He follows up with a post quoting James Woolsey, in an article in The Guardian:

America and the western world are at war with 'fascist' Middle East governments and totalitarian Islamists.....[The parallels with the Cold War are:] that it will last a very long time - decades; that it will sporadically involve the use of military force, as did the Cold War in Korea for example; but that an important component would be ideological. I would add that, just as we eventually won the Cold War - and when I say 'we' here, I always mean Britain, the United States, the democracies, our allies - it was in no small measure because, while containing the Soviet Union and its allies militarily and with nuclear deterrence, we undermined their ideology.

What they said, all the way.

And I'll echo Kevin strongly in disagreeing with Den Beste and Trent (and other commenters who have supported Trent here); it is critical that Bush articulate and sell his vision for why we are at war and what the war will look like - not tactically or diplomatically, but historically - and a clear vision of what we are really fighting and what we are fighting for. Because we will win this war with ideology, belief, and determination, and the role of the leader is in no small part to express those and to embody them so that the rest of us will internalize them and come to act on them.

It is a high standard, but we have had wartime Presidents - including the rich, spoiled sons of privilege - who have met it, and by the time we win this war, we will have had one or more Presidents who have met it. The challenge isn't beyond Bush, and I hope that he can grow to meet it.

I remember attending a conference after 9/11, and our Great Operator, COL T (Ret) asked for volunteers, to go around the world (my specialty is not the tip of the spear; I'm somewhere along the fat middle of it---but we are important, and do our part to support the war fighter.) We all raised our hands. It was like the Eddie Murphy character in Shrek, a sort of "Pick me, Pick me." COL T looked around the room and said, in effect, "settle down, Marys. There's going to be plenty to go around. We're talking about fifteen years, here."

After reading Steven Den Beste's article in today's WSJ Opinion Journal, (based on an earlier post), I'm glad to see that message finally make it into the mainstream. This is not, has never been, about yellowcake, WMD or even Saddam. It has always been about putting and end to the Arab Civil War. A war which began with Ataturk's abolition of the Caliphate, a war which involved the American people most directly on 9/11 and a war which continues to this day.

I grew up in a city. Maybe that's why I like this analogy. What the Arab world is experiencing today is like a crack (oil) addiction. Remember when that hit our streets in the eighties? First, there was talk of treatment. Then it was war. Say what you will about the war on drugs, as you smoke a joint and talk about how harmless it is. I've seen what hard drugs do. I've seen it in my family. The problem could never be dealt with by going after the crack addicts (the terrorists), or shutting down the crack houses (the Muslim Brotherhood which seems to beget the terrorists). Ultimately, you have to go after the purveyors of the crack (the Nationalists/Imams who preach/teach the hate and the money which supports them). I think about a meme that's gathering steam, and I want to reference I portion of Mr. Den Beste's article, about the use of nuclear weapons on an American city. The meme goes something like this: "why is everyone overreacting about terrorism, sure it's bad, but it can't truly destroy America."

Let me mention two words. Intentions and capabilities.

Capabilities follow intentions, not the other way around. In Austria, was a particularly bitter little man, with some evil intentions. He worked over the next fifteen years to gather the capabilities. He was Hitler. Or let's be farcical. Here's Osama, nice guy, really. Likes to tend sheep. One day, he comes across a low yield nuclear device. Now he has capabilities. Does he then turn the device over to competent authorities, or does he sit down and begin to develop intentions. Hmmm, he thinks. Let's start with the Jews, or maybe the US? Capabilities follow intentions. Our race is to head them off before they reach those capabilities. We all grieved for 9/11. Imagine a random date, the day we lose a city. Or if you're shallow, watch "Dark Angel".

But why Iraq?

Let me put this in context. Too much going around in my head. I remember a Zimbabwean commenting that he wished they had oil, so President Bush could come in, bomb them, and remove Mugabe. A war for oil (WMD, oppression, freedom, etc.) is really a simplistic way of looking at it. It makes for great slogans. Syndical-anarchists can design bizarre outfits and block traffic protesting about the issue. When, I talk to my friends (and they are tired of hearing about it) about Zimbabwe (or Liberia, Iran, etc..) I've come to this realization. But to paraphrase Tony Blair, "I wish we could. But we can't."

What made Saddam the low hanging fruit in the axis of evil , and what was intended to build support were these factors:

1. Ongoing violation of sanctions.
2. An oppressive regime.
3. Direct, immediate threat to his neighbors were said "baby-killing" sanctions removed. (conventional)
4. Support of terrorism (not necessarily Al Qaeda--although those the links are there) such as Fatah's Al Aqsa's Martyrs Brigade (does being a splinter group of Fatah mean that they have to pay two sets of dues?).

Saddam set himself up as a target, and Osama pulled the trigger. Let me be clear. Arab Nationalist, using the vehicle of Islamic Fundamentalism, involved America in the Arab Civil War -- the fight between the Dictators in power, and the radicals who want control.

War is often looked at as a battle between two opposing sides. Good versus evil. That is appropriate to our context, but is by no means the rule. Political Commissars and Propagandists try to make it true, but history reveals their lies. Sometimes, morally repugnant battles truly evil. The Soviet Union versus Nazi Germany. The Arab dictators versus the Arab nationalists. The Afghan Arabs versus the Soviet Union. The Communists Chinese versus the Soviet Union. The Russian Oligarchy versus the Chechen Separatists. Liberia. There are wars neither side should win.

Yet, invariably, one side does.

Unless.

And this is the third side of the battle. Who stands for liberty, for freedom, for the rule of law. I'm not going to be an apologist for the past wrongs of the United States. Tony Blair says I don't have to be. This gets into my feelings on politics and truth. Linked off of Instapundit onto something called "social constructivism" and the nature of truth. Hurt my head. I'm not a smart gomer. But for me, the issue comes down to this. There is truth, and there are politics. One side (the Leftists of today, the Far Right of the early nineties) believes politics are firm, and truth is malleable. The other side (the Liberals of the early nineties, and the Conservatives of today) believe truth is firm, and politics are malleable (often opening themselves to charges of changing course in midstream, "tossing out" plans or waffling). One side (Lib/Con) believes that the US is fundamentally good, her people honest, yet, from time to time, does something stupid. Yet this side works to improve America. The other side (Leftist/Far Rightist) believes the United States is fundamentally flawed, her people venal and decadent and works to replace this "evil".

When I think about the war we are in today, I need to bring all these things together. Asymmetry. Not a new word. Indeed. Asymmetric warfare has been talked about, debated and planned for since the early nineties. But, being asymmetric, it didn't turn out the way we thought. I always believed it would involve U.S. versus state actors utilizing unconventional (war fighting) means. Shallow thinking. What we see today is a nearly unplanned confluence of Ideology, Individual and Organization. The not nearly enough discredited Leftist/Far Right philosophies, Terrorists, and Rogue States. Placed in a pit by twos, they would most certainly fight each other. But they seem to have almost unconsciously determined to link up, and fight that other force. The third one I mentioned earlier. Once it's out of the way, then they can settle things between themselves.

Then Lord help us all.

Thank you for your time.

• Salam Pax is unhappy in Baghdad. I understand his reasoning. Guess the humiliation will just have to be posthumous.

• Amygdala: "The only downside might be the possible intel that perhaps could have been gotten from them. That, and the loss of an opportunity to put them in stocks and let every Iraqi get a chance to slap them. The rest is all up side, as they head downside."

• Al Leiter may be a hawk, but his teammates don't all share his leanings. They were really happy. Hilarious story. (Hat Tip: WSJ)

• Calpundit had a post. His comments section ranges from "woo hoo!" to barking moonbattery, but the overall tone seems quietly pleased.

• "Bang" says Justin Slaughter of the Columbia Political Review. Well, he says a lot more than that...

• Dean Esmay is happy. Though I think he's beginning to see the light, he still self-identifies as liberal.

• Different Strings says: "As much as I hate taking pleasure in the death of anyone, there are some people who are so evil that I can make exceptions for them, and these two fit the bill."

• Ectophensis wrote one special for us: "I'm happy they're gone. I'm a pro-war anti-Bush liberal. Now where's my cake?"

• Eyeranian has a few choice words. No doubt many Iranians feel the same way, though I suspect Pedram's preferred option of an international trial might take 2nd place to "no, just give them to us." We thought we'd save y'all the line-ups.

• Gabriel Gonzalez adds: " In France (where I live), Pascal Bruckner, Alain Finkielkraut, and Bernard Kouchner (France is not big on blogging yet)." Probably. Then again, GG was sure that Matthew Yglesias would be happy too. You be the judge.

• Jane Finch of the Daily Rant is annoyed at the suggestion that liberals aren't happy. She adds: "The only thing Im NOT happy about is that I didn't pick the scumbags in the ATS Dead Pool."

• Jeff Jarvis titled his: "Damn, I Was Going to Enjoy That Trial."

• Judith Weiss says: "Ding, Dong, the Witch Is Dead!" And you've got to read her update... owwwch!

• Just Left of Center says: "I think it’s great that Saddam's 2 sons were killed – and I think it laughable that people are saying it was 'Murder' or Illegal' or whatever. I don’t like how we got into the war – but the fact is that the war itself is justified and the world is better off with Saddam gone. It is a victory in the war and, secondarily, a victory for Bush and Co." (Hat Tip: Michele's comments section)

• Lizard Queen is described as "fanatically leftist/liberal, completely knee-jerk anti-war..." and she seems pleased. (Hat Tip: Michele's comments section)

• Norbizness is happy for the Iraqi who pocketed the $30 million reward, anyway. (Hat Tip: Michele's comments section)

• OldFan may or may not be a liberal, but I had to reprint this comment: "The very best thing about the closing of the cases on Saddam's monstrous spawn is that NO lawyers were involved in the process at ANY time."

• Oxblog's David Adesnik pens a satire, while his blogging partner Josh Chafetz's comment are short and to the point.

• The Peoples Republic of Seabrook says "karma can be a bitch sometimes."

• The Rant had a humourous cartoon.

• Rittenhouse Review: "Let me ungraciously interrupt the collective wet dreams of the demented right wing to say, without equivocation, that I’m pleased to learn these little cretins are dead, gone forever, and that I hope our otherwise admirable military forces will prove similarly successful with respect to Saddam and the altogether thoroughly forgotten, yet truth be told, more threatening menace to the U.S., Osama bin Laden."

• Roger L. Simon says: "Don't Rest in Peace..."

• Scappleface, a liberal? Maybe not, but he's too funny not to include. Something for everyone here:
  · Uday's Suicide May Violate International Law
  · Editors Slam People Who View Hussein Death Pics
  · U.S. Admits it Fakes Hussein Brothers' Death

• Sean LaFreniere titled his post: "Justice". Keep scrolling down, he gets even more sensible.

• The Talking Dog: "We are saddened to hear of the deaths of Qusay and Uday Hussein, at the hands of American aggressors at a villa in Mosul, Iraq. Not."

• TAPPED, The American Prospect magazine blog: "It appears that they died quickly, in a firefight, which is too bad -- we'd have preferred they suffer a bit first.... If these two have been behind some of the guerrilla attacks on U.S. personnel in Iraq, perhaps our troops there will have an easier time of it." (Hat Tip: Michele's comments section)

• Michael Totten isn't sure he still qualifies according to "politically correct" standards. Michael, tell the "PC" brigade to blow out out their ass. Nice post, like the title.

• Treacher's post is just one word long, and that's enough. Love the Pig Latin title, Jim.

• War Liberal opines: "I guess a capture and a trial would have been better. (Of course, the Euros would have complained when we shot them afterwards.)"

A final thought. Contest runner-up Mitch H. opined: "Really, though, this self-selects for pro-war sentiment."

It shouldn't. The same reasons motivating Salam Pax and many Iranian bloggers should motivate every decent human being in this case. Even a pacifist could rejoice when Hitler died. As TIME ably documented and we've chronicled, these people were evil with a capital E. The fact that they're gone is good news, period, and anyone who can't bring themselves to acknowledge that has a hole in their soul.

Commentary on Uday & Qusay's death was a moral Rorschach Test of sorts. The folks above, and many more bloggers we didn't find and acknowledge, passed.

UPDATE: Here's a letter Joe received from one happy liberal in uniform.

There are two reasons for this stance by the Democratic Party. The first reason is unreality infecting opponents of the war. Andrew Sullivan sums up the case about the "Fantasy Ideology of Anti-War Democrats" that I have been trying to make in posts and discussion threads on Winds :

THE PRE-9/11 MIND: The more I read emails or talk to anti-war types, I get a sense that 9/11 never really happened. Or if it happened, it meant nothing more than a discrete crime with discrete criminals who alone deserved justice. The notion that it meant that we were and are actually at war with a series of terrorist entities and the tyrannies that support them never truly took hold on the far left (or right). As the months have passed, their complacency and denial have undoubtedly metastasized among others as 9/11 recedes from our collective consciousness and its emotional wound begins to heal. These people, it's worth remembering, believe that the exercise of American military power is almost always more morally problematic than any foreign tyranny or even a serious security threat to the homeland. They can only justify American military power if it is wielded under imminent, grave danger that can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. That's why they are so exercised about tiny pieces of evidence today. They still believe we were wrong to remove Saddam from power without incontrovertible proof of WMDs of a type unobtainable in police states; they still believe America had no moral sanction for such an action; and they are even more determined to prove the superiority of their case now that the war was such a military success. So they have to turn the fallible evidence before the war into "lies"; and they have to turn the difficult but worthy post-war reconstruction into a "quagmire." They know the only chance they have is to turn American public opinion against the war so as to prevent any such exercise of military power again. In that sense, they really cannot simply be mocked. They must be challenged at every turn. For they are engaged in a process that will not only stymie efforts at reforming the Middle East but will make Americans and others more vulnerable to the designs of the Islamofascists and their terrorist allies. The war abroad cannot therefore be extricated from the debate at home. We will not win the former without winning the latter.

In so many words, these Democrats are on the other side because they don't believe war is real. Anything that comes of it must be a Republican Neo-Con plot.

The difference between Pro-War Republicans and Pro-War Conservatives versus Pro-war Democrats and Pro-War Liberals is that the former two have been confronting their anti-war loons like Pat Buchanon and the latter two have been confronting President Bush over war policy.

That is nothing but cognitive dissonance in action. Pro-War Liberals and Democrats are ducking a confrontation with the anti-war loons in their own party and they are resolving their pain by attacking President Bush. Rather than do something worth while and effective like facing down the anti-war crowd in the public square or raising money for candidates to influence them in a Pro-War direction. They would rather quibble with Bush Administration policy. It's easier.

This is a sign of moral cowardice because Pro-War Liberal's confronting Bush Administration war policy affirms the anti-war leftists position in the Democratic Party and with the public. And it is the public's guilt by association view of all Democrats because of that duck out that will damn the Democratic Party for at least a generation and perhaps unto death.

"All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Pro-War Liberals are doing nothing, and less than nothing, which is nothing new. Senator John Glenn's collapse of will in the face of the nuclear freeze movement in 1984, run by these same lefties, lead to conservative "Scoop Jackson Democrats" like Jean Kirkpatrick and Richard Perle walking from the party. The lack of internal confrontation with the anti-war lefties in 2002 election saw the beginning of a moderate walk out from the Democratic Party over the war. The 2004 election will complete the moderate walk out and start in on the Pro-War Liberals.

William Kristol pointed out what this on-going collapse of will in the face of this anti-war faction is doing to the Democratic Party in an article titled Gephardt's 16 Words. I think these are the killer 'graphs:

Dick Gephardt's 16 words, by contrast, change everything. They reflect the considered judgment of a centrist Democratic presidential candidate, one who voted to authorize the war, that his party must stand in fundamental opposition to the Bush foreign policy. They indicate the capture of the Democratic Party by the pace-setter in the presidential race, former Vermont governor Howard Dean.

Dean said on June 22 that "we don't know whether in the long run the Iraqi people are better off" with Hussein gone, and "we don't know whether we're better off." At the time, Gephardt demurred from Dean's agnosticism.

Now, exactly one month later, Gephardt is following in Dean's footsteps.

Actually, Gephardt went further than Dean. I suppose it's technically possible that things could turn out worse for the Iraqi people, or for us, post-Hussein (though I'd be happy to take that bet, and I'm sure the Bush campaign would too). But Gephardt has laid down an extraordinarily clear marker for judging the Bush administration: He claims we're less safe and less secure than we were four years ago.

And

There are plenty of legitimate grounds to criticize the Bush administration's foreign policy. But the American people, whatever their doubts about aspects of Bush's foreign policy, know that Bush is serious about fighting terrorists and terrorist states that mean America harm. About Bush's Democratic critics, they know no such thing.

Tom Holsinger summed it up rather well when he posted this elsewhere on Winds:

"Nothing a Republican president says can give Democrats a backbone. That they have to find for themselves."

Until Democrats get a backbone, Bush publicly discussing and laying out American war strategy, be it grand, diplomatic, political or military, is both pointless and counter productive.

Trent thinks my position is silly, and makes some strong arguments that I'll leave to him to fill in; in summary, his view is that Bush has a plan, but can't articulate it for political/diplomatic reasons, and that we need to simply trust him - that we can simply rely on his character.

My reply is "nope".

Even if I stipulate that Bush has grown immensely wiser and more credible than he was in his early life...and I do believe that he has grown, although I'm not convinced that he's grown immensely...I just can't accept the notion that we're sending our sons and daughters - hell, that I may send my son - because GWB says so.

And I don't think that I'm alone.

Modern leadership involves propagating your vision - of a project, or a business. It involves creating faith which can motivate people to accept discomfort, pain or loss. When a team shares a vision, they have some understanding of the high-level plan which will make them more tolerant of not knowing the low-level plans.

But you can't ask people to accept burdens based solely on one's character any more. We are past the point of kings.

Clearly, this limits his freedom to practice Richelieu-like diplomacy by deception, as Trent suggests he may be doing.

Tough. I have a lot of faith in the American people, and I believe that there are a whole lot of those - like me - who would be willing to follow a President in spite of disagreements if we believed in and understood his vision and the overall path he proposed to take to get there.

Bush has set out parts of a vision, but we're missing some key pieces. And I haven't seen an path yet.

So I support him against the Hesiod Theogenys of the world...for now.

IRAQ BRIEFING

• As has been previously noted on Winds of Change, Udai and Qusai Hussein are both dead in Mosul. Photos of the bodies have now been released (see also the Raid Timeline link in this story). While I suspect that the Hussein boys require no introduction, I thought it might be prudent to blog a brief history of both men, as well as a look at Udai's sick habits during the days of the Baathist regime.

• Here's a summary of world reaction to the death of Udai and Qusai Hussein. As for the blogosphere... John Hawkins' Snoopy Dance graphic says it all.

• Meanwhile, satirist Scrappleface says: "If early reports of Uday Hussein's suicide prove true, he may face charges before the International Criminal Court at The Hague for assassinating a state official."

• The US is interested in what the Mukhabarat, the old Iraqi intelligence agency, knew about its archenemy Iran before the fall of Saddam Hussein with help from Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress.

• Shi'ite cleric Moqtada Sadr, who favors a Khomeinist form of government in Iraq, has formed his own private army shortly after his return from Tehran (scroll down to the bottom of the article). Coincidence? I think not. Sadr also appears to have a grudge against Kuwaitis, women, and everyone else that the Iranians don't like.

• The Washington Post has more on the informant who sold out the Hussein brothers and I think it's safe to say that if Saddam's former sycophants are selling out his own blood, the days of the Iraqi Baathist Party as a viable organization in Iraq are numbered.

• Hell hath frozen over, as Bill Clinton has defended George Bush on both "uraniumgate" and the subject of Iraqi WMDs. I have long since ceased trying to figure out why Clinton does what he does, so I leave analysis of such matters to people far smarter than I.

• Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf ("Baghdad Bob") says that Udai and Qusai had nothing to do with the attacks on US forces. Well, if he says it, it must be true ...

IRAN REPORTS

• As is noted above, the one point of the debate over Iran's relationship with al-Qaeda is that the nation has within it certain members of the organization. There is now confirmation from the Kuwaiti Interior Minister that Suleiman Abu Ghaith is in Iran. I am still suspicious as to why Kuwait refused to extradict Abu Ghaith, but I also share US concerns over just how "imprisoned" the group's leadership in Iran are, as Abu Ghaith is evidently free enough to make threats in a message broadcast over Dubai Radio, a courtesy not being extended to many Iranian students and bloggers.

• The CS Monitor lays out "The nonviolent script for Iran." (Hat Tip: uber-reader M. Simon)

• On a related note, Pedram urges expat Iranians to get involved in Western democracy: "If not for involvement in the political life of your new home, at least as a learning experience for the future of Iran." (Hat Tip: Jeff Jarvis)

• Jen Martinez notes that Students at Universities in Iran were arrested for blogging. It seems the Iranian government has formed a new secret Internet Police to monitor Internet activity and stem the growing number of Iranian bloggers.

• As my colleague Venomous Kate noted on Tuesday, Iran has officially outfitted its military with the Shahab-3 missile, which is capable of reaching Israel. However, it is worth noting that the Shahab-3 were not given to the regular army, but rather to the Revolutionary Guards. The IRGC have a rather infamous history and are believed to be harboring members of al-Qaeda's leadership at one of the shah's old hunting lodges that now serves as a military base, though this information may be out of date given recent developments.

• Iranian Foreign Minister Kharrazi has delivered a nasty rant against the U.S. for Bush's blunt statement that Iran and Syria harbor terrorists, which sure looks like the case from here, no matter how either nation tries to spin it.

THE WIDER WAR

• In this Special Analysis features, I offer my conclusions re: a couple of recent "Bin Laden" audiotapes, and discuss who is Omar al-Bayyoumi and what is his connection to 9/11.

• MuslimPundit returns with a hilarious story about an investigator who may have tricked Britain's resident jihadi fanatic right into jail. Ha!

• ICT notes that recently a fatwa was recently issued by Sheikh Nasser bin Hamd al-Fahad, one of three Wahhabi clerics from which al-Qaeda derives theological authority, on the subject of using weapons of mass destruction against American targets.

• Black Fatima, the leader of Chechen rebels terrorists' female suicide bombers, has been identified by a thwarted suicide bomber. Her method of, um, 'indoctrinating' recruits bears some resemblance to that employed by the medieval Assassins.

• The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which suffered heavy losses during Operation Enduring Freedom, is now apparently back in action after nearly a year of rebuilding itself with assistance from al-Qaeda. The IMU also apparently had a role in planning last October's hostage seige in Moscow.

• The Kashmiri Islamist groups, all of which are linked in some form or another to al-Qaeda, claim to have used the war in Iraq to recruit 7,000 new cannon fodder to fight in Indian Kashmir and in Afghanistan. Even if that figure is only half-way true, these groups and their backers in the ISI still bear close watching.

• U.S. forces in Afghanistan have killed 24 Taliban fighters led by a former government minister.

• Remember that coup in Mauritania? It was formented by a mixture of Mauritanian Baathists and Islamic extremists linked to al-Qaeda (seems they didn't get the memo that they were supposed to hate one another) who tried to establish a military dictatorship. The coup plotters are now on the run and at least one of them, Lieutenant M'hamed Ould Didi, is now being extradicted from Senegal to face charges.

• Robert Mugabe is now threatening to kill all US and UK nationals and their descendants if either nation takes any action against his dictatorship. Sounds like a genocide threat to me, but what do I know ...

• Australia is sending an intervention force to the Solomon Islands to fight Harold Keke, a local warlord who looks like he would fit in just right with Attila the Hun. In addition, the Australians may also square off against the feared albino Satan and his hosts, who have been causing a dozen families to flee to the Islands' capital.

• We try to close on a lighter note if possible and Greece appears to be having more than a few problems over the issue of brothel permits in Athens prior to the 2004 Olympics.

Thanks for reading! If you found something here you want to blog about yourself (and we hope you do), all we ask is that you do as we do and offer a Hat Tip hyperlink to today's "Winds of War". If you think we missed something important, use the Comments section to let us know.

According to statements given to the anti-terrorist branch in March, Jenvey set up an internet site called islamic-news.co.uk in 2002 using the fictitious name Pervez Khan. He published news items on the site from Kashmiri extremist groups and other hardline Islamic propaganda.

Once established, he sent the material to Hamza’s website — supportersofshariah.org, which is now shut down. “He was so pleased with this he decided to put a link to my site from his site. That was his first big mistake,” said Jenvey last week.

It gets better. Once Jenvey was able to quietly track visitors to the SOS website, Hamza then sent Jenvey a whole stash of jihadi-propaganda goodies to recruit new supporters and thus "prepare them for jihad".

One tape given to Jenvey has already made an impact. It shows Hamza at a meeting sharing a platform with the US terrorist suspect James Ujaama.

Ujaama designed Hamza’s internet site under the name Abu Samaya, but denied knowing Hamza when first arrested by the FBI. However, his defence crumbled when the tape was produced. He is now the key witness against Hamza in the grand jury investigation.

As I write, British intelligence authorities are still, maddeningly, somewhat lax about charging Islamists like Abu Hamza for their tacit complicity in taking up arms against sovereign states. Apparently, unless jihadi cults drag their turf wars onto British soil, the police are obliged to keep some distance. Ori Golan reports:

In a collection of papers entitled The New Antisemitism? published by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, Prof. Robert Wistrich of the Shalem Center and head of the Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism at the Hebrew University, attempts to tackle the question. It is possible, he writes, that the British government has a tacit understanding with certain Islamist groups not to interfere with them so long as they don't strike on British soil. This may also explain why the Universities UK - the successor to the Council of Vice Chancellors and Principals - are reluctant to interfere with the activities of Islamist radicals on campus.

Golan further cites Michael Whine of the Community Security Trust (CST) as saying: "I don't think [the British authorities] really understand the Islamist thing, and the underlying ideology. They're interested in names and addresses, but not in what motivates these issues."

I tend to agree. A strident Islamist cult like, say, Hizb-ut-Tahrir or al-Muhajiroun, thrives in Britain because every minute spent operating relatively freely further vindicates their deep feeling of contempt for the British authorities. In my encounters with these Islamists, I strongly believe that this growing sense of contempt towards careless authorities is probably the most important aspect of what invigorates their sense of solidarity and spurs them to action. Hizb-ut-Tahrir, Al-Muhajiroun, as well as many others, are cults that see fulfilment of their will through sedition, not simply as an end, but as the only means to that end. Muslims who want to be recruited into the ranks of Hizb-ut-Tahrir or al-Muhajiroun are required to pass tests where proof of loyalty to the group’s cause is predicated almost entirely on proof of disloyalty to the out-group. But it is their astonishing degree of adaptability to their environment, by openly exploiting tolerance to insidiously preach intolerance, that demonstrates how central their ideology of contempt is in mobilising them.

Muslims who bewail the fact that Islam today wears the face of militancy in the eyes of the world should understand that when those who call themselves "moderate" do not speak as loudly as the militants, the militants speak for them too. But when it comes to waging war against Islamists, the track record of Muslims has never been enough to inspire much confidence. It is far too late, and already too dangerous, for the British authorities to wait for British Muslims to "police" their own. In the meantime, that correction must come from the outside. Cults like al-Muhajiroun and Hizb-ut-Tahrir need to have their illusions of contempt ripped away, and to thus tear away at the very fabric that holds them together.

UPDATE: Glen Jenvey himself responds, in the Comments section over at the Command Post.

• In the face of smaller protests over the following days, two of Tung's most despised ministers, Secretary for Security, Regina "boomhead" Ip and Anthony "I needed that luxury car for my pregnant, gold-medal winning, nymphet wife" Leung were forced to resign.

• JK: If you want to thank someone responsible and recognize both extraordinary courage and effectiveness, here's who. That's margaret, at margareteng.com, for electronic correspondence.

• Hong Kong blogger Preston Whip, meanwhile observed the transformation the demonstrations have provoked in Hong Kong's normally apolitical residents:

"Returning from lunch, my secretary casually informed me that Dong Jianhua's days are numbered. As political analysis goes, it's not exactly the sort of thing that stuns editors. However, coming from a woman who confuses Legco with a company that makes building blocks for kids, thinks Wen Jiabao plays gangster roles in mainland movies, and once asked me if Mao was still alive, this is red hot stuff. "

• Indeed, so traumatic were the protests on Hong Kong's leadership that even the reliably pro-Beijing "Democratic Alliance" did an abrupt about-face, with its leader calling for actual democra tic elections and reconsidering its close relationship with Beijing.

• The lasting effect of this display of "people power" remains uncertain as Beijing continues to send mixed signals (like hints of reform, alternating with demonstrations of remarkable clelessness and political ineptitude.

• JK: Meanwhile, the people back on the mainland have noticed Hong Kong's example, and this analysis of the underlying issue by Toronto's Globe and Mail is a good one. Which is one reason why Conrad's "you've won, now cool it" advice strikes me as sound. Fortunately, That seems to be the game plan.

• Blogosphere news: Richard of Peking Duck has received a facelift and escaped Blogspot, and can now be found at PekingDuck.org

...which Tod Lindberg touches on at the end of his column.

"The progressive wing of the Democratic Party would rather be right than be president, as the noted American non-president Henry Clay said in 1850. Not, by the way, that the party's left thinks this is necessarily the electoral outcome that will result — only that it is willing to take the risk. There is nothing the least bit crazy about this. Reshaping the Democratic Party as a resolutely progressive party is the real task at hand. It will take how long it takes.

And what about the centrist Democrats? How can they possibly be said to have an interest in a left-wing nominee? Well, put it this way: They, too, are engaged in a long-term project, namely, the creation of a Democratic Party that is moderate across a sufficiently broad range of subjects to get elected nationally and therefore to have the White House and the executive branch at the service of a (moderately) progressive agenda. If you think Mr. Bush looks pretty formidable for 2004, then you are at some level already playing for the recriminations following a Democratic loss. A Democratic nominee running far to the left and losing buttresses the centrist case going forward.

The condition of the Democratic debate this year reminds me of the condition of the Republican debate on the eve of the 1964 convention at San Francisco's Cow Palace. True, Barry Goldwater went on to lose the general election in an epic landslide. But the modern conservative movement considers his nomination its first great victory.

Lindberg is right to choose the role of Goldwater in remaking the Republican Party. He is wrong in casting centrist Democrats as Goldwaterites. That role belongs to the Dean-istas because they have a candidate and the pro-war Democratic centrists don't.

American political party factions without candidates in their party either die or walk to other political parties. An example of this happened in the 1980s when the Democrats national security wing, the "Scoop Jackson Democrats," became today's Republican Neo-Cons. The reason that happened is because the rest of the Democratic Party made Reagan-hate and Pro-Soviet anti-anti-communism a political litmus test for Democratic Party membership in 1984.

In 2004 the Democrats are making Bush-hate and anti-war opposition another litmus test for the party. Those, like Armed Liberal, who fail that test will be treated no differently than Richard Perle, the Neo-Con "Prince of Darkness" and still a registered Democrat.

All I can say to Armed Liberal and other pro-war Democrats is you are going to have no home in the Democratic Party so Welcome to the Republican (AKA Dark) Side of the Force.

Mwa ha ha ha...! (Key in the Star Wars Imperial March theme music)

Note that I've dismissed Trent's claims that the Dems are about to self-destruct offhand, and have even put up some cash on the subject.

Michael was writing at 1 a.m., and so maybe he has a touch of the late-night blues. But I'm writing this at noon, and I'm feeling pretty blue as well.

I know that the Bush administration is immensely vulnerable on substantive issues. I think that they have several components of the answer right, and several more profoundly wrong.

On their strongest card, the war on terrorism, I think that they are just flat blowing the defense side of the equation, and moving the country a step or two toward abandoning our civil liberties. I think they have missed what should have been their best chance - to sit down with their Saudi friends and speak bluntly - as only friends can do - about what needs to happen.

I think that they are hollowing out the military that they claim to value so highly.

I think that the GOP fiscal and tax policies are outrageous. I don't think they have a clue as to what to do to try and offer Americans who are middle-class and below a tighter grip on the ladder.

But all I hear about from the Democrats is yellowcake and "what did he know and when did he know it."

And as I look at the field of plausible Democratic candidates, all I see are guys I would trouble supporting for Governor of California, much less President. My hand doesn't reach for my checkbook to donate or my phonebook to call up friends and support.

And Porphy's right, we need to do something. In my case I've been of some minor help to a friend who I hope will run for Lt. Governor or Treasurer of CA in the next cycle.

But that's not enough.

I'm going to see if I can come up with a plan to give all of us - the "Disaffected Democrats" - some traction. I'm thinking about something that blends EMILY's List and MoveOn.org; one provides seed funding to selected candidates and the other a trumpet that effectively uses the Internet to get attention for issues. I'd like to solicit input from others who feel the way I do, and let's see if we can deliver a plan and a constituency to someone who can do something with it. I'm pretty good at thinking things up, and with some help, maybe we can find someone with the stature to execute it.

(corrected edit on Porphy's question)

• Supporters of South Korea's "Sunshine Policy" are on the defensive after Ko Young-koo, head of the ROK's National Intelligence Service, confirmed before the National Assembly a NYT report that North Korea had conducted about 70 tests of high explosives for use in nuclear warheads between 1997 and last year. The National Assembly then passed a new special counsel bill to look further into the now infamous "cash-for-summit" scandal that has tarnished the reputation of ex-president and Nobel Prize winner Kim Dae-jung. In particular, opposition legislators are keen to find out if money from South Korea has been used in the development of North Korea's nuclear weapons program.

• The last month has seen the release of a lot of disturbing intelligence concerning North Korea. The high-explosive tests aside, there are reports that North Korea has completed reprocessing of its 8000 fuel rods (discounted by Seoul), and recent reports suggest that the North may have secretly constructed a second facility for the reprocessing of weapons-grade plutonium (Seoul discounts those reports as well). Meanwhile, the South Korean Ministry of Defense confirmed that North Korea deployed an additional battalion of Rodong-1 missiles (capable of hitting Japan) last year, and that the Stalinist state has redeployed some of its long-range guns closer to the DMZ (and more to the point, closer to Seoul).

• William Perry, Defense Secretary to former President Bill Clinton, used the Washington Post as a vehicle to criticize the Bush Administration handling of the North Korean nuclear crisis and warned of war before the end of the year. For an excellent rebuttal, check out Kevin of Incestuous Amplification's outstanding commentary on Perry's WP interview.

• Rep. Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania proposed a 10-point plan to solve the North Korean nuclear crisis once and for all after meeting with North Korean officials in June. I suggest you take a look at the plan for yourself (or Fred Kaplan's endorsement of the plan over at Slate), but if it means anything to you, most of us Korea-bloggers shot it down, regardless of ideological orientation - check out the opinions of Incestuous Amplification, Kathreb, and, of course, the Marmot's Hole.

• Donald Rumsfeld has reportedly ordered military commanders to devise a new war plan with North Korea (courtesy Rantburg). The plan, named Operations Plan 5030, apparently seeks to topple the North Korean regime by destabilizing its military. Details of the pre-war phase of the plan include such scenarios as running recon flights even closer to North Korean airspace, conducting suprise military exercises along the DMZ, disrupting financial networks and sowing disinformation.

• There was a small firefight in the DMZ on July 17 - South Korea's Constitution Day. Nothing to worry about, of course - these kinds of things happen all the time.

• Despite the deteriorating situation, the Noh Mu-hyeon Administration is doing its best to keep engagement with the North alive. Hyundai kicked off construction of an industrial park in the North Korean city of Kaesong, more separated family reunions were held in the North's Kumgang Mountains, and the two Koreas agreed to promote economic and cultural exchanges as the l1th Inter-Korean Ministerial Meeting held in Seoul.

• The Bush Administration may be preparing a plan to accept thousands of refugees from North Korea. Mr. Parker of Parapundit weighs in with his own opinions on what should be done with North Korean refugees - they should not be missed. Oh, and speaking of refugees and defectors, the South Korean government finally gave Hwang Jang-yop, former head-ideologue of North Korea and the highest ranking defector ever to cross sides, permission to visit the United States to talk with American officials, although Seoul is asking Hwang to postpone his trip to a "less sensitive period than now" - wouldn't want to offend those North Koreans, now would we?

The next installment of the Marmot's Korea Briefing will be August. Meanwhile, regular updates concerning Korean events can be found at The Marmot's Hole.