately important because of where it’s happening, when it’s happening and why it’s happening,” said a diplomat observing the exercise, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment. “Iran and Korea are two main targets, but there are many others of interest to this effort.”
It was also notable for the involvement of Bahrain, and support by Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, which sent observers.
The operation began last week with war games to practice intelligence cooperation, then moved to the exercise at sea, which included Australian, British, French and Italian warships and three Bahraini frigates.
The exercise was part of the administration’s Proliferation Security Initiative -- a program created in 2003 to track and intercept illicit wmd trafficking by rogue nations.
It's no secret that a Giuliani presidential run would complicate McCain's primary strategy just as a Gingrich candidacy would complicate Romney’s. Giuliani has obvious strength with independent voters, and he can be very tough on the Democrats. Because he’s not a fan of the liberal media establishment, I suspect Giuliani would pick some fights with them to score points with conservative Republicans turned off by his social views. As mayor, Giuliani frequently battled The New York Times and its editors over his policies. Getting in a fight with the Times and other liberal icons won’t lose him votes in the GOP, and it would put pressure on McCain to do much the same or risk hemorrhaging too many conservative votes to Giuliani.
If Gingrich takes the plunge, Romney’s strategy of becoming the sole conservative alternative to McCain would probably take much longer to achieve. The former speaker would presumably seek to be anti-McCain (with a populist twist) candidate, and I can envision the extremely articulate Gingrich staying on the debate stage for some time. To swing anti-McCain voters to his side, Gingrich would likely portray Romney’s record as governor as far less conservative and innovative than meets the eye and also contrast Romney’s more liberal statements as a candidate for office in Massachusetts with what he is saying today to win the GOP presidential nod.
Though I have trouble seeing candidates Giuliani or Gingrich ultimately capturing the GOP nod, they would surely make the race fun to watch. Stay tuned…
(Did some checking. It won't happen.)
The Washington Post's Kathleen Parker told NBC's Chris Matthews on Sunday that RNC Chair Ken Mehlman “is going to be leaving the National Republican Committee, possibly heading over to the Giuliani camp.” That would be big news.
Sen. John Kerry recently claimed on ABC's This Week:
"Our own generals tell us the solution in Iraq is not military. If it's not military, don't talk as John McCain does, about putting more troops in…. Talk about how you resolve the political and diplomatic dilemma and sectarian dilemma between Shia and Sunni and the region."
Is this the same Kerry who’s been running around the nation calling the current strategy – one devised by “our own generals” – a huge failure? He then turns around and trumpets their counsel on troop levels. Of course, these generals have also been telling us that that Kerry’s rapid troop withdrawal plan for Iraq would be a disaster. He didn’t mention that on ABC.
But is it true that “our own generals” oppose more troops? Well, the retired generals who spoke before the Senate Democratic Policy Committee in late September certainly believe Kerry is wrong – and remember, the Democrats invited these generals because they’ve been harshly critical of Sec. Rumsfeld’s handling of Iraq. From the Washington Post:
But Democrats, while celebrating Batiste's criticism of the administration, exercised some selective listening at the hearing when Batiste and his colleagues offered their solution: more troops, more money and more time in Iraq.
"We must mobilize our country for a protracted challenge," Batiste warned.
"We better be planning for at least a minimum of a decade or longer," contributed retired Marine Col. Thomas Hammes.
"We are, conservatively, 60,000 soldiers short," added retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who was in charge of building the Iraqi Security Forces.
People may disagree on troop levels, but John Kerry has his own credibility problems on Iraq.
The Kremlin hasn't been too interested in slapping stiff sanctions on Iran over its rogue nuclear program. On the Security Council, Russia, with an assist from China, has acted more like defense counsel for Tehran than a responsible member of the international community seeking to stem nuclear proliferation. While Beijing invests in Iran’s (and Sudan’s for that matter) energy industry, the Russians have opened the arms spigot to Tehran. Today's New York Times reports on a new Congressional Research Service study of international arms sales:
The [Russian] sales to improve Iran’s air-defense system are particularly troubling to the United States because they would complicate the task of Pentagon planners should the president order airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities.
The Bush administration has vowed a diplomatic solution in dealing with Iran. But as United Nations diplomats argue over potential sanctions against Iran for its nuclear ambitions, Russian officials have expressed reluctance to vote for the most stringent economic sanctions, partly owing to Moscow’s extensive trade relations with Tehran….
The Russian sales in 2005 included 29 of the SA-15 Gauntlet surface-to-air missile systems for Iran; Russia also signed deals to upgrade Iran’s Su-24 bombers and MIG-29 fighter aircraft, as well as its T-72 battle tanks.
Politicalmoneyline.com reports that Democratic Senate candidate Ned Lamont has tapped his trust fund again and donated another “$2 million … to his campaign committee, raising his General Election contributions to $8,750,000. This is in addition to the $4,001,500 he contributed to his primary election campaign.” Considering Lamont’s weak poll numbers, he may be better off cutting personal checks to each Connecticut voter with a note begging for their vote.
Don't be surprised to see former Majority Leader Dick Armey on the debate stage, perhaps in South Carolina this May. Armey knows full well he won’t win the nomination. But, as one knowledgeable source told me, he is seriously considering jumping in for the national exposure and for the chance to duke it out with Newt Gingrich. It’s no secret that Gingrich may run and that Armey isn’t a big admirer of the former speaker. The libertarian Armey, never a fan of the Iraq War which Gingrich supports, has reserved his strongest criticism for “enforcement-only” Republicans, along with the Christian Coalition and evangelical leader James Dobson. Armey strongly supports the president’s call for comprehensive immigration reform and a guest-worker program; Gingrich is steadfast against it. After Armey recently criticized the GOP for having “pandered to Christian evangelical conservatives,” Gingrich fired back on Fox News: “When Dick Armey looks at Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel and huge tax increases he's going to love those evangelicals.”
So, buckle up. If Gingrich (who I believe is more likely to run than Giuliani) and Armey enter the fray, the GOP debates should be just as entertaining as those on the other side of the aisle. Stay tuned…
A few weeks back, Senator Clinton and Senator McCain got in a tussle over the Clinton administration’s 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea. Sen. Clinton said the Framework was a policy success and a lesson for how to deal with Pyongyang. McCain called it a “failure” and something we shouldn’t repeat. Back in 1994, he forcefully argued against the deal with the “crumbling regime” because it was all carrots and no sticks. He also noted: “We will reach a moment when it is apparent to all” that the Framework was a failure. “That will be when North Korea begins reprocessing the fuel now in cooling ponds into weapons-grade plutonium.”
All this brings me to this piece, “In ’97, U.S. Panel Predicted a North Korea Collapse in 5 Years,” in today’s New York Times. The Times reports:
A team of government and outside experts convened by the Central Intelligence Agency concluded in 1997 that North Korea’s economy was deteriorating so rapidly that the government of Kim Jong-il was likely to collapse within five years, according to declassified documents made public on Thursday.
The panel described the isolated and impoverished country as being on the brink of economic ruin and said that “political implosion stemming from irreversible economic degradation seems the most plausible endgame for North Korea.” The majority among the group argued that the North’s government “cannot remain viable for the long term” and could fall within five years….
“Conventional wisdom was completely wrong,” said Ambassador Wendy Sherman, who during the late 1990s was the Clinton administration’s coordinator for North Korea policy. “People constantly underestimated the staying power of the North Korean regime.”
The belief that the North Korean economy was collapsing helped shaped White House thinking in 1994 when it promised to deliver light-water nuclear reactors to North Korea by 2003 in exchange for Pyongyang’s halting its covert nuclear weapons program. Senior Clinton administration officials said privately at the time that they did not expect Mr. Kim’s government to be in power by the time the United States had to make good on its pledge….
So did all those carrots – from the U.S. and Pyongyang’s neighbors over the years – sustain a regime that was on the verge of collapse? Did all those carrots give Pyongyang the time it needed to advance its missile and nuclear programs? On thing is for sure: The Clinton-McCain North Korea debate hasn’t ended.
The Henry Jackson Society has released an open letter “on the crisis in Darfur, signed by fifty-five politicians, opinion formers, academics and journalists, to both raise awareness of this pressing moral and strategic issue, and call on the international community to end ethnic cleansing in Darfur.”
From the AP:
A Danish court rejected a lawsuit Thursday against the newspaper that first printed the controversial Prophet Muhammad cartoons. Arab politicians and intellectuals warned the verdict would widen the gap between Westerners and Muslims, but said mass protests were unlikely….
The court conceded that some Muslims saw the drawings as offensive, but found there was no basis to assume that "the purpose of the drawings was to present opinions that can belittle Muslims."
"The dismissal of the lawsuit against the newspaper, which was expected, confirms the ongoing intention to harm our religion and our prophet," said Mahmoud al-Kharabsheh, an independent legislator who heads the Jordanian parliament's legal committee.
The plaintiffs plan to appeal the verdict, spokesman Kasem Ahmad told Danish radio, adding that he feared Muslims around the world would be upset by the ruling.
Jyllands-Posten's editor in chief hailed the court's decision as a victory for freedom of speech.
"Everything but a pure acquittal would have been a disaster for press freedom and the media's ability to fulfill its duties in a democratic society," Carsten Juste said.
The newspaper has apologized for offending Muslims, but stands by its decision to print the cartoons in September 2005 as a challenge to a perceived self-censorship among artists afraid to offend Islam....
I’d say the odds are pretty good that the violent intimidation tactics used against Denmark will be employed again against those exercising their freedom of speech in a democratic nation.
Today's New York Times reports: "The United States and three European allies have given Russia and China a draft text for a Security Council resolution against Iran’s nuclear program. The proposal includes the extraordinary step of preventing Iranian students from studying nuclear physics at foreign universities and colleges.” The Times continues:
It was unclear just how far-reaching the proposed ban against nuclear education for Iranian students abroad would be, and the diplomats involved in the negotiations did not seem to have resolved that issue.
The prohibition would ban any training and education of Iranian citizens if it could eventually contribute to nuclear and ballistic missile programs. But whether such a ban would extend to all physics courses, or even to mathematics and other courses, remained undetermined.
In fact, recent history suggests the U.S. and our allies have good reason to be concerned about such contributions to Iran’s weapons programs. Saddam, as I have noted before, tapped foreign universities to boost his nuclear program – a program that “was only 12 to 18 months from producing its first bomb,” the Washington Post reported in August 1991, “not five to 10 years as previously thought.”
In a 1995 Washington Quarterly article, “Denial and Deception Practices WMD Proliferators: Iraq and Beyond,” former weapons inspector David Kay wrote that Iraq hid its nuclear weapons program by keeping it “heavily compartmentalized” and employing a variety of deception techniques. For example, Iraq created a network of front companies to import nuclear-related materials “in quantities that were below the size that triggered controls.”
Kay continued:
The Iraqi nuclear program involved at least 20,000 personnel, many of whom had training and contacts abroad. This was a potentially large source of leakage of information on the aims and direction of these activities. Iraq faced this problem and adopted a series of deception practices designed to limit any such loss. First, Iraq managed its flow of personnel to ensure that students were not all sent to the same universities and countries. This had several advantages. Training in most scientific disciplines follows somewhat different approaches in different countries and provides access to multiple networks of information. This is particularly true in the various engineering and science disciplines that most concern a nuclear weapons program. For example, information concerning the ability and techniques involved in focusing X-rays was classified in the United States long after it was part of the general physics literature in Japan, Germany, and Britain.
Also, by dispersing students, Iraq made it more difficult for any one country to fully appreciate the breadth of technical skills being built up in Iraq. And this dispersal of students certainly made it more difficult to track individual Iraqi scientists. Concerns with privacy and academic freedom as well as a low collection priority have meant that systematic data on foreign students are collected in few countries and seldom shared with other countries.
So the American effort to diminish Iran’s ability to do the same thing is not “extraordinary.” It’s common sense.
From the Los Angeles Times (sub. req'd):
U.S. officials, apparently caught off guard by the Saudi government's recent release of more than two dozen former Guantanamo Bay prisoners, are voicing fears that the men will join the camp of violent extremist groups.
The Saudis released the 29 men from jail for observance of Ramadan, the Muslim holy month of fasting and atonement, with instructions to return to custody by the end of this month.
Saudi officials said that although the men were still under investigation for possible terrorist ties, they were not considered serious threats. "Throwing people in jail and letting them rot is not the answer," said Nail Jubeir, spokesman for the Saudi Embassy in Washington.
But the commander at the sprawling camp here for suspected terrorists is skeptical.
"I'm interested in if they go back to the fight," said Rear Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr. He contends that about 50 of 300 men released since Guantanamo became a prison in 2002 for terrorism suspects have resumed plotting against U.S. interests worldwide, but could identify only one confirmed example….
The former Democratic senator from Nebraska, Bob Kerrey, understands why the John Kerry-endorsed Ned Lamont must be defeated. He is campaigning with Joe Lieberman today in Connecticut. Kerrey is a member of “Dems for Joe,” a band of Democrats who haven’t bailed on Joe. The group includes former Sens. David Boren (OK), John Breaux (LA), Bryan (NV), DeConcini (AZ), and Johnston (LA).
The American Enterprise Institute's Frederick Kagan on...
our responsibility in Iraq:
Both honor and our vital national interest require establishing conditions in Iraq that will allow the government to consolidate and maintain civil peace and good governance. It doesn't matter how many "trained and ready" Iraqi soldiers there are, nor how many provinces are nominally under Iraqi control. If America withdraws its forces before setting the conditions for the success of the Iraqi government, we will have failed in our mission and been defeated in the eyes of our enemies.
and why we need a larger Army/Marine Corps:
The strain on the soldiers and Marines must be eased. Recruiting and training takes time, of course, and many will argue that it is too late: We'll be out of Iraq before they take the field. That same argument was made in 2003, 2001, 1999, and 1997. If we'd started at any of those times to increase the size of the ground forces, new soldiers would be on the ground today where they are badly needed. How many times are we going to repeat this mistake?
Australian Prime Minister John Howard hasn't shied away from speaking out on the global intimation campaign against free speech. He’s also not about to run away from Iraq, and he understands the consequences of defeat.
Prime Minister John Howard said Wednesday the Iraq mission was not easy, "but we have to ask ourselves is Australia's security enhanced by Western defeat in Iraq."
"I ask people to contemplate the impact on the authority of the United State, the impact on the West of a defeat in Iraq," Howard told television's Nine Network.
"If people think that is going to strengthen the West, is going to strengthen America and strengthen Australia, I think they have taken leave of their senses."
… "America will only leave Iraq when she is satisfied that the Iraqis can look after the situation themselves, and that is our position," he said.
Contrast Howard’s position with that of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, a supporter of a rapid withdrawal from Iraq, who had this exchange with Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes:
STAHL: Do you not think that the war in Iraq now, today, is the war on terror?
Rep. PELOSI: No. The war on terror is the war in Afghanistan. That is what...
STAHL: But you don't think that the terrorists have moved into Iraq now?
Rep. PELOSI: (Unintelligible). They have.
STAHL: Well...
Rep. PELOSI: The jihadists in Iraq. But that doesn't mean we stay there. That means--they'll stay there as long as we're there. They're there because we're there.
So the “war on terror is the war in Afghanistan” but not in Iraq, even though, by her own admission, terrorists have moved into Iraq. The terrorists in Iraq, Pelosi says, will “stay there as long as we’ve there.” Pelosi didn’t say where the terrorists would go once we exited. Some may stay in Iraq; others may go to Afghanistan, South Asia, Somalia, Europe, or the Pacific Rim. In this regard, Pelosi joins the other Howard who also believes the only "fight on terror" is in Afghanistan.
Phillip Carter, who served with the 101st Airborne in Iraq, has an interesting piece, “The Thin Green Line,” in Slate. He argues precisely against the kind of "over-the-horizon" troop redeployment advocated by many senior Democrats. Some highlights:
Despite having 140,000 troops in Iraq, our military is still forced to play a game of whack-a-mole with the insurgency and militias, because it cannot dominate the country enough to secure every city and hamlet. The U.S. military constitutes a thin green line capable of containing the insurgency when deployed, but it cannot be everywhere. The inability of Iraqi police and army units to retake Balad on their own demonstrates the continuing problem with the U.S. exit strategy of "standing up" Iraqi security forces so we can "stand down." Without a radical change of strategy, the mission in Iraq will fail….
Although the United States has nearly 30,000 troops near Balad, it does not have any troops in the city on a full-time basis….When a massive flare-up happens in places like Balad, Tikrit, or Kirkuk, all cities without a permanent U.S. presence, our military must respond from afar, its effectiveness and responsiveness limited by distance.
Of course, this presumes that U.S. forces are able to respond at a moment's notice. Nothing could be further from the truth. The American battalion responsible for Balad is stretched over hundreds of square miles and is responsible for partnering with Iraqi forces, engaging local government officials, overseeing reconstruction projects, securing its bases, and providing security throughout the area. Covering all these missions presents a difficult tactical problem, one that forces commanders to spread their troops thinly. A medium-sized city like Balad, with 100,000 residents, might be patrolled only by a company—100 to 150 men—at any given time.
This violent weekend proves that America needs to radically change its course in Iraq, while some form of victory still lies within our grasp. First, the U.S. military must reverse its trend of consolidation and redeploy its forces into Iraq's cities. Efficiency and force protection cannot define our military footprint in Iraq; if those are our goals, we may as well bring our troops home today. Instead, we must assume risk by pushing U.S. forces out into small patrol bases in the middle of Iraq's cities where they are able to work closely with Iraqi leaders and own the streets. Counterinsurgency requires engagement. The most effective U.S. efforts thus far in Iraq have been those that followed this maxim, like the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Tal Afar, which established numerous bases within the city and attacked the insurgency from within with a mix of political, economic, and military action.
Second, the United States needs to reinforce the most successful part of its strategy so far—embedding advisers with Iraqi units…. It must extend the embedding program to the police and the Iraqi government, down to the province and city level, to bring critical services like security, electricity, and governance to the Iraqi people.
At the same time, we must recognize the limitations of our strategy to raise the Iraqi forces—it is a blueprint for withdrawal, not for victory. At best, it will enable us to substitute Iraqi soldiers and cops for American men and women. But simply replacing American soldiers with Iraqi soldiers and cops will not end the insurgency; it will merely transform it into a civil war where the state-equipped army and police battle with Sunni and Shiite militias, with Iraqi civilians frequently caught in the crossfire.
To combat the insurgency, America must adopt a more holistic approach than simply building up the country's security forces. We have the seeds of this in Iraq today—the State Department's Provincial Reconstruction Teams. I worked closely with the PRT in Diyala to advise the Iraqi courts, jails, and police, and I saw their tremendous potential. However, having been hamstrung by bureaucratic infighting between the State and Defense departments (see here for more on this "infighting"), these teams now lack the authority, personnel, and resources to run the reconstruction effort effectively….
I believe that there is still time to secure Iraq and stave off what some believe is an inevitable civil war. Bolstering Iraq's security forces and our own reconstruction efforts may not be enough, but these practical fixes represent our best hope for pulling Iraq back from the precipice….
From AFP:
Fear of the spread of Islam in non-Muslim countries motivates attacks on Muslims in the West, the imam of Islam's holiest shrine has told worshippers celebrating Eid al-Fitr feast.
"Did you wonder why this issue is raised every now and then?" Sheikh Saleh bin Humaid, who also heads the Saudi-appointed Shura (consultative) Council, asked at the Grand Mosque in Mecca, western Saudi Arabia.
He was referring to controversial remarks by Pope Benedict XVI last month in which he cited a 14th-century Christian emperor who said Islam's Prophet Mohammed had brought the world "evil and inhuman" practices "such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".
The issue "was raised only because the hearts of observers among the adversaries are filled with resentment over the spread of this faith and its overcoming of all borders, barriers and blocks in all eras and under all circumstances," bin Humaid said.
Bin Humaid was delivering the feast sermon to throngs of worshippers led by King Abdullah and other Saudi dignitaries on the first day of Eid al-Fitr that marks the end of the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan….
"Copies of the holy Koran are a bestseller among non-Muslims in the world and the numbers of those converting to God's religion (Islam) are quickly multiplying" in Christian and other non-Muslim countries, bin Humaid said.
"Religious and political leaders there have warned against the victory of Islam and its expansion," he said.
Bin Humaid, who did not mention Western countries by name, cited what he said was a specialized study produced by "them" and which predicted that Islam would prevail.
The study "said that the future world order will be religious, and the Islamic order will prevail despite its current weakness because it (Islam) is the only religion that enjoys a comprehensive power", bin Humaid said.
This explains why "the symbols of Islam" are being abused and the Muslims' activities and charities are subjected to scrutiny and restrictions in non-Muslim countries, he said….
For all her talk about changing the tone in Washington, Rep. Pelosi evidently wants to inject more partisanship into the House Intelligence Committee. Today’s New York Times reports that a Speaker Pelosi would not appoint Rep. Jane Harman to chair the committee. Why? It isn’t because Harmon isn’t qualified. She’s one of the most articulate and thoughtful Democrats on national security. No, Pelosi won’t appoint Harmon because she isn’t partisan enough.
Representative Jane Harman has gained national prominence as the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, but even her supporters now concede that she is unlikely to become chairman if her party wins control of the House.
Standing in her way is another California lawmaker, Representative Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats’ speaker-in-waiting, who would have the power to pick the leader of each committee. The relationship between the two has soured in recent years over political rivalries and policy disputes, and Congressional officials on both sides of the divide say Ms. Pelosi would most likely look elsewhere to fill the Intelligence Committee’s top job….
“Ms. Harman, a moderate from Southern California, has been one of the party’s most outspoken voices on national security matters since the Sept. 11 attacks. But she has also drawn sharp criticism from more liberal Democrats, including Ms. Pelosi, who have privately said that she has not sufficiently used her position to attack the Bush administration for its prewar intelligence failures on Iraq and for its use of secret programs like the domestic eavesdropping carried out without warrants by the National Security Agency….
The anti-Harman campaign has gotten so nasty that someone leaked to Time magazine that Harman was the focus of an F.B.I. "inquiry."
Ms. Pelosi’s allies say that she is infuriated by the lobbying effort and that the outside pressure has made her even less likely to consider Ms. Harman.
Ms. Harman’s efforts to claim the post have even attracted the attention of investigators. Federal officials said Monday that she was the focus of a year-old F.B.I. inquiry related to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac, a powerful pro-Israel lobbying group. The officials, confirming a Time magazine report, said the bureau had been looking into whether she had made improper promises to the group in exchange for its efforts to lobby Ms. Pelosi on her behalf.
But the officials also said that the accusations had not been proved and that although the inquiry remained open, it was no longer being actively pursued.
“Congresswoman Harman does not know what this is all about,” said her lawyer, Theodore B. Olson. “She has no information from the government that she is under an investigation of any sort, and the idea that she should be investigated for being a supporter of Aipac is frightening.”
In a Pelosi-run House, the White House would be wise to cultivate closer relations with moderate Democrats like Harman. The combination of a unified GOP and a core group of Democrats uneasy with its leadership could score the administration some surprising legislative victories.
Senator Clinton is a very shrewd politician. She's trying to pull off the nearly impossible: be tough on national security while not alienating too many Democratic primary voters. Her latest two-step is on the terror detainee bill. She opposed the bill and drew wild applause from the Left with this speech she delivered on the Senate floor:
The deliberative process is being broken under the pressure of partisanship and the policy that results is a travesty….
Once again, there are those who are willing to stay a course that is not working, giving the Bush-Cheney Administration a blank check – a blank check to torture, to create secret courts using secret evidence, to detain people, including Americans, to be free of judicial oversight and accountability, to put our troops in greater danger.
Now, after the bill is off the front pages and the media focus back on Iraq, Clinton says that she’s ok with torture if there’s "an imminent threat to millions of Americans." She adds: "That very, very narrow exception within very, very limited circumstances is better than blasting a big hole in our entire law."
But why didn’t she offer such an amendment – one that gave “a blank check to torture” only under “ticking time bomb” scenarios -- when the bill was on the Senate floor and the Democratic grass roots fully engaged? I checked. She didn’t. In fact, had her argument won the day our interrogation program, which has yielded solid intelligence, would have been shut down. Senator Clinton is trying to have it both ways and, judging from the press coverage of her latest torture remarks, she’s succeeding.
Rather than engage in this nonsense, the RNC should take the advice of former Clintonite Dick Morris in today’s New York Post:
Here's one possible ad: We see and hear a wiretapped conversation, with a terrorist revealing his worst plans to his associate - and, inadvertently, to government eavesdroppers, too. Then, when he's about to spill the beans on when and where the next attack is going to come, the line should go dead, with a dial tone, with a machine voice saying "This wiretap terminated in the name of privacy rights by the Democratic U.S. Congress."
The announcer can then say, "If the Democrats win, the National Security Agency will never be able to listen in as the terrorists are plotting to attack us.
Connecticut’s Nancy Johnson has run a similar campaign ad. For more on the terrorist surveillance program, see Democratic Center, R.I.P.
("Iran is expanding its uranium enrichment program," reports the AP, "even as the U.N. Security Council focuses on possible sanctions for its defiance of a demand to give up the activity and ease fears it seeks nuclear weapons….”)
USA Today has a good editorial on Russian complicity in Iran’s nuclear program.
It took the explosion of a nuclear bomb by North Korea — fortunately just a test — for China to start enforcing sanctions and applying pressure in a way that suggests it finally grasps the proliferation dangers, to itself, the region and the world, that its erratic neighbor represents.
It might take a nuclear bomb in Iran to wake Russia up in the same way — and then it could be too late.
Moscow is to Iran what Beijing is to North Korea: a great power neighbor with so much economic and political influence that it could, almost single-handedly, close the rogue regime's nuclear weapons program.
On Saturday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice went to Moscow hoping to turn the "momentum" of sanctions against North Korea into similar action against Iran. Russia was having none of it. "We won't be able to support and will oppose any attempts to use the Security Council to punish Iran" to promote regime change, said Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
What's happening is that Russian President Vladimir Putin's agenda is driven by a single obsession: to regain as much of the former Soviet Union's superpower status (and territory) as possible. Iran holds a key to restoring Russia's once-considerable influence in the Middle East. The two have strong trade ties, and Moscow is helping Iran build a nuclear power plant. So other priorities have shrunk to invisibility, including Russia's once-intense interest in deterring the spread of nuclear weapons….
Of course, Russia isn’t alone in coddling Iran. Beijing has done its share. Moreover, China could put much more economic and political pressure on Pyongyang. There’s also the question of how vigilant Beijing will be in enforcing the sanctions regime against the North. Still, some progress is better than none.
The Associated Press reports:
43 French bag handlers denied clearance
Authorities rescinded the security clearance of 43 baggage handlers at France's main international airport due to suspicions they were connected with radical organizations, a top government minister said Saturday….
"I cannot accept that people with radical practices" work in an airport, the minister said, adding that it was his "duty to ensure that (workers) do not have any kind of links with radical organizations."
Sarkozy also said 18 imams preaching a radical brand of Islam had been expelled from France since January. It was the first official figure on the number of expulsions of imams suspected of passing a radical message to the faithful.
Lawyers have said the baggage handlers, who worked for subcontractors at the airport, were likely to lose their jobs because such work depends on security clearances. Four of them filed a joint complaint in the past week, alleging they had been unfairly associated with terrorism because they are Muslims, attorney Eric Moutet said Friday….
Jacques Lebrot, an official who oversees Charles de Gaulle airport, told The Associated Press on Friday the cases were "linked to terrorism" and that the decision to deny clearance followed recommendations by France's anti-terrorism coordination unit, UCLAT, as part of an 18-month investigation.
(From today's LA Times: "The option of regionalizing the effort -- with the help of Iran and Syria -- appears to have the support of former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, the Iraq Study Group co-chairman. The senior U.S. official said that such an approach would require Washington to set aside other goals regarding Syria and Iran -- including its push to keep Tehran from gaining a nuclear weapon. ‘The question is, are they willing to throw out their Iran and Syria policies to help their Iraq policy?’ he said. ‘That's hard for me to conceive.’" Me too. See here for more on the Baker-Hamilton Commission.)
Posted on October 17, 2006:
Yesterday's Los Angeles Times reports:
The former secretary of State, who was a longtime aide to former President George H.W. Bush, also said he favored reaching out to Iran and Syria.
"I personally believe in talking to your enemies," [Secretary James Baker] said. "Neither the Syrians nor the Iranians want a chaotic Iraq … so maybe there is some potential for getting something other than opposition from those countries."
But what do we do in the face of continued Iranian defiance over its nuclear program? Engagement hasn’t worked so far, and I suspect Tehran will demand that in exchange for its “cooperation” in Iraq we must stop pushing for punitive action against them and end our support for democrats inside in Iran. It will be interesting to see if the Baker-Hamilton Iraq commission discusses any of this.
Here's the latest RNC campaign ad and the DNC's response.
From the Associated Press:
A controversial U.S. military propaganda program used in the Iraq war was legal, a Pentagon investigation has found.
The Defense Department inspector general's report said laws on psychological operations were followed when the military planted and paid for favorable stories in Iraqi newspapers, defense officials said Thursday. The report has been completed, but not yet released.
"Based on the available information ... the report found that (commanders in Iraq) complied with applicable psychological operations laws and regulations in their use of a contractor to conduct psy-ops and their use of newspapers as a way to disseminate information," said Col. Gary L. Keck, a Pentagon spokesman.
The inspector general looked at three contracts awarded to the Washington-based Lincoln Group. The report was forwarded to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., who had asked for the review, another official said. Kennedy was not immediately available for comment.
To refresh some memories, here is what Sen. Kennedy said about the above program last December:
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), a member of the Armed Services Committee, sent a letter to the Defense Department's inspector general asking for an investigation into the program and the Lincoln Group contract. Kennedy called it "a devious scheme to place favorable propaganda in Iraqi newspapers."
Here's a taste of what Chris Matthews had to say the other night to a college audience at Iowa State:
MATTHEWS: How many in this room believe in the war in Iraq from beginning to now, support the war in its full reality? The senator is one of those. Who else agrees with him? Stand up.
Stand up, stay up. Everybody now stay up who intends or would consider participating in this war. Participating in the war.
MCCAIN: Thank you.
MATTHEWS: All you people standing up are planning to participate in the war in some way? Really? Everybody here.
MCCAIN: Thank you very much, my friends.
MATTHEWS: Because I asked a minute ago how many were going to join the military. I wonder what your participation would involve.
MCCAIN: Chris, your bias is starting to show.
MATTHEWS: No, I’m just trying to get an answer now. Wait a minute -- I want the people that are standing up. Somebody yell out why are you standing if you’re not joining the military.
OK, you were one of those. Keep going, anybody else? Of course, look at all the people in the back. I asked before if anybody was joining the military. And now you’re standing up in support of the war but not in terms of a plan to actually participate in a war. I don’t get the connection. Would somebody explain it?
Does Chris Matthews support the war in Afghanistan? If so, has he prodded the military to let him serve there in some capacity? How about working for an NGO in Kabul? They’re also a part of the war effort in Afghanistan.
Does Matthews support the use of force in the Darfur region? If so, will he urge the military to let him participate in some way in that operation? Will he join one of the NGOs that will likely flood into Darfur once some security is established?
How about Kosovo? Did Matthews support President Clinton’s policy? Did he push the military to let him serve in some capacity in the operation? How about after the bombing stopped? Did he offer to help out KFOR, the peacekeeping force that went in? How about lending a hand to the NGOs still working in Pristina and other parts of Kosovo?
Perhaps a student at the next stop on the Hardball College Tour can asked Matthews about all this.
Via Hotline blog:
Entertainment Weekly: So is there any conceivable possibility in the modern world for the assertion of conventional heroism?
EASTWOOD: I don't see it right now. I certainly don't see any politician that's a hero in any party anywhere. I think John McCain did something that I don't know if I could do and I don't think many men can look in the mirror and say they'd do: give up a chance to get out of prison because his dad was an admiral and the Vietnamese were going to let him go. I mean that took cojones....
Today's New York Times has an interesting piece on North Korea's history of proliferating weapons and related material by registering its ships under foreign flags. It also shows how critical it is that Beijing aggressively inspect North Korean shipments coming across the Chinese border. Beijing’s lackadaisical attitude on this point is not encouraging.
The incidents illustrated North Korea’s adroit use of so-called flags of convenience to camouflage the movement of its cargo vessels as they engage in tasks that sometimes violate international laws.
The North Korean ploy could both simplify and complicate the efforts to carry out the United Nations Security Council’s resolution authorizing countries to inspect cargo entering or leaving North Korea to see if it includes illicit weapons, say shipping executives, lawyers and security experts….
But Mr. Pollack and other experts said that flags of convenience could still prove useful to North Korea in maintaining its arms trade despite the Security Council resolution.
One possibility would be for North Korea to try to smuggle out weapons or weapons components across its land borders with China or Russia, and then to a Chinese or Russian port. The weapons could then be loaded on a vessel secretly owned by North Korea but flying another country’s flag — and perhaps not be closely watched by Western intelligence services as a result.
Or weapons could be loaded on a North Korean ship flying its own flag, and the registration of the ship could be altered after it left port. “In the middle of the night, they could change the name and change the flag,” said Gary Wolfe, a maritime lawyer at Seward & Kissel, a New York law firm.
Still another possibility, shipping and security experts said, would be for a North Korean-flagged ship to transfer cargo to a North Korean ship carrying another flag, either in port or in midocean if it were a calm day and the cargo small enough.
In July, I noted the following:
If the world flinches and the Iranian regime is allowed to move forward with its nuclear weapons plans, does anyone honestly believe the Israelis won’t act at some point to stop or degrade Tehran’s ability to produce a bomb – even if it takes weeks to do it? I doubt they want to go down this road and would prefer a Security Council-imposed solution. But I also doubt the Israeli government will be convinced by op-ed writers making the case for a policy of containment of a nuclear-armed Iran. After experiencing the result of the Iranian-supplied Hezbollah arms buildup and dodging a bullet with the capture of the ship the Karine A (in 2002 the Iranians sought to consolidate another beachhead against Israel by smuggling 50 tons of weapons, including Katyusha rockets, into Gaza), it’s unlikely they’ll sit idly by as Iran goes nuclear while most of the world shrugs its shoulders. All of this is why a failure of the UN Security Council to act forcefully in the face of Tehran’s continued defiance will likely set the stage for a far larger conflict down the road. Unfortunately, the Iranian regime is banking on the continued protection of Russia and China from UN-imposed sanctions – sanctions that would likely wreck havoc with Iran’s economy and put pressure on the government to forgo its nuclear weapons plans.
Yesterday, Jennifer Griffin of Fox News reported:
GRIFFIN: Israeli leaders have long painted Iran and its nuclear program as the world's problem. No longer. Ehud Olmert, on his first visit to Moscow since becoming prime minister, sounded defiant. "The Iranians need to be afraid that something will happen to them," he said, "if they continue pursuing their nuclear program."
EHUD OLMERT, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: We have no choice but to prepare for a response. We must prevent this.
GRIFFIN: But the Israeli leader's request for solidarity fell on deaf ears. Russian President Vladimir Putin offered no public assurances that Russia would block Iran's nuclear ambitions. Olmert went one step further in off-camera remarks, issuing this veiled threat: "We don't have the privilege to allow a situation where Iran will possess a non-conventional capability."
Russia has defied Israel and American requests to halt the building of an $800 million nuclear power plant in the Iranian city of Busher, Iran's first atomic plant. Just last month, Russia caved to Iranian pressure, agreeing to ship fuel for the nuclear reactor by March.
The U.S. Israel and others worried that fuel could be diverted to make nuclear bombs.
The Israeli prime minister did not just focus on non-conventional weapons. He pressed for an arms embargo against Iran and Syria in the wake of the Lebanon War so that Russian-made weapons don't end up in the hands of Hezbollah.
Russia rejected the request.
It recently signed a contract to supply the Iranian military with the Tour 1M (ph) anti-aircraft missile system.
It's not clear whether Israel could carry out the kind of devastating blow to Iran's nuclear program that it did back in 1981, secretly bombing Saddam Hussein's only nuclear power plant at Osirak. Iran's program is spread out, and, for the most part, underground.
Russia is likely to continue resisting international attempts to impose sanctions on Iran's nuclear program. Putin would only go so far as to say that Russia would back moderate and measured steps against Iran. That's not what Israel has in mind.
Putin's efforts to destabilize the Republic of Georgia, a pro-Western democracy, continue. The Associated Press reports that Russian sanctions
have effectively severed the Caucasus nation from its biggest market and supplier. Transport and postal links are suspended. Russian canned foods, cooking oil, and sausage are disappearing from store shelves; Newsstands report a run on popular Russian-language magazines, especially women's journals that don't appear in Georgian translation.
Georgian businesses say millions of dollars worth of orders are stuck at Russian checkpoints. Georgian Airlines, banned from flying into Russia, predicts its losses will exceed $600,000 by month's end.
Hundreds of Georgians have been deported as allegedly illegal migrants, and more are rumored to be on the way, putting at risk the estimated $2 billion that Georgians in Russia send home annually to feed their families. Some analysts predict the blockade could shave a percentage point off the country's GDP growth rate of around 6 percent….
Georgians say they have learned to cope with hardships. Power cuts are routine, so they stock candles. They maneuver their cars over axle-busting potholes. Some apartment blocks get running water only two hours a day…. The official unemployment rate is 13 percent and thought to be unrealistically low. The average salary is about $75 a month.
Where is the West’s condemnation of all this? Is anything being done to help our friends in Tbilisi? Will Russia, a G8 member, succeed in breaking the Georgians?
Secretary of State Rice told a news conference held today in Seoul:
I hope it (China) has been successful in saying to North Korea that there is really only one path, which is denuclearization and dismantlement of its programs.
But there’s another path Pyongyang may be eyeing: pop off a few more nukes, wait a few months for the international uproar to subside, then engage its neighbors and the rest of the world as a nuclear power and leader of the Third World.
The media have been waiting for an Iraqi "Tet" for a while. In October 2004, dozens of news stories talked about the enemy’s Tet strategy in Iraq. Attacks did spike before the presidential election, but not enough to derail Bush’s victory. Now, the Tet talk is back with the president's latest interview on ABC News. But what if the enemy does execute synchronized major attacks around Iraq, especially hitting targets inside the Green Zone, before or even after the election? Democrats will use the images, which the media will widely broadcast, to press for the large-scale withdrawal of US troops. But what will Republicans do?
President Clinton said during his tirade on Fox News that some Republicans wanted him to withdraw US troops immediately after the Mogadishu ambush. That’s true. Too many did call for their immediate withdrawal, something Clinton rightly refused to do. U.S. troops were pulled out a few months later -- a withdrawal bin Ladin would later use as a recruiting tool for al Qaeda. Today, should substantial “let’s get out fast” panic set in among Republicans following an Iraqi Tet, they will deserve to be a minority party.
From AFP:
Islamic extremists "viewed 7/7 (the July 7, 2005 suicide attacks on London's transport network) as just the beginning," an unnamed senior source said….
Britain is seen as an easier threat for Al-Qaeda than many other countries because of its historic links with Pakistan, with tens of thousands of travelers between the two countries each year, the newspaper reported.
"It's all about building up these recruits to consider themselves as Muslim 'patriots' and encouraging them to make the leap and ask themselves 'This is how the west treats Muslims, what are we going to do about it?'", another unnamed source told The Guardian.
Here are two pieces on Khartoum's support for the Arab militias that are brutalizing the people of Darfur. A defector tells the BBC that the Janjaweed take orders directly from the Sudanese government.
"The Janjaweed don't make decisions. The orders always come from the government," he said.
"They gave us orders, and they say that after we are trained they will give us guns and ammunition."
"Ali" - who is now seeking asylum in Britain - said the men who had trained them were wearing the uniforms of the Sudanese military, adding that Interior Minister Abdul Rahim Muhammad Hussein was a "regular visitor".
The former fighter said the majority of the victims were civilians, mostly women, and also talked of "many rapes" committed by the Janjaweed.
"Whenever we go into a village and find resistance we kill everyone," he said, but denied that he personally killed or raped civilians.
The International Herald Tribune also reports on Khartoum’s use of the Arab militias to do its dirty work:
The attitudes and general despondency of the Sudanese troops held here underscore why Sudan, despite its large military, well supplied by arms bought from China with Sudan's growing oil wealth, has relied primarily on brutal Arab militias to carry out its grim counterinsurgency campaign against the rebels in Darfur.
It was a strategy Sudan perfected in its 20-year civil war in the south, where it used Arab tribal militias as a paramilitary force. The militias terrorized Southern Sudan, razing villages, raping women and kidnapping children. The militias in Darfur, known as the janjaweed, have carried out a similar campaign.
What to do? So far, the Arab League isn't interested in doing much. The same holds for China and Russia. But Senators Dole and McCain have some ideas and so do the folks at the International Crisis Group.
| | | |
