
| « October 2006 | The Blog home page | December 2006 » |
|
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
|
| Zawahiri's Prediction |
|
It's worth remembering as we consider the consequences of exiting Iraq along the lines advocated by some Washington politicians. âThe first stage," Zawahiri wrote in his July 2005 letter to Zarqawi, is to âexpel the Americans from Iraq.â He also counseled Zarqawi to be prepared: [T]hings may develop faster than we imagine. The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam -- and how they ran and left their agents is noteworthy. Because of that, we must be ready starting now, before events overtake us, and before we are surprised by the conspiracies of the Americans and the United Nations and their plans to fill the void behind them. We must take the initiative and impose a fait accompli upon our enemies, instead of the enemy imposing one on us, wherein our lot would be to merely resist their schemes. Such an outcome will be anything but âpeace with honor.â ![]()
|
| (Update) Some Spine From Chirac on Syria |
|
(The assassin speaks. From the AP: "Syrian President Bashar Assad said Wednesday his country will continue to challenge U.S. efforts to exert control over the Middle East, sounding a defiant tone ahead of President Bush's arrival in the region for talks on Iraq. 'Colonialism has not ended. In the past they used to call it colonialism, today it is called liberation of people. ... Names differ but the essence is the same. As colonialism continues, revolution and resistance continue.... '") From Reuters: France and the United States agree there is no point in talking to Syria because the conditions for an honest dialogue do not exist, President Jacques Chirac said on Wednesday.
|
|
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
|
| Pelosi's Confusion on Terrorists in Iraq |
|
CNN reports today: Pelosi 'sad' over Bush's Iraq representation But in her recent 60 Minutes profile the incoming speaker conceded that non-Iraqi terrorists are NOW in Iraq. STAHL: Do you not think that the war in Iraq now, today, is the war on terror? Guess Pelosi was referring to the non-al Qaeda foreign terrorists operating in Iraq.
|
| Where is the Baker-Hamilton Commission Headed? |
|
Will the Baker-Hamilton Commission endorse the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq on a hard timetable? Thatâs highly unlikely. The president has flatly rejected withdrawal timetables, so itâs hard to believe Sec. Baker would go along with such a recommendation for this reason alone. What about tweaking the current strategy? That's also unlikely. The Commission isnât going to release a report endorsing the same basic policies that brought about the Commission in the first place. So what then? The two most revealing public comments about where it may be headed came from defense secretary nominee Bob Gates and Iraq War opponent Gen. Anthony Zinni. After his nomination was announced, a news story surfaced noting that, after a Baghdad visit, Gates was astonished that his soon-to-be predecessor had let the security situation deteriorate so badly. Thus, itâs a good bet Gates doesnât believe things will getter better in Baghdad in the short term with fewer troops, especially given the conclusions on troop levels contained in this intelligence assessment published in todayâs Washington Post. A bit after the Gates piece appeared, there was another news story in which Zinni publicly called for more forces in the Baghdad area to stabilize the downward spiral. Iâve also learned that at least one senior member of the first Bush administration not named Baker has been telling folks that we cannot leave Iraq in its current state and that a precondition for any U.S. drawdown must be a relatively stable Baghdad, which, this person believes, will require a surge in forces. Merits aside, I suspect we may be looking at a call for more forces in the short term, combined with a regional conference (and possibly an Iraq-only one also) and an economic aid package of some sort aimed at the Sunnis, followed by a recommendation for a significant drawdown or redeployment thereafter, and the transformation of the remaining force to a largely advisory command. I also wager that there will be some vocal dissents -- in public and on background. Whatever the Commission does, President Bush alone will have to decide whether their report advances his often-stated objectives in Iraq or undermines them and act accordingly.
|
| Gingrich on the Baker-Hamilton Commission |
|
Newt weighs in on the Iraq commission here. ![]()
|
| Iran Works for Peace from Somalia to Afghanistan |
|
I'm confident the Iranian regime will act even more responsibly if it manages to acquire nuclear weapons. From todayâs New York Times: A senior American intelligence official said Monday that the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah had been training members of the Mahdi Army, the Iraqi Shiite militia led by Moktada al-Sadr. From the November 24 Wall Street Journal: Tensions in Tehran are intensifying, leading Afghan officials to worry about potential spillover into their country. Iran has developed a pervasive economic and intelligence capacity inside the Central Asia state, which it could potentially turn against American forces. âThey have a destructive capability,â says Said Jawad, Afghanistanâs ambassador to the U.S. From the November 16 New York Times: More than 700 Islamic militants from Somalia traveled to Lebanon in July to fight alongside Hezbollah in its war against Israel, a United Nations report says. The militia in Lebanon returned the favor by providing training and â through its patrons Iran and Syria â weapons to the Islamic alliance struggling for control of Somalia, it addsâŠ. The truth is the UN Security Council could put enormous pressure on Syria and Iran to end all the above, but, regrettably, thereâs little chance theyâll do much anytime soon. And so it goes.
|
|
Monday, November 27, 2006
|
| How to Lose the Colorado Senate Seat |
|
Have Rep. Tom Tancredo face off against Mark Udall for the Allard seat. From the Denver Post: The buzz in U.S. Senate circles is that Wayne Allard might honor his pledge to serve just two terms and retire to that new home he and his wife, Joan, are building in Jackson CountyâŠ. Speaking of immigration, CNN has just released a presidential poll of GOP voters. The result: Giuliani, 33%, McCain, 30%, Gingrich, 9%, and Romney, 9%. Rudy and McCain both hold the presidentâs view on immigration; Newt and Romney agree on immigration and oppose the presidentâs position. Yet, the polls consistently show Giuliani and McCain with a large share of the GOP vote. Does this suggest that the views of rank-and-file Republicans on immigration may be more varied than those on talk radio and in the blogoshere? Perhaps.
|
| Dividends for Ahmadinejad |
|
A few weeks ago, I noted that Tehran would likely demand that in exchange for its âcooperationâ in Iraq the U.S. must stop pushing for punitive action against them on the Security Council. Guess what? On Sunday, the AP reports, Ahmadinejad said that âhe would help the United States bring calm to Iraq if Washington changes what he described as its âbullyingâ policy toward Iran." Of course, the Security Council has been anything but âbullyingâ on Iran. Its done practically nothing since Iran ignored the UN-imposed August 31 deadline to stop its enrichment activities. The international community has been so passive with Iran that Ahmadinejad now jubilantly declares that the world has lost its will to counter Iran's nuclear program. So far, Iranâs bullying â in weapons and words -- across the Middle East has paid dividends for Tehran and, given the attitude of Moscow and Beijing and other capitals, thereâs no sign Tehran's investment will go south anytime soon.
|
|
Sunday, November 26, 2006
|
| "Except for the Killings" |
|
This (free sub. req'd) quote -- "Rumsfeld is being vilified for our fate in Iraq. He does not get enough credit for dragging the DOD, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century" -- from the former undersecretary of defense in yesterdayâs Miami Herald reminds me of what Marion Barry, then mayor of Washington D.C., told a national press club audience in 1989: "Except for the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country." âDragging ⊠kicking and screamingâ aside, Secretary Rumsfeld failed to adequately expand U.S. ground forces post 9/11 and deploy enough forces to post-invasion Iraq -- as some had called for over three years ago as the insurgency picked-up steam.
|
|
Saturday, November 25, 2006
|
| It's Not Personal, George. It's Strictly Business |
|
I have to wonder what exactly the president got out of his stopover in Moscow on his way to the APEC summit a little over a week ago. He traveled well out of his way to chat with Putin. Since then, and despite our objections, the Kremlin has gone ahead with the delivery of an air-defense system to Iran. The Tor-M1 system will reportedly be deployed around Iranâs nuclear facilities â facilities the Russians are helping to build. Tor-M1 On top of this, Russia and China show no sign of acting responsibly on the UN Security Council in the face Tehranâs continued defiance over its nuclear enrichment program. The Council gave Iran until August 31 to stop its enrichment program or face real consequences. Iran ignored the deadline, and today the Council dithers. After Air Force One departed Moscow, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley told reporters that the Putin meeting âreally wasn't about business it was about social, it was about personal." Thatâs nice. It would also be nice to believe that when they did talk âbusinessâ the president received a private assurance from Putin that Moscow would back tough action against Iran, but itâs a hope getting dimmer by the day. On Iran, the Russians appear to be all business.
|
|
Friday, November 24, 2006
|
| Soccer Balls & Nukes |
|
Evidently, the world soccer federation is a tougher outfit than the UN Security Council. From the AP: ZURICH, Switzerland - Iran was suspended from international soccer by FIFA on Thursday because of government interference with the country's soccer federation.
|
|
Thursday, November 23, 2006
|
| Giving Thanks |
|
On this day, I wanted to highlight two organizations that assist active duty service members and disabled veterans. Profiled in the Weekly Standard, Unmet Needs is a charity that helps military families facing financial difficulties.
|
|
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
|
| Big Blue Keeps the Top Spot |
|
The biannual Top500 supercomputers list is out. IBM retains the top spot with its BlueGene system at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. BlueGene's performance comes in at 280.6 trillion calculations per second. Of the ten most powerful supercomputers in the world, seven are in the U.S. with the other three in Japan, France and Spain. Overall, 306 of the top 500 systems are in the U.S.
|
| Lieberman Rips Democrats on Iraq |
|
The Connecticut senator made some blunt comments last night on Fox News' Hannity and Colmes: HANNITY: [I]f Barack Obama and Senator Levin want to cut and run [from Iraq]? Are you going to stand in strong opposition to them? Of course, incoming Speaker Pelosi disagrees that âIraq is now a central battlefield in the war on terrorism.â
|
|
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
|
| (Update) Joe the Independent |
|
(Darn. The conspiracy has been exposed.) It's no surprise that Senator Lieberman has tapped Marshall Wittmann of the Democratic Leadership Council to be his communications director and informal political advisor. During the campaign, Wittmann, a registered Independent, frequently battled the leftwing bloggers who were trying to put the anti-war Ned Lamont in office. But Connecticut voters gave Lamont and his far left backers a good thumping on November 7. Like his new boss, Wittmannâs a big fan of the late Henry âScoopâ Jackson, the Democratic senator from the state of Washington who fought his partyâs dominant McGovern wing. The bottom line: donât look for Lieberman singing "Kumbayaâ with the liberal Senate leadership anytime soon.
|
| (Update) "Peace Partner" at Work? |
|
(From Reuters: "Anti-Syrian Druze leader Walid Jumblatt said on Wednesday he expected more assassinations of ministers and members of parliament aimed at undermining the ruling majority. 'We have to expect, and this is my impression unfortunately, more assassinations of ministers and parliamentarians,' Jumblatt told a news conference. Lebanese Minister Pierre Gemayel, a member of the ruling bloc, was shot dead on Tuesday.") The failure of the US, Europe and the UN Security Council to hold Syria accountable for its actions in Lebanon has evidently not gone unnoticed in Damascus. Syrian hands were all over the Hiriri assassination, and now this report from Reuters: Syria played a part in the assassination of Lebanese Christian minister Pierre Gemayel, Lebanese parliamentary majority leader Saad al-Hariri told CNN on Tuesday.
|
| Rudy Won't Concede the Right |
|
Gov. Romney's interview with the Washington Examiner is interesting not for his direct attack on Sen. McCain, one of the few politicians who has actually exhibited leadership on the Iraq War, but this statement: âIâm a conservative Republican, thereâs no question about thatâŠ. Iâm at a different place than the other two [McCain and Giuliani].â Well, as Iâve noted before, itâs clear from the comments of Giuliani and his staff that if the mayor does jump in, heâs not about to concede conservatives to anyone. Indeed, it wouldnât take much effort for Rudy to question his opponentsâ conservative credentials on some issues just as they question his. McCainâs record is well known, so look for the Giuliani camp, in public and on background, to target Romneyâs record and past statements a bit more in the early stages of the campaign. I still very much doubt the mayor can win the nomination, but nothing in Rudyâs background suggests heâll be a punching bag for his opponents. Heâll throw just as many jabs as heâll absorb. And if he doesnât run, the former prosecutor would be an excellent surrogate for the presidential camp that lands him. Then thereâs NewtâŠand BrownbackâŠ
|
|
Monday, November 20, 2006
|
| More Good News from Iran |
|
From the Sunday Telegraph: Ayatollah who backs suicide bombs aims to be Iran's next spiritual leader
|
| (Update) Assassination in Moscow |
|
(The Washington Post reports: "British police are investigating the poisoning of a former Russian spy and outspoken critic of President Vladimir Putin and have placed him under protective guard at a London hospitalâŠ. Alexander Litvinenko, 43, began vomiting shortly after he had lunch on Nov. 1 with a man who gave him documents related to the recent killing of Anna Politkovskaya, a Russian journalist.")
Journalist Anna Politkovskaya was murdered last night in Moscow, reports Reuters: Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya, an outspoken critic of President Vladimir Putin, was shot dead on Saturday at her apartment block in central Moscow, police said. Iâm told that Politkovskaya had written an article on Russian atrocities in Chechnya due to be published on Monday.
|
|
Sunday, November 19, 2006
|
| Clever Democrats? |
|
Here's a big thing many Americans wouldn't expect early on from Democrats: passing legislation to substantially enlarge the ground force. The Democratic leadership would enjoy strong bipartisan support for something that should have been done years ago. Just how bipartisan? Well, consider todayâs New York Times editorial: But keeping the Army in its present straitjacket would bring bigger and more immediate problems. Even assuming an early exit from Iraq, the Armyâs overall authorized strength needs to be increased some 75,000 to 100,000 troops more than Mr. Rumsfeld had in mind for the next few years. The sooner Congress debates and sorts out the budget issues involved the better. Though, I seriously doubt theyâll adopt the Timesâ funding proposals.
|
| A September Surprise? |
|
Gingrich on Fox News Sunday: WALLACE: You say Mitt Romney. McCain started an exploratory committee this week. Thirty seconds: Are you going to do the same? A Newt run would certainly shake things up.
|
|
Saturday, November 18, 2006
|
| Abizaid: Do we have the Will to Confront Islamist Ideology? |
|
In a speech yesterday, Gen. John Abizaid was quite blunt in assessing the threat posed by Islamic radicalism. He also questioned whether the West has the will necessary to confront it now before a broader war erupts. From Reuters: The top U.S. general in the Middle East said on Friday that if the world does not find a way to stem the rise of Islamic militancy, it will face a third world war. Other senior officers have echoed Abizaidâs view on the centrality of Iraq in this war, and the need to stay engaged. Also, though it got little media attention, this November 16 piece from the back pages of the New York Times is another example of what Abizaid is warning about.
|
|
Friday, November 17, 2006
|
| Rand on al Qaeda & Iraq |
|
Weighing in at 364 pages, the Rand Corporation has just released a two-part study, âBeyond Al Qaeda.â Al Qaeda espouses a "global revolutionary creedâ with an âideology that is radical and Islamist at its core, but also borrows from 20th century Western totalitarian traditions.â Its goals, Rand notes, âare to mobilize Muslims for a global jihad against the West; topple âapostateâ regimes, particularly in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan; and create an Islamic government spanning the Muslim world based on an ultra-orthodox interpretation of Sunni Islam that would isolate the majority of Sunni Muslims as well as Shi'ite Muslims.â On Iraq, Rand outlines three scenarios: In the end, terror alone cannot guarantee success for the insurgents. The insurgency can continue to wreak havoc but will become an exercise in political futility. In these circumstances, three general scenarios are possible: Would an American troop withdrawal, along the lines suggested by many senior Democrats, make the third scenario more or less likely? Hereâs volume one, The Global Jihadist Movement , and volume two, The Outer Rings of the Terrorist Universe .
|
| Flight School Mystery |
|
This is a strange story first reported on ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) radio: US authorities have uncovered a plot to set up a flight training school in the Pacific nation of Kiribati and suspect the man behind it may have had links to September 11 mastermind Mohammed Atta. Bohringer is not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.
|
|
Thursday, November 16, 2006
|
| Looks Like House Democrats "Redeployed" Away from Murtha |
|
The AP reports that "House Democrats have chosen Rep. Steny Hoyer as House majority leader, the No. 2 leadership post.â Democrats showed some sense on this. Murtha would have been a disaster for the Democrats, though good for the media. With Lieberman's big victory and now Murtha's trouncing, the anti-war left will need to regroup a bit.
|
| The GWOT Really Is Global |
|
Despite the comments of Rep. Pelosi ("The war on terror is the war in Afghanistanâ) and DNC chair Howard Dean (Afghanistan âis where the fight on terror is.â), the Global War on Terror is, in fact, global. Todayâs New York Times reports: More than 700 Islamic militants from Somalia traveled to Lebanon in July to fight alongside Hezbollah in its war against Israel, a United Nations report says. The militia in Lebanon returned the favor by providing training and â through its patrons Iran and Syria â weapons to the Islamic alliance struggling for control of Somalia, it addsâŠ. Iâm confident the UN Security Council will act swiftly against the apparent chief state sponsors of the above â Syria and Iran.
|
| Why Lieberman's Victory Mattered |
|
Its significance was on display at yesterday's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. From todayâs New York Times: But no sooner had Mr. Levin outlined his case for a phased pullout of troops beginning in four to six months than the new Independent Democratic hero of the hawkish wing, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, began acting the role of cross-examiner, leading Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top American military commander in the Middle East, to say that such a withdrawal would increase violence and instability.
|
|
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
|
| Novak on the Election Fallout |
|
His comments on immigration, the party leadership races, and 2008 may be found here.
|
| Fred Thompson for UN Ambassador |
|
If John Bolton decides to bow out of the UN post because of continued Democratic opposition to his confirmation, the president should seriously consider former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson for the job. Like Bolton, heâs tough, well versed in national security, extremely articulate and would be a forceful public advocate for the presidentâs policies. Democrats would be hard pressed to deny him an up or down vote on the Senate floor. A Thompson pick would also send a bold signal that the president isnât about to run-out-the-clock on his term. Iâm hopeful the president could persuade Thompson to accept the nomination, but he will probably have to do so over the objections of a few, particularly in the intelligence community. With his background as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and chairman of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Thompson has routinely questioned the performance of our intelligence agencies over the years. The bottom line: Bush shouldnât answer the Bolton critics by appointing an anti-Bolton type, as some are clamoring for; he should up the ante and put the Democrats on the defensive. Nominate Thompson.
|
| Zinni: Surge the Force in Iraq |
|
During the past year, senior Democrats have often cited the remarks of Gen. Zinni and Gen. Batiste, in particular, in their attacks on the administrationâs conduct of the war. But I doubt theyâll be citing them anymore -- or these officers for that matter. Zinni wants more forces in Iraq, and Batiste characterizes Democratic troop withdrawal plans as âterribly naĂŻve.â From todayâs New York Times: One of the most resonant arguments in the debate over Iraq holds that the United States can move forward by pulling its troops back, as part of a phased withdrawal. If American troops begin to leave and the remaining forces assume a more limited role, the argument holds, it will galvanize the Iraqi government to assume more responsibility for securing and rebuilding Iraq.
|
|
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
|
| Ahmadinejad: World has Lost its Will |
|
From the Islamic Republic News Agency: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad here Tuesday referred to Iran's peaceful nuclear activities as the most complicated challenge in the country's diplomacy, saying time is running in Iran's favor in this respect. Also, the IAEA has reportedly "found unexplained plutonium and highly enriched uranium traces in a nuclear waste facility in Iran." Will the Security Council now act or will the Russians and the Chinese continue to do Tehran's bidding?
|
| Assad & the Hariri Hit |
|
From AFP: Lebanon's Western-backed cabinet is facing a deep crisis as pro-Syrian opponents called for a change of government after it adopted a UN plan to try suspects in former premier Rafiq Hariri's murder. Perhaps Western diplomats will get another opportunity to talk with President Assad about Haririâs killing should the much ballyhooed regional peace conference ever take place. Letâs hope Damascus and Tehran havenât toppled the current Lebanese government by then.
|
| OPEC and OGEC? |
|
Last January, the Kremlin cut off gas supplies to the Ukraine to punish Kiev. Earlier this month, the AP reported that Gazprom âwould more than double the price of gas for Georgia,â a struggling pro-Western democracy. Now, the Financial Times reports: A confidential study by Nato economics experts, sent to the ambassadors of its 26 member states last week, warned that Russia may be seeking to build a gas cartel including Algeria, Qatar, Libya, the countries of Central Asia and perhaps Iran. In July, the G-8 held its annual summit near St. Petersburg, Russia. One of the major topics discussed: energy security.
|
|
Monday, November 13, 2006
|
| Howard Dean & What Our Troops "Deserve" |
|
The DNC head released this statement the other day on the resignation of Secretary Rumsfeld: I am glad that President Bush has finally listened to the growing chorus of retired Generals, civilian leaders and Democrats who long ago called for Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation. This is a good first step but the American people have spoken and it must be followed by a real change in direction in Iraq and in America's foreign policy by the President. Democrats are united and ready to get to work with Republicans to find real solutions to the challenges we are facing in Iraq. Our brave troops fighting in harm's way deserve nothing less. Hereâs what a âchorus of retiredâ officers told the Democrats about what our troops âdeserve" when they spoke before the Senate Democratic Policy Committee in September. As the Washington Postâs Dana Milbank noted, they delivered a message the Democrats didnât want to hear. 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. In post-election Washington, it sure doesn't sound like the Democrats "listened" to what these officers had to say.
|
| Giuliani: Pass Immigration Reform |
|
Rudy hasn't wavered in his support for stronger border security plus broader immigration reform. From the Times Leader (PA): He recommended that political leaders âdo immigration reformâ before the 2008 Presidential election cycle begins because it should be easy for both sides to agree on such legislation. âI think that would restore peopleâs confidence in government (to) get something done,â he saidâŠ.
|
| Pelosi's Pay Back |
|
First Jane Harman feels the wrath of the new speaker and now Steny Hoyer. Pelosi is backing Jack Murtha for majority leader because of the boost he gave the Democratic faithful by calling for the rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq and his âstrong voice for national security.â Murtha first called for the âimmediate withdrawalâ of U.S. troops last November. Pelosi endorsed the Murtha plan at the time, but Hoyer opposed it. âI believe that a precipitous withdrawal of American forces in Iraq,â Hoyer warned, âcould lead to disaster, spawning a civil war, fostering a haven for terrorists and damaging our nation's security and credibility.â Also in the fall of 2005, Hoyer joined a handful of other centrist Democrats to form a group to counter the partyâs weak image on national security issues. One of the other prominent Democrats involved in the group: Jane Harman.
|
|
Sunday, November 12, 2006
|
| McCain: "Do What's Necessary to Win" |
|
Some highlights from the senator's appearance on Meet the Press today: On the election: MCCAIN: That we Republicans have lost our way, that we came to Washington to change government and government changed us. The spending, the ethics, the massive programs such as Medicare prescription drug program, thatâour failure to address their priorities as opposed to our own, and there was aâobviously a reaction to it. The Iraq war obviously is very frustrating. I know weâre going to talk more about that, but thereâsâvery frustrating to the American people. But I would submit, if they were all against the Iraq war that you probably would not have seen my friend Joe Lieberman, who Iâm sure will talk about it, re-elected. So theyâre frustrated by the war, but I also believe that many of our, our spending, ourâthe scandals, the ongoing scandals, the large government programs. In, in other words, one of the pillars of the Republican Party is fiscal conservatives. They were alienated by the fact that we let spending lurch out of controlâŠ. On what to do in Iraq and the consequences of defeat: MCCAIN: The question is, is whatâs the solution? And I believe that a withdrawal, or a date for withdrawal, will lead to chaos in the region, and most military experts think the same thing. I believe that there are a lot of things that we can do to salvage this, but they all require the presence of additional troops.
|
| Good News for Gore? |
|
Feingold bows out for 2008. Will the anti-war left give in to Hillary or now push for a Gore candidacy to challenge the aura of inevitability surrounding the New York senator?
|
|
Saturday, November 11, 2006
|
| Honoring Our Veterans |
|
On this Veterans Day, I wanted to highlight two organizations that assist active duty service members and disabled veterans. Profiled in the Weekly Standard, Unmet Needs is a charity that helps military families facing financial difficulties.
|
|
Friday, November 10, 2006
|
| Even Pyongyang Chimes in on the Election |
|
From the AP: North Korean television Friday carried a report on the U.S. midterm election, saying the Republican Party suffered a ''crushing defeat'' and claiming that President Bush fired his defense secretary in its wake.
|
| Fighting the "Pack Up and Flee" Propaganda |
|
In between victory laps around D.C., the incoming Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid may want to release a joint statement that American will is not "teetering" in Iraq and that al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq will be defeated. Our enemies havenât gone away. From Reuters: An alliance of Sunni insurgents headed by the Iraq branch of Al-Qaeda announced the creation of an independent Islamic emirate in Iraq in a video posted on the Internet on October 15 after parliament in Baghdad approved a federal constitution for the war-ravaged country. Sure doesn't sound like the terrorists will leave Iraq if we make a speedy withdrawal, as Rep. Pelosi suggested on 60 Minutes three weeks ago. STAHL: Do you not think that the war in Iraq now, today, is the war on terror?
|
| Painting the Map Blue |
|
This brief post-election blurb, which I comment on here, has been updated with a longer commentary on why the GOP lost on Tuesday. Itâs McCainâs fault, you see. Of course, the fact that you have to read several paragraphs in before Iraq is even mentioned, and then only in the context of the "Frist-Warner alternative," is a good sign of severe out-of-touchism. It's pretty clear that the deteriorating security situation in Iraq had a major impact on the election -- Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Montana, Missouri and Rhode Island included. Going back to the fall of 2003, McCain had warned again and again about the erosion of security and had called for a much greater commitment to win the war in terms of troop strength (we never had enough) and counterinsurgency strategy. In November of 2003, McCain argued for more ground troops to give âus the necessary manpower to conduct a focused counterinsurgency campaign across the Sunni Triangle that seals off enemy operating areas, conducts search and destroy missions, and holds territory.â He continued: Security is the precondition for everything else we want to accomplish in Iraq. We will not get good intelligence until we provide a level of public safety and a commitment to stay that encourages Iraqis to cast their lot with us, rather than wait to see whether we or the Baathists prevail. Local Iraqis need to have enough confidence in our strength and staying power to collaborate with us. Absent improved security, acts of sabotage will hold back economic progress. Without better security, political progress will be difficult because the Iraqi people will not trust an Iraqi political authority that cannot protect them. By all means increase the number of Iraqis involved in securityâŠ. But given the time it will take to train and deploy sufficient numbers of Iraqi forces and the competence required to root out a hardened foe, for the foreseeable future, Iraqi forces aren't a substitute for adequate levels of American troops. Guess this tidbit wasn't fit to print. I donât recall Hewitt forcefully pressing Secretary Rumsfeld and the White House to dramatically ramp-up its prosecution of the war during the critical years of 2003 and 2004, when the insurgency formed and deepened, or in the subsequent months for that matter. Perhaps if Hewitt had joined McCain early on in pressing the administration from the right on Iraq, the U.S. may have been painted a bit less Blue on November 7. Oh, the road not taken.
|
|
Thursday, November 09, 2006
|
| (Update) What About Newt? |
|
(The Wall Street Journal reports: "GINGRICH EMERGES as top conservative prospect for Republican 2008 field. Ebbing fortunes of Santorum, Allen and Frist leave opening for architect of Republicansâ 1994 sweep. Gingrich faults Bush for âvery disturbingâ post-election news conference, saying earlier replacement of Rumsfeld might have saved control of the Senate and 10 House seats." Get ready for Newt â08.) George Will writes in today's Washington Post: Yet with Allen much diminished and perhaps out of contention, and with Rudy Giuliani not yet doing serious groundwork for a national campaign, the Republican field is already down to two. That is good for only one of them: Romney. But what about Newt Gingrich? Heâs given every indication -- publicly and privately -- that he will run; yet Will doesnât mention the former speaker at all in his column. Gingrich wonât need much of a âground gameâ to make waves in New Hampshire. Heâs powerful on the stomp, a first-rate debater, and isnât likely to concede the âconservative majority of the partyâ to anyone. On that score, a candidate Gingrich, or McCain for that matter, would likely hit Romney from the right on several fronts on which he is vulnerable, making it more difficult for any one candidate to consolidate the right in the early races. Folks shouldnât underestimate the impact of a Gingrich candidacy. He wonât win the nomination, but along the way don't expect Newt to assume the fetal position against his opponents -- whether they're named McCain or Romney.
|
| Who will Chair House Intell? |
|
Over at TCS Daily, J. Peter Pham of James Madison University and George Mason's Michael I. Krauss weigh in on the pending Democratic control of the House Intelligence Committee.
|
| Tale of Two Press Releases on Iraq |
|
The editors of the Wall Street Journal cut to the chase today on Democrats and Iraq. They write: The biggest question mark, and responsibility, for Democrats is on Iraq and the war on terror. They could do themselves and the country much good by working with Mr. Bush on a strategy toward achieving victory in Iraq as well as against al Qaeda. This means more than bromides about a "phased withdrawal" of troops next year, which won't encourage Iraq's militias to disarm; and it means more than Mr. Murtha's "redeployment" to Okinawa or somewhere else where the world would see that the U.S. has given up on Iraq. But, so far, Democratic leaders havenât been ending their calls for a ânew direction in Iraqâ with the word âvictoryâ or even the words âto put us on the path to victory.â Speaker-to-be Pelosiâs press release on Secretary Rumsfeldâs resignation is just one of the many examples: I welcome the long overdue change in leadership at the Pentagon â now we need a change in policy. Secretary Rumsfeld has lost the confidence of his most crucial constituency: the men and women of our armed forces who rely on the civilian leadership of the Pentagon to provide them with the support needed to do their dangerous jobs as effectively and safely as possible. Mr. Rumsfeld failed to do that â that is why I called for him to step down nearly three years ago. But donât âour troops deserveâ politicians committed to victory or at least not pulling the rug out from underneath them? Our troops seem to understand the stakes in Iraq far more than many in Washington. Consider what Capt. Mike Lingenfelter, of the 3rd Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment in Iraq, told the Washington Post: âWe'll pull their feet out from under them if we leave⊠It's still fragile enough now that if the coalition were to leave, it would embolden the insurgents. A lot of people have put their trust and faith in us to see it to the end. It would be an extreme betrayal for us to leave." All this brings me to another press release on Secretary Rumsfeldâs resignation. This one from Sen. McCain: I welcome the Presidentâs decision today to replace Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld with former CIA Director Robert Gates. While Secretary Rumsfeld and I have had our differences, he deserves Americansâ respect and gratitude for his many years of public service. He has mine. If politicians arenât interested in working âtogether toward securing victory,â the commander-in-chief should work with those who do and not give an inch to those who donât. As Speaker-to-be Pelosi says, âOur troops deserve no less.â
|
|
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
|
| A Victory for John Bolton |
|
From AP: After battling, Panama wins seat on U.N. Security Council
|
| Against Delusions |
|
Here's a novel take on the election results that I couldn't disagree with more. And here's an alternative view: Burns lost because of Jack Abramoff. Chaffee lost because heavily Democratic R.I. loathes the GOP national leadership. Corruption has hollowed out the Ohio GOP, which, in turn, impacted the campaign of Mike DeWine â and that of Ken Blackwell for that matter. Sen. Allen didnât run much of an ideological campaign, except on immigration where he ran many ads against âamnestyâ â a campaign tactic that also failed fellow Virginia GOPer Jerry Kilgore, who lost his gubernatorial election bid to Tim Kaine. Santorum didnât lose by 18 points because of the âGang of 14â or the Senate's failure to rubber stamp the House immigration bill. In the House, the swirl of corruption cost a number of seats, as did immigration. Speaking of, todayâs Wall Street Journal notes that among Hispanics, âsome 27 percent voted Republican â an 11-percentage-point drop from the prior mid-term election in 2002.â Of course, hovering over all this â the ethical issues, the profligate spending (though, to his great credit, John Boehner strongly opposed his party's pork binge), and the immigration mess -- is the war in Iraq. One of the very few people to fully grasp the deteriorating situation, early on, was the senator from Arizona. The bottom line: to recapture our majority and keep the White House in 2008, Republicans should assess the election results based on reality, not delusions.
|
| (Update) "Amnesty" Scare Tactics |
|
(The claim that the president and the Senate supported an immigration "amnesty" bill was always bogus, but that didnât stop some Republicans from making that canard the centerpiece of their campaigns. The three most vocal House candidates to do so â in Colorado-7, Arizona-5 and Arizona-8 â lost, 55-42, 50-46, and 54-42, respectively. Also, according to the Washington Post "about six in 10 voters said that they believe illegal immigrants working in the United States should be offered a chance to apply for legal status, a position that was supported by Bush but rejected by House Republicans who have pushed an enforcement-first approach to controlling illegal immigration. Democratic candidates won support from 61 percent of those who backed a path to citizenship, according to the [exit] poll.") Posted on May 17, 006: Too many conservatives have short memories. When the Clinton White House and the media falsely portrayed GOP efforts to slow the growth of Medicare spending as "cuts," conservatives complained bitterly. House Republicans even put out a 39-page press kit to rebut the "the lies the Democrats and their allies" were spinning on the GOP's spending proposal. Times have changed. Today, many conservatives, particularly in the House, have simply adopted the same Democratic tactic in an effort to undermine the president's immigration proposal. As the editors of the Wall Street Journal note, [The president] also realizes that, for the illegals already here, mass deportations are impractical and would spell political suicide for the GOP. Hence, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is trying this week to garner more support for a bipartisan plan that would put these illegal workers on a path to citizenship if they pass a background check, pay fines, learn English and satisfy other requirements. It's bad enough that Republicans have embraced Democratic spending habits. Now, some of them have incorporated the Democrats' Medicare scare tactics into their own rhetoric on immigration. No wonder we could be looking at Speaker Pelosi.
|
|
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
|
| Scoop Jackson Lives On |
|
Lieberman wins, and he did so without compromising his position on Iraq. Indeed, he defended it. I know some Democratic strategists were privately advising him to trim his support for the war. He ignored them. Good for Joe.
|
| Iran's "International Holocaust Exhibition" |
|
Apparently, Tehran's "art exhibition" was quite a success. From the Islamic Republic News Agency: The International Holocaust Exhibition was held at Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art on Wednesday November 1 and was warmly welcomed by Iranian and foreign artistsâŠ.
|
| "Half-Measures" in Iraq |
|
The evidence that we never had enough post-invasion troops in Iraq is overwhelming (see here) -â and, no, it isnât Monday morning quarterbacking to say it. As I have noted many times, the âmore troopsâ chorus, though small, began in 2003, in the face of a clearly deteriorating security environment, and continued in 2004, 2005, and 2006. Evidently, Gen. Sanchez agreed, according to Amb. Paul Bremmer. In his book, My Year in Iraq, he wrote: On May 17 [2004], I had a meeting with General Sanchez to discuss the war. Today, some argue that itâs too late for more troops to do much good or that Secretary Rumsfeld would never increase the force enough to make a decisive difference, so why bother. Well, put the National Reviewâs Rich Lowry in the Frederick Kagan camp. Lowry has followed-up this piece with another interesting one "Against Half-Measuresâ in Iraq. The recriminations over the Iraq War have long been raging, but now some of the warâs staunchest supporters have joined the blamefest. The list of what has gone wrong is long and varied, with liberal opponents of the war and conservative supporters all having their own ideologically congenial items.
|
|
Monday, November 06, 2006
|
| (Update II) Another Chavez Gambit? |
|
(With the opposition splintered, an Ortega victory seems likely according to preliminary results today. If he wins, will President Ortega keep some distance from Chavez or embrace him? Will President Ortega keep his campaign promises or will he go back to his old socialist, anti-American ways?) (The latest poll has Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega leading the presidential race by 10 points. Venezuela's Chavez, who's been lobbying for a seat on the UN Security Council, has been just as busy trying to put Ortega in office. A Chavez win on both counts would obviously not be good news for the U.S.)
Once again, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez has become an issue in a presidential campaign. This time in Nicaragua, where Chavez has been showering gifts upon Sandinista party leader Daniel Ortega. Todayâs Washington Post reports: Ortega, 60, whose armed revolution made him the Reagan administration's chief antagonist in the hemisphere during the 1980s, is also getting a boost this time from Washington's current bĂȘte noir in Latin America: Venezuelan President Hugo ChĂĄvez. Aside from delivering a political black eye to the U.S., Chavez may have other things in mind with his oil charity and in pushing for an Ortega victory. He may hope that a President Ortega returns the favor by derailing Managuaâs current plan to allow for more extensive oil exploration off its coast. The prospect of tapping these potentially large oil deposits is something that Iâm sure doesnât sit well with the oil-rich Chavez. Stay tuned ...
|
| Why is this Iraq piece on p. A-13 of the Washington Post? |
|
"Soldiers in Iraq Say Pullout Would Have Devastating Results," is the headline on page A-13 of today's Washington Post. Do you think the Postâs editors would have splashed this piece on the front page had these troops embraced plans for large-scale âredeploymentsâ out of Iraq? The reality is most Democrats do âsupport the troops,â but the troops donât support their withdrawal plans. They want to win. The one thing the war is not, however, is finished, dozens of soldiers across the country said in interviews. And leaving Iraq now would have devastating consequences, they said.
|
| (Update) Saddam and Genocide |
|
(With Hussein's death sentence for ordering the murder of 148 Shiites in the town of Dubail in the early 1980s, itâs unclear whether his other trial will continue.) Posted on August 21, 2006: Saddam's second trial begins today. This time for genocide (see here for info. on Camp Slayer), as the New York Times reports: Mr. Hussein sat stone-faced in a courtroom in the fortified Green Zone of Baghdad, listening as prosecutors gave a detailed account of how Mr. Hussein and six co-defendants embarked on an eight-stage military campaign in 1988 to eliminate the Kurds from swaths of their mountainous homeland in northern Iraq. Prosecutors said the campaign, called Anfal, killed at least 50,000 Kurds and resulted in the destruction of 2,000 villages. Recently, Time magazine published an interview with a senior leader in charge of the forces that doused Halabja and other villages with chemicals in 1988 during the Anfal campaign. Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri also claims that he and other Saddam loyalists are behind much of the insurgency. During the first Gulf War, he warned Kurds to stay out of the fight or face another chemical attack: "If you have forgotten Halabja, we are ready to repeat the operation." Saddam and his senior Baathist leadership targeted Kurdish villages with a mixture of mustard gas and nerve agent. Hereâs a reminder of the result:
And hereâs what the Iraq Survey Group concluded on Saddamâs wmd production capability: [T]here is an extensive, yet fragmentary and circumstantial body of evidence suggesting 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 preserved capability, we have clear evidence of his intent to resume WMD production as soon as sanctions were lifted. The ISG continued: Based on an investigation of facilities, materials, and production outputs, ISG also judges that Iraq had a break-out capability to produce large quantities of sulfur mustard CW agent, but not nerve agents.... After losing power, I'm sure al-Douri would like to "repeat the operation" in Halabja if given the opportunity.
|
|
Sunday, November 05, 2006
|
| Would Redeploying Away from Iraq Strengthen our Military? |
|
Senator Mel Martinez of Florida said that it would not the other day on Fox News: I believe that cutting and running from a difficult endeavor is not a way to strengthen our military, but a way to weaken it. Martinez was referring to the âstrategic redeploymentâ plan advocated by many senior Democrats. In the current Weekly Standard, Frederick Kagan explains why Martinez is right and why âredeployment on any significant scale will not incentivize the Iraqi military. It will lead to its collapse.ââ Kagan continues: There will be no "decent interval" here during which we withdraw in reasonably good order--the withdrawal itself is likely to occur in the midst of rising violence. Instead of pictures of Americans on the embassy roof in Saigon, we will see images of Iraqi death squads at work with U.S. troops staying on their bases nearby. And let us not forget that in the world of Al Jazeera, we will be accused of encouraging those death squads. The overall result will be searing and scarring. The damage to the morale of the military could be far greater than what will result from burdening soldiers with longer or more frequent tours of duty in a stepped-up effort to achieve victory. Those who are concerned about the well-being of the Army should fear defeat of this type more than anything.
|
| John Kerry to the Rescue of the GOP? |
|
I'm skeptical, but let's hope. Via Hotline blog: Pew is out with their final pre-election poll and just like the ABC/Wash. Post poll, Pew shows Republicans with momentum. In the generic ballot, Dems lead by just 4 points. More importantly, the GOP has made significant cuts into the Dems once gigantic lead among indies. Also of note, from the release: Soldiers of the Minnesota National Guard serving in Iraq, we thank you.
|
|
Saturday, November 04, 2006
|
| Ahmadinejad: The Early Years |
|
The History Channel notes that on this day in 1979: Student followers of the Ayatollah Khomeini send shock waves across America when they storm the U.S. embassy in Tehran. The radical Islamic fundamentalists took 90 hostages. The students were enraged that the deposed Shah had been allowed to enter the United States for medical treatment and they threatened to murder hostages if any rescue was attempted. Days later, Iran's provincial leader resigned, and the Ayatollah Khomeini, the leader of Iran's fundamentalist revolutionaries, took full control of the country--and the fate of the hostages. I wonder what the current Iranian president was up to back then
|
|
Friday, November 03, 2006
|
| (Update) Will the West Stand with Tbilisi? |
|
(On October 2, 2006, I wrote: "Last January, the Kremlin cut off gas supplies to the Ukraine to punish Kiev. Is Tbilisi next?â Evidently, itâs approaching that line. The AP today reports: âRussiaâs state-controlled natural-gas monopoly [Gazprom] said it would more than double the price of gas for Georgia, raising the economic pressure on Moscowâs small southern neighbor amid tensions between the two countries.â So if the Georgian democracy crumbles, the West should be sure to thank its fellow G-8 member for delivering the blow.) Posted October 20, 2006: 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. Where is the Westâs condemnation of all this? Is anything being done to help our friends in Tbilisi? Will Russia, a G8 member, succeed in breaking the Georgians?
|
| (Update) Iran, Students & Weapons Programs |
|
(Since the media is focused on Saddam's nuclear weapons program and Iran's ongoing one, I dusted off this post from last month.) 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 Iranâs nuclear program. The proposal includes the extraordinary step of preventing Iranian students from studying nuclear physics at foreign universities and colleges.â 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. In fact, recent history suggests the U.S. and our allies have good reason to be concerned about such contributions to Iranâs weapons programs. Saddam, as I have noted before, tapped foreign universities to boost his nuclear program â a program that âwas only 12 to 18 months from producing its first bomb,â the Washington Post reported in August 1991, ânot five to 10 years as previously thought.â In a 1995 Washington Quarterly article, âDenial and Deception Practices WMD Proliferators: Iraq and Beyond,â former weapons inspector David Kay wrote that Iraq hid its nuclear weapons 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 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. So the American effort to diminish Iranâs ability to do the same thing is not âextraordinary.â Itâs common sense.
|
| Gulp, In Fairness to the NYT |
|
This piece in today's New York Times notes that Saddam was âas little as a year awayâ from getting a nuclear weapon. He was that close, as I have noted before. But while Iâm no fan of how the Times often frames news stories, itâs pretty clear the reporter is referring to 1991 â the year inspectors discovered Saddamâs clandestine nuclear program was 12 to 18 months from a bomb â and not saying that Saddam was a year or so away from a bomb in 1995 or 1998 or 2002, as some on the Web have suggested. We now know that the inspection process had decimated Saddamâs nuclear weapons program, though, for the record, that wasnât the belief at the end of the Clinton administration. That said, the fact that Saddamâs bomb program went undetected by Western intelligence agencies is rarely mentioned nowadays. We tend to forget that while our intelligence agencies can overestimate a target nationâs capabilities (the 2002 Iraq NIE being the obvious example) they can also underestimated them â as was the case with Saddam in 1990-91 and North Korea.
|
|
Thursday, November 02, 2006
|
| Iraq |
|
In an editorial today, "STRAIGHT TALK ON THE ARMY." the editors of the New York Post write: Sen. John McCain of Arizona wants more troops. Both in Iraq - and for the Army and Marine Corps generally. McCain is poised for a presidential bid in '08, so there's a bit of political risk to his proposal. The senator is right, of course. If the objective is to restore and maintain some order in Baghdad in the next few months, many more US troops will be needed. The idea that we canât wait a few more months for more Iraqi troops to come on line is a fantasy. A bigger fantasy is that large-scale âredeploymentsâ carried out in the next few months will improve the security situation. It wonât. It will get worse and greatly undermine the progress we have made with some Iraq Army units. Since 2003, the administration has used multiple excuses (international troops are on the way/more Iraqi troops are in the pipeline) to keep U.S. troops levels far too low given the stakes involved in a conflict the president has called the central front in the War on Terror. Failure, as the president rightly says, is not an option. Yet, for the recent security operations in the capital we dispatched only about 6,000 US troops â and many of these troops were drawn from the volatile Anbar province. As the New York Postâs John Podhoretz wrote the other day: The president should be imposing timetables on his own generals and Pentagon. As in, "We need to win this thing. We need to break the backs of the bad guys in a big and decisive way. I want to know how we're going to do this in six months." If Iraq collapses, it wonât just be the Iraqis' problem. We will have to live with the consequences. Since 2003, Sen. McCain has been calling for more US troops in Iraq to help stem the deteriorating security environment. Too bad it wasnât done back then when it could have done the most good.
|
| (Update) What About Newt? |
|
(CNN just released a presidential preference poll for '08. They note: âOn the Republican side, there is a virtual tie for first place, with 29 percent of registered GOPers expressing preference for Giuliani and 27 percent opting for McCain. McCain has picked up 6 points of support since September, with Giuliani holding steady. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich of Georgia is the only other Republican to make it into double digits, with 12 percent.â And, as Iâve noted before, I believe itâs more likely Newt runs than Rudy -- for now at least.) Posted on November 1, 2006: George Will writes in today's Washington Post: Yet with Allen much diminished and perhaps out of contention, and with Rudy Giuliani not yet doing serious groundwork for a national campaign, the Republican field is already down to two. That is good for only one of them: Romney. But what about Newt Gingrich? Heâs given every indication -- publicly and privately -- that he will run; yet Will doesnât mention the former speaker at all in his column. Gingrich wonât need much of a âground gameâ to make waves in New Hampshire. Heâs powerful on the stomp, a first-rate debater, and isnât likely to concede the âconservative majority of the partyâ to anyone. On that score, a candidate Gingrich, or McCain for that matter, would likely hit Romney from the right on several fronts on which he is vulnerable, making it more difficult for any one candidate to consolidate the right in the early races. Folks shouldnât underestimate the impact of a Gingrich candidacy. He wonât win the nomination, but along the way don't expect Newt to assume the fetal position against his opponents -- whether they're named McCain or Romney.
|
| Same Old Story |
|
Reuters reports that Beijing is being its usual helpful self on Darfur. Sudan must first agree before any United Nations peacekeeping force enters its war-wracked Darfur region, China said on Thursday, as its President Hu Jintao met the president of the African state. Last February, Fortune magazine published a piece, âChina's African Safari,â on Beijingâs âbenignâ activities on the continent. ...African governments view China as a more cooperative partner than the West. China has refused to back regular Western rebukes of African corruption and human-rights abuses and last year used its permanent seat on the UN Security Council to block genocide charges against Sudan--source of about 7% of China's oil--for the massacres in Darfur. "The U.S. will talk to you about governance, about efficiency, about security, about the environment," says Mustafa Bello, head of the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, who has visited China seven times. "The Chinese just ask, 'How do we procure this license?'" And so it goes.
|
|
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
|
| NATO in Afghanistan |
|
The most powerful military alliance in the world canât muster any more troops for its ground commander? From AFP: NATO troops in Afghanistan are insufficient to guarantee a swift victory for coalition troops there, the organisation's commander in the Asian country said in interviews for the British press published.
|
| The Sadr Question |
|
Today's Financial Times has an interesting piece on Moqtada al-Sadr, who Powell advised dealing with long ago, and the Mahdi militia: Mr Sadr's movement probably began to splinter in late 2004, when he called off an insurrection against US and British troops. It appears to have disintegrated even further after February 2006, when his followers embarked on a campaign of sectarian killing in response to the demolition of a Shia shrine.
|
| Vets for Freedom on Kerry |
|
The veterans group released the following statement: Vets for Freedom, Americaâs largest nonpartisan orgaization representing the active duty troops and veterans of the War on Terror, called for an apology from Senator John Kerry for his remarks belittling U.S. troops.
|
| What about Newt? |
|
George Will writes in today's Washington Post: Yet with Allen much diminished and perhaps out of contention, and with Rudy Giuliani not yet doing serious groundwork for a national campaign, the Republican field is already down to two. That is good for only one of them: Romney. But what about Newt Gingrich? Heâs given every indication -- publicly and privately -- that he will run; yet Will doesnât mention the former speaker at all in his column. Gingrich wonât need much of a âground gameâ to make waves in New Hampshire. Heâs powerful on the stomp, a first-rate debater, and isnât likely to concede the âconservative majority of the partyâ to anyone. On that score, a candidate Gingrich, or McCain for that matter, would likely hit Romney from the right on several fronts on which he is vulnerable, making it more difficult for any one candidate to consolidate the right in the early races. Folks shouldnât underestimate the impact of a Gingrich candidacy. He wonât win the nomination, but along the way don't expect Newt to assume the fetal position against his opponents -- whether they're named McCain or Romney.
|





