All Things Beautiful

The Migration Of Bird Flu

The H5N1 bird flu virus

 

The H5N1 strain of bird flu has spread across Europe, Africa and parts of Asia and killed nearly 100 people worldwide and infected about 180 since it re-emerged in 2003. Scientists fear it could evolve into a mutating virus, and gain the ability to jump easily from human to human, at which point it could trigger a pandemic, resulting in millions of deaths world-wide.

All influenza viruses mutate easily, and H5N1 appears to be no exception. We are unprepared, to say the least. Food health and safety (quarantine) barriers will loom larger than ever in world trade this year thanks to fears about the spread of this and other epizootic diseases.

The health care system is close to breaking point and we have no vaccine for the pandemic, which will bring us to that fateful breaking point. Besides, how are you going to immunize 185 million people, you can't do it! And the reason for having only two producers is that the regulatory burden has squeezed out most other producers

Spread of epizootic disease such as bird flu represents an enormous threat to markets because few governments manage them in a rational way based on a cost-benefit assessment of risk mitigation strategies. If this happens, which is likely by late 2006, we really are royally.....and even Iran and their crazy Thug-In-Chief President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, nuclear threat will fade into insignificance. Well perhaps not quite....

The worries about bird flu are past the realm of "could be a threat" and have entered the phase of the ticking time bomb. Whilst we cannot see the time marker, nor do we know when it will go off in the USA, I am betting on Fall 2006, but it could come much sooner.

"The only reason nobody is concerned the Emperor has no clothes is that he hasn't shown up yet" Harvey V.Fineberg, President of the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine said recently of the world's efforts to prepare for pandemic flu. "When he appears, people will see he is naked".

The President @ a Press Conference in October last year:

I am concerned about avian flu. I am concerned about what an avian flu outbreak could mean for the United States and the world. I am -- I have thought through the scenarios of what an avian flu outbreak could mean. I tried to get a better handle on what the decision-making process would be by reading Mr. Barry's book on the influenza outbreak in 1918. I would recommend it. The policy decisions for a President in dealing with an avian flu outbreak are difficult.

One example: If we had an outbreak somewhere in the United States, do we not then quarantine that part of the country, and how do you then enforce a quarantine? When -- it's one thing to shut down airplanes; it's another thing to prevent people from coming in to get exposed to the avian flu. And who best to be able to effect a quarantine? One option is the use of a military that's able to plan and move. And so that's why I put it on the table. I think it's an important debate for Congress to have. I noticed the other day, evidently, some governors didn't like it. I understand that. I was the commander-in-chief of the National Guard, and proudly so, and, frankly, I didn't want the President telling me how to be the commander-in-chief of the Texas Guard. But Congress needs to take a look at circumstances that may need to vest the capacity of the President to move beyond that debate. And one such catastrophe, or one such challenge could be an avian flu outbreak.

Secondly -- wait a minute, this is an important subject. Secondly, during my meetings at the United Nations, not only did I speak about it publicly, I spoke about it privately to as many leaders as I could find, about the need for there to be awareness, one, of the issue; and, two, reporting, rapid reporting to WHO, so that we can deal with a potential pandemic. The reporting needs to be not only on the birds that have fallen ill, but also on tracing the capacity of the virus to go from bird to person, to person. That's when it gets dangerous, when it goes bird-person-person. And we need to know on a real-time basis as quickly as possible, the facts, so that the scientific community, the world scientific community can analyze the facts and begin to deal with it. Obviously, the best way to deal with a pandemic is to isolate it and keep it isolated in the region in which it begins.

As you know, there's been a lot of reporting of different flocks that have fallen ill with the H5N1 virus. And we've also got some cases of the virus being transmitted to person, and we're watching very carefully. Thirdly, the development of a vaccine -- I've spent time with Tony Fauci on the subject. Obviously, it would be helpful if we had a breakthrough in the capacity to develop a vaccine that would enable us to feel comfortable here at home that not only would first responders be able to be vaccinated, but as many Americans as possible, and people around the world. But, unfortunately, there is a -- we're just not that far down the manufacturing process. And there's a spray, as you know, that can maybe help arrest the spread of the disease, which is in relatively limited supply.

So one of the issues is how do we encourage the manufacturing capacity of the country, and maybe the world, to be prepared to deal with the outbreak of a pandemic. In other words, can we surge enough production to be able to help deal with the issue?

And the issue is of course so much more important acute today than in 1918 because of population dynamics. Whilst the President suggests reading Barry’s book, in 1918, the majority population lived on farms; now 80% of the population live in urban areas. Viruses of course love that, as they spread from person to person. Air-travel is also a huge contributing factor for causing earlier epidemics and more and more all year round incidents due to frequent travel crisscrossing the globe.

We also need to boost vaccine production. Unfortunately, I am told it's not so easy as to just ‘make more.’ This stuff has to be grown in egg whites for approximately 18 months for it to be a viable vaccine. Not to mention running into the problem we had in 2004, where the FDA only allowed vaccine produced by 2 different companies. It's not like “Generic Biotech INC.” can just start making flu vaccine. This is an instance where regulation shoots us in the foot.

As far as military quarantine, I think that with bio-terrorism, things like Ebola, and H5N1 flu, we seriously need to have quarantine plans in place that utilize absolutely all of our assets. But of course none of this will be in place until it’s too late to organize it in a civilized manner.

CDC is a Government site, where you can get a lot of information on the avian flu, also try Avian Flu What We We Need To Know, which is a daily blog and very informative giving a lot of links to information as well as updates, and lastly The Poultry Site, which also has a lot of the latest on the subject.

The Economist View and (no surprise here) ‘Avian Flu What We Need To Know’ authored by Tyler Cowen, Professor of Economics at George Mason University. Hugh Hewitt has been dutifully following all the information tracks and so has Glenn Reynolds @ Instapundit who gives constant updates. Another recommended read is the NYT's Has America finally woken up? There would of course be a Flu Wiki Blog!

Well that's five blogs out of, let's see 50 000 000. What do you think Tyler, impressive ratio? Give me another statistic please I am drowning here.

What is the Blogosphere waiting for? The update on the President's recommended read "Mr. Barry's book on the influenza outbreak in 1918"? Oh yeah......

"The Israel Lobby" A Perfect Excuse For Anti-Semitism

"Isaac Blessing Jacob" by Govert Teunisz Flinck 1639, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

 

"The Israel Lobby" is the academic equivalent of waving a big red cape at one's ideological opponents, hoping they'll foam at the mouth and act stark raving mad because the authors cited Chomsky or CommonDreams, or because, "the Fatah office in Washington distributed the article to an extensive mailing list."

For those of you who know, that despite being a devout Christian, I am a staunch supporter of Israel, it will not surprise you that this was exactly my reaction when I glanced over the 83 page essay released last week by Professor John J. Mearsheimer and Dean Stephen Walt, entitled "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy". When I read that David Duke had jumped on the bandwagon, my fingers were itching to express my dismay.

Especially when reading this paragraph in the essay:

As for so‐called rogue states in the Middle East, they are not a dire threat to vital U.S. interests, apart from the U.S. commitment to Israel itself.  Although the United States does have a number of disagreements with these regimes, Washington would not be nearly as worried about Iran, Ba’thist Iraq, or Syria were it not so closely tied to Israel.  Even if these states acquire nuclear weapons—which is obviously not desirable—it would not be a strategic disaster for the United States.

What Professor Mearsheimer and Dean Walt are really saying is that America should drop their support for Israel and all problems would go away. This is in a nutshell the message of the whole report.

But I resisted and decided to sleep over it. It helped. My view has changed, and I welcome this essay for it is pure bate in a sense which I will make clear further below. I am still not finished reading it, which I suspect is the main reason why so few have commented in depth.

To be sure, the contents of this essay are manna from heaven for all anti-Semites and enemies of the State of Israel. It provides well laid-out arguments and enough seemingly neutral 'facts' to mask once true and utterly irrational convictions as reasonable and scholarly. The left will be defending it on that basis alone, and ridicule any notion of it providing fuel for the anti-Semites' and Islamists' peddling agenda.

Here is where the bate begins to take effect: We will be told, that it must not be dismissed as anti-Semitic or condemned for this reason or for the bias it clearly portrays. The authors should not be attacked, as they no doubt will be, on a personal basis, because if ever there was a good example of a thoroughly compiled opinion, this certainly is one.

The bate gathers momentum: Instead we must dig deeper and take the work, JM and SW begun, to the next level. We must ask and debate as to whether abandoning US support for Israel has become geopolitically preferable. Whether the US could sacrifice Israel in the interest of bringing about stability and peace in the Middle East. Will it reduce oil prices and ensure economic stability for the global economy. We must dispassionately consider U.S. interests in the light of the negative influence brought about by our close association with Israel and the Jewish people in this country.

Now the bate has reached full speed: We must consider, how this influence came about and whether it warrants intervention; whether we need to curb this influence. We must also resume the debate why it is that Jews are so successful, as Mearsheimer and Walt clearly point out.

When Professor Mearsheimer and Dean Walt assure us that "...there is nothing improper about American Jews and their Christian allies attempting to sway U.S. policy towards Israel", all we hear is a great big but, especially in view of this:

The United States has a divided government that offers many ways to influence the policy process.  As a result, interest groups can shape policy in many different ways—by lobbying elected representatives and members of the executive branch, making campaign contributions, voting in elections, molding public opinion, etc.

Furthermore, special interest groups enjoy disproportionate power when they are committed to a particular issue and the bulk of the population is indifferent.  Policymakers will tend to accommodate those who care about the issue in question, even if their numbers are small, confident that the rest of the population will not penalize them.

The Israel Lobby’s power flows from its unmatched ability to play this game of interest group politics.  In its basic operations, it is no different from interest groups like the Farm Lobby, steel and textile workers, and other ethnic lobbies.  What sets the Israel Lobby apart is its extraordinary effectiveness.

The bate will find its glorious crescendo in the question of all questions: But most important of all, we must ask why do the Jews go to such extraordinary length, we must ask, what is their real objective?

Does any of this sound familiar to you? Do any of you feel, that the perceived need to lobby, may have anything to do with the extremely remote likelihood, that, if and when these questions are being debated widely and publicly, the sentiment will remain objective, neutral and free of rampant anti-Semitic outbursts?

I  welcome this essay because it will lure out the anti-Semites amongst us, who have been waiting for such an excuse to dress their irrational hatred in reasonableness and fake moderation. It is our task to differentiate between those who welcome this opinion to debate the issues and those who pursue their morbid hidden agenda.

More reax. from both sides of the Blogosphere:

Scott Johnson @ Powerline, pulverizes the distinguished pair:

[...] Mearsheimer and Walt argue that there is neither a moral nor a strategic case to be made for supporting Israel, so the only explanation for American policy must be the "Israel lobby." The alternative, of course, is that they are wrong, and that there are good reasons why Israel has enjoyed the support (consistently, albeit to varying degrees) of eleven consecutive administrations of both parties, and a large majority of the American people for over half a century. Which is more likely: that all of these people have been bamboozled by a sinister "Lobby," or that there are, in fact, good but unacknowledged (by Mearsheimer and Walt) reasons for our historic support of Israel?

Perhaps the most damaging implication of Mearsheimer and Walt's essay is that America's alliance with Israel brought about 9/11. They assert that to say Israel and the United States face a common terrorist threat "has the causal relationship backwards: rather, the United States has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around." [...]

Mearsheimer and Walt throw distortion and defamation like rice at a wedding. Perhaps the most absurd element of the essay is the fancy that the "Lobby" seeks to stifle debate on campus and conducts a campaign to eliminate criticism of Israel from college campuses. Like Paul Findley, Mearsheimer and Walt fancy themselves the brave dissenters from a sinister pro-Israel orthodoxy. "Anyone who criticizes Israeli actions or says that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over U.S. Middle East policy...stands a good chance of getting labeled an anti-Semite." These tenured faculty members of distinguished academic institutions dare to take the chance. For its sheer crudity, however, their essay subjects them to the even greater chance of getting labeled charlatans.

Elaborating today:

Yesterday I wrote here about the outrageous essay/research paper published by Professor John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt on "the Israel lobby." I find the paper notable because of its provenance and shocking because of its scholarly pretense combined with its dishonesty. Virtually every paragraph in its 40 pages of text plays fast and loose with facts, treats evidence with unscholarly partiality, engages in axe grinding, or casts defamatory charges of a particularly unsavory kind. It has been celebrated by David Duke, the PLO, and a member of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood (the Islamist organization that founded Hamas).

Hugh Hewitt delivers the final blows:

Harvard's Kennedy School has got a Dean who can only be described as a nutter, a conspiracy theorist of the first order, indulging in the worst sort of anti-Semitic slanders --American Jews are foreign agents!-- and giving open encouragement to and endorsement of the extremist views of American foreign policy circulating in the camps of America's enemies.

Today the Los Angeles Times runs a front page story on ties between Iran and al Qaeda. Professor Mearsheimer and Dean Walt will no doubt see the hand of the Israel Lobby at work in the story, and in the larger effort to contain the Iranian regime which believes that Israel ought not to exist and that the Holocaust didn't happen.

Glenn Reynolds @ Instapundit hits the nail on the head: "YALE HAS ITS TALIBAN, HARVARD HAS DAVID DUKE:

"A paper recently co-authored by the academic dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government about the allegedly far-reaching influence of an 'Israel lobby' is winning praise from white supremacist David Duke. The Palestine Liberation Organization mission to Washington is distributing the paper, which also is being hailed by a senior member of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization."

No doubt the President's speech yesterday would have upset the old apple cart"

"I made it clear, and I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel," said Bush, who was apparently referring to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call for the destruction of Israel.

Scott @ Lawyers Guns And Money, makes this a dig at the right wing bloggers...eh? I thought I landed on Glenn Greenwald's site for a moment. There must be a reason the PLO mission to Washington and the Muslim Brotherhood are distributing the paper, whether the scholars intended to or not, they have provided them with well laid-out arguments perfectly suited to disguise rabid anti-Semitism.

I don't think there's any reason to believe that anti-Semitism played a role in writing it even if anti-Semites trumpet it, but I'm sure some clueless hacks will run with the New York Sun's angle and play the guilt-by-association game--turning this work of two scholars into something about "Harvard" (and even more amusingly into something about "liberal academics.")

In his post today Daniel Drezner emphasizes:

Walt and Mearsheimer should not be criticized as anti-Semites, because that's patently false. They should be criticized for doing piss-poor, monocausal social science.*

[...] the main empirical problems with the article are that :

    A) They fail to demonstrate that Israel is a net strategic liability;

    B) They ascribe U.S. foreign policy behavior almost exclusively to the activities of the "Israel Lobby"; and

    C) They omit consderation of contradictory policies and countervailing foreign policy lobbies.

Mark Noonan @ B4B:

The thing is, if you believe in God, then you know God controls the destines of the world and that all will come out the way He desires. If, on the other hand, you don't believe in God then you must, if you have any sense at all, realize that in a population six billion strong, there is no way a person or cabal are going to control things. Paranoia just leads to more paranoia. I'm a Catholic who supports a Protestant President and I write for a blog operated by a Jew...so, which part of the conspiracy controls me? Am I taking my orders from the Pope, the Elders or Jerry Falwell? Or is it all three? Maybe they are all in it together!

So, congratulations, leftwing, you've moved so far into the fever swamps that the KKKers are pleased.

The New York Sun updates today:

Also critical of the paper's academic quality was one of the figures mentioned in it as part of the "lobby," President Clinton's special Middle East envoy, Dennis Ross, who said the authors displayed "a woeful lack of knowledge on the subject."

"The part I've read I find remarkable for its lack of seriousness," Mr. Ross told the Sun yesterday. "It is basically a series of assertions. They quote only those people who basically have this point of view and don't take a serious look at anything in a more profound way. It is masquerading as scholarship.

"I would say this is an effort to take a point of view and give it academic legitimacy," he continued.[...]

Last night Dean Walt responded to the furor his paper has caused:

"I have discussed your inquiry with my co-author, Professor Mearsheimer," he told the Sun." We appreciate the invitation to respond to the comments, but prefer not to."

UPDATE: Siggy extracts the necessaries, and dissects to the point:

In other words, Osama bin Laden and the like are only distractions. Despite Arab world denials, the irrational and frenzied anti Semitism is an appropriate response to Israel.

Might we surmise that the Harvard Arab Alumni Association played a part here?.

 

Lost In Translation

 

It's the third anniversary of the coalition invasion of Iraq. The elected Iraqi parliament has held its first session, but is prevented from going much farther by factionalism. Iraqis are not keen on compromise, and dictatorship came to Iraq half a century ago when the generals decided to silence the squabbling and take over themselves. Iraqis wonder if they can avoid repeating past mistakes like this. The Shia Arab majority is split in several large, and many smaller, parties, that resist cooperating. The Kurds have two major factions, that are currently tolerating a truce, and dealing with growing popular unrest at the corruption at the faction (clan, actually) leadership.

The Sunni Arabs, who are now the oppressed minority, have always been the most willing group to unite and take charge. But no more. There are many factions. Some are religious extremists, some are secular (like the Baath Party Saddam ran), while others are tribal. One of the factions is al Qaeda, which is basically a group of Sunni Arab Islamic radicals. Al Qaeda is not happy that all Iraqi Sunni Arabs have not supported them. This has degenerated into war between al Qaeda and most Iraqi Sunni Arabs. But many of these same Sunni Arab factions are still hostile to the Shia Arab dominated government.

Most Iraqis understand that a clean, cohesive government is the key to future peace and prosperity. But the cooperation and compromise required to make this all happen has so far eluded Iraqis. American and European diplomats and advisors constantly hover about with suggestions and advice. The key to peace in Iraq is not a military problem, the terrorists and Sunni Arab rebels are beaten. The key to peace is political, and the ability of Iraqi factions to work together. Iraqis have paid a lot of attention to Lebanon, looking for answers. Lebanon is split by religious factions (about one third Shia, one third Sunni and one third Christian). Lebanon went through a 15 year civil war (1975-90), and since making peace, the country has prospered (without oil, just the skills of the people), despite interference from Syria. The Lebanese example gives hope, but the payoff is in the performance. The Iraqi politicians have to perform. In the next few months, we'll see if they can.

The perceived attitudes in the U.S. on the war in Iraq, have more to do with Bush hatred than with realities on the ground, among a lot of people on both left and right. As Bush's popularity seems to diminish in the eyes of poll gazers-- largely for non-war reasons -- it has pushed the war's popularity down with it.

I was listening to Former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi on the BBC earlier, saying that recent sectarian violence is a sure sign of a nation at war with itself. "We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is," he said.

Although conditions have not passed the "point of no return," he said, if that point is reached, fragile efforts to build a new government "will not only fall apart but sectarianism will spread throughout the region, and even Europe and the U.S. will not be spared the violence that results."

In recent months, killings apparently based on the victims' religion have fueled fears of civil war. Attacks on Sunnis and Shiites have sparked reprisal killings, and after the February 22 bombing of a revered Shiite shrine, violence seemed to escalate.

The Bush administration says Iraq is not in a civil war, but that terrorists are desperate to foster one, desperate to foment a civil war which would conveniently propel them into the spotlight.

Lawmakers have also argued the point. The debate carries political significance in both nations, as Iraqi officials work to build a permanent government and President Bush's approval rating is supposedly at a record low. If you repeat something enough times, it suddenly becomes the truth.

A former Iraqi exile, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Ahmed Chalabi who was instrumental in building the U.S. case during lead-up to the war, and who later fell out of favor with the Administration amid what turned out to be false intelligence, rejected Allawi's assessment: "There is no civil war here," 

In reality, you can't trust either word, as both are members of the Iraqi parliament, and their public remarks are often viewed as positioning for power in the new Cabinet.

Wretchard @ The Belmont Club:

The British Defense Minister says that Allawi had said something rather different to him just shortly before his BBC interview.

While visiting British troops in Iraq on Sunday, Defense Secretary John Reid said Allawi's remarks to the BBC contradicted what the former prime minister told him during a Saturday meeting.

"Every single politician I have met here from the prime minister to the president, the defense minister and indeed Ayad Allawi himself yesterday said to me there's an increase in the sectarian killing, but there's not a civil war and we will not allow a civil war to develop," Reid said.

Wretchard goes on to say in what I think is an important must read article:

Politically what's interesting is how the narrative has changed. Nobody is talking about the Sunni insurgency succeeding any more. Even the press hardly makes the claim of an insurgency on the brink of success. As late as November 2005, the Daily Kos was boasting: "The occupation is exacerbating terrorism in the country. America is losing, the insurgency is winning. Maybe we should say, 'has won.'" But by the December 2005 elections this view could no longer be held by anyone with the slightest regard for the facts. Juan Cole said:

The guerrillas are really no more than mosquitoes to US forces. The casualties they have inflicted on the US military, of over 2000 dead and some 15,000 wounded, are deeply regrettable and no one should make light of them. But this level of insurgency could never defeat the US military in the field.

[...] Instead of insurgency the talking points have changed to how Sunnis might soon become victims of an ethnically hostile Iraqi army in a Civil War. Going from a boast of conquest to a portrayal of victim is usually an indicator of something. In my view, the shift of meme from the "insurgency" to a "civil war" is a backhanded way of admitting the military defeat of the insurgency without abandoning the characterization of Iraq is an American fiasco. It was Zarqawi and his cohorts themselves who changed the terms of reference from fighting US forces to sparking a 'civil war'. With any luck, they'll lose that campaign too.

Dr. Sanity has more.

Obviously there is some sectarian violence because of the tensions that have been built up under both the CPA [U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority] and the interim government, which was headed by Allawi, and there is the perpetual blame of the U.S. military for exacerbating tensions through operations in Falluja and Najaf, where pitched battles took place between the U.S. forces and insurgents in late 2004. The consequences of the frustration of the sectarian tensions, as with others is as usual dumped squarely in our lap.

Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska who has long differed with the President over the war is no doubt breathless to put another nail in the President’s coffin, and would like to see the Bush Administration acknowledge that Iraq has reached the point of civil war. By calling it “low grade” the Senator seems to think it will pass the scrutiny radar of it’s true definition.

But everyone seems to have missed the most important issue here. Until you can pinpoint who is actually doing the killing, you cannot call it a civil war. And if you have a small group of killers inciting violence, then they are terrorists, like they were in Ireland, and that certainly does not classify as civil war. It doesn't matter if they dress up in official uniforms, stolen from God knows where.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, meanwhile has been getting flack for his statement in Sunday's Washington Post: "turning our backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis." Instead of fixating on the historical accuracy of the analogy, focus on the reality that we can not leave now. We can not allow the same mistakes made countless times in the past.

But I digress, I want to thank the U.S. troops for their heroic service during the past three years, instead of bitching about a supposed "low grade" civil war instigated by a bunch of terrorists.

My friend Rick aka The Ugly American has the right attitude:

If there is one good thing to come from the islamofascists attacks on 9/11; it has made us realize we can no longer ignore the Middle East.

To my friend Treasure of Baghdad [don't miss this moving post], I can only offer hope for the future and these words of solidarity and encouragement as I know more people he cares about will suffer and die before this war is over.

We are not ignoring you any longer my friend. Please do not push away the people who desperately want to help you. People I care about will also suffer and die. No doubt more sacrifice will be required of you, please do not forget that others are sacrificing for you as well. I know this has not always been the case but today Americans, Italians, Poles, British, Australians, and others, are dying for your freedom. This is the opportunity of your lifetime. To live free to live in peace. Do not waste it.

I am about to watch the President's speech in Cleveland, and try out my new CNN Pipeline Webplayer. Transcript published here.

UPDATE I: Siggy has another excellent not to be missed post:

Few on the left will care about what will become the lot of the Iraqis. They didn't care before as Saddam was butchering hundreds of thousands. They didn't care as when Saddam's rape rooms were working at full capacity. Clearly, there is no reason to believe they will care about the Iraqis in the future. No doubt they will be celebrating the 'defeat' to America. They do not realize they America will not lose anything- our freedoms are assured. The loss they will celebrate is the loss of freedom- and of a future- for so many denied, for so many decades. It is this hypocrisy of many on the left that still causes the revulsion, to this day, of people who lived under communist regimes. The idea of a free exchange of thoughts and ideas is anathema to the left- unless those exchanges and opinions concur with their own.

In the end, freedom will transform the Middle East as it did Eastern Europe. Nothing great is easy, and establishing democracy in Iraq is a challenge. We have also said, democracy is built on the blood of patriots. Like Lafayette and Kosciusko that came to the aid of the patriots that built our country, we are coming to the aid of the Iraqi patriots that are paying for their freedom every day, in blood.

When that freedom comes, the left will be nowhere to be found. They will abandon the Middle East in the same way they left Eastern Europe. Arabs, like Eastern Europeans, will choose freedom, if given the chance.

UPDATE II: From Newsweek "The Human Toll" - An interactive map of Coalition military fatalities and estimated Iraqi civilian deaths in Iraq, 2003-2006.

An important post from Iraq The Model "Was it the right decision to remove Saddam?"

Bloodless Or Carter Bound?

The 1922 portrait of Dr. Stadelmann [mustache removed] by the famous Otto Dix, Art Gallery of Ontario, Toronto, W.Landmann Collection

 

A group of 52 former American hostages released by Iran 25 years ago, confronted two of Condoleezza Rice's most senior aides, Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns and legal adviser John B. Bellinger III.

Their grievance: Why has the Bush administration, which has labeled Iran one of the world's most dangerous regimes and has called the hostages American heroes, fought their efforts to win damages for their ordeal from the Islamic republic?

The answer is deeply rooted in diplomatic obligations as set out in the Algiers Accords Agreement, which codified the January 1981 deal between the United States and Iran under which the hostages were released, approx. 8 billion dollars in Iranian assets were unfrozen, and an arbitration tribunal was established in the Netherlands to settle claims between the two countries. In the first part of the document, the United States pledged that it "will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs." Elsewhere, the United States pledged to "bar and preclude" any claims filed by the hostages against Iran.

Under the Agreement, the United States is obligated "to terminate all legal proceedings in United States courts involving claims of United States persons and institutions against Iran and its state enterprises, to nullify all attachments and judgments obtained therein, to prohibit all further litigation based on such claims, and to bring about the termination of such claims through binding arbitration...."

Here is the crucial Document, part of the United States-Iran Agreement on Release of the American Hostages Executive Order 12283, January 19th 1981 : Non-Prosecution Of Claims Of Hostages And For Actions At The United States Embassy And Elsewhere

The other parts of the Agreement, largely relevant to the release of all Iranian assets, including the property of the former Shah of Iran, and the revocation of trade sanctions against Iran, can be found here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

The Agreement of course has President Jimmy Carter's fingerprints all over it. President Reagan was inaugurated the day the hostages were released, and lumbered with the Algiers Accords agreement already signed on that very day. The hostages were released 20 minutes after the inauguration speech was delivered.

God forbid that in today's two page article, the Washington Post would make mention of the fact that the agreement was negotiated and signed by President Jimmy "Cowardly Appeasement Policy" Carter, on January 20th 1981, the day of President Reagan's inauguration, as his last glorious act as President of the U.S. and just before he handed the sullied reigns over to Ronald Reagan.

Carter's announcement on the morning of January 20th 1981: "I know you have been up all night with me and I appreciate it very much. We have now reached an agreement with Iran which will result, I believe, in the freedom of our American hostages. The last documents have now been signed in Algiers following the signing of the documents in Iran which will result in this agreement."

Jimmy Carter's last full day as President of the United States was a marathon struggle against the clock and the seeming determination of the Iranian authorities to deny him a reunion with the American hostages as a climax to his Presidency. Throughout a night and day of sustained tension, Carter and his aides clung to the hope that he would be able to greet the hostages on their arrival in West Germany, then return here in time to attend Ronald Reagan's inauguration.

The prospect of ending the crisis and making the trans-Atlantic dash in the closing hours of the Carter Presidency had enthused his staff like nothing else since his defeat on November 4th 1980. But it was not to be. Shortly after Pars, the Iranian press agency, gloated publicly that Carter would not be able to welcome the hostages as President because their release would be delayed until after his term expired - a claim that remained to be proved - Carter bowed to the inevitable and accepted Reagan's request that he serve as a special envoy to greet the hostages.

In the closing moments of his pitiful presidency Jimmy Carter would have been prepared to sign anything Iran had to offer, simply to have the glory of the release of the 52 hostages, and the end to the Iran crisis, attributed to him, as a sealed climax to his presidency. His dearest wish above all else to have a triumphant end to his presidency, but at what expense. This is the agreement that the State Department is dumped with today, but of course the ever biased MSM would never mention that.

The answer is rooted in diplomatic obligations and a wariness about favoring one set of terrorism victims over others. U.S. officials express sympathy for the former hostages. But the administration has thwarted every effort in the courts or in Congress to win a monetary judgment against Iran, even as other victims of Iranian-linked terrorism have secured hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation
[...]
But last week the State Department objected when Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) tried to address the issue in a House bill that would maintain sanctions against Iran for its links to terrorism, forcing the lawmaker to withdraw his proposal.

"We have 52 of our finest Americans who were held hostage," Sherman said. "They go to court, and you know who appears against them? The State Department."

The former hostages have long tried to sue Iran over being blindfolded, tortured and held in dank cells during 444 days in captivity. Earlier lawsuits were dismissed because other countries generally cannot be sued in federal court. But in 1996 Congress amended the foreign sovereign immunity law to allow suits against countries listed as state sponsors of terrorism. The former hostages sued under the new law, seeking $33 billion in compensatory and punitive damages, and won a default judgment against Iran in 2001.

But on the eve of a hearing to consider damages, the Bush administration intervened, saying the suit violated an agreement with Iran that had secured the hostages' release. The judge threw out the suit in 2002 after Congress twice tried to intervene by passing legislation favoring the hostages. The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in 2004. Now the former hostages are seeking relief from Congress.[...]

Beyond the plight of these hostages, the case raises difficult issues.

Even if a victim of terrorism wins at trial, it is almost impossible to collect damages. Iran's assets in the United States, for instance, are worth only about $20 million, mainly diplomatic property, according to State Department officials. So Congress in 2000 passed legislation authorizing the payment of $380 million in U.S. Treasury funds to claimants in cases involving 14 victims who were held hostage or killed by Iranian-supported groups such as Hezbollah, according to the Congressional Research Service. Lawmakers ordered the State Department to try to get that money reimbursed by Iran someday.

Other victims of terrorism, however, have received nothing, leading some lawmakers to conclude that it is inequitable -- and costly to U.S. taxpayers -- to carve out exceptions on a piecemeal basis.[...]

For the hostages, the situation is rich in irony. The State Department, in legal arguments and on Capitol Hill, has maintained that allowing the hostages' case to go forward will violate the Algiers Accords. But Rice has announced a $75 million plan to bolster democracy in Iran and to foster opposition to the theocracy that controls the country. The hostages say Rice's program violates the prohibition on interfering in Iran's affairs; Iran has also filed a complaint with the United States through the Swiss Embassy, which handles U.S. interests in Tehran.[...]

U.S. officials say that supporting democracy does not amount to interference under international law. And they say abrogating the Algiers Accords, though not a formal treaty, would be viewed overseas as a serious breach of international norms, harming U.S. interests. U.S. banks and companies have been able to settle claims with Iran because of the accords, while the United States has been forced to pay about $900 million to Iran for contract violations and property damage.[...]

The Administration's proposed a plan in 2003, that would have given any victim of terrorism $262,000. This was rejected by the Senate, and the idea languished, largely because of complaints that the amount was too low. We are of course not told why the Democratic Senators did not propose an alternative, simply that this is now a newly found battle with the State Department. Ahem.

Obviously the Administration now has to put a plan in place to reflect the present relationship with Iran and other countries, amounting to a "comprehensive program" for victims of international terrorism, including the former hostages, therefore dealing with the appallingly one sided and inadequate Algiers Accords agreement inherited form the incompetent Jimmy Carter.

(Linked to Carnivals @  Basil's Blog, The Mudville Gazette The Real Ugly American, Stop The ACLU Third World County, Right Wing Nation)

How Did Europe Become Home To 20 Million Muslims In A Mere Three Decades

"Game Boys" by Peter Howson 1991, Private Collection London

Blogging is light today, so I will give you below excerpts of an interesting article by Brendan Bernhard, about Oriana Fallaci, the Italian journalist, who stands in my mind, next to the courageous Arab-Americans like the much talked about Dr. Wafa Sultan and the Somali-born Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali (two women I greatly respect for openly challenging Islamist supremacism).

But first some background.

The seventy five year old Fallaci, who is dying of cancer, lives in New York, unfortunately in hiding, because of death threats she received after her strongly pro-American and anti-Islam book published two weeks after 9/11, 'The Rage and the Pride'.

One of the most renowned journalists of the modern era, Fallaci was indicted in 2005 by a judge in her native Italy under provisions of the Italian Penal Code which proscribe the "vilipendio," or "vilification," of "any religion admitted by the state."

In her case, the religion deemed vilified is Islam, and the vilification was perpetrated, apparently, in a book she wrote in 2004--and which has sold many more than a million copies all over Europe--called "The Force of Reason". Its astringent thesis is that the Old Continent is on the verge of becoming a dominion of Islam, and that the people of the West have surrendered themselves fecklessly to the "sons of Allah." So in a nutshell, Oriana Fallaci faces up to two years' imprisonment for her beliefs--which is one reason why she has chosen to stay put in New York. Let us give thanks for the First Amendment.

It is a shame, in so many ways, that "vilipend," the latinate word that is the pinpoint equivalent in English of the Italian offense in question, is scarcely ever used in the Anglo-American lexicon; for it captures beautifully the pomposity, as well as the anachronistic outlandishness, of the law in question. A "vilification," by contrast, sounds so sordid, so tabloid--hardly fitting for a grande dame.

After spending most of the last century fighting against fascism, Oriana Fallaci continues to demonstrate the enduring grip of Orwellianism: she is to be tried in Italy for thought-crime. For spending her childhood fighting Hitler and Mussolini, and for dedicating the last four years of her life to rousing the West to the danger posed by Islamofascism, she more than merits designation as FrontPage Magazine’s Woman of the Year.

Oriana Fallaci has rebelled against fascism most of her life. She is not an ideologue, bound to implement any given ideology. Hers is a defensive mission. She is, by her own designation, neither a conservative nor a leftist, finding defects with both. Like FrontPage Magazine, her main concern is fighting encroaching totalitarianism, not advancing a narrow partisan agenda ruled by either orthodoxy.[...]

Her crime? She exposed the threat of Islamic jihad – from without and within. Europe, she wrote, is becoming “an Islamic province, an Islamic colony.” Describing increasingly Muslim Europe, she wrote, “In each of our cities lies a second city: a Muslim city, a city run by the Quran.” When Shari’a rules certain areas of Christendom’s ancient home continent, and French girls cannot go through certain Parisian neighborhoods without wearing a burqa without fear of being raped, few could argue with her insight.

In Italy, the complaint came from Adel Smith, president of the Muslim Union of Italy, who was never charged with defaming Christianity after he referred to a crucifix as a “miniature cadaver” during his 2003 efforts to have depictions of Christ on the Cross removed from Italian schools. He has amassed a reputation as something of a crank after demanding that Christians deny aspects of their faith that offended his Islamic sensibilities: he has called for the destruction of Giovanni da Modena’s fresco The Last Judgment in the 14th-century cathedral of San Petronio in Bologna, Italy, because that priceless expression of Medieval Christianity depicts the Muslim Prophet Muhammad in hell. And in the mother of all frivolous lawsuits, Smith in February 2004 brought suit against Pope John Paul II and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, for offending Islam by expressing in various writings their opinion, utterly unremarkable from two Christian leaders, that Christianity is unique and superior to other religions, including Islam.

His new suit against Fallaci set down for June 2006 in Bergamo, which Fallaci refuses to attend, is hardly less frivolous, but Smith was able to find a judge willing to play along. Judge Armando Grasso of the Italian city of Bergamo ruled in a preliminary hearing that Fallaci’s latest book, La Forza della Ragione (The Force of Reason), contained eighteen statements “unequivocally offensive to Islam and Muslims,” and that therefore she must be tried.

It is useful to go through Fallaci’s eighteen outrages, (as Robert Spencer did) as specified in Smith’s complaint, in order to see just how devious and devoid of substance Smith’s suit is. The trial will need to employ a battery of historians: several of Fallaci’s offending eighteen statements are simply assertions of historical fact.

As Italian Justice Minister Roberto Castelli said in disagreement to Judge Grasso “In Europe,” he declared, “we are seeing the birth of a movement that is looking to silence those who don’t follow a single mindset, within which it is forbidden to speak ill of Islam….In Fallaci’s book there is very strong criticism but not defamation.”

Brendan Bernhard: "In 'The Force of Reason', the controversial Italian journalist and novelist Oriana Fallaci illuminates one of the central enigmas of our time. How did Europe become home to an estimated 20 million Muslims in a mere three decades?

The Muslim Brotherhood And The First Strike War Doctrine

 

Let's just recap. What actually happened yesterday:

The insurgent strongholds north of Baghdad were and are still being smoked out by a massive air and ground coalition assault, the largest since three years, very likely targeting al-Zarqawi and his cohorts of terrorist thugs.

The Administration reiterates in no uncertain terms its stance on the War on Terror: Zero Tolerance. This is the unequivocal message in the national security report, released, ahem, the same day.

On the same day. we are being told that "The level of “chatter” by al Qaeda operatives is currently as high or higher than in the months prior to 9-11, and the question in many parts of the U.S. and European intelligence communities is not if al Qaeda will strike again, but when."

Simultaneously, the Iraqi Intelligence Service documents are released giving undeniable proof that the "Bush lied people died" liberal doctrine is DEAD, and that their adopted 'holy man' Saddam Hussein was indeed guilty as charged. The word WMD becomes redundant. Liberals declare another Day of Mourning.

Among the enduring myths of those who oppose the war is that Saddam, though murderous when it came to his own people, had no weapons of mass destruction and no terrorist designs outside his own country. Both claims now lie in tatters. Suddenly the MSM stays conspicuously silent, too lazy or not interested in reviewing the evidence. If it no longer has 'Bush bashing appeal', it becomes utterly irrelevant.

Everyone turns towards each other and says: "Iran is next".

And then, this is probably the most revealing of all, Iran announces that it would like to hold face to face talks with the Great Satan about Iraq. Think about it for a moment. Take into consideration all the rhetoric and blustering over the past many months. One great big f... you. And suddenly, on this very day, Iran wants to talk about Iraq. Ask yourself, why? Could it be that Iran has realized that it has overplayed its hand? That it has just needled the Great Satan one too many times by blowing up the shrine and hoping to throw Iraq into civil war? We don't know, but we do know, that something major is up and that Iran knows it.

The apologists are cringing in the corner, and I am saying "It's about time".

The scene is set for the last piece in the First Strike Doctrine: Do you want to know what the House of Representatives International Relations Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation and their leadership were told the same day in relation to Hamas' strategy after the Palestinian elections? What they were told yesterday about this strategy and its limitations, and what policy recommendations were put forward? What they were told in relation to the War On Terror in the wider region and context?

Thanks to Memri's President Yigal Carmon, we get front row seats during yesterday's Capitol Hill briefing, joining the leadership of the committee, Chairman Ed Royce (R-CA) and Ranking Member Brad Sherman (D-CA) and Rep. Steven Rothman (D-NJ), the Chair of the Middle East and Central Asia Subcommittee Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla) and Ranking Member Gary Ackerman (D - NY).

Let me cut to the chase. They were told:

1. That the global War on Terrorism has prompted Hamas' choice of political participation. It "...made Hamas (as part of the mother organization, the Muslim Brotherhood) realize that in the post-9/11 world, terrorist organizations have no future, while political participation could still allow them to achieve some of their major goals."


2. That the conditions placed on Hamas after their election victory vis-à-vis Israel (renunciation of violence, recognition of Israel, and respecting prior agreements) are ineffectual for the following two reasons:
   
   
   • They can be met on a limited tactical and temporary basis - and, indeed, Hamas has begun to do so.
   
   
   • The limited focus on Israel overlooks the more important, broader issue - namely, the political participation of the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as of secular nationalist movements, in other Arab and Muslim countries.


3. That Hamas' success is poseing a regional threat to U.S. interests. "If the West reconciles itself to that victory, the Muslim Brotherhood is likely to repeat that success in Egypt and Jordan. Abu Mazen and the PLO will be further pushed aside, and the current regimes in Jordan and Egypt may be severely threatened. This will have implications for the stability of the entire Middle East."


4. That the critical point of no return is deemed to be when Hamas assumes command of the Palestinian security forces. "At that point, the crisis will become much more difficult to manage, as well as more likely to spin out of control. This is liable to happen because Hamas's declared strategy is one of combining political participation with continued resistance, as stated by Mash'al, Haniya, and Al-Zahar ("The hoisted rifle will be in one hand, and politics and authority in the other.")".


5. That Hamas is unlikely to undergo a process of moderation; that the tactical/temporary moves currently being stated and made by Hamas in its efforts to gain world recognition for its takeover are just an attempt to hoodwink the West. "Unlike the PLO, which is a distinct, national organization limited to one people and one land, Hamas is bound to the regional - and even global - Muslim Brotherhood movement, with its comprehensive Islamic framework. As such, it is likely to keep the faith."

What follows are the Recommendations:

"Operation Swarmer" And The First Strike War Doctrine

Salvador DALI "Prémonition de la guerre civile" [Premonition of Civil War ], 1936, Musée d'Art de Philadelphie

 

TO BE UPDATED WITH LINKS THROUGHOUT THE DAY, WATCH THIS SPACE AND SCROLL DOWN TO VII UPDATES

I posted late this morning as I have been watching the Breaking News, just in:

Baghdad, Iraq - The United States on Thursday launched what was termed the largest air assault since the U.S.-led invasion, targeting insurgent strongholds north of the capital, the military said. The U.S. military said Iraqi troops also were involved in the operation aimed at clearing a "suspected insurgent operating area northeast of Samarra."

Coalition forces have dubbed the assault "Operation Swarmer," which is an operation consisting of about 1,500 soldiers in all, including the Iraqi Army's 1st Brigade, 4th Division, the 101st Airborne Division's 3rd Brigade Combat Team and the 101st Combat Aviation Brigade. The assault is a combination of air and ground operations involving more than 200 tactical vehicles and more than 50 aircraft also participated in the operation.

According to the Coalition Press Information Center, initial reports indicate that a number of enemy weapons caches have been captured, containing artillery shells, explosives, IED-making materials, and military uniforms. A show of strength was a very much needed move by the coalition forces at this time:

Adnan Pachachi, the senior politician who administered the oath to Iraqi legislators in the absence of a speaker, spoke of a country in crisis.

"We have to prove to the world that a civil war is not and will not take place among our people," Pachachi told lawmakers. "The danger is still looming and the enemies are ready for us because they do not like to see a united, strong, stable Iraq." ⋯

Somehow I think the President is trying to tell us something, launching the largest air attack on Iraq in three years, on the same day and almost simultaneously giving the zero tolerance message in the national security report, following along the lines of Israel, against terrorism. Obviously undaunted by the difficult war in Iraq, he reaffirmed today his strike-first policy against terrorists and enemy nations saying that Iran may pose the biggest challenge for America.

In a 49-page national security report, the first in three years, the President said diplomacy is the U.S. preference in halting the spread of nuclear and other heinous weapons.

"If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur -- even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack," Bush wrote.
The report also says:

"We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran. For almost 20 years, the Iranian regime hid many of its key nuclear efforts from the international community. Yet the regime continues to claim that it does not seek to develop nuclear weapons. The Iranian regime's true intentions are clearly revealed by the regime's refusal to negotiate in good faith; its refusal to come into compliance with its international obligations by providing the [International Atomic Energy Agency] access to nuclear sites and resolving troubling questions; and the aggressive statements of its President calling for Israel to 'be wiped off the face of the earth.'

"The United States has joined with our EU partners and Russia to pressure Iran to meet its international obligations and provide objective guarantees that its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes. This diplomatic effort must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided."

Titled "National Security Strategy," the report summarizes Bush's plan for protecting America and directing U.S. relations with other nations. It is an updated version of a report Bush issued in 2002.

Here is the PDF of the entire document, as I would not have too much trust in the MSM to tell you accurately the contents of it.

My liberal friend Michael van der Galien is not happy with the first strike doctrine, and agrees with the theory held by some like Helen Thomas, that it is in violation of international law. Well I am sure as far as the left is concerned it will be simply an extension of the President's "breaking the domestic law" pattern expected of a dictator in his position. Ahem.

SCROLL DOWN TO VII IMPORTANT UPDATES BY CLICKING BELOW

What Do The Democrats Believe?

 

Religion and the Democrats. Two words which have taken a beating when uttered simultaneously in recent times. In this post, I am going to break a few ATB ground rules, least of which is linking to Duncan 'Open Post' Atrios Black, and tell you an amusing story about a fight involving Democrats and Religion which has ensued, spreading like bushfire (to coin a phrase) and involving some of the biggest names in the liberal Blogosphere.

It all began, a couple of weeks ago, with an Amy Sullivan article in the Washington Monthly.

Followed by some "Knee Jerk God Baiting" by Digby.

I wonder who all the religious candidates we've unfairly scorned in the past would be? Jimmy Carter? Bill Clinton? (and no, having affairs does not mean you are not religious, just a sinner.) Al Gore? John Kerry? They all go to church and profess to be believers. Are they just not religious enough? Now, it's true that the knee-jerk left doesn't much care for Joe Lieberman but that's not because he's a religious man. It's because he is disloyal and enables the right wing. (We knee-jerk left wingers do tend to be dismissive of right wingers, that's true.)

I recall scorning both Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and neither one of them were particularly religious. Bobby Kennedy was a youthful hero and he was as catholic as they come. In fact, I'm having a hard time coming up with any consistent views on either side toward religious politicians at all. It would seem to me that this entire argument is nothing but a political football used to shut down criticism and advance a particular agenda without having to debate the issues on their own merits.

I hesitate to call this kind of lazy observation "religious correctness" because that gives the impression of an objection to rude derisive language about religion. This is something else. It's "God-baiting" designed to put any critic on the defensive if the person they are criticizing is religious. (The right, interestingly enough, is using this and its close cousin, race-baiting, very effectively these days. Nice to see people on "our side" helping them out --- again.)

Every secular "knee jerk liberal" has voted for religious candidates their whole lives. Indeed, it is impossible not to. You cannot get elected in this country if you do not profess religious belief. We have enthusiastically backed candidates who are from every religious tradition and from every region. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were both born again, southern evangelicals. We do not scorn religious candidates, period.

Many of us knee-jerk leftists are hostile to those who want to use the state to dictate the proper social attitudes of its citizens and interfere in their most personal, private decisions, that's true. I would scorn Pat Robertson and Sam Brownback's ideas no less if they were secular. It's the lack of respect for the division of influence between the private and public sphere's that is causing the problem.[...]

Who scorns who again? Perhaps some of these religious politicans could speak to the flock about giving some respect to the non-faithful. It's the Christian thing to do.

Abbas Is A Popular Front For The Liberation Of Palestine

 

"In a lecture at a women's gathering in West Bank on 7 March,  Mahmoud Abbas said he would not mind releasing Saadat if PFLP [Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine] sent him a written promise saying the movement would not hold the PA responsible for anything that might happen to Saadat after his release."

...or anything Saadat does, to be more to the point.

Al Jazeera provides the background:

The agreement that kept six Palestinian prisoners under foreign watch in a Jericho jail was forged in an effort to end the Israeli siege of then-Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's headquarters in the West Bank City of Ram Allah four years ago.

Israeli troops had surrounded the compound during Operation Defensive Shield in April 2002, demanding Arafat turn over the six men who had sought refuge inside. Five of the men, including Ahmad Saadat, leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, [PFLP], were implicated in the 2001 assassination of Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Zeevi. The sixth, Fuad Shobaki, masterminded an illegal weapons shipment to the Palestinian Authority on a ship called the Karine A.

US President George Bush brokered the deal with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that sent the six men to a Palestinian prison in Jericho, where they were guarded by US and British monitors. In return, Israeli troops pulled back from Arafat's compound.

After winning Palestinian parliamentary elections on 25 January, Hamas leaders said they wanted to release Saadat, and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas said last week he would not oppose freeing the six men.

US and British officials sent a letter to Abbas last week, accusing the Palestinians of repeatedly violating the agreement and saying the security situation at the prison needed to be improved immediately or the monitors would leave.

So, let me get this straight. Abbas wants to release Saadat & Co, Jack Straw withdraws the guards and Israel is supposed to stand idly by. Yeah, right.

The Importance Of Being Mark Steyn

MARCH 16TH UPDATE: SCROLL DOWN FOR EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH STEYN BY HUGH HEWITT

Mark Steyn is one of my favorite columnists. Brazenly forward in his opinion, forthright in his judgment, unafraid of political correctness, and a talented writer. I see a lot of myself in him, other than being so presumptuous  as to include the latter attribute of course.

He writes about big issues with tremendous energy, and he has a sensibility now more pertinent to British politics than ever: a refined sense of the absurd. Having been educated in England I have a personal soft spot for the black humor that jumps out of his pages and being politically incorrect (Joseph calm down), can relate to his frustrations.

I admire his courage in voicing what seems to be slowly becoming a taboo subject of Islam, whispered rather than said, ignored rather than faced, and above all pampered to the politically correct, who seem to be under the impression that defending yourself is somehow very distasteful. Better to simply lay down and die quietly in the corner somewhere, whispering apologies, and hoping the crocodile of Islam will eat you last, or should I say burn you last.

Let me go on to rue the passing of Mark Steyn's syndication in Britain, for his column has now been dropped by both the Sunday Telegraph and the Spectator, making his work no longer available in the British press. It is so outrageous to think that we have become such cowards. I have always respected the UK Telegraph and am absolutely appaled at their pc police who are obviously worried about offending any or all of the groups that Steyn regularly offends, because he does not sugarcoat problems or ignore absurdities.

Scott Johnson @ Powerline is asking "What is going on in London?

As another one of his fans my friend Hugh Hewitt puts it: “Mark Steyn isn't "notoriously conservative." He's notoriously talented. I am also certain his readership at the paper and magazine were very high as Steyn is one of the most linked to writers at work in the world today.

So why drop a popular and talented scribe?

Is Armitage The Man Behind The Iron Mask?

"The Washington Post's famous Watergate editor Ben Bradlee claims that it was former State Department Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage who was the individual who leaked the identity of CIA official Valerie Plame. In today's issue of Vanity Fair:

Woodward was in a tricky position. People close to him believe that he had learned about Plame from his friend Richard Armitage, Colin Powell's former deputy, who has been known to be critical of the administration and who has a blunt way of speaking. 'That Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption,' former Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee said.

'I had heard about an e-mail that was sent that had a lot of unprintable language in it.'"

Bradley's own paper today, has quite a reversal on the story:

Vanity Fair is reporting that former Washington Post executive editor Ben Bradlee says it is reasonable to assume former State Department official Richard L. Armitage is likely the source who revealed CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward.

In an article to be published in the magazine today, Bradlee is quoted as saying: "That Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption." Armitage was deputy secretary of state in President Bush's first term.

In an interview yesterday, Bradlee said he does know the identity of Woodward's source and does not recall making that precise statement to a Vanity Fair reporter. He said he has no interest in unmasking the official who first told Woodward about Plame in June 2003.

"I don't think I said it," Bradlee said. "I know who his source is, and I don't want to get into it. . . . I have not told a soul who it is."

George Clooney "I Am A Liberal.There, I Said It"

SCROLL DOWN FOR HOT OFF THE PRESS UPDATE

George Clooney writes in Huffington Post

I am a liberal. And I make no apologies for it. Hell, I'm proud of it.

Too many people run away from the label. They whisper it like you'd whisper "I'm a Nazi." Like it's dirty word. But turn away from saying "I'm a liberal" and it's like you're turning away from saying that blacks should be allowed to sit in the front of the bus, that women should be able to vote and get paid the same as a man, that McCarthy was wrong, that Vietnam was a mistake.
And that Saddam Hussein had no ties to al-Qaeda and had nothing to do with 9/11.

This is an incredibly polarized time (wonder how that happened?). But I find that, more and more, people are trying to find things we can agree on. And, for me, one of the things we absolutely need to agree on is the idea that we're all allowed to question authority. We have to agree that it's not unpatriotic to hold our leaders accountable and to speak out.

That's one of the things that drew me to making a film about Murrow. When you hear Murrow say, "We mustn't confuse dissent with disloyalty" and "We can't defend freedom at home by deserting it at home," it's like he's commenting on today's headlines.

The fear of been criticized can be paralyzing. Just look at the way so many Democrats caved in the run up to the war. In 2003, a lot of us were saying, where is the link between Saddam and bin Laden? What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? We knew it was bullshit. Which is why it drives me crazy to hear all these Democrats saying, "We were misled." It makes me want to shout, "Fuck you, you weren't misled. You were afraid of being called unpatriotic."

Bottom line: it's not merely our right to question our government, it's our duty. Whatever the consequences. We can't demand freedom of speech then turn around and say, But please don't say bad things about us. You gotta be a grown up and take your hits.

I am a liberal. Fire away.

Could someone please explain to me what all the fuss is about? So the hunky George Clooney is a liberal....and?

Pope John Paul II's Secret Files

"Portrait of Pope Paul III" by Titian ca. 1543, Cathedral Museum, Toledo

 

"There are over 50 miles of secret police files at the Institute of National Remembrance (Instytut Pamięci Narodowej -- IPN) in Warsaw and its branches throughout Poland. Among other things, one can find there US army counterintelligence manuals, accounts on American leftists cozying up to the Communists, surveillance records of US diplomats and visitors, including compromising pornographic material, files of CIA spies captured by the Communists, and numerous reports on “The Main Enemy”: the United States of America. Most of the files, however, concern Poland and the Poles. They show how, for half a century, the Communist secret police endeavored to control and terrorize an overwhelmingly Christian population. No one was immune, not even the most prominent son of Poland, Pope John Paul II.

Here’s a story about a single case of the secret police active measures against Karol Wojtyla. The agent involved was Father Konrad Stanisław Hejmo, a Dominican priest. His code name during the initial courting period was “Dominik”. After his recruitment his secret police pseudonym was “Hejnał” (Signal). It appears that, technically, Hejmo never signed an affidavit formalizing his status as a secret collaborator (tajny współpracownik -- TW). Instead, he was classified as “operational contact” (kontakt operacyjny). Hejmo’s recruiter and case officer was Colonel Wacław Głowacki of the Security Service (Służba Bezpieczeństwa SB). The Colonel was with the 5th Section of the IV (anti-Church) Department of the Ministry of Interior (MSW). Later, after 1982, the agent was transferred to the civilian intelligence at the II Department of the MSW.

Over 700 pages of documents and several magnetic tape spools of recordings reflect the volume and quality of Father Hejmo’s work. The contacts between the agent and the secret police date most likely to 1973. At that time, the priest worked to launch a Dominican periodical On the Way (W drodze). By approaching the SB, Hejmo intended to ease oppressive Communist censorship regulations and paper distribution limitations for his publication. The relationship became more formal in November 1975. At the end of the following year, the SB opened up his file of a “candidate for a secret collaborator.” Next, they registered him as a full fledged TW but strangely enough, in violation of their own rules, never asked him to fill out the appropriate paperwork.

Father Hejmo informed his secret police handlers not only about Karol Wojtyła, both before and after his elevation to the Throne of St. Peter, but also about Radio Free Europe, anti-Communist intellectuals, and dissident Catholic priests, including Father Jerzy Popiełuszko, who was subsequently murdered by the SB. Further, Father Hejmo wrote pro-Communist articles in the Church publication On the Way. He condemned the anti-regime activities of his fellow Dominicans, for instance during the 1977 hunger strike in solidarity with the Czech dissidents. Hejmo’s reports were supposedly made available to Colonel Tadeusz Grunwald of the so-called “D” Group (Disintegration -- Dezintegracja) of the IV Department of the MSW to implement active measures against Christian faith in general and dissident priests and lay activists in particular. Grunwald’s men specialized in black propaganda, malicious gossip, and forgeries. The objective of the Group was to destroy the Faith by creating and exacerbating conflict within the Church.

The Strategic Importance Of India

 

The Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has an important article in the Washington Post today, regarding the strategic importance of our relationship with India 

Our agreement with India is unique because India is unique. India is a democracy, where citizens of many ethnicities and faiths cooperate in peace and freedom. India's civilian government functions transparently and accountably. It is fighting terrorism and extremism, and it has a 30-year record of responsible behavior on nonproliferation matters.

Aspiring proliferators such as North Korea or Iran may seek to draw connections between themselves and India, but their rhetoric rings hollow. Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism that has violated its own commitments and is defying the international community's efforts to contain its nuclear ambitions. North Korea, the least transparent country in the world, threatens its neighbors and proliferates weapons. There is simply no comparison between the Iranian or North Korean regimes and India.

The world has known for some time that India has nuclear weapons, but our agreement will not enhance its capacity to make more. Under the agreement, India will separate its civilian and military nuclear programs for the first time. It will place two-thirds of its existing reactors, and about 65 percent of its generating power, under permanent safeguards, with international verification -- again, for the first time ever. This same transparent oversight will also apply to all of India's future civilian reactors, both thermal and breeder. Our sale of nuclear material or technology would benefit only India's civilian reactors, which would also be eligible for international cooperation from the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

Slobodan Milosevic 'The Butcher Of The Balkans'

Karadzic, Milosevic, Lenin, Stalin, Marx, Honecker, Ulbricht, Hitler

 

For those of you who are taking a lazy Sunday afternoon, I have put together my own personal notes, as well as an excellent must read from Christiane Amanpour, about the deceased ex-President of former Yugoslavia, and the truth about what took place, during his disgraced reign.

Roger Simon: "It is worth noting at this time that that mass murderer died in his cell because of American power, initiated by President Bill Clinton. Clinton followed a policy of attacking fascism at its roots which President Bush has expanded. From the perspective of history it will seem that both men had substantially the same idealistic foreign policy views. Present day critics who are enraged at the two presidents from both sides will seem almost silly in their partisan inability to take the larger view."

I ignored the story of his death yesterday, partly because I thought that my own hatred of the dictator would prevent me from writing anything coherent, and partly because I had the inclanation to accompany the post with the photograph of colorful fireworks, which would have been somewhat distasteful, at least on the day of his death.

Communism, which I abhor, took the lives of members of my family in the years immediately after WWII, whilst making others suffer tremendously, brought us Slobodan Milosevic, the The Butcher of The Balkans, who shall be remembered in history, side by side with the totalitarian thugs such as Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, et al.

The man who delivered the blow of a staggering 150 billion percent inflation into the heart of Central Europe, and the atrocious ethnic cleansing of Muslims, had a powerful and effective propaganda machine. The media was severely censored during his ten year reign, and showed only what Milosevic allowed the public to see. The opposition to his totalitarian regime was powerless, and could only demonstrate on the streets of the capital, Belgrade, sometimes in the hundreds of thousands.

This propaganda constantly and incessantly reinforced the nationalistic slogans, the repercussions of which are felt, even today, with 30% of the Serbian population still supporting Milosevic. They perceive him to be a hero, and are convinced that he aimed to save Serbia from the flood of Muslim immigrants, illegally crossing the Albanian border.

The US bombing did not help to change that perception. Even those who were not Milosevic supporters, could not forget the three months of relentless bombing in the Spring of 1999, day in, and day out. People are human after all, and resentment sets in after a while, allowing propaganda to take effect.

During the horrific inflation culminating in a horrendous 150 billion percent, the shops were empty. Food was scarce, if at all. If someone did not spend their salary immediately, and I mean immediately, in the sense of literally running with the paycheck to the bank and then with the cash to the nearest shop, the monthly salary would reduce within hours, to the mere value of a box of matches.

This was an economic disaster which a certain generation will simply never recover from, no matter what the future brings.

The black market flourished. Foreign currency, especially Germany's Deutsch Mark became effectively the official tender. But of course, exchanged only in small amounts at a time because of the hyper-hyper inflation. Petrol was sold only on the black market. There were queues for milk and bread; some had to rise in the middle of the night and queue to get the essentials. Especially the old, the sick and small children suffered most. The remaining wealth and savings were wiped out. Milosevic blamed the sanctions for the peril that ensued, and most of his supporters remained loyal.

You have to know that the former Yugoslavia was a different country prior and during the years of Tito's reign. Tito was Croatian and literally shifted Serbia's entire industry, factories etc. to Croatian territories, during his reign, leaving previously vibrant economies in virtual ruins, which had to subsequently rise from the ashes once again.

My great uncle was the Prime Minister of the old Yugoslavia, between the years of 1935-1939, when we were still civilized and had a truly democratic Parliament, and this was the country Tito inherited after the war. Even though Tito, responsible for many atrocities carried out especially immediately upon entering  the capital Belgrade after WWII, when he executed without trial, one hundred of the most influential Serbs, including my grandfather, carried on throughout his reign, seemingly kept the country in a far better socio-economic shape than it's Eastern European neighbors.

Yugoslavia, even though under communist regime, had more freedom than any other Eastern European country like Poland, the former Checzoslovakia or Hungary. One could travel abroad freely without the necessity of a visa, and passports could be obtained without any difficulties. The salaries were high, based on the economy being in decent shape, largely as a result of favorable foreign loans and grants. One could obtain foreign label clothing, the latest western literature, music, movies, and generally most branded consumer goods.

Freedom of speech however, and general liberties denied in a communist regime, for which my father fought for all his life, was one important aspect which of course was never granted during Tito's reign of terror, and left many dead and others forever missing.

CNN Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour, reveals a bitter legacy in "The People vs. Milosevic" which I have posted for you below. A brilliant, unbiased as well as accurate review of the events that took place in the former Yugoslavia, for those of you who want to know the truth, it is a must read..

Tom Fox's Natural Born Killers

Tom Fox, the only American hostage who was among four Christian activists kidnapped last year in Iraq by the previously unknown Swords of Righteousness Brigades, has been killed. Tortured, shot and dumped on the side of the railway track in western Baghdad. More @ Michelle Malkin.

Al-Jazeera television aired footage of the three other activists this week, purportedly appealing to their governments to secure their release. The hostages seen in the brief video dated 28 February were Canadians James Loney, 41, and Harmeet Singh Sooden, 32; and Briton Norman Kember, 74, who I have written about here.

Christian Peacemaker co-directors Doug Pritchard and Carol Rose issued a statement:

[...]We morn the loss of Tom Fox who combined a lightness of spirit, a firm opposition to all oppression, and the recognition of God in everyone.[...]
In response to Tom's passing, we ask that everyone set aside inclinations to vilify or demonize others, no matter what they have done.

Eh? I don't think we can be talking about the same God. Media Lies agrees:

I sympathize with Mr. Fox's family. They must be in incredible pain right now. But the stupidity of pacifists amazes me. If you recognize God in the people who killed Mr. Fox, for no more reason than he's an American, then I categorically reject the God you worship and I guarantee you that God is not the God of Christianity.

The organization's teams host human rights conferences in conflict zones, promoting peaceful solutions, and Tom Fox in particular worked on three major projects: helping families of incarcerated Iraqis, escorting shipments of medicine to clinics and hospitals in Fallujah and helping form Islamic Peacemaker Teams. This is the thanks he received.

As for the inclinations to vilify and demonize, we need to remember that the reason the Christian Peacemakers organization were there since 2002, was  to investigate allegations that U.S. and Iraqi forces had abused detainees. It seems however that the organization is more prepared to forgive the murderers, than to give the benefit of the doubt to the US Government.

During a news conference, the Rev. Carol Rose, a Christian Peacemaker Teams co-director, said she forgives Fox's kidnappers...

A World Apart - Muslim Clerics Demand Apology

 

Muslim clerics in Denmark are demanding an apology from the Government for the offense caused by the Muhammad cartoons. They are also insisting that both the Danish and the European Governments change their laws to criminalize everything that offends them and their religious beliefs.

ONLY an official apology by the Danish government to all Muslims for offense caused by the prophet Mohammad cartoons would prompt the lifting of the boycott of Danish goods, Muslim preachers said.

An official apology “is absolutely necessary ... because your government has not dealt with them (Muslims) respectfully,” Islamic scholar Tareq al-Suweidan told a conference hosted by the Government in an attempt to ease tension over the drawings.[...]

If there is no apology, “the scholars of Islam and myself ... I am running an Islamic satellite TV channel, we will encourage people to continue the boycott,” Suweidan said.

Suweidan said his argument was not with the Danish cartoonists, who are under police protection after being threatened, but with their government.[...]

The center-right Danish government has refused to apologize on behalf of the newspaper saying it cannot influence the free press, but it acknowledged that many Muslims had felt gravely insulted by the controversial drawings.[...]

Both Muslim clerics supported free speech but accused the western world of applying double standards.

“We want the laws in Denmark and the European Union to be changed, either to have free speech for everyone including on the Holocaust and anti-Semitism, or to change the law to respect religious figures like Mohammad,” Suweidan said

AP puts a complete slant to the story by naming it "Muslim Preacher Urges Reconciliation". More like gives ultimatum, where does the reconciliation come into it?

Setting aside legislative issues, common sense would tell Suweidan that he has his reasoning upside-down. Moral equivalence, usually the first point of reference in these cases, doesn't even provide the basis for a good argument. Islam rejects the concept of separating the state and the church in our secular democracies. It rejects core values and beliefs deeply enshrined in Western Judea/Christian cultures. It not only rejects them, but labels them inferior. It does not accept secular legislation but insists on Shari'a law. Islam demands respect and preferential treatment from host countries in the West, yet insists on strict legislated repression of all non-Islamic religion at home.

It is hard to imagine a more systematically discriminatory regime/religion, but that is not where the audacity ends. It is true that many European countries have a number of statutes preventing the public from insulting certain individuals or groups and, yes, God. It is also irrelevant whether or not anyone has ever been prosecuted on charges of blasphemy, which to my knowledge nobody ever has. The  most basic principal of 'moral equivalence' is of course 'equivalence'. Therefore, it ought to be the case that any group seeking equal treatment on that basis, is holding itself to the same standards.

Islam however most certainly does not. Nowhere in the world is anti-Semitism as deeply enshrined and institutionalized as in all Islamic nations. Nowhere else is it part of the curriculum of state schools and part of daily editorials and their MSM; not since Nazi Germany has the West seen anything like it, a culture most akin to the middle ages.

God vs. Allah

 

Both Christians and Muslims share belief in a sovereign Deity who is one, heavenly, spiritual, the creator of heaven and earth and the judge of all mankind. Christians call Him "God" and Muslims call Him "Allah". One may thus presume that the attributes of God and Allah are the same.  A careful examination of the matter, however, will prove that it is not exactly so.

Muslim activists in the West have been using the tactic of claiming that they worship the same god as the Christians in order to gain legitimacy and acceptance. They have been using the name "God" in place of "Allah" in many translations of the Qur'an.

There is nothing new under the sun! This reminds us of what happened 14 centuries ago. When Mohammed started preaching his new religion in Mecca he was conciliatory and appeasing to Christians. He told them: "We believe in What has been sent down to us and sent down to you, our God is the same as your God." Surah 29:46. Compare this with what happened later, in Medina, after Mohammed gained strength. Allah then tells him to "Fight those who believe not in God nor the last day...Nor acknowledge the religion of truth (Islam), (even if they are) of the people of the Book, until they pay Jizya (tribute tax) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued". Surah 9:29

However, the attributes of "God of Christianity" and "Allah of Islam" are quite different. God of the Bible is loving and personal, Allah, on the other hand, is wrathful and non-personal.

THE GOD OF CHRISTIANITY

Christianity believes in a one triune God, while Islam rejects this concept as blasphemous.

"They do blaspheme who say Allah is one of three in a Trinity, for there is no god except One Allah". Surah 5:73

The reason behind Islam's rejection of the concept of the triune God is a misunderstanding of the real meaning behind it. It seems that Islam's understanding of the Trinity was derived from a Christian heresy which existed in Arabia at the time of Mohammed.

This heresy taught a trinity consisting of God the Father, God the Mother (the Virgin Mary), and God the Son (Jesus). The Qur'an says:

"And behold! God will say: O Jesus the son of Mary didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah? He (Jesus) will say: Glory to thee, never could I say what I had no right (to say)". Surah 5:116

Christians, in fact, believe in one God who has made Himself manifest in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jesus declared this doctrine when He instructed His disciples, saying:

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost".Matthew 28:19 & 20

The Father

Islam doesn't know the loving Fatherhood of God. That intimate relationship with God is foreign to Islam and condemned by the Qur'an.

"(Both) the Jews and the Christians say, 'We are sons of Allah and His beloved'. Say: why then doth He punish you for your sins? Nay, you are but men of the men He has created". Surah 5:18

Dubai Ports, The Deal Is Dead

Getty Images

 

A United Arab Emirates-based maritime company at the center of a furious controversy over port security bowed to pressure from Congress yesterday and announced that it will sell off its U.S. operations to an American owner.

The announcement, issued by Dubai Ports World Chief Operating Officer Edward H. Bilkey, came hours after House and Senate GOP leaders bluntly told President Bush that Congress would kill the U.S. portions of the company's $6.8 billion acquisition of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O), which has operations at six major U.S. ports, including New York and Baltimore.

Well, let's hope someone has the $700 000 (the US asset represents roughly 10 %), stashed away in the closet, as Dubai ports is certainly not going to fire sell this asset. One potential private-equity buyer, namely Washington's Carlyle Group, said "the firm will probably not be interested in P&O's port operations, given the political scrutiny such a deal would invite." Speaking as an experienced negotiator, this provides a great scene setting for cutting a lucrative deal, and it looks as if though some are already starting to play hard to get.

House Republicans have openly defied the President, partly for obvious reasons, namely to prevent the danger to national security, and partly presumably to prevent Democrats from outflanking us on that very subject as the elections approach. Mostly however because he was downright wrong!

Tom Bevan @ Real Clear Politics: "Bush saves face and doesn't have to make good on a veto threat. A Republican-led Congrees looks good to its constituents (and feels good about itself) for flexing its muscle and derailing the deal. DPW loses, at least for the moment."

Michelle Malkin: "Nervous nellies will argue that the House Republican “hotheads” should have waited for the 45-day review of the deal. But to many knowledgeable observers of the CFIUS process, the panel is the root of the problem—not the solution. As I made clear in my first post on this subject on Feb. 18 and consistently throughout the debate, we simply cannot afford the business-as-usual attitude of the rubber-stampers at CFIUS. And if that means the UAE retaliates by pulling out of business deals with Boeing, as it is threatening to do now, so be it."

As I have said before, the President made a mistake, and should have been the one to rescind on the deal, instead of allowing the embarrassing humiliation of the Senate, and especially his own Republican Senators, doing it for him. Bush Administration and their arrogant, cavalier attitude toward this deal does not install confidence, and to have threatened with a veto had to be the biggest 'icing on the cake' blunder of all. Karl Rove, who seems to have the instincts of a turtle, finally switched the lights on:

Late Thursday that Karl Rove had decided to pull the plug. President Bush's political adviser was said to have conveyed to a top manager of Dubai Ports World in Washington that the White House couldn't hold out any longer against congressional pressure to kill the Arab company's plan to acquire freight terminals at six U.S. ports. The initial response of one Dubai executive was: "Who's Karl Rove?"

Iran Is Building A Nuclear Weapon

A Nuclear Composition based on one of my favorite El Greco's "An Allegory with a 'Believer' Lighting a Candle in the Company of an Ape and a Fool (Fábula)" ca. 1589-92; National Gallery of Scotland, Edinburgh

 

For some months now, despite having written about the issue ad nauseam (see list below), advocating the fact that Iran has indeed been secretly building an atomic weapon, mostly the Democrats' side of the Blogosphere and my readers who lean in that direction, have bees repeatedly saying: "Show me".

Last week I broke the news in the Blogosphere about a secret meeting behind closed doors, which left us in no doubt that Iran has been deceiving us all along.  Meanwhile, the media was very busy wandering what Iran's intentions are quoting the embargoed report by IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei, "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran". Baradeitatus is like a metastasizing cancerous cell that simply spreads appeasement as it reaks havoc in the bodies of those affected. I have never liked or trusted that man, but that's just me. 

The only MSM publication that picked up on this groundbreaking story was The UK Telegraph, and that, with a delay of almost one week. The rest of the MSM has been dead silent, even though the damning recounting of the secret meeting was relayed by one of Iran's top officials and power-brokers: Hojjatoleslam Hasan Rowhani, former Secretary of Iran's Supreme Council of National Security (SCNS), the country’s highest decision-making body on security-related issues, and chief nuclear negotiator:

The Democratic Blogosphere's truth in turn, seems to begin and end at the doorstep of their pipe-dream of a Watergate-type meltdown of the Bush administration, regarding the NSA wiretapping. Period. The rest, regarding Iran, the war on terror, and the never ending diatribe about whether Saddam Hussein, who will soon be promoted to saintly status, had WMD weapons or not, has the endless argument that culminates in "Show me".

Today we have the conclusive answer, published in Ha'aretz:

Intelligence services in the West are convinced that Iran is taking covert means to develop nuclear weapons, in addition to the nuclear program under the partial supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Russian intelligence apparently agrees with this assessment.

According to the IAEA interim report from late February, a document was found that alludes to Iranian attempts to create the components of an atomic bomb.

The IAEA's Board of Governors decided Wednesday to hand the Iranian nuclear issue to the United Nations Security Council, which is expected to start deliberations next week.

The intelligence assessments reflect the conclusions that have been drawn in the past few years in the United States, Europe and Israel. Until now, most of the publications about Iran's nuclear program mentioned sites in Isfahan, Natanz, Arak and Tehran. The intelligence sources say these belong to the acknowledged part of the program and claim there is a secondary, smaller covert channel that is making steady progress toward creating a nuclear weapon for Iran.

A few intelligence services reportedly have information about these secret plants. Experts say that some of the facilities are about the same size as the secret structures built by the Pakistanis as part of their nuclear weapons program. [...]

Inspectors who examined the plutonium concluded, judging from the amounts found, that the Iranians must have started creating the plutonium in the mid-1990s and not three years ago. [...]

Some of the evidence of Iran's secret activities was mentioned in the IAEA's interim reports in recent months. The most suspicious item is a document found in Iranian possession that includes technical details about casting enriched and depleted uranium into hemispheres. This casting process is associated specifically with nuclear weapons production, as stated in the IAEA interim report of February 27. The report added that that existence of the document is disturbing.

According to experts, the document is unequivocal proof that Iran's nuclear project is involved in weapons production.

When asked by IAEA inspectors about the document, the Iranians declared that it had come from Pakistan but that they had never used it. The source of the document, as well as the centrifuges that Iran uses to enrich uranium, is apparently the network established by Pakistani nuclear arms pioneer Abdul Khader Khan, who admitted to assisting a number of Islamic countries with their nuclear programs.

Iran repeatedly refused to give the document, or a copy of it, to the IAEA.

It does not make us look particularly good when in August last year a major U.S. intelligence review  projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis.

Now we are told, that the Iranians have started creating the plutonium in the 1990's, some sixteen years ago, rather than three years ago, as we originally thought.

It is absolutely ludicrous that this confirmation comes today, when already in February 2003 we knew with more than 1,000 pages of Iranian drawings and technical documents, including a nuclear warhead design and modifications to enable Iranian ballistic missiles to deliver an atomic strike, that the intelligence presented to the U.N. Security Council at that time contained that information.

Then we delegated the monitoring and investigation to the comatosed ElBaradei ignoring what must have been known at the time, namely the discovered admission of one of Iran's top officials, that Iran was playing games with the IAEA so as to gain more time to complete their true nuclear ambitions, the acquisition of a nuclear bomb.

The Democrats Declare A National Day Of Mourning

 

Well, blow me down with a feather! The Democrats' Watergate meltdown dream just collapsed.

Senate Republicans on Tuesday agreed to expand oversight of President George W. Bush’s domestic spying program but rejected Democratic pressure for a broad inquiry into eavesdropping on U.S. citizens.

Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, Republican chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said the committee voted to create a new seven-member subcommittee that would scrutinize the eavesdropping under a plan approved by the White House.
[...]
Four Senate Republicans, all critics of the program, proposed a plan that would authorize the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without a warrant for 45 days but require the White House to justify every decision to continue beyond that time frame.

The legislative proposal, titled the Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006, also would force the eavesdropping program to cease after five years unless renewed by Congress.

Surely no one is surprised. They have almost all of their eggs in one basket now - that of Arlen Specter and his Judiciary Committee, virtually the only obstacle remaining to a complete collapse of official opposition. There will be a lot of depressed liberal bloggers out there today. Will they find something else to write about? I am sure they'll manage:

None of what happened yesterday should be a surprise. That we live under one-party rule is not a revelation. It is one of the principal reasons why our Government has become such a cesspool of unchecked corruption.

And the checks which are meant to exist on Presidential abuses -- checks and balances from the other branches as well as watchdog functions from an adversarial media-- are largely broken. The only real check left is the power of public opinion which, throughout our country's history, has been the most potent of all of those forces when it is activated.

Finding a way to activate it -- to make the public aware of how radical this Administration has become and to persuade them why they ought to care about that, not just with regard to NSA eavesdropping but generally with regard to the Administration's belief that it has the power to engage in any conduct, including violations of the law -- has been and remains the central challenge. Yesterday's vote is but a blip in that mission.

"Today the tide completed its turn away from the media lies and spin and towards common sense. The NSA story started off as a media-made fantasy where supposedly Bush ordered the NSA to defy the FISA act and go witch hunting. In the end it was learned that the only thing the NSA did was pass their leads to the FISA Court (FISC) which determined unilaterally NSA leads meant nothing and rejected the idea of surveillling people in the US in obvious contact with terrorists. How do I know this is an accurate assessment? The Senate Intelligence committee just folded when the administration called their bluff"

Does An Embryo Have An Independent Right To Life

'Does An Embryo Have An Independent Right To Life'

 

 

A woman left infertile after cancer treatment cannot use her frozen embryos to have a baby, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.
Natallie Evans started IVF treatment with her then partner Howard Johnston in 2001 but he withdrew consent for the embryos to be used after they split up.

Ms Evans went to the Strasbourg court after exhausting the UK legal process. [...] The UK's Court of Appeal and High Court had both ruled that Ms Evans, who is in her early 30s, could not use the embryos and she failed in her bid to take the case to the House of Lords.

In the court's judgement today, decided by a panel of seven judges, said: "The Court, like the national courts, had great sympathy for the plight of the applicant who, if implantation did not take place, would be deprived of the ability to give birth to her own child."

But it was ruled, in a majority verdict that, even in such exceptional circumstances as Ms Evans', the right to a family life - enshrined in article eight of the European Convention of Human Rights - could not override Mr Johnston's withdrawal of consent.

It also ruled unanimously that the embryos did not have an independent right to life.

She now hopes to appeal to the Grand Jury of the European Court, but still wants her ex-fiancé to change his mind.

Ms Evans said: "I'm still as determined to do whatever it takes to have a child of my own."

She added: "Howard may feel it's too late for him to change his mind, but it's not."

But Mr Johnston, from Gloucester, said: "It seems that common sense has prevailed."

"The key thing for me was just to be able to decide when, and if, I would start a family."

This is a difficult one. Being a woman, I know and understand how she feels, this is her last hope to have a child, but on the other hand I also understand how strongly he feels about his right to have a choice to be a father. So despite being opinionated on almost every issue you can throw at me, I find this one particularly difficult. It is complicated by the fact that she is not a woman with intact ovaries, who could conceive without assistance due to her previous cancer treatment, and does not have the luxury of multiple IVF attempts.

As the law stands the embryo has no legal right of it's own, therefore the decision is to be made by the respective parents to be, and as I understand it, the one parent has changed his mind, having initially given consent.

From experience some of my friends have had, the IVF fertility treatment is far from simple. It is a long and painful, emotionally traumatic process, and obviously in this case this young woman's last opportunity to bear a child. Knowing what a joy in one's life this is, it is difficult not to feel sympathy for someone so young, whose choice is denied by judicial intervention.

This is a landmark decision, and it could also have wider repercussions for British law, world-wide medicine and science alike. In the Strasbourg hearing last year - rushed through because of a time limit on how long embryos can be stored (British law states the maximum time storage period is five years, and that time expires in October this year) - they argued that a British law which denies a woman permission to use her embryos is in breach of the Human Rights Convention.

The convention guarantees the "right to family life".

They also claimed it breaches the Convention's stipulations outlawing discrimination, by treating her differently from a woman with intact ovaries who could conceive without assistance and produce sufficient eggs for repeated attempts at IVF.

So, does an embryo have an independent right to life?

D Stands For Denial

Getty Images

 

Michael Barone has an excellent article today, dealing with the denial of the Democrats that al-Qaeda had any connections to Saddam Hussein, and that inherently America had no right to insist on dethroning the dictator, who has suddenly become an angel like figure who should have been left to carry on torturing his country's inhabitants. Simply to deligitimize our war effort

Why, for two distinct groups of Americans, has it become a matter of conviction held with religious intensity that there cannot have been any relationship between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq?

The Minnesota Democratic Party recently protested as "un-American" an ad showing military veterans and their families supporting the president's policies for saying, "Our enemy in Iraq is al-Qaida -- the same terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans on 9-11, the same terrorists from the first World Trade Center bombing, the USS Cole, Madrid, London and many more."

The Democrats, unfactually, say that these words "make a connection between Iraq and the 9-11 terrorists attacks and suggest that the war in Iraq will prevent an attack by al-Qaida in America." But of course, the ad is factually correct -- al-Qaida is attacking Americans in Iraq -- and the Minnesota Democratic Party is in no position to guarantee that al-Qaida will not attack America.

The other group consists of intelligence and other career government professionals, many of them Arabists. Case in point: Paul Pillar, CIA national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, now retired, writing in the most recent Foreign Affairs magazine. The "greatest discrepancy between the administration's public statements and the intelligence community's judgments concerned not WMD (there was indeed a broad consensus that such programs existed), but the relationship between Saddam and al-Qaida. The enormous attention devoted to this subject did not reflect any judgment by intelligence officials that there was or was likely to be anything like the 'alliance' the administration said existed." But the Senate Intelligence Committee report showed that the CIA did obtain evidence of an al-Qaida-Saddam relationship from foreign intelligence and open sources.

So why do these Democrats and these government professionals seem to have such a conviction that there must have been no collaboration between al-Qaida and Saddam?
[...]
Light on the Saddam regime's collaboration with terrorists will almost certainly be shed by analysis of some 2 million documents captured in Iraq. But, as the intrepid Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard has pointed out, almost none of those documents has been translated or released either to the public or to the congressional intelligence committees. It appears that career professionals and, perhaps, political appointees have been blocking release of these documents.

Why do their superiors not order them released? Many Americans cling with religious intensity to the notion that somehow Saddam had no terrorist ties -- a notion used to delegitimize our war effort. We should bring the truth, or as much of it as is available, out into the open.

The latest on the documents.

Oscar Prepare To Be Blogged

Today is a Holy Day in Los Angeles. Oscar Sunday of course, and in the absence of any pressing news these days -- other than Iran's nuclear weapons development crisis, [don't miss my groundbreaking post 'MSM Ignores Iran's Admission Of Guilt' which The Telegraph (see Powerline) only picks up on today], the election of Hamas terrorists in Palestine, ongoing worldwide Muslim riots and killing in reaction to a cartoon, Al Gore's near sedition while speaking in Saudi Arabia, the turning over of our East Coast ports to be managed by a United Arab Emirates firm, the criminal leaking of vital NSA secrets to the New York Times, Mexican military incursions across our southern border, the Iraqi crisis, Congress's refusal to deal with the developing financial collapse of Social Security and Medicare, inter alia -

In other words, the day to keep an eye out for the must read Roger L. Simon blog. Roger is a member of the Academy, and to my knowledge the only blogger who has that unfortunate honor. I say unfortunate, as it comes with the onerous duty of being obliged to watch every mitigating cinematic disaster that is forced his way. Including of course having to put up with the turmoil that hits Tinseltown today, more resembling the streets of Riyadh. The fun parties make up for it though, don't they Roger?

Via one of my favorite bloggers Gerard Vanderleun: "It's a hundred and six miles to the Oscars, we've got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses." -- The Blues Brothers..."

I am going to hang loose and watch the festivities on the box, delighted this year that I am not going to be there.

It's fun if you are invited to the great parties, and not involved in the way that I have never been. When it does not bother you personally as to who wins what award, and who gets left out, you really have the best fun. I am glad I don't have to stress about what I will be wearing tonight, or whether I have put on that extra ounce making it impossible to sit down in my dress. Breathing of course always comes secondary, one can always do that the next day.

I remember one year literally hyperventilating as I committed the mortal sin of eating a morsel of food prior to getting dressed. I literally had to leave, as the corset around my abdomen was getting tighter and tighter, and short of ripping the whole damn thing off, which believe me I was close to doing in a weak moment, I had to abandon ship.... I know it seems ludicrous, but there you have it.

If you like to consider yourself an albeit lightweight intellectual, as well as attempt to look good in the process, life can be a bitch. Especially if you are sitting and blogging whilst munching biscuits, the rest of the year, not a good idea.

The shoe department can be equally trying, and as a Manolo [Blahnik that is, not the blogger] loving girl, I know Michelle Malkin knows exactly what I am talking about. Those heels can be murderously high @ 5 ". How we have to suffer at times in the name of beauty. Liquid in the comments reminds me that we have the kitten heel option.

Anyway, I look forward to the live blogging prepared by Pajamas Media, featuring the talented Roger Simon, my friend Jeff Goldstein, the hunky Steve Green, the fashionista Manolo, no less than 2 Gay Patriots, Andrew Leigh, and Fedora Mann. It starts at 5pm PDT. Be there, or be square.

Well at least for the token Tim Robbins attempt at a witty comment at the expense of the religious right. He will of course remain mum on Muslims and cartoons. Yeah right.

Dominick Dunne reminisces about the Oscar Galas to remember way back when. Great fun if you like the old Hollywood stories. Here are some behind the scenes tit-bits from Vanity Fair who host the best post Oscar Party!

The Bloody Borders Of Islamic Terror

 

The talented blogger team Baron Bodissey and Dymphna @ Gates of Vienna have put together a daunting map of all terrorist attacks in the world since 9/11. This herculean effort maps out the bloody borders of Islamic terror:

"How ignorant were we not to know that bodies had been falling, falling for years along these bloody borders"

Baron Bodissey employs incredible data from The Religion Of Peace in order to create maps of Islamic terror incidents since September 11th. In addition, there is a flash animation of the incidents ˜ using one frame per week ˜  which lets you see everything unfold in a time sequence. This is a must see.

It has taken him two months to compile this mammoth project:

Of particular interest to Gates of Vienna are the cultural clashes which Islam has created as it comes up against whatever it considers “foreign”. Think of it as a kind of cultural spontaneous combustion. This has been a perennial problem for Islam, one which was resolved in its favor several times through brute force, before the gradual decline of the Muslim world. Were it not for petroleum, Islam might have vanished. Now, however, its more powerful tribes float on a sea of luxury while the “Arab street” wallows in its own uncollected garbage.

At the moment, in early 2006, Islam’s infiltration of other cultures, its demand for the dhimmification of others, and its absolutist and utopian visions, have created a long fault line of chronic bloody terrorism.

God Will Be My Judge

Daily Kos 'The Evil Puppeteer'

 

What are we supposed to do when we hear Daily Kos sullying Tony Blair when completing the distortion begun in this article published by The Independent today, which reports that:

Tony Blair has proclaimed that God will judge whether he was right to send British troops to Iraq, echoing statements from his ally George Bush.

Contradicting warnings from advisers not to mix politics and religion, the Prime Minister said that his interest in politics sprang from his Christianity and its "values and philosophy" had guided him in public life.

And what does the chief marketing officer of John Kerry's campaign have to say, linking to the identical article?

Tony Blair proclaims God led him to invade Iraq.

Is it my turn now to say: "Lies, lies, lies"? Finally it turns into "blasphemy"

The Daily Kos carries on with the mud slinging, taking a wider shot:

Too much wingnuttery for one day. Via Atrios, we learn Missouri is considering a bill making Christianity the state's official religion. Mississippi is set to follow in South Dakota's footsteps and ban almost all abortions.
[The abovementioned Tony Blair comment]
In Kentucky, state legislators are asked to go on record as to whether they've "accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior."  Separation of church and what again?

You are a poor excuse for a blogger Markos, and should be joining the ranks of The New York and LA Times, as a prime story spinner.

Some good blogging from my friend Tom Maguire: "God Lied, People Died", quoting amongst others the NYT who take the Blair criticism to a higher level.

Michelle Malkin notices our deconstruction of the new demagoguery.

The BBC have a transcript from the Blair - Parkinson interview. scheduled to be aired tonight.

Ann Althouse as usual cuts to the chase: "Worrying about Blair's slight reference to religious belief shows either an aversion to religion or the usual pointless grasping for political arguments."

As I have said before the left hates the President more than it fears al-Qaeda, or loves liberty, and when it comes to the UK's Prime Minister Tony Blair, he may be Labour, but supporting President Bush makes him an immediate enemy.

FromThe Daily Kos:

The fact that the Republicans, like All Things Beautiful, have gotten to the point where they get hysterical at the slightest sign of dissent shows how desperate they have become. The fact that Tony Blair claims that he has a hotline to God shows how desperate and insecure he and the rest of the Bush apologists have become as the failure of the War in Iraq is becoming more and more obvious to all.

The above was also cross posted at TPM Cafe.

The Vikings Hit New York

 

Sorry guys I was not in New York to support the Denmark rally, but will give you some links to the young and the brave who carried the torch. Especially my friend Mike Weiss @ Snarksmith who was responsible for organizing it, and the ever supportive brilliant blogger Pamela @ Atlas Shrugs, and Judith Weiss @ Kesher Talk (and here), who together with 100 or so others, braved the subzero temperatures to attend.

Well done guys and gals! New York, we are all Danes today.

Keep checking Pamela's blog for the video, she is getting technical help from Pajamas Media to post it. They are on the west coast, so it may still be today.

The MSM is freezing the story out completely, except for The Statesman who turned up. Quelle surprise! You are pathetic wimps, although the fact that it was attended by bloggers could of course play some albeit small part in the obviously carefully orchestrated snubb.

Glenn Reynolds has lots more pictures, via one of his readers.

Lisa Ramaci Vincent was there, (widow of murdered journalist Steve Vincent) making a moving speech.

More from those who were there: Resplendent Mango, Blogmeister USA, The Invisible Hand, Jason @ Liberty & Culture took photos for The Infidel Bloggers Alliance. 

More @ Vital Perspective, Michelle Malkin, LGF, Ed Driscoll, Winds Of Change, Peaktalk, Agora, Gawker, Secular Blasphemy, Andrew Sullivan, A Blog For All, The Reaction, Decision 8, Sister Toldjah, Winds of Change,

California Conservative has details of next week's rally planned for San Francisco.

Governor 'Firing Blancos'

Getty Images

 

Having covered the initial Katrina disaster extensively, as time went on, I grew to disrespect Governor 'Firing Blancos'. Her Pol Pot solution in the final days of the disaster being the final straw.

Hence the news today comes as no surprise to me, but may indeed burst the bubble of many an aspiring President Bush basher. New tapes have come to light and this is indeed not good news for the left's angry rants:

In the hectic, confused hours after Hurricane Katrina lashed the Gulf Coast, Louisiana's governor hesitantly but mistakenly assured the Bush administration that New Orleans' protective levees were intact, according to new video obtained by The Associated Press showing briefings that day with federal officials. "We keep getting reports in some places that maybe water is coming over the levees," Gov. Kathleen Blanco said shortly after noon on Aug. 29, according to the video. "We heard a report unconfirmed, I think, we have not breached the levee. I think we have not breached the levee at this time."

Some more  AP clarification of the mud they threw in the first place, from Scott Johnson @ Powerline:

WASHINGTON (AP) _ In a March 1 story, The Associated Press reported that federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing among U.S. officials.

The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking.

The day before the storm hit, Bush was told there were grave concerns that the levees could be overrun. It wasn't until the next morning, as the storm was hitting, that Michael Brown, then head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Bush had inquired about reports of breaches. Bush did not participate in that briefing.

More from Drudge

Just to fill you in on yesterday’s fiasco over the ‘other tapes’ in case you missed it. From Ed Morrissey:

Most news agencies have reported on the AP's tape of a meeting involving President Bush, Michael Brown, and a number of other FEMA officials and local and state politicians during Hurricane Katrina. In the tape, most of the reports claim, Bush specifically heard warnings about levees being breached. However, that's not what the tape shows, at least the portion aired by the AP and NBC on their broadcast last night (available at MS-NBC at the above link). What is does show is an expert saying to the group, "At this point, we don't know whether the levees will be overtopped or not." As

Dafydd ab Hugh at Big Lizards points out, breaching and overtopping are two very different events. Neither are particularly desirable, of course, but overtopping would result in the release of excess water from Lake Pontchatrain, while the breaches released an exponentially larger volume, resulting in far more devastation. No one in this clip mentions the word "breach" at all, and the breathless reporting at the AP winds up being highly misleading. It's used to indict the president, who later said that no one imagined that the levees would be breached -- and if this clip is as good as the media has, then apparently the president is right.

Islam - A Militant And Proselytizing Faith

"Without art, the crudeness of reality would make the world unbearable." George Bernard Shaw

This is an article published in the Toronto Star,  (ht Adora), which I thought may spark an interesting debate.

It is a plea written by eleven Canadian Muslim academics and activists: Jehad Aliweiwi, former executive director of the Canadian Arab Federation, Taj Hashmi, sessional professor, Simon Fraser University, Amir Hassanpour, associate professor, University of Toronto, Tarek Fatah, host, The Muslim Chronicle, CTS-TV, Tareq Y. Ismael, professor, University of Calgary, Jacqueline S. Ismael, professor, University of Calgary. El-Farouk Khaki, secretary general, Muslim Canadian Congress. Shahrzad Mojab, associate professor, University of Toronto. Haideh Moghissi, professor, York University, Munir Pervaiz, secretary, Pakistan-Canadian Writers Forum, Saeed Rahnema, professor, York University:

A curtain of fear has descended on the intelligentsia of the West, including Canada. The fear of being misunderstood as Islamophobic has sealed their lips, dried their pens and locked their keyboards.

With hundreds dead around the world in the aftermath of the now infamous Danish cartoons, Canada's writers, politicians and media have imposed a frightening censorship on themselves, refusing to speak their minds, thus ensuring that the only voices being heard are that of the Muslim extremists and the racist right.

Emboldened by the free rein they have received, Canada's Muslim extremists and their supporters flexed their muscles at Queen's Park last week, with speakers promising to drown the Danish people "in their own blood".

A protestor carried the sign "Kurt Westgaard - countdown to justice has begun ... it's just a matter of time."

Elsewhere, in Pakistan, a Muslim woman was pictured carrying a sign, "God Bless Hitler," and a Muslim cleric placed a $1 million reward for the murder of a Danish cartoonist. Embassies were burned, churches ruined and hundreds died in different Muslim countries.

Undoubtedly, Muslims were angered by the insulting cartoons. But the overblown reaction was partly due to their pent-up frustrations, and partly the result of orchestrated mischief by certain Islamist leaders.

Islamic societies, run by variances of autocratic regimes, are in turmoil. Ravaged by rampant corruption, a widening gap between rich and poor, and suppression of dissent, the people in these societies have lost hope in their own futures.

The Manifesto Against The New Islamic Totalitarianism

 

The west is the source of the liberating ideas of individual liberty, political democracy, the rule of law, human rights and cultural freedom. It is the west that has raised the status of women, fought against slavery, defended freedom of enquiry, expression and conscience. No, the west needs no lectures on the superior virtue of societies who keep their women in subjection, cut off their clitorises, stone them to death for alleged adultery, throw acid on their faces, or deny the human rights of those considered to belong to lower castes.

Freedom of expression is our western heritage and we must defend it or it will die from totalitarian attacks. It is also much needed in the Islamic world. By defending our values, we are teaching the Islamic world a valuable lesson, we are helping them by submitting their cherished traditions to Enlightenment values.

Whilst we can only speculate what might be the true motives for most of the editors' abstinence, undoubtedly shameful cowardice first springs to mind, and whilst I have voiced my own theory as to why America as a whole has proven it's resolve and worth, in the fight against terror, it still does not excuse the cowardice of the MSM who continue not to publish the cartoons.

The Manifesto below will be published in the French weekly Charlie Hebdo today. Philippe Val @ Charlie Hebdo has urged other papers to print it, as a show of solidarity. And that guys includes all of us bloggers. Via Jyllands-Posten’s website, brought to us by the Danish blogger Agora (extensive coverage). Thank you to Michelle Malkin, who has a not to be missed post on this.

MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism

After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.

We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.

The recent events, which occurred after the publication of drawings of Muhammed in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values. This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field. It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.

Like all totalitarianisms, Islamism is nurtured by fears and frustrations. The hate preachers bet on these feelings in order to form battalions destined to impose a liberticidal and unegalitarian world. But we clearly and firmly state: nothing, not even despair, justifies the choice of obscurantism, totalitarianism and hatred. Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of domination: man's domination of woman, the Islamists' domination of all the others. To counter this, we must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people.

We reject cultural relativism, which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia", an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.

We plead for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas.

We appeal to democrats and free spirits of all countries that our century should be one of Enlightenment, not of obscurantism.

12 signatures [I have put together some profiles, and researched some relevant articles written by each of the signatories]

The New York Times Sues The U.S. Government

 

The New York Times sued the U.S. Defense Department yesterday demanding that it hand over documents about the National Security Agency's domestic spying program.

The Times wants a list of documents including all internal memos and e-mails about the program of monitoring phone calls without court approval. It also seeks the names of the people or groups identified by it.

A.J. Strata: "One cannot wonder about the timing of this act with the ongoing investigation into the NSA leak and indicators the NY Times’ source is one or two high profile Democrat Senators."

David McCraw [a lawyer for the Times] said there was “no connection” between the Justice Department probe and the Times’ lawsuit.
[...]
“This is an important story that our reporters are continuing to pursue and of the ways to do that is through the Freedom of Information Act,” McCraw said.

Yes, we believe you. Ahem. In fact why don't we simply reveal all our secrets to the terrorists, whilst ignoring others. It seems to be entirely irrelevant  to the NYT either way, as long as there is a glimmer of a hope that President Bush may be crushed in some way. They have simply become unhinged in their Bush phobia to such an extent, that it has simply blinded them to any arguments that may directly or indirectly be to his benefit, regardless of their effect on national security, which in this witch hunt will always take second place.

As I have always said, the left hates the President far more than it fears al-Qaeda, therefore any arguments of this nature will simply be filed as some sort of phobia, with different words attached to it....that is until the next attack.

And the objective? To safely ignore the phobia in order to pursue a different agenda.

Surely this information has to be highly classified for Goodness sake. I really am assuming at this stage that the petition will be refused on grounds of national security, or on grounds of simply having the gall.

So what does the Department of Justice FOIA say about that:

The exemptions authorize federal agencies to withhold information covering: (1) classified national defense and foreign relations information; (2) internal agency rules and practices; (3) information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law; (4) trade secrets and other confidential business information; (5) inter-agency or intra-agency communications that are protected by legal privileges; (6) information involving matters of personal privacy; (7) certain types of information compiled for law enforcement purposes; (8) information relating to the supervision of financial institutions; and (9) geological information on wells. The three exclusions, which are rarely used, pertain to especially sensitive law enforcement and national security matters.

Why doesn’t the NYT declare itself a foreign country at war with the United States. Contract with the ACLU another hostile power, (Jay are you listening?) to function as it’s Justice and State Dept. Then at least they would be honest in their ongoing war with the United States.

MSM Ignores Iran's Admission Of Guilt

 

UPDATE: The U.K. Telegraph picks up on the story only on Sunday March 5th (via Powerline). Let's see if the rest of the MSM still carries on ignoring it.

Thursday last week the Iran Press Service (written in poor English, see edited version below) published a damning article quoting remarks of Hojjatoleslam Hasan Rowhani, former Secretary of Iran's Supreme Council of National Security (SCNS) and chief nuclear negotiator:

”We need time in order to put into practice our potentials. The day we can master full nuclear cycle, the world would face a fait accompli. The world did not want Pakistan to have [an] atomic bomb or Brazil to possess full nuclear cycle. But both achieved their goals and the world accepted [it]. Our problem is that we have achieved neither, even though we are not that far.”

Anyone read this in the MSM? Even questioning its authenticity? No. INSTEAD the MSM is still wildly speculating what Iran's intentions are (via Michelle Malkin), quoting the embargoed report by IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei, "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran," which came out today (thanks to Vital Perspective):

The report "provides an update on the developments that have taken place since November 2005, and an update of the Agency’s September 2005 overall assessment, in connection with the implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in Iran and on the Agency’s verification of Iran’s voluntary suspension of enrichment related and reprocessing activities."

In the Current Overall Assessment section, ElBaradei writes that after even after three years of intensive Agency verification, the IAEA still cannot conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran.

Well, I don't know what ElBaradei is playing at, but the admission of one of Iran's top officials, that they were playing games with the IAEA so as to gain more time to complete their true nuclear ambitions, the acquisition of a nuclear bomb, is good enough for me and most certainly worth reporting.

But, alas nothing. Not even at this current stage of last minute diplomatic wrangling, of looming UN sanctions and the MSM's keen awareness of possible military strikes against Iran!

Not even when the man making these extraordinary admissions is Mr. Rowhani, the signatory of the October 2003 accord with Britain, France and Germany, now known as EU3 or the European Troika, which was committing Iran to voluntarily suspend all sensitive nuclear activities and to accept the Additional Protocol to the non Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Speaking in a closed door meeting with members of the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution (SCCR), Mr. Rowhani, now the Head of the Expediency Council’s Strategic Studies acknowledged for the first time that the Islamic Republic has a record of hiding some sensitive nuclear projects and avoided to inform the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on many other occasions, “hence the confidence problem we have with the Agency and the international community”.

Isn't it newsworthy when, following the publication of large excerpts of the meeting by the Germany-based Iran-Emrooz website in Farsi on 21 February 2006, we are told, that...

Analyst could not understand why the damaging acknowledgments were publicized at a time [when] Iran’s case at the IAEA is about to be referred to the United Nations Security Council.

Isn't it newsworthy when we are told, that this information could not have reached the outside world "without prior authorization from very high above”:

Dubai Ports - The Saga Continues

Photo by Bob Elsdale

 

More on the issue whether Dubai Ports World (DP World) should be allowed to buy terminal operations currently run by P&O Ports at six U.S. ports from Britain-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.? Not really a question anymore actually, but it's still a good sign to have the 45 day review.

The Bush administration said yesterday that it has accepted a proposal from a Dubai maritime [DP World] company to conduct a 45-day review of the national security implications of the company's plans to take control of significant operations at six U.S. ports.

The announcement by Dubai Ports World, brokered by the White House and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), appears to satisfy the demands of many members of Congress, who had threatened to force a security review if the administration would not conduct one. The deal also offered pledges to reassure the United States that the ports deal would not pose any threats to American safety and security.

Over the weekend a few helpful graphics were published, explaining visually the various stages of the typical journey of cargo containers. As explained before, P&O Ports and its new owner DP World are what is termed "Port Terminal Operators". For the graphics click here (shows the security concerns) and here (distinguishes security functions and terminal operations such as are carried out by P&O Ports, now DP World).

What you can see from both is that the management of the Port operations is but one link in a clearly global chain that is vulnerable and under-staffed at nearly every link. Now some of this is for business reasons-- security is expensive and in a very competitive industry like shipping, where the margins are narrow, speed is essential, and competition is fierce, any time and money spent on security really threatens the bottom line. So far, it seems the common wisdom was that there are no votes to be won from adding money to the Customs service, so they are under-resourced and stretched thin. As of yet, no one has good talking points on that. I hope that the real win here is that people will start to take port security a bit more seriously!

What made me laugh though, was the White House apparently saying in response to the review, that it was "simply willing to go along with their conclusion as long as it did not block the deal". So, do what you like, but, as the Cotillion sisters would say, "Everyone is entitled to our opinion." Biased as usual, criticism from WaPo and NYT are however justified; at least in as far as the White House first ignored the issue and then allowed it to go into overdrive until dealing with it in earnest.

Storm The White House

I just have one thing to say: Hahahahahahaha:

Multi-Day Event, Beginning March 15, come when you can and stay as long as you can - we are taking over the White House until they leave. Torture, Occupation, Genocide - Must End Now.
Wednesday, March 15th 2006 12:00 AM
Washington, DC USA

TAKE THE WHITE HOUSE BY STORM - Stop Genocide, Torture and Occupation

U.N. SOS - We need your help to end the reign of international criminals.

It is our duty and the duty of the United Nations to rescue the people of the world from the U.S. dictators. Murder for occupation and theft of land is illegal. Murder of journalists is criminal. Remove the traitors who have stolen the U.S. budget and used it to commit international crimes against humanity.

If we were being bombed and our journalists were being murdered here in the U.S. by a foreign country's military, we would hope that the people of that country would stop what they are doing and go to their president's office and demand that it was stopped. If we were the ones burying thousands and thousands of our family members and watching the destruction of the homes, schools, churches and offices that we had worked for decades to build, we would hope that someone, somewhere would care enough to do something for us. We must stop the criminals in our government NOW. There is no meeting with Congress that is going to change what they are doing. We must put the power of the people into action and stay there until they leave!

Inviting everyone to the White House for a protest rally to show that we do not accept the criminal government, illegal wars and the permanent occupation planned for Iraq and Afghanistan. For Nat Turner, For Martin and Coretta, For all the Torture and Assassination in Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti and many others - We will not allow the Slave Holders that Still Prevail in this Country to Rule us any longer. Imprisonment and torture based on race, religion, resources or region is no different than the slavery we sought to abolish years ago. The Administration is Criminal and if they will not step down, we must storm in, show them how many of us do not accept a criminal government. How can we stand by and watch them kill our brothers, sisters, journalists and friends for their dollars?

...Location:
White House, Washington DC Starting March 15th, come for as long as you can and bring signs that say U.N. SOS and "Leave Now" or whatever you would like to say. Ride Share and Room Share Plans can be made here: http://www.citysites.com/travel/tiki-view_tracker.php?trackerId=3 1600 Pennsylvania Ave Washington DC 20500

Contact:
Darrow Boggiano
admin@politicalcooperative.org
415.409.2611

Sponsored By:
We are requesting participation from all members of the United Nations, PFAW, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Code Pink, police, soldiers, ACLU, CIA, NSA and International Courts of Justice/World Court. http://www.PoliticalCooperative.Org

Londonistan

By the talented Amir Taheri

The British media had a field day with this month's trial of Abu Hamza al-Masri, an Egyptian-born
self-styled Islamic "scholar." Charged with a number of violent crimes, he was sentenced to five years imprisonment; he could be out in 21/2 years.

Dubbed "The Hook" by the press (he lost his hands in a Afghan minefield decades ago), Abu Hamza is sure to feel sore at the way he has been treated in his adopted homeland.

And he may well be right.

To start with: If Abu Hamza, regarded by many as a buffoon, is such a deadly threat, why is he getting away with such a light sentence?

It is hard to guess what might be passing through a confused mind like Abu Hamza's. But if he were to replay the film of his life in Britain in his mind, he might come up with a few questions.

He fled Egypt and arrived in Britain on a tourist visa at the age of 22. The first question he might ask is: How come they gave me a visa when they knew I had a criminal record in Egypt?

His visa allowed a three-month stay. Those months came and went without anybody asking him to leave. Instead, he became a bouncer in a cabaret . . . without documents such as a work permit. Again he might ask: Why did no one bother to remind him he was breaking the law?

Next, his buddies advised him that he had to marry a British citizen if he wanted to stay in Britain permanently. This he duly did by wooing a naturalized Briton in whom he of course had no interest. Again, no one told him that arranging a fake marriage to obtain British documents was breaking the law.

Soon, he was granted his British passport — a document denied to millions of people who used to be citizens of the empire. Abu Hamza might have wondered why he could get a British passport while his fellow Egyptian Muhammad Fayed, the owner of the luxury shop Harrods, couldn't.

Now a subject of Her Britannic Majesty, Abu Hamza suddenly discovered a passion for the most radical version of Islamism. And in those days, for anyone who wanted to build a career as a "Holy Warrior," Afghanistan was the place to be.

Are You A Heretic?

Simon Vouet, 'Father Time Overcome by Love, Hope and Beauty', 1627, Museo del Prado, Madrid

 

SCROLL DOWN FOR MARCH 11TH UPDATE

Following are excerpts from an interview with Arab-American psychologist Wafa Sultan. I love this woman, she is brilliant. There have not been any Muslim men thus far who have matched her explanation of the differences between our cultures in such a succinct way:

"The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them....Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people, and destroying embassies....We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant.....The Jews have came from the tragedy (of the Holocaust), and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror, with their work, not their crying and yelling."

In fact I find in my experience it has been the women of Islam that have been the most vocal in this entire saga. Don't miss clicking on the screen-shot to view the entire video.

Wafa Sultan: "The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete.
[...]
Host: I understand from your words that what is happening today is a clash between the culture of the West, and the backwardness and ignorance of the Muslims?

Wafa Sultan: Yes, that is what I mean.
[...]
Host: Who came up with the concept of a clash of civilizations? Was it not Samuel Huntington? It was not Bin Laden. I would like to discuss this issue, if you don't mind...

Wafa Sultan: The Muslims are the ones who began using this expression. The Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations. The Prophet of Islam said: "I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and His Messenger." When the Muslims divided the people into Muslims and non-Muslims, and called to fight the others until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this clash, and began this war. In order to start this war, they must reexamine their Islamic books and curricula, which are full of calls for takfir and fighting the infidels.

My colleague has said that he never offends other people's beliefs. What civilization on the face of this earth allows him to call other people by names that they did not choose for themselves? Once, he calls them Ahl Al-Dhimma, another time he calls them the "People of the Book," and yet another time he compares them to apes and pigs, or he calls the Christians "those who incur Allah's wrath." Who told you that they are "People of the Book"? They are not the People of the Book, they are people of many books. All the useful scientific books that you have today are theirs, the fruit of their free and creative thinking. What gives you the right to call them "those who incur Allah's wrath," or "those who have gone astray," and then come here and say that your religion commands you to refrain from offending the beliefs of others?

I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being. I do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect others' right to believe in it.

Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: Are you a heretic?

In The Line Of Fire

 

Many of us have bitterly complained about the American MSM's lack of courage to stand up for what in pretty much any other circumstance it would have vociferously defended: Its freedom of expression.

The west is the source of the liberating ideas of individual liberty, political democracy, the rule of law, human rights and cultural freedom. It is the west that has raised the status of women, fought against slavery, defended freedom of enquiry, expression and conscience. No, the west needs no lectures on the superior virtue of societies who keep their women in subjection, cut off their clitorises, stone them to death for alleged adultery, throw acid on their faces, or deny the human rights of those considered to belong to lower castes.

Freedom of expression is our western heritage and we must defend it or it will die from totalitarian attacks. It is also much needed in the Islamic world. By defending our values, we are teaching the Islamic world a valuable lesson, we are helping them by submitting their cherished traditions to Enlightenment values.

Whilst we can only speculate what might be the true motives for most of the editors' abstinence, undoubtedly shameful cowardice first springs to mind, and whilst  I have voiced my own theory as to why America as a whole has proven it's resolve and worth, in the fight against terror, it still does not excuse the cowardice of the MSM who continue not to publish the cartoons.

Is The New York Times finally waking up today, or have they realized that their previous stand has slowly become unsustainable. Either way this article from the editorial board fits into the 'too little too late' category:

With every new riot over the Danish cartoons, it becomes clearer that the protests are no longer about the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, but about the demagoguery of Islamic extremists. The demonstrators are undeniably outraged by what they perceive as blasphemy. But radical Islamists are trying to harness that indignation to their political goals and their theocratic ends by fomenting hatred for the West and for moderate regimes in the Muslim world. These are dangerous games, and they require the most resolute response.

Ed Morrissey delivers the slam dunk: "The Times cannot bring itself to admit this. Why? It would force the Times to recognize its role in the shameful surrender shown by the American media in not just refusing to publish the cartoons themselves, but also in their haughty rationalizations that they must remain sensitive to the icons of Islamic faith. They routinely fail to show this sensitivity to icons of other faiths, such as their reprint of the Ofili Madonna, covered in elephant dung and pictures of female genitalia. Nor did they scold the gallery that exhibited the artwork, and they staunchly defended the federal funding the exhibition received when then-mayor Rudy Giuliani wanted it pulled. They only care about sensitivity when the offended carry bombs, guns, and torches.

Even today, with its far-too-late recognition of the real issues involved in the Cartoon Wars, the Times has yet to publish the cartoons themselves so their readers can understand the context of the controversy. The Gray Lady then scolds Yemen and Jordan for charging Muslim journalists who did publish the cartoons for "giv[ing] extremists a dollop of legitimacy". They hypocrisy drips from this statement, seeing as how the almost the entire American media establishment did exactly the same thing with their fear-based refusal to publish the cartoons themselves.

Don't be fooled by this editorial. It signifies something worse than the pusillanimity shown earlier -- the Times admits they understand the stakes involved, and yet refuse to stand up to the Islamists anyway."

Dubai Ports - The Bigger Picture

Bob Elsdale

 

I continue the discussion from my 'The Sum Of All Fears' post.

Let me be clear: I do believe that Dubai Ports (which comprises Dubai Ports Authority (DPA) and DP World) is a well run, highly professional corporation, which has reached the top of its game due to its superior quality of service provided on a daily basis to its many customers coupled with a shrewd and visionary management team.

Size matters.  DP World - United Arab Emirates' (UAE) is one of the leading transshipment centers in the world, serving more than 100 shipping lines. It is ranked 10th amongst the leading container ports of the world and between them, the twin terminals of Jebel Ali and Port Rashid in Dubai handled 14,035 vessels in 2004, including 5,229 container vessels. That compares with 15,377 vessels handled in ALL six ports combined during the same period.

In a nutshell, since their beginning in the 70ies (read the time line), they've managed to cope with extraordinary growth year-on-year, developing and pioneering on the way first rate operational expertise; and they have been able to do so without any legacy constraints unlike most European and American ports. And during the past 6 years they have succeeded to export this expertise to ports around the globe.

The acquisition of P&O Ports, which is also the latest big purchase by Dubai-government-linked firms scouring the globe for assets to invest the Gulf emirate's mountain of oil cash, is thus a logical and strategically smart move and fits perfectly with their approach:

"DPI’s hallmark is its unique ‘integrated port management’ model, which brings together container terminals, other cargoes, free zones, infrastructure developments and consultancy services. Combined with its ‘common user’ status, DPI’s cross-sector expertise offers solutions in all aspects of port operations, ultimately driving efficiency and financial returns for its customers.  DPI has successfully applied the management systems, developed at Port Rashid and Jebel Ali, to its global network of terminal operations.  This enables its customers, to experience the same high level of service they have come to expect when their vessels call at Dubai.
With a flat management structure that is low on bureaucracy and high on entrepreneurial drive and flair, DPI is able to take a much longer-term view than its competitors. It invests in the infrastructure, facilities and people at its operations, to further enhance the customer’s experience and satisfaction, and increase trade.  DPI can completely turn around the performance of ports, rather than just achieve small incremental improvements solely through better management practices."   

Normally this type of language is that of pitching consultants, but from all I can see, DP World are in fact describing what they are already doing. The future is bright for DP World.

HOWEVER.

The Ghost Of Appeasement

 

My site was intermittently down this morning, I am still trying to figure out why. I see Michelle Malkin had a DoS attack also this morning, and is posting on Pajamas Media until she is up and running properly.

Perhaps when Tiger Hawk told me to "watch my back", he may have been more right than he realized. Michelle and I have both been very vocal against the Islamofascists, and I guess they are waging their cyberjihad.

I feel like I am living one of the episodes of 24hrs, the one with the Turkish terrorist family living in the US, waging cyberjihad and finally kidnapping  Defense Secretary Haller....

Well I have one thing to say to them: Watch my middle finger, it's up! Scroll down for more links to others who are also disgusted. Thank you to Avi @ Tel-Chai Nation for the list.

Anyway, sorry for not posting, I hope you will all be patient with me, I need to get my breath back from all this drama. I have decided to publish a post I wrote this week that I was going to leave buried in draft form, thinking it would bore you all to tears. But now I don't have much choice so I hope you give me the latitude on it.

When you, President Carter, put it like this, it sounds just all too tempting:

[President Mahmoud ] Abbas has announced that he will not choose a prime minister who does not recognize Israel or adhere to the basic principles of the "road map." This could result in a stalemated process, but my conversations with representatives of both sides indicate that they wish to avoid such an imbroglio. The spokesman for Hamas claimed, "We want a peaceful unity government." If this is a truthful statement, it needs to be given a chance.

During this time of fluidity in the formation of the new government, it is important that Israel and the United States play positive roles. Any tacit or formal collusion between the two powers to disrupt the process by punishing the Palestinian people could be counterproductive and have devastating consequences.

Unfortunately, these steps are already underway and are well known throughout the Palestinian territories and the world. Israel moved yesterday to withhold funds (about $50 million per month) that the Palestinians earn from customs and tax revenue. Perhaps a greater aggravation by the Israelis is their decision to hinder movement of elected Hamas Palestinian Legislative Council members through any of more than a hundred Israeli checkpoints around and throughout the Palestinian territories. This will present significant obstacles to a government's functioning effectively. Abbas informed me after the election that the Palestinian Authority was $900 million in debt and that he would be unable to meet payrolls during February. Knowing that Hamas would inherit a bankrupt government, U.S. officials have announced that all funding for the new government will be withheld, including what is needed to pay salaries for schoolteachers, nurses, social workers, police and maintenance personnel. So far they have not agreed to bypass the Hamas-led government and let humanitarian funds be channeled to Palestinians through United Nations agencies responsible for refugees, health and other human services.

This common commitment to eviscerate the government of elected Hamas officials by punishing private citizens may accomplish this narrow purpose, but the likely results will be to alienate the already oppressed and innocent Palestinians, to incite violence, and to increase the domestic influence and international esteem of Hamas. It will certainly not be an inducement to Hamas or other militants to moderate their policies. [all emphasis added]

Of course the million dollar question is, What will? But President Carter elegantly ducks this bothersome detail by putting on his pink shades, declaring that renouncing violence and recognizing Israel's right to exist will be an "ultimately inevitable step" for Hamas. Really? Spoken like a true appeaser. Anyway, it gets better:

The Sum Of All Fears

Bob Elsdale 'The Stand - Off'

 

I was hoping for a balancing view, for some sound arguments why we are maybe overreacting in our bipartisan outcry against the Dubai port deal--remember, it's the concern we all share that Jihad observing Muslims manage to bring a nuclear bomb into our country (go and watch Ben Affleck in The Sum Of All Fears to refresh your memory), hidden in one of the many million containers entering our country through our ports every year, succinctly summarized by liberal blogger Sean-Paul Kelley at The Agonist: "The problem here is that we are giving a foreign company and country (it's state-owned) control over a vital national security concern. What's worse, is that we're considering giving it to a country/company that has links to non-state actors. The same non-state actors that blew up the WTC, the Pentagon and the Cole. [...] The UAE still has ties to al Qaeda-not to mention that it was a focal trans-shipment point for material from the network of AQ Khan in Pakistan. P&O, to the best of my knowledge, has links to neither."

So, I was encouraged when I read, "...if she says this is an okay deal, I believe her..":

Former Representative Helen Delich Bentley, after her life as a very popular and tough Congresswoman in the 2nd District of Maryland 1985-1995 (the port district), is now a consultant for the Baltimore Port Authority. When she speaks on these matters I listen. HDB has been covering the port since her earliest days in Baltimore, when she was a reporter for the Baltimore Sun assigned to cover the port (1945-1969), and long before she became politically active. She is also the former Chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission, U.S. Gov't. (1969-1975).
This is a woman who is extremely outspoken when she doesn't think something is a good idea. She is a fighter, she is one tough broad - take my word for it - I worked for her for nearly five years. If she says this is an okay deal, I believe her. [...]
She always put her constituent's and her district's interests above her own political affiliations. And the Port of Baltimore is her baby.

But, alas, no such luck.

Why? Because the respected expert on Maritime matters ex-Rep. Helen Delich Bentley (R-MD) (HDB for short) tells us, that Dubai Ports World won't actually be running the port of Baltimore, or any other U.S. port for that matter. In fact, all that it would be doing, as explained in a Feb. 18th letter to the "Baltimore Sun" is "hiring the longshoremen to load and unload the cargo from the vessels". The Maryland Port Authority, an agency of the state, she underscored, would continue to "run the port of Baltimore's public terminals and be the spokesman for the port in general." Bentley added that this transaction only means that the "UAE's Dubai Ports World will be the firm bidding competitively for contracts to handle cargo coming off or loading on to ships in the six ports where P&O Ports has contracts. Baltimore is one of those ports."

So all that would happen is, that a Jihad observing Muslim, responsible for the bidding and keenly aware of a dirty nuke hidden in container GTH-US-SATAN-02, lowers the bid, thus hiring equally Jihad observing members of the longshoremen union, who then dutifully and diligently 'handle' this precious cargo--straight to the final destination of the eagerly anticipated 'divine' retribution.

Jim Clancy, no need for the soda vending machine anymore; shows us how real life is always so much more straight forward.

My good friend Ed Morrissey adds a crucial perspective by highlighting (1) the risk of access to sensitive information and (2) that DP World is not the government of the UAE; there is no knowing which certain Jihad observing members of DP World's workforce may decide when and how to abuse its newly acquired access--there isn't really in any other company either for that matter, but the specific deal with DP World is not only one small step but one giant leap closer to The Sum Of All Fears:

While DP World would not handle port security -- tasks that will still fall to DHS and the Coast Guard -- the management of port operations gives DP World and the UAE government access to a lot of information that could be used by terrorists to attack us. Port managers have to know security protocols, procedures, and personnel, all of which could be used by infiltrators to gain access to sensitive areas or to sneak weapons through what safeguards exist. And while the government of the UAE has been supportive of the US, the feeling isn't unanimous; DP World may have trouble keeping its less-enthusiastic citizens from gaining important posts in their organization.

At any other time, this would not be an insurmountable problem, but the fact is that we are at war with Islamists around the world, and some of them gather in the UAE. Handing operational control over our ports to a state-owned corporation from the same region that generates the terrorists seems like an exceedingly bad idea at this time, and the administration has not done any work until now to make a case for the opposite.

And in case you think I am paranoid, let's not forget:

We Have A Right To Be Wrong

Francisco Goya, 'Plucked Turkey' ca.1812, Neue Pinakothek, Munich

 

David Irving, the infamous and discredited British historian, languishes in an Austrian jail, having been sentenced to three years. Just writing that sentence makes me feel happy. The next sentence is much harder to write. He should be released.

Irving’s views are repulsive and wrong. He is a deeply offensive crank, and a litigious one, who has tried to use the libel laws to silence his critics. Five years ago, he sued the American historian, Deborah Lipstadt, after she described him as a Holocaust denier, and lost. In a withering 333-page judgment, Mr Justice Charles Gray described him as an anti-Semite, a racist and a neo-Nazi sympathiser who had “persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence”.

Deborah Lipstat: “Laws that ban ideas, no matter how vile the ideas, are distasteful to academics, and even those academics who ended Mr. Irving's mainstream career have come out to defend him today.

"If you had told me, a few months ago, that I would be demanding David Irving's release one day, I would have called you insane," Ms. Lipstadt told the German magazine Der Spiegel this week.

But she is defending him. "I'm against censorship -- no one stands to benefit from the throwing of this guy into prison."

Irving’s opinions are indefensible; his right to hold them, however, must be defended. For reasons of both principle and expediency, he should go free. Freedom of speech includes the right to be hopelessly, demonstrably and repeatedly wrong. It is not to be applied selectively, depending on the nature of the speech in question, but universally and consistently. The UN Declaration of Human Rights is unequivocal: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.”

To defend free speech when we happen to share the speaker’s opinion is an easy task. Take Orhan Pamuk, the Turkish writer who is facing trial for saying, in defiance of the official Turkish view of history, that his compatriots carried out the genocide of Armenians during the First World War. Many writers (including this one) have defended his right to do so. Far harder, but just as essential, is the defence of speech that we find morally disgusting and intellectually bankrupt. When a conference in Turkey on the Armenian question was cancelled under state pressure, the liberal West was outraged; when Iran recently announced a conference to question the authenticity of the Holocaust, the West was, once again, outraged. But in the case of both Irving and Pamuk, the issue should be settled in the court of public discussion, not the law courts; so long as speech does not directly incite racial hatred, it must remain free.

Jack Grant @ The Moderate Voice: "Yes, denying that the Holocaust occurred is criminal, but should it be a crime in a society that treasures liberty and wishes to avoid the very mindset that permitted something as horrible as the Holocaust to occur?

Note that criminal is defined "having the nature of a crime" while crime is "a violation of the law", a subtle but distinct difference.

In other words, where does the line between true political speech the freedom of which does indeed protect a democracy from descent into the tyranny of creeping expansion of government power versus the equivalent of "crying fire in a crowded theater" lie?

Millions died in the Holocaust, a systematic extermination of a people based upon their religion that was perpetrated in a society where dissent was punished by at the least exclusion from society and legal protection if not by the very same extermination.

Where does the line lie between the "internment" advocated by some versus the concentration camps that the Nazis created with such efficiency?"

A Dangerous Precedent

Shari'a Or Else

Read the insightful article written by Fleming Rose, the editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten:

I am offended by things in the paper every day: transcripts of speeches by Osama bin Laden, photos from Abu Ghraib, people insisting that Israel should be erased from the face of the Earth, people saying the Holocaust never happened. But that does not mean that I would refrain from printing them as long as they fell within the limits of the law and of the newspaper's ethical code. That other editors would make different choices is the essence of pluralism.

As a former correspondent in the Soviet Union, I am sensitive about calls for censorship on the grounds of insult. This is a popular trick of totalitarian movements: Label any critique or call for debate as an insult and punish the offenders. That is what happened to human rights activists and writers such as Andrei Sakharov, Vladimir Bukovsky, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Natan Sharansky, Boris Pasternak. The regime accused them of anti-Soviet propaganda, just as some Muslims are labeling 12 cartoons in a Danish newspaper anti-Islamic.

The lesson from the Cold War is: If you give in to totalitarian impulses once, new demands follow. The West prevailed in the Cold War because we stood by our fundamental values and did not appease totalitarian tyrants.

This is an argument that lands very close to home for me, and I know only too well what capitulation of those basic human rights principles can mean in a world where giving in once, is followed by further demands. This is why we have a 'no negotiation with terrorists' policy, and fear of reprocusions can be a final death sentence:

Last September, a Danish children's writer had trouble finding an illustrator for a book about the life of Muhammad. Three people turned down the job for fear of consequences. The person who finally accepted insisted on anonymity, which in my book is a form of self-censorship. European translators of a critical book about Islam also did not want their names to appear on the book cover beside the name of the author, a Somalia-born Dutch politician who has herself been in hiding.

Around the same time, the Tate gallery in London withdrew an installation by the avant-garde artist John Latham depicting the Koran, Bible and Talmud torn to pieces. The museum explained that it did not want to stir things up after the London bombings. (A few months earlier, to avoid offending Muslims, a museum in Goteborg, Sweden, had removed a painting with a sexual motif and a quotation from the Koran.)

Finally, at the end of September, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen met with a group of imams, one of whom called on the prime minister to interfere with the press in order to get more positive coverage of Islam.

So, over two weeks we witnessed a half-dozen cases of self-censorship, pitting freedom of speech against the fear of confronting issues about Islam. This was a legitimate news story to cover, and Jyllands-Posten decided to do it by adopting the well-known journalistic principle: Show, don't tell. I wrote to members of the association of Danish cartoonists asking them "to draw Muhammad as you see him." We certainly did not ask them to make fun of the prophet. Twelve out of 25 active members responded.

We have a tradition of satire when dealing with the royal family and other public figures, and that was reflected in the cartoons. The cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. And by treating Muslims in Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims.
[...]
One cartoon -- depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban -- has drawn the harshest criticism. Angry voices claim the cartoon is saying that the prophet is a terrorist or that every Muslim is a terrorist. I read it differently: Some individuals have taken the religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad name. The cartoon also plays into the fairy tale about Aladdin and the orange that fell into his turban and made his fortune. This suggests that the bomb comes from the outside world and is not an inherent characteristic of the prophet.

One should never be tolerant with the intolerant. Nowhere do so many religions coexist peacefully as in a democracy where freedom of expression is a fundamental right. You take that right away and you are setting a dangerous precedent.

We have shown that we are afraid of consequences, and therefore are willing to sacrifice our own fundamental beliefs. And the Muslim attitude is: " Free speech is good so long as it tolerates our right, as an identity group, to dictate which free speech is authentic and allowable. Otherwise, y’know, we get to torch".

A Recurrent Nightmare To Civilization

'Nuclear Sunrise'

 

The great Victor Davis Hanson gives us brilliant argument:

How many times have we heard the following whining and yet received no specific answers from our leaders?

"Israel has nuclear weapons, so why single out Iran?"

"Pakistan got nukes and we lived with it."

"Who is to say the United States or Russia should have the bomb and not other countries?"

"Iran has promised to use its reactors for peaceful purposes, so why demonize the regime?"

In fact, the United States has a perfectly sound rationale for singling out Iran to halt its nuclear proliferation. At least six good reasons come to mind, not counting the more obvious objection over Iran's violation of U.N. non-proliferation protocols. It is past time that we spell them out to the world at large.

First, we cannot excuse Iran by acknowledging that the Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea, and Pakistan obtained nuclear weapons. In each case of acquisition, Western foreign-policy makers went into a crisis mode, as anti-liberal regimes gained stature and advantage by the ability to destroy Western cities.

A tragic lapse is not corrected by yet another similar mistake, especially since one should learn from the errors of the past. The logic of "They did it, so why can't I?" would lead to a nuclearized globe in which our daily multifarious wars, from Darfur to the Middle East, would all assume the potential to go nuclear. In contrast, the fewer the nuclear players, the more likely deterrence can play some role. There is no such thing as abstract hypocrisy when it is a matter of Armageddon.

Second, it is a fact that full-fledged democracies are less likely to attack one another. Although they are prone to fighting — imperial Athens and republican Venice both were in some sort of war about three out of four years during the 5th century B.C. and the 16th century respectively — consensual governments are not so ready to fight like kind. In contemporary terms that means that there is no chance whatsoever that an anti-American France and an increasingly anti-French America would, as nuclear democracies, attack each other. Russia, following the fall of Communism, and its partial evolution to democracy, poses less threat to the United States than when it was a totalitarian state.

The Bergdorf Blondes

Getty Images

Every now and again we have to take a rest from the hustle and bustle of politics. In the absence of any pressing news these days -- other than Iran's nuclear weapons development crisis, the election of Hamas terrorists in Palestine, ongoing worldwide Muslim riots and killing in reaction to a cartoon, Al Gore's near sedition while speaking in Saudi Arabia, the turning over of our East Coast ports to be managed by a United Arab Emirates firm, the criminal leaking of vital NSA secrets to the New York Times, Mexican military incursions across our southern border, the Iraqi crisis, Congress's refusal to deal with the developing financial collapse of Social Security and Medicare, inter alia -- All Things Beautiful has decided to grant the wish of it's fashionista fans ( who have still not forgiven me for entirely missing Fashion Week), and speak of some more important matters.

Defending the Bergdorf Blondes' social status has become a favorite party line, especially as the Bergdorf Blondes have always been the New York craze. Everyone either knows one, wants to be one, or actually is one. I have written this for the aspirational BBs who need some insider advice on how to proceed. It is a Saturday after all, and we need to chill....

You wouldn't believe the dedication it takes to be a gorgeous, flaxen haired, dermatologically perfect New York girl with a life fabulous beyond belief. Honestly, it all requires a level of commitment comparable to say, learning Hebrew or quitting cigarettes.

Well it all starts with hair color. A murderous commitment required, which a chemically dependent girl like myself is all too familiar with, the blond color must be touched up every seven days, and the hair cannot have a hint of yellow, it has to be very white, very much like Carolyn Bessette Kennedy's was. This is the color to be worshiped and maintaining it cannot involve anything less than the weekly visit to your nearest Redken salon, and a standing appointment with the über-guru Redken Fifth Avenue colorist.

The high maintenance poker-straight blond hair has to be complimented by a weekly visit to Sonia at Bergdorf's for the absolutely essential eyebrow trim, together with the perfect manicure and pedicure by Madonna both essential to maintaining the look.

Narci-surfing, as it is now called (used to be called Googling yourself) is the best way to keep up with how your status is doing in the media. Gossip being the most reliable source of information about yourself and your friends in Manhattan, one mustn't allow oneself to get to the renowned 'Fargo' stage.

Loosely translated it is a debilitating condition often appearing after a stint of Narci-surfing, from which almost all Manhattan girls suffer. The term is borrowed from the well known movie, and is an excellent description of a state of mind of a Bergdorf blond usually precipitating a large social gathering, and involving all the insecurities that go with the pressures of having to keep up with the BBs.

The Sin Of Racism

 

It all started with going over to Baron Bodissey's great blog Gates Of Vienna, a favorite of mine, to research my previous post of the day about Islamberg In New York. I glanced over at the comments in the 'Dhimmocracy In America' and laughed, because I realized that the accusation of racism and Islamophobia is a commonly detonated gratuitous attack on the right leaning bloggers, and that far from being an exception, my blog's liberal commenters have become the cry for recognition of what has become the liberal norm.

Through reading this exchange, I came across a post written by the talented wife and blogging partner of Bodissey's, Dymphna, on her own blog, giving plenty of food for thought and discussion:

"The downward spiral of the Episcopal Church in its rush to irrelevance can nowhere be seen more clearly than in the enormous amount of leadership energy now spent on 1970's-style consciousness raising. Periodically, congregations are subjected to yet more hortatory about the need for right thinking. Once again, congregations are shown to be lagging behind the bureaucracy: whether it be race or gender or Palestine, Episcopalians have to be in line with whatever the politically correct thinking is at the moment.

Surely there is not a white Episcopalian left who has not discovered with great personal dismay his own covert racist thinking? Right? As a racism workshop facilitator once said, "if you're white, you're wrong." This facilitator also told his audience that it's inherently impossible, given the racist culture in America, for a black person to be racist. How's that for the ultimate in condescension?

My bona fides: I am white, but I live in a black community. I was married in a black church. Back when it was authentically cross-cultural, I was a member of the NAACP. In fact, we have some black people in our family.

Those who would condemn others for their failures to think correctly simply don't understand the hard-wiring in the human soul. We are born with a capacity to prefer our own kind. Watch any child encounter a stranger and you can experience the primitive startle effect that leads to a preference to be with one's own. This inclination toward the known is neither sinful nor wrong; it is human.

Game theory has shown that when members of a community are left to their own devices, groups of similars will collect or 'bunch' together. It is not deliberate segregation, it is congregation. Ask the black students on any campus who they prefer to hang with. And then ask them if this preference is racist.

In the continuing rush to right thinking, it is the children who lose out. The Law of Unintended Consequences is easily seen in the effects on children of both no-fault divorce and mandated diversity. The idea that culture can be sorted out and regulated is surely one of the most pernicious legacies from the 20th century. It is past time to move beyond this dated, statist thinking.

I'll be the first in line when a commission is formed to investigate the harm which accrues to children from illegitimacy and illiteracy. With all the oxygen in the room being consumed by correct thinking, though, it seems there isn't any left over for the kids. Bill Cosby had it right when he said the main problems facing black children have nothing to do with racism and everything to do with poor decisions. Now whose fault is that?

We are Christ's people. We need to be about our Father's business and we already have a Creed to tell us what that business is. The statements of Fr. Kelly's Creed - the ones that begin with an individual examination of guilty conscience and ends with a call for a permanent national Episcopal committee on racism - are jarringly wrong-headed. How about a national committee to make illiteracy uncool? That would be both Christian and cogent. How about a church which devotes its energy to strengthening the good rather than a church which is compelled to wallow in its own sinfulness? If I wanted to be a Calvinist, I would not have chosen to be an Episcopalian.

Once upon a time, the Episcopal Church was at the forefront of educating children to the fact of their individual free will and their membership, via Baptism, in the City of God. Now it seems that we stand only for the further balkanization by race which has so grievously retarded our culture.

Race and ethnicity are accidental. They are not instrumental in our salvation."

On a funnier note my good friend Kenny Pierce (check him out in the comments bellow), just reminded me of a post I wrote a long while back called 'You Just Need To Walk Away', which was about an accusation of racism, an accusation directed at my two blogging friends, Ed Morrissey and Jeff Goldstein, in the days when I was still a freshman blogger thinking that this was a grave accusation and rare. I have since come to realize that the word is brandished in the Blogosphere at every given opportunity and used as an excuse to accuse rather than an argument.

'Islamberg' In New York

 

The Pakistani terrorist group Jamaat ul Fuqra is using Islamic schools in the United States as training facilities, according to a joint investigative report by an intelligence think tank and an independent reporter.

A covert visit to an encampment in the Catskill Mountains near Hancock, N.Y., called "Islamberg" found neighboring residents deeply concerned about military-style training taking place there but frustrated by the lack of attention from federal authorities, said the report by the Northeast Intelligence Network, which worked with a blogger, "The Politics of CP," to publish an interim report. He also provides a Virtual Earth Image here.

The neighbors interviewed said they feared retaliation if they were to make a report to law enforcement officials. "These people need to be investigated," a resident said. "They are training for war, either for war here in this country or against our troops. Who in the h--- is allowing this stuff to happen right here in our own backyard, and why?"
[...]
"We don't even dare to slow down when we drive by," the resident said. "They own this mountain and they know it, and there is nothing we can do about it but move, and we can't even do that. Who wants to buy property next to that?"

Jamaat ul-Fuqra, or "community of the impoverished," was formed by Pakistani cleric Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani in New York in 1980. Gilani, who refers to himself as "the sixth Sultan Ul Faqr," has stated his objective is to "purify" Islam through violence.

Gilani also is the founder of a village in South Carolina called "Holy Islamville."

The encampment in Hancock, N.Y., is run by a front for Jamaat ul-Fuqra called Muslims of the Americas Inc., which operates a school known as the International Quranic Open University Inc.
[...]
The facility is on 70 acres of remote land on the western edge of the Catskill Mountains, about 40 miles southeast of Binghamton, N.Y. A sign at the entrance identifies the place as "Islamberg." The other side of the sign says "International Quranic Open University" and "Muslims of the Americas Inc."

Every one of the neighboring residents interviewed expressed disappointment and additional concern that federal law enforcement is not investigating the activities, the report said.

"These people need to be investigated," a resident said. "They are training for war, either for war here in this country or against our troops. Who in the h--- is allowing this stuff to happen right here in our own backyard, and why?"

Though primarily based in Lahore, Pakistan, Jamaat ul-Fuqra has operational headquarters in the U.S.

The group seeks to counter "excessive Western influence on Islam" through any means necessary, publicly embracing the ideology that violence is a significant part of its quest to purify Islam. The enemies of Islam, the group says, are all non-Muslims and any Muslim who does not follow the tenets of fundamentalist Islam as detailed in the Qur'an.

Jamaat ul-Fuqra openly recruits through various social service organizations in the U.S., including the prison system. Members live in compounds where they agree to abide by the laws of Jamaat ul-Fuqra, which are considered to be above local, state and federal authority. That will surely come as a big surprise to my liberal readers, who seem to be under the impression that the U.S law is paramount to the Muslims in the U.S.

According to the report, there appear to be more than two dozen "Jamaats," or private communities, loosely connected and scattered throughout the U.S. with an estimated 5,000 members.

How To Kill A Mockingbird

Getty Images

Blogging is light today, I am travelling, but here are a few interesting issues to discuss.

"Congress has lost its taste for a protracted political battle with the Bush administration over the NSA intercept program and may kill a proposed investigation into the controversial effort. According to Charles Babington at the Washington Post, a fierce defense of the project by George Bush and a wider briefing of Congress has blunted the knee-jerk antagonism for the program":

Congress appeared ready to launch an investigation into the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program last week, but an all-out White House lobbying campaign has dramatically slowed the effort and may kill it, key Republican and Democratic sources said yesterday.

"Those kind of numbers have killed the momentum for high-dudgeon hearings, especially after the Alito confirmation hearing turned into such an abomination. No one wants to sit through that again. Most members of Congress from both parties now express a desire to continue the program, as long as they can add in legislation giving Congress more oversight, mostly as a way to justify all of the rhetoric already spent on the issue. By the end of the month, the NSA program will not even rate a mention in the paper."

John Stephenson is pessimistic:

"While I agree that this has damaged the Democrats on the issue of National Security, I disagree that it will not rate a mention in papers by the end of the month. Special interest groups like the ACLU have launched a relentless campaign, and a Federal lawsuit over the program. Even if a probe into the legality of the program does not take place by Congress, the ACLU lawsuit will still continue and the fate of the program could end up in the hands of judges. While some legislators are proposing bills that would provide oversight into the program, this will not satisfy the appetite of the ACLU who are bent on disclosing and destroying the entire program, National Security be damned."

Ed Morrissey in another post challenges George Will's rants about the monarchistic governerment. Calm down Joseph Marshall and breathe deeply:

Will starts off on a rant that not only goes far off the tracks, it doesn't even start on them. He argues that the Bush administration has become "monarchical" in its handling of the war and his argument is primarily based on a misinterpretation of FISA:

But, then, perhaps no future president will ask for such congressional involvement in the gravest decision government makes -- going to war. Why would future presidents ask, if the present administration successfully asserts its current doctrine? It is that whenever the nation is at war, the other two branches of government have a radically diminished pertinence to governance, and the president determines what that pertinence shall be. This monarchical doctrine emerges from the administration's stance that warrantless surveillance by the National Security Agency targeting American citizens on American soil is a legal exercise of the president's inherent powers as commander in chief, even though it violates the clear language of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was written to regulate wartime surveillance.

This is patently untrue.  FISA came into being to regulate peacetime surveillance by the federal government, as an antidote to Nixonian abuses of power that had nothing to do with the conduct of war. In fact, Jimmy Carter's attorney general Griffin Bell made that very argument in promoting the legislation before Congress in 1978, the year after Carter had authorized warrantless surveillance on an American citizen for a simple espionage case involving Vietnam (US v Truong and Humphrey). He told Congress that FISA would not affect the powers of the presidency under the Constitution, and it doesn't, as only a Constitutional amendment can change the enumerated powers.

Another Black Eye For The MSM

SCROLL DOWN FOR DICK CHENEY'S INTERVIEW WITH FOX' BRIT HUME

I purposely stayed away from the story about the accidental shooting of Texas attorney Harry Whittington by Vice President Dick Cheney, but after three days of reading so much garbage coming from the MSM and the liberal Blogosphere I would just simply like to say "Enough already!"

Harry Whittington, suffered a mild heart attack caused by bird shot moving and lodging into his heart. Is anything funny about that? Instead of praying for him and his family the leftie thugs lay into the Administration as if though this was a Chappaquiddick conspiracy orchestrated by Senator Kennedy himself, and the Vice President should be indicted for murder.

What is the mileage in this, other that making the MSM look absolutely stupid. The Vice President has an accident and it turns into an international incident making the American liberals the laughing stock of America and the world, and not even achieving what seems to be the intended degradation of the entire Administration.

So now the latest on the pathetic smear campaign is the earth shattering revelation that The Vice President did not have the proper hunting credentials, i.e. a $7 stamp required for a bird hunting licence. Really. Impeach him I say, or better still, behead him a la our friends from the religion of peace.

Hugh Hewitt has it absolutely right:

The MSM is unhinged, a victim of its Bush hatred, which includes of course hatred of Cheney. The idea that failure to tell the White House press corps of a hunting accident for 14 hours is in anyway similar to leaving a woman to die in a submerged car while fleeing the scene or the cover-up of Watergate is just nuts.

And the American people know it.

What the Beltway gang seems not to understand is that most of America is laughing at them, not frowning at the Veep. There isn't a single fact we haven't been told, and we don't much care if the pampered poobahs of the press got a heads up after four or 14 hours.

There isn't a cover-up, there isn't an issue, there isn't even a controversy.

There is, however, a spectacle, and it is another black eye for the MSM.

The Cheney story will not work out the way the MSM wants it to because there is a huge push-back from non-left wing news sources who have already been playing the audio from the press briefings which embarasses the Gregorys of the world.

Will legacy media ever figure this out?

Anyone need some ice?

Perhaps Peter Daou @ Salon does, who has challenged the right side of the Blogosphere including myself, "to prove that the MSM is hyping the Cheney scandal". Then he proceeds to say that "This ties in - albeit tangentially - to a recent post by Glenn Greenwald about the Bush-cultism masquerading as conservatism on rightwing blogs", which as you know was a discussion started between myself and Glenn, whereupon Glenn just as his counterpart Daou on the left does, conveniently steered the subject to where he wished it to go, Does it not remind you of Glenn's : "I want to leave the personal issues to the side and examine a few of the substantive issues raised (unintentionally) by Alexandra’s post."  So now one is 'off on a tangent' and the other is whoops 'unintentional', I mean really. Talk about see-through......I can see your boxer shorts Peter, the ones with the big teddy bears and rattles! O.K. don't get upset with me now, they are cool, they really are....

Peter Daou repeats the 'off on a tangent' post @ Huffington Post. and Arianna has her usual hyperventilating fit, with the off the cuff  cheap shot insult about the "Dead Eye Dick Cheney" and the lies, lies meme. How she has the gall to insult anyone with the dreadful face lift she must have recently had, which gave me quite a shock last time I saw her. What is it with beautiful women like Arianna, who overnight become frightening Wildenstein creatures, very disturbing, but most important of all should serve as an automatic silencer to any personal attacks on anyone else's appearance.

Islam's Heart On St.Valentine's Day

 

"Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority will be part of an axis of evil which starts in Iran, passes through Syria and Hezbollah and reaches Hamas and every state that contains Islamic terror organizations," Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said after meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo today.

Mubarak seems to agree, and has voiced that he is supporting Israel's demand that Hamas disarms. Mofaz said that as of the swearing in ceremony of Hamas members to the Palestinian parliament this Saturday, the relationship between the PA and Israel is expected to change.Meanwhile our

Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad, the aspiring leader of the Muslim world, is spreading some more love on St. Valentine's Day:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: "The affront to the honor of the Prophet of Islam is in fact an affront to the worship of God, and to the seeking of truth and justice, and an affront to all the prophets of God. Obviously, all those who harm the honor of the prophet of Islam..."

Crowd: "Death to Denmark. Death to Denmark. Death to Denmark. Death to Denmark."
[...]

Ahmadinejad: "As the representative of the great Iranian people, I call upon all free people of the world - Christians and Jews - to rise together with the Muslims and not to let a handful of shameless Zionists, who have been defeated in Palestine, to harm the sanctity of the prophets.

"I call upon them not to let a few weak governments - which owe their rise to power to the support of the Zionists - support them in this ugly manner.

"As I have said before, as far as several aggressive European governments are concerned, and as far as the Great Satan [the U.S.] is concerned, it is permissible to harm the honor of the divine prophets, but it is a crime to ask questions about the myth of the Holocaust, and about how the false regime occupying Palestine came into being.

"On the basis of this myth, the pillaging Zionist regime has managed, for 60 years, to extort all Western governments and to justify its crimes in the occupied lands - killing women and children, demolishing homes, and turning defenseless people into refugees.

"When we protest to the [Europeans], they say: 'There is freedom in our country.' They are lying when they claim they have freedom. They are hostages in the hands of the Zionists. The people of Europe and America are the ones that should be paying the heavy price of this hostage-taking.

"How come it is allowed to harm the honor of the prophets in your country, but it is forbidden to research the myth of the Holocaust? You are a bunch of tyrants, who are dependent upon the Zionists and who are held hostage by them."

Well I hope he indeed does think we are a bunch of tyrants, but I doubt even that will deter this madman. It would be absolutely fine if he was sitting in a lunatic asylum talking to some keenly attuned inmates. He is not however, he is leading an entire nation, and influencing some relatively able 1.5 bil people.

Americans are nervous about Iran. according to a CNN poll. I wonder why?

A senior commander of Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) vowed that following the printing of insulting cartoons of Islam’s prophet Muhammad in European dailies, the Islamic Republic’s suicide volunteers abroad were being placed on readiness alert to attack United States and Israeli interests.

From Scott Johnson @ Powerline:

The invaluable MEMRI observes that in view of the recent victory of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) in the Palestinian Authority Legislative Council elections, it is important to make the Hamas covenant available on English for English speaking readers. MEMRI states that the English version which is currently posted in a number of websites is not satisfactory, and therefore MEMRI is providing here a closer, more accurate translation. MEMRI has therefore posted "The covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement -- Hamas."

A reading of the covenant demonstrates that Hamas exists for two purposes alone: 1) to eliminate the state of Israel, and 2) to replace it with an Islamic state. These purposes are apparent in every article of the charter, though in some more concisely than others.

–

Discussion:

Captain Ed / Captain's Quarters:   Playing Hardball With Hamas

Mark / Decision '08:   Democracy?  —  This sounds a little shaky to me:

Gary Farber / Amygdala:   THE SKINNY ON AL-JAZEERA is offered in Marc Lynch's, aka …

Kevin Hayden / The American Street:   What today's news headlines ought to say

James Joyner / Outside The Beltway:   U.S. and Israelis Discuss Hamas Regime Change

Kevin Drum / The Washington Monthly:   HAMAS AND THE WEST....I'm confused.  The New York Times …

Marc Schulman / AMERICAN FUTURE:   The New York Times Strikes Again

Eric Umansky:   LET FREEDOM REIGN (PART MCMV)

Steve / THE NEWS BLOG:   Turning the wheel backwardsvbn

America's Useful Idiots - Part II

 

Glenn Greenwald is attempting to blind us with legal science, at least most of us, in relation to 'wiretappgate'. In that respect, quite naturally those with a predisposed persuasion will eagerly jump on everything he says thereupon. Incidentally, I defy the vast majority in all camps to expertly concur or disagree with most of the more nuanced legal issues and their implications. As it stands, we seem to have finally managed to move beyond this red herring.

In any event, that was not the nature of my criticism in my origianl post America's Useful Idiots.

Neither was "blind loyalty to the liberal cause of sabotaging the Administration with whatever means available at any given time", which according to Glenn's selective representation appears to have been some general criticism or general "theory" of mine.

Instead, I took exception to Glenn's attempt to ridicule and to dismiss out of hand President Bush's reference to the LA terrorist plot immediately after the President revealed details in his speech addressing the National Guard Association of the United States, chiefly on the grounds of suspicious timing.

The great big mystery of the day is what caused the White House to decide yesterday to disclose the classified details of George Bush's heroic salvation of the City of Los Angeles four years ago? People everywhere are scratching their heads in bewilderment -- why yesterday? What could possibly have caused the President to pick yesterday as the time to suddenly reveal the specifics of the diabolic plot by the terrorists to hijack an airplane into the Liberty Tower by putting bombs into their shoes?  [...]

When it comes to Al Qaeda's targeting of the U.S. in this manner, nobody helps the terrorists achieve those objectives more than the Bush Administration, which (like Al Qaeda) really does have as its principal goal -- particularly in an election year, and particularly when it faces all sorts of political difficulties on an array of fronts -- keeping the fear level as high as possible. The more frightened people are, they believe, the more likely they are to support the President and his party. And so fear-mongering becomes the first and really only political weapon they have. [emphasis added]

The orange alerts aren't really that effective any more. Orange is so un-scary. But tales of thwarted terrorist attacks on our cities always give rise to the same set of images and warnings which keeps the fear level nice and fresh and edgy. It's only February -- I have no doubt we will be treated to many, many more episodes like this. The question is, with 9/11 now more than 4 years away, is there some limit to the water in this well?

What enraged me most of all though, was the scurrilous statement, in which Glenn callously accused the Bush Administration of pursuing the same goal as al Qaeda, namely striking maximum fear into our hearts.

My opening paragraph was quite specific:

To Have And Have Not

 

Sorry guys for the late posting, thank you to Ed Morrissey for saving my bacon today, very light blogging and lots of linking:

Having failed at turning the NSA program to surveil international calls connected with suspected terrorists into a "domestic" spying scandal, Democrats have reversed course and now want the program to continue but under new Congressional rules. The reversal has shown that President Bush's offensive against the critics, starting with his immediate acknowledgement of authorizing the program, has once again damaged the Democrats on national security and has pushed them to settle the issue quickly. The transcript for the below dialogue is here:

Two key Democrats yesterday called the NSA domestic surveillance program necessary for fighting terrorism but questioned whether President Bush had the legal authority to order it done without getting congressional approval.

Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) said Republicans are trying to create a political issue over Democrats' concern on the constitutional questions raised by the spying program.

At the same time, the Republican chairmen of the Senate and House intelligence committees -- Sen. Pat Roberts (Kan.) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (Mich.), who attended secret National Security Agency briefings -- said they supported Bush's right to undertake the program without new congressional authorization. They added that Democrats briefed on the program, who included Harman and Daschle, could have taken steps if they believed the program was illegal. All four appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Roberts said he could not remember Democrats raising questions about the program during briefings that, beginning in 2002, were given to the "Gang of Eight." That group was made up of the House speaker and minority leader, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, and the chairmen and ranking Democrats of the House and Senate intelligence committees.

At the briefings, Roberts said, "Those that did the briefing would say, 'Do you have questions? Do you have concerns?' " Hoekstra said if Democrats thought Bush was violating the law, "it was their responsibility to use every tool possible to get the president to stop it."

The Democrats started their response to this controversy by proclaiming George Bush to be the Second Coming of Richard Nixon and spent their political capital assailing him for spying on "ordinary Americans". However, shortly after the revelation of the top-secret program by the New York Times, George Bush did the unexpected: he used his weekly radio address to not only admit to authorizing the program, but angrily insist that he had the authorization and the responsibility to do so. That took everyone by surprise, as did the fact that Democratic leadership had been briefed on a regular basis about the program since its inception -- and had only questioned its authorization once.

That revealed the Democrats as less than honest about their sudden outrage and appeared to take the wind out of their sails for a moment. Later, they attempted to argue that the nature of the program kept them from expressing their concerns, but that doesn't fly. As Hoekstra notes, they never objected or even questioned the authorization during the briefings themselves, when they could speak freely and discuss the program. They never questioned the program during closed-door sessions of the Intelligence Committees, either, when the ranking members would be free to speak among themselves, at least.

The electorate didn't get fooled by the rhetoric, either. A clear majority supported the surveillance, with or without warrants, and believed it to be within the war powers granted to the President by the AUMF. After all, in what war have we ever required the executive branch to get warrants for espionage against the enemy? And as non-wartime precedents became more well known, especially US v Truong and Humphrey involving Jimmy Carter's warrantless wiretaps in peacetime, the public has not budged in its support for the NSA surveillance.

Now Democrats need to make the NSA program and their hysterical attacks against the President ancient history. They now want people to think that they've supported the surveillance all along, but just want to craft legislation to support it. In truth, all they had to do was to propose that legislation when the Times published the existence of the program, but Democrats instead chose to use it as a political club to beat up the Administration. That effort backfired, and now they need that legislation to avoid being seen as lacking seriousness against terrorists -- a judgment that they have only reinforced in this latest kerfuffle.

The Crimson Tide

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin's offer to meet with Hamas threw a monkey wrench into the Quartet's thus far united front against any dealings with a Hamas-led Palestinian Authority, barring recognition of Israel's right to exist, a pledge of nonviolence and acceptance of all previous PA undertakings.

Putin not only declared that he would invite Hamas leaders to Moscow, but insisted that Hamas isn't a terrorist organization, again in incontrovertible contradiction to the position of the Quartet (the US, Russia, the EU and the UN).

Putin, who argued that he would seek to prevail on Hamas representatives to accept Israel, is no novice. He knows that rather than soften Hamas, his readiness to enter a substantive dialogue with its leaders greatly reduces the pressure to embark on the transformation that the international community has been demanding. Putin has recklessly made an already very bad situation significantly worse by cozying up to some of the worst villains in the global terrorist conflict, in which Russia itself has sustained agonizing blows.

Conventional wisdom ascribes Putin's obstructionism to aspirations to continue playing the role of a superpower even after the demise of the Soviet Union, and promote a foreign policy not only independent of Washington but even opposed to it.

Hamas terrorists aren't Putin's only odious bedfellows. His regime has been a major accomplice in the Iranian nuclear and missile programs. Russia continues to transfer sophisticated technology to Iran, despite Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad's genocidal threats against Israel and his open denial of the Holocaust.

There is every reason for someone like Putin, who seeks to be counted as a bona fide member of the club of democratic statesmen, to avoid the company of the Axis of Evil's most unsavory mainstay. Yet he both fraternizes with Teheran and stymies America's attempts to refer Iran to the UN Security Council and impose meaningful sanctions upon it.

My friends @ Vital Perspective:

The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center points out that Hamas has been a supporter for many years of Chechen separatists targeting Russians with terrorism. Hamas identifies ideologically with Chechen terrorism, regarding them as part of the global jihad. They have allowed Chechen terrorists to use the Hamas web site to provide religous sanction to its suicide bombing attacks. In propaganda, they have called the Red Army's counterterrorism operations "terrorist activities against the Islamic population in Chechya." With all of this ideological opposition, we must ask, why is Vladimir Putin reaching out to them then?

In this respect I would like to explore the link between China and Russia who are desperately wishing to avoid the U.S domination of the Middle East. If they fail to persuade Iran to accept the Russian enrichment proposal it is highly likely that the US will sooner rather than later seek to effect a regime change in Iran.

If, they should succeed in that aspiration, China would be entirely dependent on US goodwill. Russia would lose it’s alternative oil supply leverage, which given a hostile Iran towards the US, could be an invaluable trump card in geo political negotiations with Europe and the US.

Hence Russia is busy dreaming right now that they have a listening partner in Hammas, during a nice cup of tea and cucumber sandwich session to be scheduled in Moscow. Any more tea Vicar? Ahem...

America's Useful Idiots

Giuseppe Cesari, ‘The Betrayal of Christ’ 1596-97 Galleria Borghese, Rome

Glenn Greenwald posits that the Bush administration is exaggerating al Qaeda's threat to the United States for purely partisan gain. Now "Al Qaeda has a good friend in the White House" and the account of  the latest revelation by the Administration of the LA terrorist plot is bogus according to Glenn. "So I'll just celebrate the Great Rescue along with my fellow grateful citizens." [linked to of course Hinderaker and Malkin]. Amidst the celebrations, though, one can't help but marvel at just how ridiculous and inane these scary terrorist plots appear to be even when they are deliberately depicted so as to achieve the maximum possible scare value. Here is how the President described the plot."

Despte being a good blogging friend and not only a talented blogger but someone whose opinion I respect despite disagreeing with it, Glenn has sold out as far as I am concerned, and his blind loyalty to the liberal cause of sabotaging the Administartion with whatever means available at any given time, has gone too far down the road of opportunistic reasoning. He is now simply dancing to the tune of the Daily Kos audience, and it is very disappointing to watch.

During the last few months he has attempted to pulverize the talented John Hinderaker: "...digging into the deceitful, pompous morass of Powerline is highly unpleasant work...opting instead for propaganda, falsehoods and deliberate issue distortions of the type dripping out of John's post", and Jonah Goldberg where he accuses the Christian right of wishing to establish a theocracy: "Can't you smell the fear oozing from every word? Goldberg is petrified that the Christian theocrats -- with whom he thinks he can maintain an alliance in order to be protected -- will be angry if their theocratic agenda is pointed out and criticized. So Goldberg, driven by this fear, wants everyone -- and especially Jews -- to keep quiet about it and just lay low, lest the Christian Right's anger spills over to Goldberg, too".

The brilliant Jeff Goldstein, and where Glenn is hypocritical in the way he holds Jeff to a higher moral standard vis-a-vis his commenters whilst cheerfully allowing dozens and dozens of his own bile spewing commenters practically at every post. The relentlessly courageous and talented Michelle Malkin  is of course the first in the firing line, where he spares no punches in keeping with the sadly familiar malicious attacks witnessed daily at Atrios: "If you are someone still in need of dispositive proof that Michelle Malkin is one of the most un-American, liberty-hating, disturbing creatures around, please see this rancid post of hers, where she calls for Rep. Lynn Woolsey to be barred from inviting anyone to such speeches in the future because someone she invited wore a t-shirt which was critical of The Leader". He gives me a mild side kick, whilst growing in popularity as the champion of America's Useful Idiots.

I  have the feeling that as a result of the NSA Hearings having thus far not gone according to plan, Glenn is moving into the 'Islamic Fascism is not enough of a threat to warrant excessive precautionary measures' field, which he conveniently connects to the President's partisan agendas. Glenn seems to have a business plan, perhaps he has aspirations to enter politics and pitch for the Senate. His posts have become a barrage of personal attacks on conservative bloggers which were not present pre-love affair with Daily Kos, Atrios, Digby and Crooks and Liars where he plays to the audience beautifully. Like a masterful marketer he adjusts the marketing message according to the most prevalent demand of his consumers and tailors it to suit the latest liberal sound bites.

Whilst there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a strong opinion, as I certainly do, it strikes me as suspicious when the emphasis appears to be more on reflecting the most commonly held 'flavor of the day' Liberal sound bites, whilst pandering to the frenzied hype, and the reader's baser instincts

How the NSA Hearings will be resolved is very much still to be determined, and according to him its resolution depends exclusively on the course of action chosen by his Useful Idiots. Gonzales' purpoted defense of the President would have created several potent opportunities for the Useful Idiots to ensure that the Administration is held accountable for its "repeated and deliberate acts of law-breaking", but it is increasingly looking as if though their victory has been swept away from under their feet again. So now they must move back to what they consider the Republicans' holy land, and desecrate it with as much viciousness as they can muster.

It is clear that Glenn does not consider al Qaeda to be much of a threat at all to the United States. Neither do many of his compatriots on the left. That is the major reason why the American people do not trust them with their safety and will keep on electing Republicans.

We now have the ability to put remote control cameras on the surface of Mars. Why should we allow enemies to annihilate us simply because we lack the clarity or resolve to strike a reasonable balance between a healthy skepticism of government power and the need to take proactive measures to protect ourselves from such threats? The mantra of civil-liberties hard-liners is to "question authority" -- even when it is coming to our rescue -- then blame that same authority when, hamstrung by civil liberties laws, it fails to save us. The old laws that would prevent FBI agents from stopping the next al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi were built on the bedrock of a 35-year history of dark, defeating mistrust.

More Americans should not die because the peace-at-any-cost fringe and antigovernment paranoids still fighting the ghost of Nixon hate President Bush more than they fear al Qaeda. Ask the American people what they want. They will say that they want the commander in chief to use all reasonable means to catch the people who are trying to rain terror on our cities. Those who cite the soaring principle of individual liberty do not appear to appreciate that our enemies are not seeking to destroy individuals, but whole populations.

Hirsi Ali 'The Real Heroine In The Fight Against Islam'

From 'Hero' one of my favorite movies of all time, directed by Zhang Yimou. Not only do I think that it is cinematographically the most powerful movie I have ever seen, but it also explores the subject of heroism in the most multifaceted yet subtley complete way.

 

"As a woman who was brought up with the tradition of Islam, I think it's not just my right but also my obligation to call these things by their name"

 

Hear Hear!

These are the words of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Dutch politician/MP and, speaking of courage, I think we need to get to know her a lot better:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is one of the most sharp- tongued critics of political Islam - - and a target of radical fanatics. Her provocative film "Submission" led to the assassination of it's director Theo van Gogh in November 2004. The attacker, a 26-year-old extremist Muslim of Dutch-Moroccan descent, left a death threat against Hirsi Ali stuck to his corpse with a knife. After a brief period in hiding, the 36- year- old member of Dutch parliament from the neo-liberal VVD party has returned to parliament and is continuing her fight against Islamism. She recently published a book, "I Accuse," and is working on a sequel to "Submission."

Ayaan Hirsi Ali was born in Somalia and grew up in a Muslim family. At the age of 22 she was promised in marriage to a distant nephew. With the help of a friend she defied her family and escaped. Arriving in Holland, she took cleaning jobs to pay for her studies; learning Dutch, she went on to graduate from university and to work as a political scientist, before entering Dutch politics and gaining a place as a member of parliament.

Hirsi Ali is a Muslim – but she is fiercely critical of the degrading way women are treated within the Muslim communities around the world. She has made a name for herself pressing for the emancipation of Muslim women and documenting how thousands of women, even those living in non-Muslim countries, are subjected to beatings, incest and emotional and sexual abuse.

Hirsi Ali argues that without the emancipation of Muslim women, the socially disadvantageous position of Muslims will persist. She argues that there is a direct link between the underprivileged position of Muslim women, and the lagging behind of Muslims in education and the job market, their high rate of juvenile delinquency and their heavy reliance on social services.

Hirsi Ali holds the Muslim communities and Western governments responsible for allowing cruel practices such as genital mutilation, arranged marriages of young girls and the ‘doctrine of virginity’, to be inflicted on their female citizens. Hirsi Ali condemns Western governments’ blind tolerance of these practices and argues that the governments’ multicultural programs are counterproductive because they help keep Muslim women isolated from mainstream society.

Hirsi Ali also implores Muslims to address what lies behind the ‘dark’ side of Islam – the fanaticism that was epitomized by 9/11 and that has spawned countless tragedies before and after. She explains the need for criticism from within Islam – the need to restore a new balance of reason within the religion.

In September 2004, Dutch TV broadcast Hirsi Ali’s short film entitled “Submission”: it provocatively captured the fate of several Muslim women forced to submit to the will of men, in the name of Islam.

When Ayaan Hirsi Ali took part in a television programme about Islamic Shari'a law in 2003, she ended up contributing much more than her opinion on Islam and its treatment of women. A young woman from a Muslim family told the programme makers she was in fear of her life from her relatives who hit her and called her a whore for wanting to go out with her friends and wearing western clothes. Hirsi Ali listened to her story, then took the young woman to the police, only to be told: “We can’t help you. There are so many girls like you and this is not police work.”

It is not usually a politician’s job to look after threatened Muslim girls either, but that is what Ayaan Hirsi Ali did. She took the girl into her own home for nearly a year, enabling her to finish higher education. “She encouraged me every day,” says her protégée, who now has a job and her own flat. “Because of her I am stronger. It’s very difficult and dangerous for women from my community to speak out. Ayaan does that for us. We need her.”

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 36, believes passionately that showing Europeans what goes on in some Muslim homes in our midst will kick-start a process of emancipation. “If only people, including those in Britain, were aware of the sheer number of girls living in terror,” she says. “Just going outside without your father or your brother’s permission can lead to your being taken to the home country of your parents and being shot dead. You can be forced into marriage with someone who’s going to rape you every night. You will conceive children year after year when you don’t want to be pregnant.”

The fact, that she is now a Dutch politician, doesn't stop the Islamofascist thugs from constantly reiterating their murderous fatwas to kill her like Theo van Gogh. Au contraire, as part of her role as a politician, she has received death threats for numerous stances she has taken and activities she has undertaken. But as a self-proclaimed ex-Muslim, she has taken it upon herself to make the plight of oppressed Muslim women known to the West--and to hopefully end their suffering.

Seeing her incredibly calm demeanour on television taking part in an open studio discussion on CNN the other evening, whilst being attacked by Islam clericks with quivering voices of hatred, made me realize how much they despise her and how her life is truly in danger at the hands of these, and here I would like to say extremists but they are not. They are simply Muslim Qar'an bashing women haters, who despised her for telling the truth about how women are treated in Muslim countries and how unprotected they are in a society where the men are a law onto themselves.

In the interview with "Der Spiegel", Hirsi Ali responds to the Danish cartoon scandal, arguing that if Europe doesn't stand up to extremists, a culture of self-censorship of criticism of Islam that pervades in Holland will spread in Europe. Auf Wiedersehen, free speech.

SPIEGEL: Hirsi Ali, you have called the Prophet Muhammad a tyrant and a pervert. Theo van Gogh, the director of your film "Submission," which is critical of Islam, was murdered by Islamists. You yourself are under police protection. Can you understand how the Danish cartoonists feel at this point?

Hirsi Ali: "The cartoons should be displayed everywhere." They probably feel numb. On the one hand, a voice in their heads is encouraging them not to sell out their freedom of speech. At the same time, they're experiencing the shocking sensation of what it's like to lose your own personal freedom. One mustn't forget that they're part of the postwar generation, and that all they've experienced is peace and prosperity. And now they suddenly have to fight for their own human rights once again.

SPIEGEL: Why have the protests escalated to such an extent?

Hirsi Ali: There is no freedom of speech in those Arab countries where the demonstrations and public outrage are being staged. The reason many people flee to Europe from these places is precisely because they have criticized religion, the political establishment and society. Totalitarian Islamic regimes are in a deep crisis. Globalization means that they're exposed to considerable change, and they also fear the reformist forces developing among émigrés in the West. They'll use threatening gestures against the West, and the success they achieve with their threats, to intimidate these people.

SPIEGEL: Was apologizing for the cartoons the wrong thing to do?

The Road To Allah Paved With Gold

Corbis Images

One hundred militants have enlisted to become suicide bombers in Afghanistan since the appearance of "blasphemous" cartoons of Prophet Muhammad, a top Taliban commander said.

Mullah Dadullah, one of the Taliban's most senior military commanders, said Thursday that his Islamic extremist group had also offered a reward of 100 kilograms (220 pounds) of gold to anyone who killed people responsible for the drawings.

"More than 100 mujahedin (holy warriors) have enlisted to carry out suicide attacks," the fugitive Dadullah told AFP by telephone from an unknown location.

The targets would be "infidels", said the commander, who is believed to be close to the Taliban's wanted leader Mullah Omar.

He added: "The Taliban will give 100 kilograms of gold to one who kills the cartoonist."

Five kilograms of gold would go to anyone who killed a soldier from Denmark, Germany or Norway -- among the countries where the cartoons have appeared.

At current prices 100 kilograms of gold is worth about 1.9 million dollars.

Dadullah said that the Taliban militia, which has been waging an insurgency in Afghanistan for the past four years, had strong support from the Al-Qaeda network and good ties with militants in Iraq.

"We do have relations with Al-Qaeda. We're one body. Al-Qaeda funds our fightings. We're one body, brothers, and we've one common enemy," he said.

"We've good relations with Iraqi mujahedin and Al-Qaeda mujahedin," he said, calling on other Muslims to join the fight against Western countries which he said had invaded the Islamic world.

The weight of the gold on offer today has dramatically increased from their offer in 2004. I guess even Jihad is governed by market economics.

Just as the United States and its allies swept toward Afghanistan's main cities in the autumn of 2001 the ruling Taliban and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network sent waves of couriers with bars of gold and bundles ofdollars across the porous border into Pakistan.

In small shops and businesses along the border, the money and gold, taken from Afghanistan's banks and national coffers, were collected and moved by trusted Taliban and al Qaeda operatives to the port city of Karachi, Pakistan, according to sources familiar with the events.

Then, using couriers and the virtually untraceable hawala money transfer system, they transferred millions of dollars to this desert sheikdom, where the assets were converted to gold bullion. The riches of the Taliban and al Qaeda were subsequently scattered around the world -- including some that went to the United States -- through a financial structure that has been little affected by the international efforts to seize suspected terrorist assets.

This account of the flight of the Taliban and al Qaeda treasure from Afghanistan is based on dozens of interviews in Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates, Europe and the United States. The gold trail was described by intelligence officers, law enforcement officials, gold brokers, and sources with direct knowledge of some of al Qaeda's financial movements, but not by Taliban or al Qaeda operatives.

The interviews offered a tantalizing glimpse into the critical yet mysterious role played by gold in the finances of al Qaeda, both before and after the Sept. 11 attacks. Gold has allowed the Taliban and bin Laden to largely preserve their financial resources, despite the military attack that battered their forces in Afghanistan, investigators and intelligence sources said.

Al Qaeda also used diamonds purchased in Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of Congo, tanzanite from Tanzania and other commodities to make money and hide assets. But gold played a uniquely important role in the group's financial structure, investigators and intelligence sources said, because it is a global currency.

"Gold is a huge factor in the moving of terrorist money because you can melt it, smelt it or deposit it on account with no questions asked," said a senior U.S. law enforcement official investigating gold transactions. "Why move it through Dubai? Because there is a willful blindness there."

Exempt from international reporting requirements for financial transactions, gold is a favored commodity in laundering money from drug trafficking, organized crime and terrorist activities, U.S. officials said. In addition, Dubai, one of seven sheikdoms that make up the United Arab Emirates, has one of the world's largest and least regulated gold markets, making it an ideal place to hide.

The Virtue Of Courage

One of my favorite cartoons of my father, always admired and inherently teased for his vast and varied knowledge.

I was responding to a comment from the very talented blogger Fausta on one of my previous threads "The Nation of Islam Will Sit At The Throne Of The World...", regarding the whole issue of the American media cowardice in abstaining from publicizing the Muhammad cartoons, and it made me think of my father.

My father used to say that you can never blame others for their cowardice. Everyone has different considerations and aspects to worry about. Some worry about their jobs, some their very lives, some the sponsors that keep them funded. One can only look to oneself and stand upright for what you believe in.

My father was betrayed many times by close friends, in a totalitarian regime, but he always forgave them. He said that they had considerations of their livelihood, which he did not have to worry about. They had considerations for their very lives, which my father had given to the cause of freedom long ago. They had considerations for their families' wellbeing, which my father did not have (when he married my mother he made his position clear, and she understood that, when I came along I simply was not asked. Heh.)

He forgave them, not because they know not what they do, but because he understood the human weaknesses and survival instincts which my father gave up for the cause of freedom.

And again, he always said to me "Look to yourself, not to others. Don't ever rely on others to fight for YOUR freedom. They never will. They will always fight for their own version of it, which is relevant to their own little world. Very few people in history have truly fought for the good of mankind."

My great friend Kenny Pierce who was touched by my comment

C. S. Lewis once said that the virtue of courage is a prerequisite for the practice of all other virtues, because otherwise one is virtuous only when virtue has no cost. There are times when something needs to be done, and yet we know that if we step up and do this needful thing, we will pay a heavy personal price. Courage is the virtue that makes us willing to pay that price; cowardice makes us say, “The price is too high; I will not pay it.”

But courage isn’t the only virtue. Prudence is a virtue as well. Sometimes the price really is too high. When we applaud somebody’s behavior as courageous, we implicitly affirm his prudence; we say that the cost was not disproportionate to the needfulness. When we accuse somebody of cowardice, we also, I think, are implying not just that he should have paid the price, but that he knew that he ought to. For if he sincerely believed that the cost outweighed the usefulness, then our true complaint is with his judgment, not his courage.
[...]
It is always hard, when we ourselves are willing to make sacrifices for what is right, to see others who don’t take their place beside us because they are not willing to match our courage. The greater the sacrifice we ourselves have made, the harder it is not to feel that we have earned the right to demand sacrifices of others, for our cause – that they owe it to us to pay the price we ourselves have been willing to pay. But Borislav Pekic saw too deeply and clearly into the human heart, to be taken in by that temptation. On the Cross, Jesus famously forgave His tormentors, “for they know not what they do. Pekic forgave those who failed him for a different reason: he forgave them because he knew, all too well, that, “I know not what I ask them to do.”

The Grave Injustice Of A Senseless Death Sentence

'The Martyrdom of St. Mathew', by Caravaggio, ca.1599, Contarelli Chapel, San Luigi dei Francesi, Rome

It makes me incredibly sad to think of Father Andrea Santoro, today on the day of his funeral. A missionary fidei donum priest working in Trabzon, Turkey, he was slain in cold blood in the name of Allah. It is very difficult not to feel hatred in my heart at this absolutely senseless murder of a holy man, whose only credential of being a Christian priest became his death sentence. Looking at his photograph, I see a kind and gentle face full of hope and tireless enthusiasm for a cause he made his vocation:

Pope Benedict XVI drew an emotional reaction from the crowd at his regular weekly audience when he mentioned the Italian priest who was killed in Turkey three days earlier.

"We cannot fail to remember Fr Andrea Santoro today," the Holy Father said. The crowd of 8000 people rose for a lengthy ovation in tribute to the slain missionary.

As the applause ebbed, the Pope continued with a prayer for the repose of Fr Santoro's soul, adding a petition that "the sacrifice of his life may contribute to dialoue between religious and peace among peoples."

The Pope disclosed that he had received a letter from Fr Santoro recently, in which the priest offered "a moving testimony to his love and adherence to Christ and his Church." In the letter, dated 31 January, Fr Santoro offered "a mirror of his priestly sould," the Pope said. He indicated that the letter will soon be published in L'Osservatore Romano.

Pope Benedict added that he had read another letter, from a member of the tiny Catholic community in Trabzon, Turkey, where Fr Santoro served. It, too, offered a powerful indication of "devotion and love for Christ," he said. The parishioner's letter asked the Pope to visit the Black Sea port town during his trip to Turkey in November of this year.

The body of Fr Santoro, who was a priest of the Rome diocese, was returned to Rome on February 7. His funeral will be in the Basilica of St. John Lateran today.

Pope Benedict XVI revealed that just yesterday there arrived "a precious letter" of Father Andrea, written on January 31, together with the small Christian community of Saint Mary's Parish. "It is an emotional testimony of love and adherence to Christ and His Church. But, above all, it is a mirror of his priestly soul and reflects his concern for the children."

Although a 16-year-old Turkish boy has confessed to the killing, saying that he was prompted by rage over the cartoons in European newspapers mocking Mohammed, some Christians in Turkey harbour lingering doubts about the crime, Bishop Luigi Padovese of Anatolia told journalists. The bishop explained that Christians in the region, live amid hostility in an overwhelmingly Muslim community. Some Christians question whether the killing was an isolated act, or part of an orchestrated anti-Christian campaign.

Father Andrea we think of you today and pray.

For centuries the liberty to distribute Christian or other non-Islamic texts has been unacceptable in Turkey. In recent years people have been detained and even deported for such activity.

It is one thing for Father Andrea to have been murdered by an individual influenced by the current "religious" riots that have done so much damage and led to various deaths and fear. It is quite another for Turkey's intelligentsia to think that the simple practice of having literature about one's own faith, printed in a language understood by local people, is a questionable activity suggesting criminal behaviour.

Were this simply to be the musings of a journalist, one would count it as just another sound bite. Alas! The idea that Christian literature in Turkish, distributed by faithful Christians, is suspiciously criminal, or at least intellectually unacceptable, prevails among senior army officers, university professors, Islamicist politicians, lawyers, doctors, journalists and many others.

The Metastasizing Shari'a

 

An interesting discussion to be had following this article from Front Page.

Just recently, the Australian government informed its Muslims that those amongst them who want to live under Islamic Shari'a law should leave the country. In other words: if secularism is not your cup of tea, Australia is not for you.

This tactic by the Australian government is clearly designed to rid its society of radicals and to protect its people from potential future terror attacks.

Should America follow this path? How can a democracy that values tolerance take measures against those that are intolerant? Can a liberal society force certain citizens to leave, or not enter, simply if they do not believe in secular law? Have we come to the point where we have no choice but to go down this road?

The guests to discuss this issue with are:

Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor and a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. He prosecuted the Blind Sheik and his organization for seditious conspiracy in 1995;

Henry Mark Holzer, Professor Emeritus at Brooklyn Law School and an appellate lawyer who specializes in constitutional law. He is the co-author (with his wife Erika Holzer) of Aid and Comfort: Jane Fonda in North Vietnam. He is writing a book about the jurisprudence of Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas. His current book, Keeper of the Flame: The Supreme Court Jurisprudence of Justice Clarence Thomas will be published in the spring.

and

Cliff May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, he is president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a policy institute created immediately following 9/11/01 that focuses on terrorism and democratization;

FP (Jamie Glazov, Frontpage Magazine's managing editor): Andrew McCarthy, Henry Mark Holzer and Cliff May, welcome to Frontpage Symposium.

Mr. Holzer, let me begin with you. What do you think of Australia’s recent step and is it something we should emulate? What are the key issues/obstacles here?

Holzer: Hello, Jamie. Good to be with you three again.

As I read the press reports, the Howard government in Australia merely “invited” Muslims who do not want to assimilate to leave the country.  So far, that’s it— only a “shape up or ship out” declaration.  Unfortunately, it comes late in the game, and as Howard and his cabinet expressed themselves, theirs is an empty threat.  The reports that  “later” there “might” be a “crackdown,” “hints” at “targeting” dual citizenship Muslims for deportation—“clear off” the Education Minister was reported to have said.  Too little, too late, I say.  But that’s the Aussie’s country, not mine.

As to mine, I begin with three premises:

[1] we are at war, just as much as we were in WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam,

[2] there is a literal (not figurative as in Fonda-Hayden-Spock-type) fifth column hard at their subversive work within the United States,

[3] many, if not most of them, are Muslims.  Andy and Cliff know much more about (2) and (3) than I do.

There is an “ought” and an “is” to this analysis.

The key question is what our democracy “ought” to do with the fifth columnist in our midst.  The answer is that they must be identified, prosecuted under conspiracy and other applicable criminal statutes, and they must be neutralized in federal prisons for a very long time.  They should not merely be deported, only to show up here plying their terrorist trade yet again.  Unlike the Australians who make suggestions, we must be ruthless about eliminating these people.

As to those not yet identified as fifth columnists, they must be watched (yes, with domestic wiretaps, and every other tool available to us), and when they cross the line put away until they pose no further danger to us.  Undercover agents in mosques, surveillance, subpoenas, search warrants, grand jury investigations, use of the IRS—whatever it takes.  Once we defeat the terrorists, things will get back to normal—as they did after the Civil War, WWI, and WW II.  (Ask Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR how they would handle today’s problem).

If accomplishing this requires focusing on every Muslim in the United States (“profiling” is the pejorative term of art used by the left), so be it—and no apologies, thank you.  As has oft been said, while most Muslims are not terrorists, most terrorists have been Muslims.

But the “ought” is not the “is.”

The “is,” I fear, is quite different.  Those of us who understand today’s threat face a terrible confluence of factors:—the ideologically corrupt mainstream media, the ascendancy and resources of the hate-America crowd, the softness of many politicians, the short attention span of most Americans, the shallowness of the values, the lack of education, the aversion to the sight of blood, the absence of an historical sense, the mostly partisan left-democrats There is abroad in the land an anti-intellectual, anti-patriotic, anti-democratic, anti-security, and, yes, anti-freedom cancer that seems to metastasize every day.

A Perilous Premise

 

The apparent inability of the West to understand the motivation of Islamic extremism and terrorism, the lack of will, and the absence of any coherent and effective idea for dealing with the intrinsic problem of the diametrical nature of Islam to the Western ideals, is baffling. What is even more troubling is the doctrine of appeasement (excuses on behalf of Islam by western leaders) that is emerging in response to Islamic terrorist attacks, threats, and apparent intimidation of the West, whereby European leaders have elected to appease Muslims rather than engage them in honest and constructive dialog to transform the fundamental ideology that breeds hatred and inspires unspeakable acts of cruelty. This response is eerily reminiscent of the tepid response to the rise of Nazism, not too long ago.

To most Islamic leaders, perhaps, many Muslims, Islam is still at war with the Christian Europe, "crusaders", as the Islamic extremists and terrorists like to portray the West. Hence, efforts by the West to establish democracy in the Middle East are viewed as Christians invading Islam. To the West, this is a paradox, but to many Muslims, this is clearly an attack on Islam. After all, democracy being another ideology is invariably in competition with Islam. Moreover, democracy originated in the West, the land of the "crusaders", all the more reason for jihad. Hence, the mind bugling and most gruesome killing of innocent Iraqis by Islamic extremists and terrorists to stop democracy from taking root.

The incredulity that is at display over the fact that the London suicide bombers were home grown terrorist, is at best, naïveté and at worst, acute denial. The idea that assimilation is politically incorrect has led to the self-isolation of Muslims in European society and has encouraged the hostility towards the West that has emerged. Moreover, the added notion that life in the West is too good an alternative, and will inevitably dissuade and change the mindset of fundamental Islamists and terrorists, weaken their resolve to carryout the biddings of "Islamic holy edicts" ("fatwas") issued by clerics and regarded as the very word of Allah, is a perilous feel good notion.

Contrary to the expectations of the West, surveys continue to show that many western educated Muslims and Muslims dwelling in Western societies, including naturalized citizens and their descendants, are very resentful of the West. Their diatribes and incendiary comments are clear signs of danger that have gone unheeded. In the name of Islam, many of them have indeed taken up arms against their adopted Western countries and actively seek their destruction.

As they have shown, there is no question that Islam does not allow ijtihad (free play of the intellect - independent or innovative thinking) and qiyyas (analogical reasoning). After all, what is the need for those, if the only thing that matters is taqlid (imitation) of an act that took place in A.D 622 and A.D. 630. In Islam, the fundamental duty of each member is to submit to Allah and whatever Allah demands of him or her. Frequently, the "demands" that Allah makes of Muslims seem to be the unquestioned demands that Islamic clerics have presented, by way of fatwas (or holy edicts), which they issue to Muslims. Many of these fatwas are essentially calls to one "religious war" (jihad) or another, such as has been with Israel, and now is in Europe and America.

According to an article in the New York Times, about a year ago, by a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institute, who happens to be of the Islamic persuasion, "Many religious and community leaders were convinced that Islam would manifest itself in its truest form in this country. Some even proclaimed that one day America would be an Islamic state." In 1983, in a speech marking the dedication of an Islamic Center in Stockholm, Sweden, an Islamic leader declared, "In the next fifty years, we will capture the Western world for Islam. We have the men to do it, we have the money to do it, and above all, we are already doing it."

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, both regarded as American allies, have committed to fund the spread of Islam in America. Saudi Arabia has for decades funded the Madrasas in Pakistan and Afghanistan that have been the breeding ground for most Islamic extremists and every Islamic terrorist that has attacked the West, from 9/11 to 7/7. This perilous and borderless new army, primed on unbelievably warped ideology, has taken aim on the West and has committed to destroy its essence. They have all come to the belief that the greatest weakness the West has is its civil liberties, hence they have committed to employ the same to carryout their agenda. Is any one truly surprised at what is happening?

Denmark, France, and all over Europe —countries where freedom of expression and tolerance have been the hallmarks of the society, and on account of which, Muslims from all over the world, in spite of their intolerance and propensity for violence, have been welcomed into these societies. Now, these values that are the essence of these societies are increasingly on the run, essentially being exterminated. A situation where Europeans would lose their ability to speak freely in their own country, for fear of being assassinated by Muslims, is no longer a thing to be imagined, it is now a stark reality.

–

Discussion:

Omar / IRAQ THE MODEL:   Time for a cartoon post...

The Brussels Journal:   BBC Admits Fatal Negligence

Meryl Yourish / Yourish.com:   Lack of context  —  The mainstream media, particularly wire services …

Mark / Mark in Mexico:   BBC fanned flames of Muhammed cartoon fiasco

Jay Reding / Jay Reding.com:   Islam's Moment Of Choosing

Andrew Sullivan / The Daily Dish:   Two Myths  —  It is a myth that Islam has not allowed depictions of the Prophet.

Lawhawk / A Blog For All:   Connecting the Dots on the Rioting Over Cartoons

Sissy Willis / sisu:   Laugh, and the world laughs with you

Mike / Cold Fury:   Behind the veil

Reliapundit / THE ASTUTE BLOGGER:   ABU LABAN: BLASPHEMER

» All Related Discussion

« Hide All Related Discussion

"The Nation of Islam Will Sit At The Throne Of The World..."

 

.....and the West Will Be Full of Remorse When It's Too Late".

Really? And what happened when you woke up?

These were the words of the Hamas leader Khaled Mash'al at the Al-Murabit Mosque in Damascus. The address was delivered following the Friday sermon at the mosque, and was aired on Al-Jazeera TV. Video here.

"We say to this West, which does not act reasonably, and does not learn its lessons: By Allah, you will be defeated. You will be defeated in Palestine, and your defeat there has already begun. True, it is Israel that is being defeated there, but when Israel is defeated, its path is defeated, those who call to support it are defeated, and the cowards who hide behind it and support it are defeated. Israel will be defeated, and so will whoever supported or supports it.

"America will be defeated in Iraq. Wherever the [Islamic] nation is targeted, its enemies will be defeated, Allah willing. The nation of Muhammad is gaining victory in Palestine. The nation of Muhammad is gaining victory in Iraq, and it will be victorious in all Arab and Muslim lands. 'Their multitudes will be defeated and turn their backs [and flee].' These fools will be defeated, the wheel of time will turn, and times of victory and glory will be upon our nation, and the West will be full of remorse, when it is too late.

"They think that history has ended with them. They do not know that the law of Allah cannot be changed or replaced. 'You shall not find a substitute for the law of Allah. You shall not find any change to the law of Allah.' Today, the Arab and Islamic nation is rising and awakening, and it will reach its peak, Allah willing. It will be victorious. It will link the present to the past. It will open up the horizons of the future. It will regain the leadership of the world. Allah willing, the day is not far off.

"Don't you see that every act of deceit they contrive is being turned against them by Allah? Don't you see that they make every effort to defeat us militarily, but fail to do so? Israel and the occupation forces in Iraq are supplied with the entire Western military arsenal, yet they fail and are defeated.

"Don't you see that they believe they are capable of using democracy to deceive the people, but then democracy is turned against them? Don't you see that they are spending their money in efforts to block the way of Allah, to thwart Hamas, to defeat it, and to help those whom they want, but that [this plot] is turned against them? They are not acting reasonably.

"They do not understand the Arab or Muslim mentality, which rejects the foreigner. Our Arab forefathers, before the advent of Islam, rejected the aggressors and the foreigners.
[...]
"I bring good tidings to our beloved Prophet Muhammad: Allah's promise and the Prophet's prophecy of our victory in Palestine over the Jews and over the oppressive Zionists has begun to come true."

"I Say to Europe: Hurry Up and Apologize"

Raptured Away

 

I would like to invite you to debate the so called "special political relationship between the Israeli right and the Evangelicals in the US" in context of the dispensational model, which proposes that a time of turmoil is lying ahead, but that born again Christians will be "raptured" away before it begins. I am particularly interested to know what impact in your opinion, if any, contemporary dispensational thinking might have on foreign policies concerning the Middle East at large and Jerusalem in particular in the coming years.

The alliance between the Israeli right and the Evangelicals is said to have really taken off in 1977, when, after three decades of Labor rule in Israel, Menachem Begin became the first Prime Minister from the conservative Likud Party. But first some more detailed background:

The establishment of Israel in 1948 gave dispensationalism new momentum. The restoration of a Jewish nation was taken as a sign that the clock of biblical prophecy was ticking and we were rapidly approaching the final events leading to the return of Jesus. During the cold war, dispensationalists readily interpreted the Soviet Union and its allies as the Antichrist. Passages such as Ezekiel 38-39 were read as predictions of an impending Soviet attack on Israel. A ten-member confederation--often interpreted as the European Union--was expected to join the Soviet Union in this attack.

When Israel captured Jerusalem in the 1967 war; dispensationalists were certain that the end was near. L. Nelson Bell, Billy Graham's father-in-law and editor of Christianity Today, wrote in July 1967: "That for the first time in more than 2,000 years Jerusalem is now completely in the hands of the Jews gives the student of the Bible a thrill and a renewed faith in the accuracy and validity of the Bible."

By the early 1970s numerous books, films and television specials publicized the premillennial dispensationalist perspective. Hal Lindsay made a virtual industry out of his book The Late Great Planet Earth: it sold more than 25 million copies and led to two films, as well as a consulting business with a clientele that has included several members of Congress, the Pentagon, and Ronald Reagan.

In the mid 1970s at least five trends converged that accelerated the rise of Christian Zionism. First, evangelical and charismatic movements became the fastest-growing branch of North American Christianity. Mainline Protestant denominations and the Roman Catholic Church were declining both in budgets and attendance.

The election of Jimmy Carter; a Southern Baptist Sunday school teacher; to the presidency in 1976 increased the visibility and legitimacy of the once-marginalized evangelical movement. Time magazine declared 1976 "the year of the evangelical." Still, the mainstream media seemed confused by the various traditions and polarities within the complex evangelical movement, failing to distinguish between the diverse political and theological voices clamoring to claim the term "evangelical" for their particular viewpoint.

Israel's occupation of Arab lands after 1967 created tension between many Jewish organizations and the mainline Protestant, Eastern Orthodox and Catholic communities. Many Jewish organizations, particularly lobbying groups such as the American Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC), turned to the growing evangelical community for support. As Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum of the American Jewish Committee stated, "The evangelical community is the largest and fastest-growing bloc of pro-Jewish sentiment in this country." AIPAC and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) added staff to focus on relationships with evangelicals and fundamentalists. The Israeli ministry of tourism eyed evangelicals as a major new market for Holy Land tours and thus a source of revenue.

The fourth factor that stimulated the emerging evangelical Christian Zionist movement's political agenda was the election of Menachem Begin as Israel's prime minister in May 1977. Prior to Begin's election, Israeli politics had been dominated by the secular Labor Party. Begin's Likud Party was dominated by hard-line military figures such as Raphael Eitan and Ariel Sharon, and supported by the increasingly powerful settler movement and by small Orthodox religious parties. Likud constituencies used the biblical names "Judea and Samaria" for the West Bank and employed a religious argument to justify Israel's confiscation of Arab land for settlements: since God gave the land exclusively to Jews, they have a divine right to settle anywhere in Eretz Israel. Evangelicals welcomed the Likud leaders and endorsed their political and religious agendas.

The final development that accelerated the alliance between Likud and the Religious Right was Carter's March 1977 statement that he supported Palestinian human rights, including the "right to a homeland." Likud, when it came to power just two months later; immediately reached out to Christian evangelicals. Likud's strategy was simple: split evangelical and fundamentalist Christians from Carter's political base and rally support among conservative Christians for Israel's opposition to the United Nations' proposed Middle East Peace Conference.

Within weeks, full-page advertisements appeared in major U.S. newspapers stating, "The time has come for evangelical Christians to affirm their belief in biblical prophecy and Israel's divine right to the land." Targeting Soviet involvement in the UN conference, the ad went on to say: "We affirm as evangelicals our belief in the promised land to the Jewish people . . . . We would view with grave concern any effort to carve out of the Jewish homeland another nation or political entity."

And to increase your bloodpressure (reach for those pills before you read), Vanity Fair published in its December issue a sensationalist article by Carig Unger under the heading American "Rapture". You know Unger of course, Daily Kos' and Micheal Moore's hero, who penned the controversial book House of Bush, House of Saud, which was also featured in Fahrenheit 9/11.

Gonzales On Monitoring The Enemy

 

In the days following Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush charted a course of action to respond to the worst attack on our homeland in history. He promised to use every tool available to defeat al Qaeda and pledged to take the fight to the enemy abroad as he worked to prevent another attack. As he said in the State of the Union address, "Our country must remain on the offensive against terrorism here at home." The president has the constitutional responsibility--and authority--to lead this response.

After Sept. 11, Congress immediately confirmed the president's constitutional authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force" against those "those nations, organizations, or persons he determines" responsible for the attacks. The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) gave the president the latitude to use a full complement of tools and tactics against our enemy. A majority of Supreme Court justices have concluded that the AUMF authorizes the president to use "fundamental and accepted" incidents of military force in our armed conflict with al Qaeda. The use of signals intelligence--intercepting enemy communications--is a fundamental incident of waging war.

With the recent leak of the NSA's terrorist surveillance program, some have questioned whether this congressional authorization can be read to encompass signals intelligence. In this case, our military is engaged in signals intelligence when they have reason to believe that at least one person is a member or agent of al Qaeda or a related terrorist organization communicating into or out of the U.S. The purpose is to learn the locations, plans and capabilities of our enemy. Consider the facts from both a legal and a commonsense perspective.

The president, as commander in chief, has asserted his authority to use sophisticated military drones to search for Osama bin Laden, to deploy our armed forces in combat zones, and to kill or capture al Qaeda operatives around the world. No one would dispute that the AUMF supports the president in each of these actions.

It is, therefore, inconceivable that the AUMF does not also support the president's efforts to intercept the communications of our enemies. Any future al Qaeda attacks on the homeland are likely to be carried out, like Sept. 11, by operatives hiding among us. The NSA terrorist surveillance program is a military operation designed to detect them quickly. Efforts to identify the terrorists and their plans expeditiously while ensuring faithful adherence to the Constitution and our existing laws is precisely what America expects from the president.

History is clear that signals intelligence is, to use the language of the Supreme Court, "a fundamental incident of waging war." President Wilson authorized the military to intercept all telegraph, telephone and cable communications into and out of the U.S. during World War I. The day after Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt authorized the interception of all communications traffic into and out of the U.S. These sweeping measures were seen as necessary and lawful during critical moments of past armed conflicts. So, too, are the more focused intercepts of al Qaeda during our current armed conflict, especially given the nature of the enemy we face.

The AUMF is broad in scope, and understandably so; Congress could not have catalogued every possible aspect of military force it was endorsing. That's why the Supreme Court ruled in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that the detention of enemy combatants--a fundamental incident of war-- was lawful, even though detention is not mentioned in the AUMF. The same argument holds true for the terrorist surveillance program. Nor was the president's authorization of the terrorist surveillance program in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. FISA bars persons from intentionally "engag[ing] . . . in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute." The AUMF provides this statutory authorization for the terrorist surveillance program as an exception to FISA.

Lastly, the terrorist surveillance program fully complies with the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Like sobriety checkpoints or border searches, this program involves "special needs" beyond routine law enforcement, an exception to the warrant requirement upheld by the Supreme Court as consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

The AUMF is not a blank check for the president to cash at the expense of the rights of citizens. The NSA's terrorist surveillance program is narrowly focused on the international communications of persons believed to be members or agents of al Qaeda or affiliated terrorist organizations. The terrorist surveillance program protects both the security of the nation and the rights and liberties we cherish. As the president said in his State of the Union speech, "the terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America." When I testify before Congress today, I will tell them not only that the president had the authority to use this effective antiterror tool, but that it would have been irresponsible for him not to employ this weapon to prevent another attack on our country.

Mr. Gonzales is the U.S. attorney general.

 

You gotta problem with that?

Is There Any Difference Between Exquisitely Refined Multicultural Sensitivity And Shari'a

'The Jihad Barbie'

Mark Steyn:

One day the British foreign secretary will wake up and discover that, in practice, there's very little difference between living under Exquisitely Refined Multicultural Sensitivity and Sharia. As a famously sensitive Dane once put it, "To be or not to be, that is the question."

Of course there is, but still, many of us have bitterly complained about the American MSM's lack of courage to stand up for what in pretty much any other circumstance it would have vociferously defended: Its freedom of expression. Whilst we can only speculate what might be the true motives for most of the editors' abstinence, again very much out of character mind you, it seems to me, that the MSM has for once done this nation a badly needed favor.

Yesterday in my update, I quoted the best-selling author and Muslim dissident Ibn Warraq in the German left-wing magazine 'Der Spiegel'. And I was taken for the moment by the strong and cogent tone thinking that I'd never see the day when 'Der Spiegel', even as a passive carrier, comes out all guns blazing for a righteous cause: 

Unless, we show some solidarity, unashamed, noisy, public solidarity with the Danish cartoonists, then the forces that are trying to impose on the Free West a totalitarian ideology will have won; the Islamization of Europe will have begun in earnest. Do not apologize. [...]

This raises another more general problem: the inability of the West to defend itself intellectually and culturally. Be proud, do not apologize. [...]

The west is the source of the liberating ideas of individual liberty, political democracy, the rule of law, human rights and cultural freedom. It is the west that has raised the status of women, fought against slavery, defended freedom of enquiry, expression and conscience. No, the west needs no lectures on the superior virtue of societies who keep their women in subjection, cut off their clitorises, stone them to death for alleged adultery, throw acid on their faces, or deny the human rights of those considered to belong to lower castes. [...]

Freedom of expression is our western heritage and we must defend it or it will die from totalitarian attacks. It is also much needed in the Islamic world. By defending our values, we are teaching the Islamic world a valuable lesson, we are helping them by submitting their cherished traditions to Enlightenment values.

That's the kind of rhetoric we've all been clamoring for from our own MSM; and, when it wasn't forthcoming, we've all been reproaching and chastising them and of course continue to do so.

Thus, NBC is celebrating Easter this year with a special edition of the gay sitcom "Will & Grace," in which a Christian conservative cooking-show host, played by the popular singing slattern Britney Spears, offers seasonal recipes -- "Cruci-fixin's." On the other hand, the same network, in its coverage of the global riots over the Danish cartoons, has declined to show any of the offending artwork out of "respect" for the Muslim faith.

Which means out of respect for their ability to locate the executive vice president's home in the suburbs and firebomb his garage.

But upon reflection, perhaps we as a nation can for once sit back during the predominantly European contest of who are the courageous and who are the cowards. Because, as The Telegraph affirms, "for let us not delude ourselves: it is organized violence, or the threat of violence, that has driven the decisions that have been made in the past week".

We as a nation are far beyond the point of rhetoric in proving our resolve to protect and defend our secular democracy and our civil liberties, and, may I remind you all, those of our allies too!

"What are you going to do?" asked a leaflet circulated in Beirut that called for Sunday's protest.

"Bush and his group have invaded and are fighting war by all means available," it added. "The goal: destroying the Islamic nation ideologically, economically and existentially, and stealing and looting its resources."

Despite not being appreciated, by far the most who are engaged in a most precarious battle to win both the hearts and minds of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan and at the same time who fight the terrorists and opportunists are our fine men and women. Not in cozy offices, not in front of TV cameras, not in safe confines of our beleaguered secular democracies--although Theo van Gogh would want to argue this, if he only could-- but on the ground, right in the midst of if all.

As my commenter Stefan points out:

I am troubled by the dilemma of the nature of Islam itself. If we decide that the trouble is not just from a small radical sect of Islam, but rather that this radicalism itself is a natural extension of Islam’s core system of beliefs then we have declared our opposition to the very heart of the population of the Middle East. This would make our enemies not Bin Laden and his ilk but Islamic culture in its totality. I am not willing to make this leap because it is the recipe for a cataclysm and I still have hope in the US strategy of spreading democracy (even if the results are not to our liking), but I can not see the horizon from here. Once again, Europe finds itself on the front line in a global conflict and what happens there is the key.

Don't get me wrong, strong statements are important, especially from those whose reluctance in 2002/3 clearly signaled utter impotence to the aggressors. But they are still just that, words. In contrast, our men and women on the ground do need our unwavering and substantive support to complete their very real mission victoriously. And that, it seems to me, does not include for us to enter the rhetorical cartoon war right this minute. Through their grueling and dangerous work as well as by their sacrifices, we in turn, as a nation, can now portray restraint, for we have already established that we are not the barking-dog-who-doesn't-bite kind.

Not that any of these considerations have anything to do as to why our MSM doesn't speak out loud. But, albeit for all the wrong reasons, they are, for the time being, supporting our troops and the bigger picture.