The Spectre of Specter Descends On Hayden

Earlier today I wrote that the nomination of General Michael Hayden would present Democrats in the Senate a golden opportunity for mischief, and also noted that a few Republicans might be tempted as well. Tomorrow's Washington Post confirms the latter, as Arlen Specter told an interviewer that he planned to hold up Hayden's confirmation as leverage for a more complete briefing on the NSA surveillance program:

Not only Democrats expect to use a Hayden nomination to revisit the legality of the surveillance, however. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who has held four hearings on the matter, said he may try to hold up Hayden's confirmation if the administration does not provide more information about the eavesdropping. He said he would try to persuade fellow senators to use the confirmation as "leverage."

"I was briefed by General Hayden and I got virtually no meaningful information," Specter said in an interview. "Now with Hayden up . . . this gives us an opportunity to ask these questions and insist on some answers if the Senate is of a mind to deny confirmation."

Specter has become quite the thorn in the side of the White House ever since Bush endorsed him in his re-election bid in 2004. Many of us, myself included, agreed with Bush that -- in the immortal words of LBJ -- it was better to have the senior Senator on the inside of the tent pissing out than outside pissing in. That same philosophy drove the administration to insist that Specter also gain the chair of the Judiciary Committee. Unfortunately, in both offices, Specter has made all of us regret our support more than justify it, and this is no exception.

The senior Senator from Pennsylvania makes quite a sport out of exploiting Bush's political weakness after getting help from the President with his own. Specter's attempt to gain leverage on this issue plays directly into the hands of the Democrats who intend on forcing Hayden to answer probing questions on the NSA intercepts, attempting to get a very public briefing in lieu of the private sessions Bush has already held with the SSCI and Senate leadership. When Hayden refuses to answer -- as he must -- the Democrats will declare that Hayden cannot be confirmed from his lack of cooperation. Normally it wouldn't matter, but Specter and a few other Republicans like Lincoln Chaffee and Chuck Hagel could easily torpedo Hayden's confirmation.

However, on the plus side, the Post reports that the White House anticipates a battle and may even wish to generate one. Unlike with Harriet Miers, conservatives will appreciate Hayden and rally to support his nomination. Picking a fight with the Democrats gives the White House yet another argument to paint Democrats as soft on national security, hoping that the solid majority in favor of the NSA intercept program will eventually wear his opposition down once and for all.

The Democrats, on the other hand, hope to force Hayden to issue enough refusals to answer questions and keep the answers he does provide so vague as to wear down that majority support -- and with it, Bush's base of support for the war itself. That's the risk that Bush runs with the appointment of Hayden, and with Feingold on the committee, the risk is real enough. If Feingold begins to get traction during these hearings, more Democrats will start calling for further hearings on the NSA and Bush. If not, he can kiss his presidential aspirations goodbye.

This hearing will have much more impact and volatility than the Alito and Roberts hearings. Much more rides on its outcome than a judicial confirmation. The result will likely determine the course of the November elections, the next President, and the future of the war on terror. Hopefully the White House really understands these stakes.

Finally, the Post's reporters on this article, Peter Baker and Dafna Linzner, provide a laugh when they mischaracterize the nature of the turf war taking place in the American intelligence community. The article says that Congress will be concerned with Hayden's appointment in terms of the reach Donald Rumsfeld has in the intel services. Hayden's appointment would put a military man at the head of all the intel services, but the real story here is the expansion of influence by John Negroponte, not Rumsfeld. Congress may have its issues with Rumsfeld, but they have openly debated cutting off funds to the DNI to keep him from what they consider empire-building. They will have concern with turf wars and Hayden's appointment, but Rumsfeld won't be the problem they wish to resolve.

Minnesota CD-6: Bachman Jumps To Commanding Lead

King Banaian and Andy Aplikowski report from the GOP convention in the Sixth Congressional District that Michele Bachmann has received 56% of the first-round ballots, coming close to the 60% needed for endorsement. Phil Krinkie, who had been considered a front-runner, only mustered 12% on the first vote and no one else got above 18%.

The convention is about to hold its next vote, but one has to presume that the impulse for unity will push Bachmann over the top. She will likely face off against Patty Wetterling in November in the race to replace Mark Kennedy, who gave up his seat to run for the Senate.

Stay tuned.

UPDATE 2:52 CT: Michele Bachmann won on the third ballot.

Northern Alliance Radio Today

The Northern Alliance Radio Network is already on the air, speaking with Ramesh Ponnuru regarding his book Party of Death with Brian and Chad from Fraters Libertas and John from Power Line. Mitch Berg and I will take over at 1 pm CT, discussing the Porter Goss resignation, Patrick Kennedy, the sentencing of Zacarias Moussaoui, Stephen Colbert, the emergency-spending bill that the Senate larded up with pork, and perhaps we can even squeeze in the Catholic review of its condom policy in the age of AIDS. We're also going to look at local issues, specifically the GOP convention in CD6 from which King Banaian will provide live reports, and the expansion of the sales-tax increase for the stadium project.

Listen to us on AM 1280 The Patriot, and join the conversation at 651-289-4488!

France Creaks Towards Collapse

The French government, already on the ropes after the riots earlier this year, has suffered another blow to its credibility and now has the nation talking about its collapse. Dominique de Villepin may have to resign his position as Prime Minister in reaction to voter anger over an elite political class that has little contact with the electorate:

A burgeoning political scandal of alleged dirty tricks involving the cabinet's two top ministers has tainted the entire French government, pushing it to the brink of paralysis and collapse in the final year of President Jacques Chirac's administration, according to government officials and political analysts.

Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin faces daily calls for his resignation. Flanked by somber-faced ministers, he told reporters at a packed news conference Thursday that the corruption investigation would "not deter me one second from my mission."

What's known as the Clearstream scandal centers on whether Villepin secretly ordered a criminal investigation to damage the reputation of Interior Ministry Nicolas Sarkozy, Villepin's party colleague and rival for the presidency. Villepin on Thursday denied ordering the probe, calling allegations that he did "lies, slander and attacks."

The investigation is the latest blow to a government already weakened by riots last fall in immigrant-populated suburbs of Paris and around the country and crippling student demonstrations and workers' strikes this spring.

"The situation is extremely volatile," said Renaud Dehousse, director of the Center for European Studies at the Institute of Political Sciences in Paris. "The government has lost any credibility whatsoever."

It goes beyond credibility, especially with De Villepin. The PM ordered the new youth employment contract that led to the student strikes and caused France to almost shut down a few weeks ago. Earlier, De Villepin's lack of movement on minority employment created some of the force behind the immigrant demonstrations, protests which quickly escalated into riots and terrorist attacks by the burgeoning number of Islamists in France. On both occasions, the French looked towards the PM's political opponent, Nicolas Sarkozy, as the solution to the mess that De Villepin could not resolve.

Whether De Villepin did or did not order the discredited probe has become a secondary issue. The French have tired of enduring non-responsive governments, and the PM is the poster boy for the ivory-tower elite they despise. De Villepin has never won elective office, and yet he occupies one of the most powerful political positions in France. He has become the symbol of an out-of-touch administration, and even some in his own party wants him to resign.

Part of the problem is that the French people want more of what ails them in the first place. De Villepin tried to present an actual solution for youth unemployment by reducing the risk for businesses to take a chance on hiring them. Predictably, the very people who would benefit from this reduced risk screamed that they wanted lifetime sinecures with no conditions rather than jobs with expectations for performance. Being French, they protested until the government agreed to continue its interference in the employer-employee relationship, guaranteeing that businesses will avoid hiring the people who want no accountability for the quality of their work.

However, De Villepin has proven himself an unreliable and double-dealing politician. Coming on the heels of his infamous welching on the agreement he had with Colin Powell, it would surprise no one if the PM deliberately spread fabrications about his rival's financial and political dealings in order to save himself from defeat. Certainly no one would miss De Villepin once he leaves public office, and many would be glad to see him suffer the kind of scandal that would keep him from the French presidency.

These days, however, the French have become more and more irrelevant. Thanks to their participation in the Oil-For-Food scandal, the US and UK do not trust them on foreign policy any longer, and their own people don't trust them to maintain order and the economy. Their nanny state is headed for collapse now that they have cut off the flow of cheap labor from North Africa and the Middle East. Only their nuclear arsenal and their veto on the Security Council gives them any global relevance at all any more, and the former becomes more of a worry as their economically depressed and socially isolated Muslim population continues to grow.

In the end, the Washington Post is correct: no one will recall who smeared whom. If we acre enough to remember anything, it will be that the French slowly strangled themselves into insignificance, both economically and politically.

Captain's Caption Contest: Intelligence Edition

With all of the kerfuffle over the resignation of Porter Goss and the possible selection of General Michael Hayden as his successor, it gives us an opportunity to revisit an old CQ tradition -- the caption contest! Here we see Hayden conferring with his boss, DNI John Negroponte, oblivious to the suspicious pitcher of water sitting between them:

What do you imagine is going on in this conversation? Leave your best caption in the comments section, which will remain open until The Sopranos airs on Sunday evening. As always, make sure you put your entries in our comments section -- NO e-mailed entries, please! E-mailed entries will be intercepted by the NSA and delivered to black helicopters in your neighborhoods awaiting Karl Rove's next command.

Let the games begin!

We Found The Oil Conspiracy!

Ever since prices began spiking at the gas pumps last year, people have demanded an investigation into why the costs of filling one's tank has skyrocketed. Conspiracy theories have abounded, especially in the blogosphere, complete with energy executives deliberately overbidding for crude oil and artificially holding down refinery capacity. Now, however, the New York Times has found the conspiracy in Washington DC, where they meet every day under a big dome and plot to run our lives and spend our money:

Nine months after Congress passed major energy legislation, one provision affecting gasoline formulas is helping to drive the price of gas up much faster than the rising price of crude oil.

And because the new gasoline recipe contains less energy, mileage per gallon is declining.

On Friday, the 270th day after President Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the law ended the requirement that gasoline sold in areas prone to air pollution include an "oxygenate," or a molecule including hydrogen, carbon and oxygen. A result is that refiners over most of the country's big gasoline markets, anticipating the rule, have already dropped the chemical MTBE. ...

To replace it, refiners have turned in part to ethanol, which is also an oxygenate but not a pollution worry.

Ethanol, which is made from corn, costs more than gasoline, though, and shipping it from the Midwest, where it is made, is cumbersome and expensive, because it has to go by barge, railroad tank car or tanker truck, rather than pipeline.

MTBE has been an environmental problem for years, and many groups have lobbied to get it out of gasoline formulations in the states which required it as well as at the federal level. The change enacted by Congress and signed by Bush allows them to finally rid themselves of a litigation nightmare. In fact, it all but requires them to do so, because the one defense they have against class-action lawsuits in the future will be the government requirement to use the additive.

This creates a problem for consumers, however, because MTBE is both cheaper and more efficient than ethanol. The usefulness of any energy product relates to the amount of energy released from it. Ethanol releases only two-thirds of the energy released by MTBE, which means that the formulations at the gas pump release less energy for car engines. The emissions may be cleaner, but the engine must burn more fuel to achieve the same power output. That results in lower gas mileage and more frequent refills.

Now we have a commodity that already has production issues after Hurricane Katrina, leading to higher spot prices for the refined product. Gasoline is a commodity in its own right, a fact not well known by the public. We import refined gasoline as well as crude for our own refineries. With demand increasing for the same level of usage, that pushes commodity prices higher. Thanks to the higher cost of ethanol over MTBE, the cost of gasoline increases even further, and because it takes more effort and energy to transport ethanol, the increased reliance on it impacts the supply even more and drives up the cost even further.

The best part of the story is that oxygenates aren't even necessary in modern automobiles. Gas providers used it in anticipation of a continuing federal requirement for oxygenates, but that has now ended. Oxygenates only improve emissions on cars with the more inefficient carburetors rather than fuel-injection systems and oxygen sensors. The cars handle the process automatically, without additives or federal oversight. Unfortunately, no one knew that the administration would eliminate oxygenation requirements altogether, and individual state formulations may still require it.

As usual, if someone wants to find a conspiracy on why markets don't behave rationally, one need look no further than Congress and the federal bureaucracy to find the dastardly plot.

Be Careful What You Wish For

My friend John Hinderaker at Power Line feels that a confirmation-hearing spectacle for General Michael Hayden to succeed Porter Goss as CIA director would provide a boon for Republicans. He relishes the thought of Democrats attacking Hayden on the NSA surveillance program:

To all of this I say: great! Hardly anything would give the Republican faithful a bigger boost than the spectacle of Senate Democrats attacking an Air Force general for trying to protect America against terrorism. Please, Democrats, please don't deny us this opportunity. And could we possibly schedule the hearing closer to November?

I hope he's correct, if Hayden actually gets the nod. However, given the nature of Goss' departure and the hostility the NSA program has created among members of both parties in Congress, I suspect that any Hayden hearing will rapidly become a debacle. All one has to do is to review the committee that will likely conduct the hearings to see where the problem lies: Russ Feingold.

Feingold got a lot of press and developed quite a bit of support earlier this year when he proposed a censure on George Bush for his approval of the NSA terrorist surveillance program. That effort has stalled, mostly because his fellow Democrats don't want to tip their hand about their intentions for the next session of Congress if they can wrest control of the House from the GOP. Many of them want to initiate impeachment hearings, but the leadership wants to keep it quiet in order to avoid energizing the Republican base in November.

When given an opportunity to hold nationally-televised hearings with the architect of this program, however, Feingold will not miss the opportunity to dig up every bit of information he can find that will help his cause. Feingold, along with Carl Levin and perhaps Ron Wyden, will force the hearing to serve as a declassified briefing on the NSA program, hammering on Hayden to reveal as much about the surveillance as he can. Feingold and his allies will transform themselves into a cross-examination board, interrogating a suspect in what they see as a criminal conspiracy. It will go on for days, and any inconsistencies will not only get trumpeted by Feingold but magnified by the waiting press, who will cover this spectacle with relish.

Can Hayden stand up to this? Of course, but Hayden isn't the target. John talks about attacking an Air Force general with decades of service to his country, but Hayden won't be the target at all. Feingold and his allies will target George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice -- especially Rice, as she could possibly be on the Republican ticket in 2008. Hayden will merely provide the conduit and the excuse to start the Democrats on their campaign for impeachment.

Feingold knows that he has little chance to win the Democratic nomination as things stand now. That's why these hearings will give Feingold a golden opportunity to make himself the Democratic standardbearer and the champion of more than just the fringe Left that supports him at the moment. And given the hostility that Congress has already shown towards this program, all Feingold will need to accomplish is to find any kind of inconsistency or questionable assertion regarding the program and its achievements to quickly get support among his peers.

This nomination could start a snowball effect that the Bush administration may find difficult to stop. If Hayden is their choice, they'd better be sure of their Congressional support before the hearings begin, because the gloves will really come off in those chambers -- and Feingold will be going for the knockout punch he needs for 2008.

UPDATE: Time Magazine has this quote:

President George W. Bush stunned Washington on Friday by accepting the resignation of CIA Director Porter J. Goss, and Republican sources told TIME that the White House plans to name his replacement on Monday: Air Force General Michael V. Hayden, who as Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence has been a visible and aggressive defender of the administration's controversial eavesdropping program. His nomination is sure to reignite the battle over the program on Capitol Hill, where one House Democrat promises "a partisan food fight" during the confirmation process.

Though Hayden, who has a close rapport with Vice President Cheney, has not been formally offered the job, he is the leading candidate and the announcement is planned for Monday at the White House, the sources said. The President frequently extends a formal offer immediately before an announcement, to cut down on leaks and allow for last-minute developments.

I think the "food fight" will be forthcoming within minutes of an announcement naming Hayden as Goss' replacement. I do find the last paragraph puzzling, especially since the substance of what Bush wants to avoid exposing has already been leaked to Time and CNN. It looks like Bush wants to take the weekend to gauge opinion on the Hill regarding Hayden, and will offer it to him on Monday if the trial balloon does not get shot down. That's an interesting strategy, but it indicates that the White House is concerned with the political meltdown that may occur with Hayden's nomination. It will be interesting to see whether the Democrats go ballistic this weekend, and whether that produces a different appointment on Monday.

Hayden May Have Helped Goss Out The Door

According to news reports over the past day, it appears that Porter Goss got helped out the door rather than leaving on his own accord. According to CNN, General Michael Hayden will get the nod to replace Goss, but an article in the Los Angeles Times this morning says that Hayden and his boss, John Negroponte, had a critical role in creating the opening in the first place. Doyle McManus and Peter Spiegel report that Goss fell victim to efforts by Negroponte and Hayden to win a turf battle over the component intelligence agencies of the National Intelligence directorate:

After a little more than a year in his newly created job, John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, has won an initial battle to establish authority over the vast U.S. intelligence community — Porter J. Goss, who resisted Negroponte's moves to limit the autonomy of the CIA, is gone. ...

When Negroponte took office in April 2005, the veteran diplomat moved quickly to exert his authority over the CIA. He took over the job of giving President Bush his daily intelligence briefing, a task that once allowed CIA directors to bond with the presidents they served. He took a central role in briefing Congress on intelligence issues. He transferred some CIA officers to new joint intelligence centers. And when it appeared that Goss was not fully on board, officials said, Negroponte and his deputy, Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden, quietly complained to the White House — apparently contributing to Goss' decision to resign Friday.

Hayden and Negroponte apparently did not want an independent agency reporting their own analysis and using their own people. Instead, Negroponte has stripped the agency of its best staff to join his ever-increasing bureaucracy at the directorate while marginalizing Goss by denying him access to the president. In some ways, this may not be a bad development; after all, one of the main problems in the intel community pre-9/11 was all the bureaucratic barriers between agencies, even those strictly in the civilian sector. If Negroponte wants to create a single agency with one management structure and realign the operational and intelligence units into one organization, that will solve those problems if properly done.

The problem thus far is the growth of the bureaucracy under Negroponte. These may consist of analysts, but creating these positions eats up resources that may be best used in the field. We warned about this aspect of the 9/11 Commission's demand to create the DNI and his directorate, and Congress has watched Negroponte's empire-building with alarm. And according to the LA Times, Negroponte hasn't even begun empire building, as his ambitions have led him into a power struggle with Donald Rumsfeld:

But Negroponte faces a larger and much more difficult challenge: a struggle with Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's Department of Defense, which runs more than 80% of the nation's intelligence budget and is busy expanding its role even further. ...

Already, the Pentagon's intelligence budget dwarfs that of the CIA. Although the budgets remain classified, the CIA is believed to get about $5 billion annually, less than the National Security Agency, which gets $6 billion to $8 billion a year. The Defense Department's National Reconnaissance Office, the operator of military satellites, also gets $6 billion to $8 billion a year.

Other Pentagon agencies have sizable budgets — the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the department's mapping office, has a budget of about $3 billion, and the Defense Intelligence Agency gets $1 billion to $3 billion annually. The individual military services, which all have their own intelligence-gathering operations, also have large budgets.

Negroponte declined to speak about these issues in the wake of Goss' resignation Friday. But in a speech last month, he said — in an implicit criticism of at least some of the intelligence agencies he supervises — that his basic goal is to "optimize the [intelligence] community's total performance as opposed to optimizing its members' individual operations."

"We are in the process of remaking a loose confederation into a unified enterprise," Negroponte added.

His key weapon, he said, would be control over the intelligence budget, which he called "a powerful integrating force." By controlling which agencies and which programs are funded, he said, he can nudge the separate agencies toward greater collaboration.

Negroponte understands the Golden Rule: whoever controls the gold makes the rules. If he succeeds in gaining control over the entire budget, he will effectively control all intelligence for the United States, military and civilian. Again, such an approach has its advantages in efficiency, responsiveness, and coordination. However, it has disadvantages as well, not the least of which is the necessity for an overwhelming management structure and the probability that intelligence biases could threaten all of our operations. Competition does allow for alternate analyses and keeps the intel community from developing tunnel vision.

Negroponte and Hayden have worked for the past year on this consolidation project. It appears that Porter Goss either did not share their vision or their strategy and got pushed out. That won't send the CIA into mourning, but it might signal Rumsfeld that Negroponte wants to step up the struggle another notch. Selecting Hayden gives an indication that Bush may decide to embrace Negroponte's vision for a unified intelligence service and a bureaucracy that supercedes that of the Pentagon on intelligence matters.

That sets Hayden up as a very big target for any confirmation hearings. He already carries the baggage of the NSA surveillance program, which some members in Congress want to use to impeach Bush. Now they can also grill Hayden on Negroponte's collection of power and influence, and those who support the Pentagon will openly challenge the notion of taking oversight of military intelligence away from military command. None of this bodes well for Hayden's confirmation, although none of it has to do with Hayden's excellent qualifications for the position.

We'll see on Monday, of course, who the President has selected. If he has chosen Hayden, then he will have made a brave and bold move. Hayden's appointment would send a message that Bush is more concerned with hiring the most qualified person for the job rather than covering his own butt in the confirmation hearings. Whether that is the right move, considering all of the power-struggle issues with Negroponte, remains to be seen.

Who Comes After Goss?

While many still wonder what prompted the resignation of Porter Goss from his position as CIA Director, others have already started looking ahead to his eventual replacement. Goss has offered to remain in place while George Bush selects his successor, but the process will likely take place over the weekend. Sources within the White House have already warned the press to be ready for an announcement as early as Monday.

The AP reports late this evening that the search will likely narrow to a handful of possibilities: Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden; Frances Fragos Townsend; David Shedd, Negroponte's chief of staff; and Mary Margaret Graham, Negroponte's deputy for intelligence collection. The common thread among four of the five are that they work for the current Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte. Only Townsend works outside of Negroponte's control, an interesting dynamic and one which may impact Congressional hearings down the road. The Washington Post's Dafna Linzner and Walter Pincus report in tomorrow's edition that Hayden and Mary Margaret Graham are under consideration, but Townsend did not make the short list at the White House:

White House officials said the president could nominate Goss's successor as early as Monday. Homeland security adviser Frances Fragos Townsend, who had long been rumored as a potential candidate, is not in the running, administration officials said.

Pincus has had some bad information out of the CIA before, so it's probably too early to write off Townsend just yet. In fact, this group of candidates has a number of issues that Bush will need to carefully vet before making his decision. He needs a qualified candidate that can get enough bipartisan support to get through Congress without turning the confirmation hearings into a dry run for impeachment proceedings.

General Michael Hayden

Normally, this would be the easy choice. Hayden has served with distinction in the Air Force, spending a good part of the last 35 years working in the intelligence field. He served as the NSA director under both Clinton and Bush, and now works as Negroponte's deputy. Hayden has credibility with members of both parties and the press. He knows the civilian and military intelligence communities better than any of the others on the short list and could hit the ground running for Bush at Langley.

If he's such a slam dunk, then why not just stop here? For one good reason: Hayden created and ran the NSA surveillance program that intercepts international communications without FISA warrants. Putting Hayden in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee for a confirmation hearing would be akin to waving a red flag in front of a bull. Democrats would jump at the chance to rip Hayden alive during nationally-televised hearings in a way that would make the Alito hearings look like a prayer breakfast. The worst-kept secret for the Democrats heading into this election is that they want to capture control of Congress in order to press impeachment proceedings against Bush. A Hayden confirmation hearing will become a fishing expedition for any tidbits they can discover for their later efforts.

Hayden will probably have to sit this one out. Had Goss lasted until after the elections, which appears to have been the original plan, Hayden could have easily been nominated. No wonder Bush looked unhappy today.

Mary Margaret Graham

Graham currently serves Negroponte as the DDNI for Collection. She has 27 years of experience in the field, and had last been at the CIA as the ADDO for Counterintelligence. That kind of experience would come in handy during an asymmetrical war on terrorist organizations, and her understanding of the CIA's needs to fight such a war effectively makes her an attractive candidate. Also, she would be the first woman appointed as CIA director, and Bush likes bold, historical appointments.

Graham, however, has two strikes against her. First, Negroponte selected her as one of his key staffers, and right now the intelligence committees have poor relations with Negroponte. They are likely to prefer a DCI with a good deal of independence from Negroponte. More importantly, Graham slipped last November and revealed the amount budgeted for national intelligence for 2005. Blowing classified information does not enhance one's career, and the SSCI will not be kind to her, let alone the full Senate.

David Shedd

If Congress feels leery about Graham, they'll positively shudder at Shedd. Placing Negroponte's chief lieutenant in Langley will clinch the DNI's domination over the main intelligence agency. Bush might like that, but given the hostility towards the DNI from the intel committees, Congress would not share that enthusiasm. Besides, Shedd may wind up answering a lot of questions about Valerie Plame, risking more hostile debates during the confirmation that this administration hardly needs at the moment. I'm pretty sure this is a pass.

Frances Townsend

Townsend shouldn't make the short list -- and according to Linzner and Pincus, she didn't -- but in some ways she presents less of an issue than any of the other candidates. I reposted Dafydd's excellent analysis of her handiwork in building the wall between intel and law-enforcement that created the conditions for 9/11. Townsend may well bring a fresh attitude into the role of DCI, but the track record remains very disconcerting. Her enthusiasm for the bad habits that left us unable to connect the dots before 9/11 represents everything this administration has tried to solve ever since about the intelligence community.

Yet, Townsend clearly has Bush's confidence. He promoted her to the key position of Homeland Security Advisor in the middle of his re-election campaign. Her work in the Clinton Department of Justice and her close association with Janet Reno would likely give her a clean sail from Democrats in the Senate. She has no apparent exposure on the NSA intercept program or the overseas detentions and renditions of captured terrorists. Like Graham, she could provide a historic appointment, giving even better reason for the Senate to bury the hatchet (and the ice pick, and the butcher knife, and ...) for the confirmation hearings.

While I think Hayden makes the best candidate by far among this group, I still think that Townsend or Graham will get the position. Goss just didn't last long enough to allow Hayden to step into the job.

UPDATE: The possibility exists for a dark horse to win the job. The Anchoress thinks Rudy Giuliani might make an interesting candidate. I don't think Giuliani would take it, not in the current configuration where he would have to report to Negroponte, and I don't think Giuliani has enough experience in intelligence to have the necessary credibility. He'd do great at the hearings, however.

Goss Abruptly Quits, Leaves Questions Behind

After only twenty months on the job, Porter Goss has resigned as head of the CIA, which at one time he considered the pinnacle of his career. What would make this longtime Congressional representative and one-time agency operative suddenly leave in the middle of revamping the intelligence agency? No one who's talking knows, and no one who knows is talking:

CIA Director Porter J. Goss said today that he is "stepping aside" after less than two years on the job, ending a tumultuous tenure at an agency shaken by recent intelligence failures, internal turmoil and a massive reorganization that reduced its leadership role in the U.S. intelligence community.

In an appearance with Goss at the White House, President Bush announced that the director "offered his resignation" this morning and that "I've accepted it." Neither the president nor Goss, who sat to Bush's right as he made the announcement in the Oval Office, gave a reason for the resignation.

In a written statement issued separately by the CIA, Goss said, "This morning, I notified the president that I will be stepping aside as director of CIA." He said he would remain at the agency "over the next few weeks" to "ensure a smooth and professional transition."

The statement did not mention the word "resignation." Nor did it give any explanation for Goss's action. There have been reports of tension between the CIA director and veteran diplomat John D. Negroponte, who was named last year to the new position of director of national intelligence, vaulting over the CIA chief as the nation's top intelligence official.

Part of the problem comes from the 9/11 Commission's disastrous retooling of the intelligence community. When Goss resigned from Congress to take the position, the CIA had direct access to the President and served as his chief intelligence advisor. Only afterwards did Bush agree to accept the recommendation of the commission in creating the Directorate of National Intelligence, a bureaucratic superstructure that effectively demoted Goss to John Negroponte's staff.

Six weeks ago, the Los Angeles Times confirmed the damage that this reorganization has done to American intel capabilities, as we noted on March 31. Negroponte as DNI allowed the new bureaucracy to grow into a 700-employee behemoth, robbing its subsidiary agencies of its talent and further frustrating agency heads such as Goss. The new CIA chief essentially got demoted to a position that no longer exercised the kind of authority that Goss needed to make the changes required of the agency. Under these circumstances, it isn't difficult to see why Goss would want out -- assuming he did.

Of course, people will have plenty of theories about Goss' departure, most of them ill-informed but entertaining; Hot Air has links to some. Already people have attempted to tie Goss to the exploits of Randy "Duke" Cunningham and the call-girl entertainment provided by his limo service. Could it be true? It's possible, although it's very hard to imagine someone missing that at the CIA during the vetting process. On the other hand, it's equally possible that the deadwood Goss attempted to clear out of Langley might be leaking as much mud as possible as a warning to the next poor sap who gets this job. Until we know from a reliable source why Goss chose now to depart, it's all speculation.

That brings us to the real headache Goss' departure causes: replacing him. Whoever Bush appoints will have to get confirmed by Congress, even though the position by law can no longer report directly to the President. That will provide yet another national forum for the conspiracy theorists regarding the NSA terrorist surveillance program, CIA detention centers, torture chambers, and so on. The candidate will have to have next to no involvement in any of these issues to get clear sailing. For that reason, we can forget about General Michael Hayden, although he would otherwise make a great candidate for the job.

I would expect the new appointee to have three qualities, given the political climate and the track record at CIA of late. First, expect an outsider, as anyone associated with the agency will carry too much baggage. With Bush's track record of appointments, I suspect that he will choose someone already close to him, and committed to serious reform. Third, the appointee will be a lower-level bureaucrat, not a 'star' in the political firmament -- in other words, a person comfortable with the notion of a DCI being nothing more than a senior staffer.

Who fits that bill? Frances Townsend, Bush's Homeland Security Advisor since 2004. She has experience in military intelligence with the Coast Guard, but mostly she has served closely with Bush and presumably has built a rapport with him already. She has served in both the Clinton and Bush administrations on intelligence matters, giving her some valuable bipartisan credentials. She will have the added cachet of being the first woman appointed to head the CIA, a status that will make caustic confirmation hearings somewhat less likely.

The White House has promised an announcement for Goss' replacement by Monday. That can only mean that they have selected someone already close at hand, and someone inclined to accept it. That makes it much more likely that the candidate comes from Bush's circle of advisors, and Townsend makes the most sense among those. We will know then whether that analysis is correct; we may never know the entire story of why Goss made the analysis necessary with his abrupt resignation.

UPDATE: MaidMarion searched the CQ archives and discovers why we all feel more than a little trepidation with Frances Townsend. Dafydd ab Hugh wrote in a guest post (pre-Big Lizards) about Townsend's role in the pre-9/11 "wall" that made it all but impossible for intelligence agents to share information with law enforcement:

Acting Counsel for Intelligence Schroeder left in 1998, and was replaced by the soon-to-be controversial Frances Fargo Townsend. Townsend -- a Republican and former deputy to Rudolph Giuliani in the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York City, but a very close friend of Attorney General Janet Reno nevertheless -- was elevated to that position at Reno's request; since Townsend was also the protege of then FBI Director Louis Freeh (another recipient of Gorelick's memo), she was a shoe-in for the job heading OIPR.

U.S. News and World Report profiled Townsend last December. Although they did not discuss Able Danger, they did report on the feeling among nearly all of Townsend's critics that she was too enamored of that wall of separation, and that she was just as conservative in applying for wiretapping and surveillance warrants from the FISA court as Schroeder and Scruggs had been.

Townsend found herself in the middle of that debate over how much of a "wall" should exist between intelligence-gatherers and prosecutors, and her tenure at OIPR remains controversial today. Many FBI agents say Townsend was crucial in obtaining FISA wiretaps, especially during the period of heightened terrorism concerns around the new millennium. But many prosecutors felt that Townsend was less than helpful in making sure the FBI shared wiretap data with lawyers at Main Justice when there was evidence of criminal activity. Townsend believed that the FISA court and its chief judge at the time, Royce Lamberth, would refuse to approve search warrants and wiretaps if they believed too much information sharing was going on and if prosecutors were controlling or directing the intelligence-gathering efforts....

Both the Government Accountability Office and the 9/11 commission have blamed OIPR in part for the government's intelligence failures before the terrorist attacks. Sources say that OIPR's narrow interpretation of FISA led to misunderstandings and overly cautious behavior by the FBI. As a result, in July and August of 2001, FBI intelligence analysts prohibited their own criminal-case agents from searching for two men on the government's terrorist watch list who they knew had entered the United States. The men later proved to be two of the 19 hijackers.

In fact, under Townsend, the control by OIPR of all connections between intelligence and law enforcement became nearly absolute through what can only be called political extortion:

The 9/11 commission said OIPR had become the "sole gatekeeper" of FISA intelligence by arguing that "its position reflected the concerns" of Judge Lamberth. "The office threatened that if it could not regulate the flow of information to criminal prosecutors, it would no longer present the FBI's warrant requests to the FISA court," the report said. "The information flow withered."

And of course, less than three years into Townsend's tenure, the Pentagon's Able Danger team requested permission from the Department of Defense's general counsel to share with the FBI intelligence information about an al-Qaeda cell in Brooklyn, a cell that included Mohammed Atta and three other soon-to-be 9/11 hijackers. Again, there is no absolute proof that the DoD lawyers contacted the OIPR; but that would be the regular source they would use to get Justice Department advice on the legality of such sharing. And assuming they did, the decision would ultimately fall to Frances Fargo Townsend: she would have to make the call.

Her personal history, as well as that of her office under two previous general counsels, and of the entire Justice Department under Janet Reno, makes perfectly clear that Townsend's natural inclination under such circumstances would be to "just say no." Indeed, by that time, the DoD lawyers (possibly still operating under Jamie Gorelick's own tenure as general counsel for the Defense Department and her later memo at Justice) might not even have bothered asking, since they already knew what the answer would be.

Townsend would not be my choice for the CIA position. I would much prefer General Hayden, or even a reliable DDI or DDO, if one exists. I'm predicting what I believe will happen, not what I would recommend. Given the timing and the political land mines, Townsend gives Bush the best opportunity for a fast and relatively painless replacement process.

Party Or Principle?

Earlier today I posted on the declining job-approval ratings for President Bush and Congress, slippage that Ipsos attributes to dissatisfaction among the GOP base. Fox News has a poll showing a five-point rebound in the last three weeks, but it still has Bush below 40% and a solid majority disapproving of his performance. It comes as no surprise to traditional Reagan or Goldwater conservatives that the key GOP base has become so restive, and I pointed out a few of the reasons why dissatisfaction runs so high for both the administration and Congress.

More than a few of the disillusioned have insisted that they will not support GOP candidates this fall. They propose to either vote for third-party candidates or to stay home and vote with their silence. These sound like good solutions, but in a binary political system – which is what we have, whether we approve or not – either action results in a net gain for the opposition and therefore translates to passive support for Democrats.

If the opposition has worthy candidates, this could still prove a good strategy, but at least nationally, the Democrats offer no support for conservative principles at all. They still support big-government solutions, especially for economic issues, and will raise taxes in the guise of canceling the Bush tax cuts. Some Democrats have promised to start impeachment proceedings if they capture the House in November, raising the ante for conservatives who may not care much for Bush but are unwilling to play enablers for Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers.

So what are conservatives to do? Interestingly, John Aravosis asks a similar question to his readers regarding the Democratic Party:

Some friends on the Hill recently asked me if the liberal blogs could lay off their attacks on Democratic members of Congress until after the election. The idea being that we need to keep promoting a public image of Dems good/Republicans bad, and that any criticism of Dems hurts our image and only helps detract attention from the Republicans' increasing number of failings.

It's an interesting question. Is it time to sit back and shut up and hold our tongue? … Should the liberal blogs, and the Democrats grassroots more generally, cut back on their criticism of the party until after the November elections? Or is there a role for criticism in making the party better and helping the election at the same time?

This delves into the question of priorities for conservatives. Does it make sense to tone down their frustration with GOP leadership (especially on spending and immigration) in order to retain at least some influence on the legislative process? Even more basic, does criticism and threats of Election-Day boycotts hurt the GOP or force it to improve? Even if it hurts, does it make a difference in the long run?

I would argue that it does hurt, it does make a difference – but now is not the time to stand down and offer unqualified support. We need to keep pressing our agenda, calling out our own leadership, especially on spending and immigration issues. Conservatives should look for worthy alternative candidates for primaries in order to get better representation of our agenda. Politicians who scornfully dismiss constituents for their concern over pork-barrel projects (Trent Lott), immigration policies, and First Amendment rights (John McCain), need credible opposition in their next elections to either mend their ways or be replaced by more responsive representatives. After all, the purpose of primary elections is to make sure the party’s overall values are reflected in our candidates. If we abdicate at that stage, we hardly have room to complain in the general election.

Once the primaries have concluded, conservatives should continue to press their agenda but need to be realistic about the choices given them. In a national sense, the parties offer very different agendas, and rational voters will have to choose between them. Abdication by voters on all ends of the spectrum only hurts the candidates closest to their own positions by robbing them of support. Conservatives need to remember that a walkout will likely return power in the House to Democrats, and the advantages of incumbency could make that stay in the wilderness lengthy.

The time will come for big-tent solidarity and practical calculations on the best way to promote conservative values in government. That time, however, has not yet arrived, especially while critical issues remain in play for this Congress and administration.

Delivering A Message To Russia

Dick Cheney gave a speech yesterday that included pointed references to Russia, a nation that the administration once hailed as a key strategic partner but now acknowledges as a potential problem for the US. Cheney made clear that the US would no longer gloss over actions by Russian president Vladimir Putin to nationalize industries and suppress dissent, especially since Russia has proven itself obstructionist in addressing Iranian nuclear proliferation and corrupt in its previous dealings with Saddam Hussein:

Vice President Dick Cheney today delivered the Bush administration's strongest rebuke of Russia to date, saying the Russian government "unfairly and improperly restricted" people's rights and suggesting that it sought to use the country's vast oil and gas resources as "tools of intimidation or blackmail."

"In many areas of civil society — from religion and the news media, to advocacy groups and political parties — the government has unfairly and improperly restricted the rights of her people," Mr. Cheney said in a speech before European leaders in Lithuania's capital, Vilnius. "Other actions by the Russian government have been counterproductive, and could begin to affect relations with other countries."

Mr. Cheney's remarks, which officials in Washington said had been heavily vetted and therefore reflected the administration's current thinking on Russia, appeared to lay down new markers for a relationship that has become strained and could become significantly more so in the months ahead. The remarks came amid an international confrontation over Iran's nuclear programs, where the United States has tried to enlist Russia's help in pressuring or punishing Tehran. Mr. Cheney's criticisms would seem to complicate those efforts, but they could also reflect a growing impatience with Russia's unwillingness to back stronger measures against the Iranians, like sanctions. Mr. Cheney did not mention Iran in his speech.

Mr. Cheney's remarks also previewed what is shaping up as a tense meeting between Mr. Bush and President Vladimir V. Putin as part of the gathering of the Group of Eight leading industrial democracies in St. Petersburg in July. Some in Washington, notably Senator John McCain, have called on Mr. Bush to boycott the meeting as a signal of displeasure with Mr. Putin's anti-democratic course, though Mr. Cheney did not address that matter on Thursday.

McCain has it more right than the administration in this case. Russia stopped being a diplomatic ally when its Iraqi envoys gave Saddam Hussein military intelligence during Operation Iraqi Freedom, let alone the deep Russian participation in the UN Oil-For-Food corruption. The G-8 meeting in Russia will strengthen Putin's poltical standing in Russia, a development which may have been in our interest six years ago but clearly today is not.

Russia has earned our mistrust in other ways as well. They have continued their partnership with China to protect the nuclear ambitions of Iran. Just as with Saddam Hussein, the lack of Russian resolve in stopping the Iranian nuclear project almost guarantees a more muscular response to Teheran's provocations. Just as with Iraq in 2002-3, if the Russians and Chinese united with the West to impose economic sanctions on Iran, the mullahcracy would have to fold. Instead, Russia actively works against the interests of the US and the West.

Belarus provides another sticking point. The Russians continue to prop up Alexander Lukashenko, the last of the Stalinist strongment in the former Soviet republics. (Turkmenistan dictator Saparmyrat Niyazov may also qualify, but he's more strange than Stalinist.) Russian support has allowed Lukashenko to imprison his political opponents and stage elections so egregiously corrupt that only Moscow recognizes them as legitimate. For a nation that expresses shock at Cheney's demand for increasing democratization, they seem to get over their bruised egos when it comes to Europe's last dictator.

The US has to get tough on Russia, and Cheney's speech is a step in the right direction. If Putin wants to continue to thwart US foreign policy and nuclear non-proliferation, then we need to demonstrate consequences for those actions. Bush should take McCain's advice and make other plans for travel in July than St. Petersburg, and he should convince his fellow G-8 members to join him.

A Flash Of The Obvious

The AP reports that the major reason for George Bush's erosion in the polls has been a loss of support among conservatives instead of the center. The poll reveals that conservatives help drive the "wrong direction" number in the political polls:

Angry conservatives are driving the approval ratings of President Bush and the GOP-led Congress to dismal new lows, according to an AP-Ipsos poll that underscores why Republicans fear an Election Day massacre.

Six months out, the intensity of opposition to Bush and Congress has risen sharply, along with the percentage of Americans who believe the nation is on the wrong track. ...

• Just 33 percent of the public approves of Bush's job performance, the lowest of his presidency. That compares with 36 percent approval in early April. Forty-five percent of self-described conservatives now disapprove of the president.

• Just one-fourth of the public approves of the job Congress is doing, a new low in AP-Ipsos polling and down 5 percentage points since last month. A whopping 65 percent of conservatives disapprove of Congress.

• A majority of Americans say they want Democrats rather than Republicans to control Congress (51 percent to 34 percent). That's the largest gap recorded by AP-Ipsos since Bush took office. Even 31 percent of conservatives want Republicans out of power.

• The souring of the nation's mood has accelerated the past three months, with the percentage of people describing the nation on the wrong track rising 12 points to a new high of 73 percent. Six of 10 conservatives say America is headed in the wrong direction.

This underscores the reality of Bush's administration and its loose affiliation with conservative values. It's a recurring theme that has worsened since the 2004 election. Bush has, until very recently, done nothing to rein in spending. In fact, he has expanded government profligacy in almost every department and by almost every measure. Instead of limiting federal reach into education, a continuous conservative hot-button, Bush expanded it dramatically with the No Child Left Behind program and an immediate 57% increase in spending, and 137% overall for his entire term. He convinced conservatives to support it on the promise of finally getting school voucher programs implemented, then double-crossed them when the bill stalled in Congress.

That has been the pattern with Bush, and conservatives have tired of it. Conservatives bided their time and waited patiently for the federal court nominations that prompted so many of them to turn out in both 2000 and 2004. When two openings appeared at the Supreme Court, the conservatives had their opportunity to get their vindication for supporting a big-spending Republican. When Bush named a long-time crony with questionable credentials instead of a solid, well-known conservative, the conservatives rebelled -- and they have not stopped yet.

In Congress, much the same dynamic has occurred. Conservatives brought the numbers which allowed the GOP to take control of the House in 1994, and have provided the necessary support for their continued dominance. Unfortunately, the principles which garnered conservative enthusiasm has been abandoned by the GOP. The Republican-controlled Congress has gone on pork orgies, drastically increased federal spending (up 23% after inflation outside of defense, homeland security, and Katrina spending), and provided little leadership for key conservative positions on immigration and judicial appointments.

Under these conditions, trying to convince conservatives to continue their enthusiasm for Republican candidates is somewhat insulting. The only major conservative domestic policy passed by the GOP during the past few years have been the tax cuts, which didn't even get cut on a permanent basis despite their obvious importance to the economic recovery. The Bush administration and the GOP-controlled Congress look more like a satire of everything the conservatives oppose -- and the only reason why they haven't bolted the party is that the alternative looks even worse.

That's a recipe for apathy, not for enthusiasm, and that's why the GOP appears to be in so much trouble at the moment. The only issue that would mobilize the conservative base now would be a Democratic attempt at impeachment, and it may be that the Democrats might be foolish enough to make that a campaign issue. That's a mighty thin reed for Republican hopes for November. If they want the conservatives to support them in the numbers they need, Congress and the Bush administration had better start promoting conservative values on the budget and immigration.

Danish Resolve Stiffens Over Cartoon Threats

Denmark responded yesterday to the many attempts at intimidation directed at their country since the publication of the editorial cartoons portraying Mohammed, announcing that they plan to maintain their deployment in Iraq to defy the terrorists:

Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said yesterday that the furor over cartoons of the prophet Muhammad had "strengthened our resolve for the long haul" and that Danish troops would remain in Iraq.

In an interview with The Washington Times in his Copenhagen office, Mr. Rasmussen brushed off a Danish television report of plans to cut Denmark's 530-man deployment in Iraq by nearly one-fifth in July.

"It is clearly our intention to stay in Iraq as long as we are requested by the Iraqi government, as long as our presence is based on a U.N. mandate, and as long as we believe we can make a positive difference on the ground," the center-right Danish leader said. Mr. Rasmussen and his conservative coalition, which includes the Danish People's Party, faced heavy criticism for their initial response to global Muslim riots in February, which were prompted by the publication four months earlier of editorial cartoons of the prophet Muhammad.

But the most recent polls show that conservative parties have benefited from the controversy.

"This cartoon affair will not change our basic policies. On the contrary, it has only strengthened our resolve to assist countries that are in the midst of very difficult social transformations," Mr. Rasmussen said yesterday.

In fact, while much of Europe has struggled to maintain support for the Iraq project, the Danes have shown remarkable resolve. Conservatives have made gains according to most political polls, and the calls from the left to abandon the mission in Iraq appear out of step with the nation as a whole. The threats against Denmark and the cartoonists have created a backlash against Islamists terrorists, and Danish pride will not allow them to win a moral victory by intimidating them.

It's a lesson that many nations could learn. In the wake of even more reports of European nations paying ransom for kidnapped hostages, the Islamofascist modus operandi should be clear. They plan on making Islam dominant through extortion. That has been the entire strategy from the inception of the movement thirty years ago, and arguably for centuries before that. Islamist terrorists want to change Western culture through the threat of violence -- and by and large, they have been successful so far.

Let's recap. First, they have adopted explicit extortion in the form of kidnapping in order to get Western governments to pay tribute to their cause. At least Italy and Germany have done so, giving them millions of dollars in financing. Next, they have fomented riots in order to intimidate the West into ceasing depictions of Mohammed for political criticisms, specifically in editorial cartoons. They may not have succeeded with the Danes, but they won in spectacular fashion in the US, where media outlets simply refused to show the drawings that formed the core of the dispute -- despite having no such compunction where Jesus or other religious imagery is concerned. (South Park demonstrated this brilliantly with Viacom, its own network.) The Islamofascists staged attacks to drive the US out of Southwest Asia, and when that didn't go entirely as planned, they have staged attacks in Madrid and London to frighten our allies into withdrawal. They succeeded with Spain.

With apologies to the modern Danes, this is the Danegeld all over again. While the West continues to allow Islamofascists to succeed in their extortion, the extortion will continue and increase. This past month, Islamist terror groups succeeded in having two national flags dropped off a provocative advertisement for World Cup entertainment (actually, for the legal brothel industry in Germany) through threats of physical force and murder. Why? They know they can succeed in doing so, and will continue to pursue this successful strategy.

The Danes show that they understand the concept of Danegeld all too well, and refuse to pay it. They may suffer for their resolve. They certainly will while the rest of the West continues to validate the extortion strategy of Islamists.

UPDATE: That goes for the US, too, as CQ reader Lexhamfox notes in the comments. This story dates back to March 2002:

The U.S. government facilitated a ransom payment to Al Qaeda-linked terrorists in the Philippines last week for the release of an American couple but the two have not been freed, Fox News has learned.

The ransom of up to $3 million was paid to Abu Sayyaf guerrillas who have been holding two American missionaries, [Martin] Burnham and his wife, Gracia, for the last 10 months. The ransom was paid with private, not government, money, sources said. ...

News that the government facilitated the ransom payment comes just one month after State Department officials announced a change in longstanding U.S. policy of not paying ransoms to kidnappers. At the time, officials said the new policy reflected the possibility such payments could be used to help track down the hostage takers.

I can understand the theory of using the cash to trace the kidnappers -- but did it work in practice? No. After reneging on the deal after payment was made, the hostages died in a rescue attempt by the Philippine Army.

CFR Explains Basic Oil Economics

The Council on Foreign Relations has released a short primer on oil economics to its website. After our conference call with ExxonMobil's Ken Cohen yesterday, CQ readers had many questions about the data Cohen provided us. CFR, a think tank on foreign policy and economics that tends towards the center-left, may have more credibility on this topic for some readers than an oil-company executive. Lee Hudson Teslik explains the effects of global supply and demand:

How does global oil supply affect the price of American gasoline?

Given the extent to which the price of crude oil affects the price of gasoline, any fluctuation in the world's crude market can have a significant impact on the gasoline market. In 1960, many of the world's largest oil suppliers formed an organization through which they could coordinate production and ensure consistent supply, thereby providing stability in an otherwise very volatile market. This group, called the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), now oversees over half of the oil supplied in the world. By coordinating production and output, OPEC wields heavy influence over the market price of crude oil.

Critics have blamed the organization for "squeezing supply" by limiting the amount of oil that is drilled and refined, thus keeping crude prices high at the expense of the world's oil importers. But others have argued that the only way to compel oil suppliers to bolster their output is to allow crude prices to rise, thereby providing the incentive for increased production capacity. Leonardo Maugeri, an executive at the Italian energy company ENI, recently wrote in Foreign Affairs that this is already starting to happen: "As market forces have kicked in, high prices have already started to generate more investment, which will boost both production and refining capacity in the future. In other words, high oil prices are a painful but necessary cure for the disease that has affected the oil market for about twenty years."

It is important to add that other factors, some out of OPEC's control, have also affected supply. These include political instability in major oil-producing nations, particularly Iraq, Iran, and Nigeria; concerns of terrorist attacks on pipelines and production facilities; and even the weather. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, for example, caused a significant and painful price-spike in the United States. In this article, CFR's Senior Fellow in International Economics Roger Kubarych examines the market effects of oil shocks.

What about demand?

In addition to restricted supply, the world's oil market has experienced a recent spike in demand. This has raised the price of crude, and thus in turn the price of gasoline. The spike is a result of increases in demand in the United States, the world's foremost energy consumer, and of explosive growth in the oil needs of major developing nations. In 2004, China displaced Japan as the world's second largest oil importer. India and Brazil also have emerged as major oil consumers. These new markets have only exacerbated upward pressure on the price of crude. China's energy needs, and its efforts to explore new oil markets, particularly in Africa, are examined in this CFR Background Q&A.

The oil market really isn't that complex. Anyone with a basic education in economics and a few minutes to conduct research can garner an understanding of commodities markets and the mechanisms that influence price. Some people prefer to assume big conspiracies rather than make an effort to learn the facts, it appears.

Tapscott: Both Parties Pick Porkers For Conference Committee

Mark Tapscott notes in two posts that both Republicans and Democrats named chronic pork supporters to the conference committee reconciling the emergency spending legislation from both chambers of Congress:

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER, THE CHAIR APPOINTS THE FOLLOWING AS CONFEREES ON THE PART OF THE SENATE.

THE CLERK: SENATORS COCHRAN, STEVENS, SPECTER, DOMENICI, BOND, McCONNELL, BURNS, SHELBY, GREGG, BENNETT, CRAIG, HUTCHISON, DeWINE, BROWNBACK, ALLARD, BYRD, INOUYE, LEAHY, HARKIN, MIKULSKI, REID, KOHL, MURRAY, DORGAN, FEINSTEIN, DURBIN, JOHNSON, AND LANDRIEU.

Mark calls this a Porkers Hall of Fame, and then provides the data to back it up. It turns out that this group has individually voted to retain pork almost three times as often as they have voted for its elimination. Denny Hastert has declared the Senate version a dead letter in the House, balking at the $17 billion in increased spending it delivers, but he may wind up having no choice but to compromise on some of that pork. Be sure to read all of his posts from today.

Why Zarqawi Is In Management

Well, this video has to be the funniest development in the war on terror -- not that there have been a lot of events competing for that honor. Al-Qaeda leader and terrorist mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi apparently cannot master the weapons he brandishes for chilling effect on his video statements:

The U.S. military command Thursday released previously unseen images of a video purportedly posted by Al Qaeda in Iraq's leader, showing him decked out in American tennis shoes and unable to operate his machine gun. ...

The video, discovered in a series of raids in April on purported Al Qaeda in Iraq safe houses in the Youssifiyah area, 12 miles southwest of Baghdad, gave a view of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi that the Jordanian-born militant chose not to show the world, said Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, spokesman for the U.S. command.

Al-Zarqawi is "very proud of the fact that he can operate this machine gun, and he proclaims that, and all of his close associates are very proud of what Zarqawi does," Lynch said in a briefing in which he played a snippet from the video posted by militants on April 25.

But as the previously unseen video was shown, Lynch mocked al-Zarqawi, suggesting his weapon jammed and he was unable to fix it.

"It's supposed to be automatic fire, he's shooting single shots. Something is wrong with his machine gun, he looks down, can't figure out, calls his friend to come unblock the stoppage and get the weapon firing again," Lynch said.

"This piece you all see as he walks away, he's wearing his black uniform and his New Balance tennis shoes as he moves to this white pickup. And, his close associates around him ... do things like grab the hot barrel of the machine gun and burn themselves," the military spokesman added.

First Zacarias Moussaoui gets exposed as a dysfunctional nutcase, and now Zarqawi and his lieutenants show themselves inept around weapons. It's not a great week for al-Qaeda outreach in the ummah.

The Strange Case Of Patrick Kennedy

Word got out today that Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) crashed his car in the wee hours this morning. Despite suspicions on the part of the responding officer that Kennedy was intoxicated, other officers drove him home without ever conducting a field sobriety test or a Breathalyzer, causing an eruption of criticism about law enforcement in the capital:

Rep. Patrick Kennedy crashed his car near the Capitol early Thursday, and a police official said he appeared intoxicated. Kennedy said he had had no alcohol before the accident. ...

Kennedy appeared to be intoxicated when he crashed his car into a barrier on Capitol Hill early Thursday morning, said Louis P. Cannon, president of the Washington chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police.

Cannon, who was not there, said the officers involved in the accident were instructed by an official "above the rank of patrolman" to take Kennedy home.

No sobriety tests were conducted at the scene.

A letter written by a Capitol Police officer to Acting Chief Christopher McGaffin said Kennedy appeared to be staggering when he left the vehicle after the crash about 3 a.m. The letter was first reported by Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper.

Kennedy said he was late for a vote, officer Greg Baird said in the letter to McGaffin.

That would have to be one late vote!

This calls into question a number of issues about law enforcement in the nation's capital. Just a few weeks ago, we hailed the Capitol Police when it pursued assault charges against Cynthia McKinney. Now it appears that McKinney may have had a point when she presumed that DC police would give her special treatment due to her position. They certainly appear to have done so with Kennedy, at least above the patrol level. So far no one has taken responsibility for giving the order to skip the routine investigatory practice of checking for alcohol influence when a driver has a single-car accident in the middle of the night -- especially when one of the officers insists that the Congressman appeared intoxicated.

Some will make inevitable comparisons to Rep. Kennedy's uncle and Chappaquiddick. This is not quite the same issue, as Patrick Kennedy did not run from the scene of the accident -- and no one died, although that came from sheer luck. It may not reflect on Rep. Kennedy at all, if he did nothing to initiate the favorable treatment, but may have more to do with an entrenched culture in DC which treats politicians significantly better than they treat the public in general. Questions need to be answered, but by the police department more than the Kennedys.

Michelle Malkin has a report that Kennedy had another accident just three weeks ago, this time in Portsmouth, RI, this one on a Saturday at 10:09 am. It's difficult to imagine alcohol being a factor in that accident, but the report indicates very reckless driving and Kennedy's handwriting looks very strange indeed. Perhaps the Kennedys should hire Patrick a driver for a while, for his safety and that of the public.

UPDATE: Fixed title to read 'Patrick', not Robert. Thanks to Mr. Buddwing in the comments.

France Wants Moussaoui Back

The French have apparently not let the ink dry on the jury submission from yesterday's sentencing recommendation in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial before starting to interfere with its implementation. Le Monde reports today that French officials have contacted the US in hopes of transferring Moussaoui to France in order to serve his sentence (h/t: CQ reader Leo T):

Un éventuel transfèrement de Zacarias Moussaoui en France, contre qui un jury américain a requis la prison à perpétuité, pourrait être examiné dans le cadre de conventions judiciaires avec les Etats-Unis, a affirmé jeudi le ministère des Affaires étrangères français.

"La France et les Etats-Unis d'Amérique sont liés par deux conventions sur le transfèrement des personnes condamnées, une convention bilatérale du 25 janvier 1983 et une convention du Conseil de l'Europe entrée en vigueur le 1er juillet 1985", a déclaré à la presse le porte-parole du Quai d'Orsay, Jean-Baptiste Mattéi.

My high-school French is rather poor these days (thank heaven for BabelFish!), but the gist of this report is that France wants to rely on two bilateral conventions to extradite Moussaoui when sentencing is complete. They wish to explore the transfer of the al-Qaeda terrorist to French custody to serve out his sentence, supposedly under American law, but with an eye towards their own brand of justice. The conventions mentioned in the article date to 1983 and 1985, and give specific processes for the transfer of French citizens convicted in American courts, as well as the reverse.

The French show the minimum respect for American sensibilities by announcing they will wait until after the formal sentencing today to request this extradition. Moussaoui's mother has publicly pressed the Chirac government to allow the erstwhile terrorist to serve his sentence nearby, and to do so as soon as possible.

This is a small taste of what would have occurred if the jury had given Moussaoui the death penalty. The French government would have given this much more visibility even today had that occurred, and it would have continued for years until we executed the supposedly mentally ill terrorist. As it is, if the French want to confirm American opinion of their nation, then they should by all means pursue this diplomatic effort. It will give us plenty of opportunity to remind the Chirac government of its lack of fidelity in its pledge to support us if we went back to the Security Council just once more on Iraq. We can also talk about all of the bilateral efforts between Paris and Baghdad that undermined the sanctions regime, sent military arms to Saddam Hussein, and paid bribes and kickbacks to the Ba'athist regime that Oil-For-Food specifically sought to sideline.

If the French get their hands on Moussaoui, we will only wake up a few years later to French pronouncements of miracle cures and rehabilitation, and watch the video of the AQ terrorist gleefully leaving the French prison over the protests of the American government. We do not wish to rely on French tenacity in the war on terror; we learned that lesson a long time ago. Let the French try to invoke whatever treaties they want to request Moussaoui's extradition, and let them stomp their feet when we tell them to pound sand.

Taliban Man Ups The Ante

The admission of former Taliban ambassador-at-large Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi into a non-degree program at Yale has caused an eruption of anger at the storied Ivy League institution. Despite catcalls from the press and alumni, Yale has refused to reconsider its supposedly prestigious "get" in light of his service to a brutally oppressive regime. Now Hashemi has escalated the stakes for Yale and its detractors by applying for admission into a degree program, creating another tripwire for further controversy:

A student at Yale University who was once a roving ambassador for the Taliban regime in Afghanistan has applied for admission to a degree-granting program, putting new pressure on university officials in an emotionally charged political debate over his presence at Yale.

The student, Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, 27, began taking courses at Yale last summer in a nondegree program for untraditional students. After an article about his experience appeared in The New York Times Magazine on Feb. 26, Yale was fiercely criticized in opinion articles in The Wall Street Journal and in other newspapers and magazines, as well as on cable news shows and Web sites.

Four alumni began a blog, Nail Yale, that questioned why someone they described as "an apologist for a brutal, misogynistic, terrorist-abetting tyranny" was being allowed to attend one of the country's most selective universities. And some families of victims of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and of American servicemen and women in Afghanistan accused the university of harboring a representative of a regime that had committed myriad crimes and repeatedly violated human rights. ...

Now Yale faces the question of whether to admit Mr. Hashemi on a more formal basis to a program that leads to an undergraduate degree. Yale's president, Richard C. Levin, declined a request for an interview and has generally not spoken publicly about Mr. Hashemi. He did tell The Yale Daily News, the student newspaper, that the admissions office would decide whether to allow Mr. Hashemi to pursue a Yale degree.

This cannot have come as great news to the executive offices at Yale. They had tried to weather the storm their admissions office created when it granted Hashemi access to courses, trying to stand on the principle of academic freedom and the encouragement of an open market of ideas. This came as quite a shock to the ROTC, which has struggled for decades to get the access to Yale's campus that the admissions office blithely gave this mouthpiece for Islamofascism and oppression.

As an aside, the reason Yale doesn't allow the ROTC back on campus is because of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of the US military towards gays and lesbians. Perhaps Yale can explain this policy in light of the admission of Hashemi, who represented a government that routinely executed homosexuals.

The Yale admissions office now has a clear choice, and can no longer hide behind the facade of Hashemi's non-degree status. If they grant Hashemi access to the full range of Yale student privileges, they will send an unmistakable signal that celebrity matters more to Yale than principle, political correctness more than academics, and terrorists more than our own military. This is not an issue of tolerance, a laughable supposition on a campus that makes military service as inconvenient as possible while celebrating the "diversity" of admitting a key member of one of the most intolerant governments in the past fifty years. It's an issue of values -- and whether Yale actually has any at all.

Did The Germans Pay Ransom To Terrorists?

First the Italians paid millions to get its hostages out of Iraq, and now Germany appears to have done the same, despite professing strong support for refusing to negotiate with terrorists. The Guardian (UK) and Der Spiegel both report that the German government paid "a large amount of money" for the recent release of two Germans held hostage by terrorists:

Two German hostages kidnapped in Iraq arrived home yesterday as Iraq's ambassador to Germany claimed a "load of money" had been paid to secure their release.

Alaa al-Hashimi, said the German government had handed over a "large amount" to the kidnappers of René Bräunlich and Thomas Nitzschke, who were freed on Tuesday after 99 days in captivity. "Regarding the payment of ransom, I don't know. But I assume it was a large amount of money," the ambassador told Germany's ARD public television station. The Iraqi government had no part in the release, he said. ...

The engineers, from Leipzig in east Germany, were seized on January 24 outside their workplace, an Iraqi-owned detergent factory in the industrial town of Baiji, 110 miles north of Baghdad. German officials swiftly established that their captors were not holding them for political reasons. Instead they wanted to make money, diplomats said.

Asked yesterday whether Germany had paid a ransom, the foreign minister, Franz-Walter Steinmeier, said: "We will of course say nothing about the concrete details regarding their release." He thanked the US, Britain, France and "other partners in the region" for helping to get the men out after three months in "inhuman conditions".

If the intent is to stop kidnappings for ransom, then paying ransom is the one policy guaranteed to fail. As long as the Europeans insist on forking out the Danegeld, the kidnappers will continue to insist on it. If that policy only put Europeans at risk, it would be bad enough, but the kidnappers will hardly be that discriminating when it comes to foreigners working in their country. With the economic incentives supplied by the Europeans, the criminals will capture anyone and simply kill those who come from non-paying countries.

Our allies are not helping the situation. If they can't bring themselves to help -- as in the case of the Germans -- we'd appreciate it if they'd quit actively making the situation worse.

Immigration Activists Lose African-Americans

The backlash against the immigration demonstrations continues as the strident language of activists has provoked some anger from the African-American community, which sees few parallels between their struggle as American citizens and the demands of illegal aliens for amnesty from prosecution and deportation. The New York Times reports that a broad swath of the Democratic Party's most important demographic component has grown increasingly hostile towards an amnesty on the basis of civil rights:

In their demonstrations across the country, some Hispanic immigrants have compared the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s struggle to their own, singing "We Shall Overcome" and declaring a new civil rights movement to win citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants.

Civil rights stalwarts like the Rev. Jesse Jackson; Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia; Julian Bond and the Rev. Joseph E. Lowery have hailed the recent protests as the natural progression of their movement in the 1960's.

But despite some sympathy for the nation's illegal immigrants, many black professionals, academics and blue-collar workers feel increasingly uneasy as they watch Hispanics flex their political muscle while assuming the mantle of a seminal black struggle for justice.

Some blacks bristle at the comparison between the civil rights movement and the immigrant demonstrations, pointing out that black protesters in the 1960's were American citizens and had endured centuries of enslavement, rapes, lynchings and discrimination before they started marching.

Others worry about the plight of low-skilled black workers, who sometimes compete with immigrants for entry-level jobs.

And some fear the unfinished business of the civil rights movement will fall to the wayside as America turns its attention to a newly energized Hispanic minority with growing political and economic clout.

The problem revolves around the entire notion of civil rights and the confusion with natural rights. Natural rights come from human existence and need no authority to grant them. Natural rights include freedom of speech, of thought, and of religious expression, and occupy the primary position in the Bill of Rights as an acknowledgement of their status and not as a government grant. Civil rights, on the other hand, arise from one's status as a citizen or resident alien of the country and are government grants. Civil rights include the vote, the right to due process under the law, access to government services such as education and health care, and so on. Whether illegal aliens now have access to some, all, or none of these comes from government decisions regarding access and not some inherent qualification for these benefits.

Immigration activists do not understand the civil rights struggle in this basic sense, but African-Americans do. Despite their status as American citizens, with lineage in this nation exceeding the immigrant waves that followed the Civil War, the government denied them equal participation in civil rights, as well as some natural rights, such as free speech and assembly. They did not march to become citizens or achieve normalization of their residency status -- they marched to force the government to treat them as the citizens they were and are.

This disconnect rightly irritates blacks who watch and listen to advocates for illegal aliens attempt to assume the mantle of Martin Luther King. Had he lived to this day, Rev. King may have advocated for illegal immigrants, but that wasn't his mission during his life. He lived and died to get the government to acknowledge that African-Americans were indeed full citizens entitled to the same rights and privileges as American citizens of any other descent. Wrapping themselves in King's legacy is an arrogancy on the part of illegal aliens that hasn't escaped notice by blacks.

The advocacy of leaders such as Jesse Jackson, John Lewis, Julian Bond, and Joseph Lowery will not dissuade their constituency from comprehending the essential differences between the two movements. It will also not fool them into overlooking the economic impact on African-Americans that illegal immigration has. Unemployment among blacks runs high enough that they see unfettered immigration as a serious economic threat -- and while that may be somewhat overblown now, if Congress and this administration adopt an amnesty program, the resultant flood of illegals will definitely impact economic opportunities for blue-collar black workers. The Times quotes a Pew Hispanic Center poll that shows twice as many blacks as whites report losing a potential job to an illegal immigrant -- an experience that does not tend to bolster any sense of comeraderie.

Jackson and his peers run a big risk in continuing their support for illegal immigration activism. Their constituency will increasingly question this policy as the protestors continue to usurp the real civil-rights struggle to justify amnesty of illegal aliens, and as they do, they will increasingly question whether this tired leadership truly represents their interests first, or the interests of the Democratic Party.

Cohen: Colbert "A Bully"

The debate over the performance of Stephen Colbert has already lasted long past its expiration date, but Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen's shares his reaction to the performance. The reliably liberal Cohen correctly identifies Colbert for what he was at the White House Correspondents Dinner:

... Colbert was not just a failure as a comedian but rude. Rude is not the same as brash. It is not the same as brassy. It is not the same as gutsy or thinking outside the box. Rudeness means taking advantage of the other person's sense of decorum or tradition or civility that keeps that other person from striking back or, worse, rising in a huff and leaving. The other night, that person was George W. Bush.

Why are you wasting my time with Colbert, I hear you ask. Because he is representative of what too often passes for political courage, not to mention wit, in this country. His defenders -- and they are all over the blogosphere -- will tell you he spoke truth to power. This is a tired phrase, as we all know, but when it was fresh and meaningful it suggested repercussions, consequences -- maybe even death in some countries. When you spoke truth to power you took the distinct chance that power would smite you, toss you into a dungeon or -- if you're at work -- take away your office.

But in this country, anyone can insult the president of the United States. Colbert just did it, and he will not suffer any consequence at all. He knew that going in. He also knew that Bush would have to sit there and pretend to laugh at Colbert's lame and insulting jokes. Bush himself plays off his reputation as a dunce and his penchant for mangling English. Self-mockery can be funny. Mockery that is insulting is not. The sort of stuff that would get you punched in a bar can be said on a dais with impunity. This is why Colbert was more than rude. He was a bully.

Cohen gets this exactly right. Some in the blogosphere believe that Colbert gave George Bush the criticism he needed to hear, somehow thinking that this President has no awareness of the raging criticism that goes on every day. They believe that he took some kind of existential risk in delivering his clumsy performance in the same room as Bush, a notion as laughably ludricous as it is pretentious.

Skewering a man who cannot answer back does not take courage. Hijacking an event for one's own political purposes in order to embarrass its guest does not take courage. It's more than bad manners, as Cohen notes; it's more than bullying; it's posing.

Standing in front of a tank in Tianenman Square is speaking truth to power. Lech Walesa forming a workers party in Communist Poland to demonstrate the plight of the oppressed is speaking truth to power. The bravery of West Berliners in the opening days of the Cold War is speaking truth to power. Humiliating Joe McCarthy on national TV by scolding him for his indeceny is speaking truth to power. Equating these actions to Colbert's performance should embarrass those who make the argument.

Endorsing The Online Integrity Coalition

Captain's Quarters endorses the Online Integrity coalition:

The Online Integrity Statement of Principles is simple:

# Private persons are entitled to respect for their privacy regardless of their activities online. This includes respect for the non-public nature of their personal contact information, the inviolability of their homes, and the safety of their families. No information which might lead others to invade these spaces should be posted. The separateness of private persons’ professional lives should also be respected as much as is reasonable.

# Public figures are entitled to respect for the non-public nature of their personal, non-professional contact information, and their privacy with regard to their homes and families. No information which might lead others to invade these spaces should be posted.

# Persons seeking anonymity or pseudonymity online should have their wishes in this regard respected as much as is reasonable. Exceptions include cases of criminal, misleading, or intentionally disruptive behavior.

# Violations of these principles should be met with a lack of positive publicity and traffic.

This statement should guide all bloggers and guard the integrity of open forums for discussion. Already the list of endorsers includes bloggers from both the Left and the Right, and the OIC has taken pains to avoid unnecessary partisanship. I encourage everyone to check out the OIC's blogroll for its diversity.

Fox: One Toke Over The Line

Mexico's Vicente Fox surprised legislators by reversing his public stance and refusing to sign a bill that would have decriminalized drug possession for personal use. Without mentioning fierce American criticism and a warning from the US government about the effect on "drug tourism", Fox sent the bill back to the Mexican Congress with instructions to keep criminal penalties in:

Mexican President Vicente Fox refused to sign a drug decriminalization bill Wednesday, hours after U.S. officials warned the plan could encourage "drug tourism."

Fox sent the measure back to Congress for changes, but his office did not mention the U.S. criticism.

Fox will ask "Congress to make the needed corrections to make it absolutely clear in our country, the possession of drugs and their consumption are, and will continue to be, a criminal offense," according to a statement from the president's office.

On Tuesday, Fox's spokesman had called the bill "an advance" and pledged the president would sign it. But the measure, passed Friday by Congress, drew a storm of criticism because it eliminates criminal penalties possession of small amounts of heroin, methamphetamines and PCP, as well as marijuana and cocaine.

What really drove the controversy was the bill's timing. Just as immigration activists clamored for open borders and a wide-open southern frontier, the Mexican government announced its intent to allow unfettered drug use south of the Rio Grande. Some libertarians might not see this as a problem on either side of the river, and Mexico can pass laws that suit the Mexicans. However, with Vicente Fox pushing for liberal immigration policies in El Norte and Bush trying to sell normalization to an angry conservative base, the last thing the White House needs is an Amsterdam on the Rio Grande.

It doesn't just concern immigration, either. Americans travel to Mexico to take advantage of liberal attitudes on drinking, and it doesn't take much imagination to predict what will happen if Mexico decriminalizes heroin and methamphetamine. Students and wealthy dilettantes will not even have the thin deterrent of Mexican law enforcement to keep them from developing a taste for drugs along with the tropical sun, and from carrying that taste into a habit once back home. It would also have complicated efforts at drug interdiction to some degree.

The Mexican legislators have pledged to retool the bill for better clarity; they claim supporters intended the word 'consumers' originally to apply to recognized drug addicts. However, that would have left the bill almost unenforceable in its present wording. Even with a rewrite, the political damage may have been done. This reminds Americans that the Mexican political culture remains quite different from the US, and that an open frontier in the Southwest has more than one potential danger.

Talking Business And Politics With ExxonMobil

I had the opportunity to take part in a conference call earlier this evening with several fine bloggers and Ken Cohen, Vice President of Public Affairs at ExxonMobil. As you might imagine, Mr. Cohen has a busy job these days fending off calls for federal investigations and explaining free-market economics to anyone who bothers to listen. The purpose of this conference call was to allow bloggers an opportunity to ask Big Oil questions about their issues and to get some perspective on the volatile energy market.

Cohen started off with a very short statement, preferring to move quickly to a Q&A rather than a prepared presentation. He spoke of the lack of education most consumers have about the nature of the energy markets and the effects that politics and global tensions have on pricing. Oil is a commodity, just the same as oranges, pork bellies, and a range of other products. When traders sense potential issues for future production, they buy more and drive prices up so that they can take advantage of better pricing now. The volatile nature of the major oil exporters -- only Norway is a stable democracy [er, so is Canada! see update II] -- creates a hair-trigger sensitivity for traders.

Cohen also acknowledged that the industry underestimated the growth curve in Asian economics. India and China have over two billion people between them, and both nations have begun massive modernization in their economies -- and that depends on ever-increasing demand for energy, especially oil. The supply has also increased in that time but not nearly at the same rate, driving prices ever upward.

It took a long time to get to this stage, and a lot of what drives prices flew under the radar during that period of time. With prices relatively low, public interest in market forces didn't exist, and the oil companies grew complacent in informing their consumers of these issues. When the inevitable crises hit over the past year, people did not have a good basis for understanding why prices suddenly and dramatically jumped. That explains part of the hysteria, but not all of it. Cohen noted in response to questions that his company earned 9.7% profit as share of revenue, a good performance but hardly spectacular. Even some newspapers do better than that.

In the extended section, I have included my notes from the Q&A. I may also add more from the presentation provided to us by Cohen as background for the conference. The information certainly gives a different perspective on the notion of a monolithic corporation with the power to bend the market to its will, and should provide enough information for research and debate in the days ahead. I look forward to your comments!

UPDATE: Other attendees: John Hawkins, Mary Katherine Ham, Flip Pidot, Lori Byrd, Rob Bluey, Pat Cleary, Kim Priestap, and Peyton Knight. And a big round of thanks to Amy Ridenour, who went way out of her way to get me included in the call.

UPDATE II: Lexhamfox reminds me that Canada also qualifies as a stable democracy -- d'oh! He also suggests Mexico, but the corrupt nature of the government and politics there could put "stable" into question.

Why did it take so long to get back to the offense, rather than being defensive?

Took us a number of years to get into this situation (high prices), not a good understanding of how we got here. When prices remained low, no one cared about the underlying market forces that eventually caused these. Opinion leaders literacy on energy is appallingly low. In the past, took more of a hygienic approach, now understand that they need to be proactive about education. They plan on being aggressive about it now.

Boycotts on oil companies to lower prices – how effective can this be?

One county judge has called for a boycott on one service station, a franchisee. Cost to the station is $1.70, after taxes ~ $2.25 per gallon or so. EM produces only 3% of the world’s crude, produces 2.5M bbls/day, buys another 3.5M bbls/day; they’re hostage to the commodities market. Boycott will do nothing for the price of gasoline, but it will hurt the 51 people employed by the franchisee.

Maria Cantwell’s ignorance; how do you deal with ignorant lawmakers?

Must start with finding easy comparisons with other commodities: oranges, wheat, pork bellies, etc. The market determines the price. Oil does not move on long term contracts any longer.

We know about supply & demand, but why the big price spikes in the span of a few weeks?

If I knew that, I’d be on a resort island relaxing. The spikes come from speculators in the commodities market. EM does not participate in speculation – they only buy real barrels at market price. Unanticipated for the past two years was the rapid pace of growth in Asia, and the energy needs for that growth did not get forecast. Political risk in exporting countries also plays into the psychology of the commodities traders. Gasoline also is a commodity (not just oil), which is why the prices at the station can change so quickly. The prices reflect the expected cost of the next shipment, not the current one.

How much do the boutique formulations play into pricing and supply problems?

Impacts flexibility; the smaller number of plants and the growth in formulation differences mean that refineries cannot make up capacity for another refinery when it goes off line. That also impacts the gasoline commodity market. Temporary waivers allow for much greater flexibility.

If ANWR were on line and producing, how much of an impact would that have on pricing?

We’d have to know the state of the rest of the world and the actual production level of ANWR; still need seismic assessments to prove the reserves. It’s an investment, one of many, and it would be very valuable if predictions are borne out.

Payout ratio is around 20%, so 80% goes to R&D and reinvestment. How much more could it be?

We could be looking at a surplus if we expand the refining capacity – we could be seeing a lot of gasoline. Building a new refinery is a Herculean effort. If everything goes perfectly, it takes 5-6 years before it comes on line. It won’t work on prices immediately. The approach they take is to expand existing capacity. It’s quicker and cheaper.

Current political rancor – similar to when we last enacted windfall profits taxes?

Yes, similar, although the situation is different. Then we had actual product runouts. This time, prices now send a signal for more expansion. Consumers and automakers are getting signals for increasing efficiency. It shows the beauty of the market approach.
Has EM exploring hydrogen and other fuels? EM had been the biggest investor in solar, but pulled out because the tech platform couldn’t deliver mass energy production. Can try to use current technology and expand it (wind, water, solar), or look for a new technology for development. They take the second approach. They partner with Toyota, Caterpillar, General Electric, and others on alternate energy projects.

Any advertising/PR campaigns planned?

Yes, looking at it as a good way to improve energy literacy.

What about Bush’s call for more hearings on energy prices? Frustrating from someone with energy literacy?

Have to get started on the literacy program. Oil is the most heavily regulated of the industries. Investigations on gas prices are a constant. We don’t gouge.

How many FTC employees work full time on gas prices?

Will supply. They have a division doing nothing but supervising gas prices.

The media has not covered the pricing effects of nationalized oil companies. Can you describe your strategy to get the media to focus on that part of the problem?

Starting to see more awareness of the psychology of the market in the media, will continue to pursue it. The real effect doesn’t hit the actual supply but the psychology.

Schumer’s call to break up the oil companies – reaction?

The majors now own fewer gas stations than earlier. They own less than 8% of the ExxonMobil gas stations in the US. It’s not a concentrated market. EM has 12% of the refinery capacity in the US and 8% global – not nearly enough to control pricing. The economics of the downstream: 85% of revenue went to buy crude oil, 12% went to keeping the doors open, and only 3% went to the bottom line. Right now margins are good. Profits as a share of revenue came to 9.7%, a middling performance in the Fortune 500 (#140).

Moussaoui Gets Life In Supermax

A jury declined to give Zacarias Moussaoui the death penalty for his refusal to tip federal officials about the 9/11 terrorist plot, even after they found him legally responsible for at least one death in connection to the attack. The jury unanimously chose the lesser sentence of life without the possibility of release in the only criminal trial resulting from the worst attack on American soil:

A federal jury decided today that Sept. 11, 2001, conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui should be sentenced to life in prison, rejecting government arguments that he should be executed for his role in the deadliest terrorist strike on American soil.

"America, you lost. I won!" Moussaoui yelled as he was escorted from the U.S. District courtroom in Alexandria after the verdict was read. He clapped his hands as he left. ...

U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema is scheduled to formally sentence Moussaoui at 10 a.m. Thursday and cannot deviate from the sentence recommended by the jury.

The readers of this blog know that I oppose the death penalty, but this case came close to being an exception for me. First, Moussaoui has never pretended that he had nothing to do with al-Qaeda, our enemy at war, and his presence in the US on a mission of sabotage qualifies him in my mind for a military tribunal for espionage and a firing squad if convicted. We chose to try him in criminal court instead, and we convicted him of everything that he wanted to acknowledge publicly anyway. In that sense, the trial only acted as confirmation and almost became irrelevant in comparison to the sentencing.

Moussaoui's outburst aside, he lost in this process. He never counted on capture and trial as part of his work for AQ; he either wanted to die as a martyr in an attack on America, or get away with an attack with his life and freedom intact. He did neither. His partners in AQ won a battle on 9/11, and to the extent that he didn't inform on them, he can claim a piece of that. Otherwise, his career as a terrorist gives a picture of nothing but failure and humiliation. Only Moussaoui managed to act stupidly enough to draw attention to his flight training, and only Moussaoui managed to get caught, out of twenty conspirators.

After being caught, Moussaoui did his best Richard Ramirez impersonation to get his martyr's death. He openly proclaimed his hatred of the US, tried to fire the lawyers who worked tirelessly to save his life, and practically dared the jury to give him a death sentence. Had he received it, he would have been transformed into a global cause celebre, the new poster boy for American cruelty for our use of capital punishment. His appeals would have garnered headlines for years, and human rights groups would have lit candles and held vigils for him. In a few years, the US would have put him to death, accompanied by worldwide protests and endless publicity -- all focused on this one sociopathic misfit who would have achieved his greatest victory through this mastery of manipulation.

Now, however, he faces a very long time in prison and the gradual oblivion he deserves. Forty years from now, Moussaoui will die in this supermax facility of old age, and newspapers will have to explain to half of their readership exactly who this man was. Human rights groups will have no interest in him, and while a few lunatic terrorists will salute him in the near term, they will quickly move their focus to other martyrs and more intelligent and dangerous leaders. Hollywood celebrities will not hold benefits for his defense. Publishers of childrens' books will not offer him book deals. Candles will not be lit for his benefit. He gets to live in a cage for decades, and die almost anonymously and unremarkably.

It's hard to argue with that sentence, in the long run.

UPDATE: Allahpundit rounds 'em up at Hot Air.

The West Does Not Need To Rescue Palestinians From Their Own Folly

An integral part of democracy and free elections is the responsibility one assumes for the government that results. If an electorate lifts idiots to power, then they need to experience the consequences of that choice, or otherwise they will keep electing idiots without regard to the results. Unfortunately, former Quartet envoy James Wolfensohn doesn't agree and insists that the West must bail out the Palestinians from the consequences of electing a terrorist group to govern them:

JAMES WOLFENSOHN, the international envoy to the Middle East, has resigned and issued a warning of the dangers ahead if the West cuts everything but humanitarian aid to the Palestinians.

Mr Wolfensohn, a former head of the World Bank, also cautioned that the UN, charities and humanitarian organisations will not be able to fill the gap if the Palestinian Authority collapses under financial pressure. Speaking in Washington after he ended his posting as envoy to the Quartet on the Middle East — the UN, the US, the EU and Russia — Mr Wolfensohn said: “It would surprise me if one could win by getting all the kids out of school or starving the Palestinians. And I don’t think anyone in the Quartet believes that to be the policy. I think that’s a losing gambit.”

Mr Wolfensohn stepped down on Sunday because of restrictions in dealing with the Islamic militant group Hamas, which dominates the Palestinian Government. He said that recent promises of aid from Arab states would provide only temporary relief to the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority, which has been unable to raise the $130 million (£71 million) a month it needs to pay 160,000 civil servants and keep services going.

He cautioned that if Israel continued to withhold authority tax revenues and maintain its restrictions on the movement of Palestinian trade and workers, by 2008 74 per cent of Palestinians would be living in poverty and 47 per cent would be unemployed. He echoed earlier warnings that fortifying NGOs could not replace the apparatus of the Palestinian Authority if it collapsed.

One has to question why Wolfensohn regards the PA as a structure worth keeping in the first place. Since its inception after the Oslo accords, it has primarily acted as a diplomatic cover for Yasser Arafat and a means in which to steal vast sums of foreign aid from the Palestinians. In one way, the election of Hamas had a rational basis -- Fatah had stolen so much that the Palestinians demanded someone else's hand on the cash. Unfortunately, since Hamas actively engaged in and supported terrorist attacks, no one in the West wants to give them money, and for good reason.

The tax revenues are a good example of this. Israel started paying these tax revenues as part of the Oslo accords, to which Fatah only paid lip service through two intifadas and numerous other breaches of the agreement. Israel only stopped paying this protection money when the duly elected Hamas government announced that it would no longer even pay lip service to Oslo. It refused to recognize Israel, a key provision, and refused to renounce violence, another key provision. It also applauded the recent suicide bombing n Tel Aviv which killed a number of people and injured scores more. The Palestinians made Oslo a dead letter -- so why should Israel continue the payments required under that agreement?

It's thinking like Wolfensohn's that extends the problem rather than solves it. He wants Israel and the West to continue to fund Palestinians despite their rejection of all agreements reached over the past fifteen years. If they can reject all agreements and treaties and not pay any price, why would they ever bother to honor one at all?

The Palestinians elected these people, and before that enthusiastically supported Arafat and his own band of somewhat more secular thugs. They support the abrogation of existing agreements and the use of terrorist tactics against civilian targets in Israel. Polls consistently show strong support for suicide bombing, and the elections proved that they would rather be led by terrorists than statesmen. Perhaps they felt free to make these choices, assuming that they would pay no price for them, thanks to well-intentioned but hopelessly paternalistic people like James Wolfensohn.

These are not children; they made their choice, one they have affirmed for years. It's time to allow the Palestinians to experience the true consequences of those choices. They have impoverished themselves, and the West has no obligation to rescue them from their self-made misery.

UPDATE: Fixed a typo. Also, I agree with David in the comments -- Wolfensohn has led a life of sacrifice and service and does not deserve to be demonized. He is, however, specatcularly wrong and a good example of where the liberal impulse goes off the rails in dealing with issues such as these.

Hizzoner Likes Eminent Domain

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a man who became a billionaire through the free-market trading of private property, has decided that he likes having the ability to confiscate it from other people now that he's in office. He escalated his campaign to stop Congress and the New York legislature from imposing stricter limits on the use of eminent doman after the dreadful Kelo decision last year:

Mayor Bloomberg is stepping up his campaign to prevent lawmakers in Albany and Washington from restricting the city's power to seize private property for redevelopment.

In recent weeks, Mr. Bloomberg has traveled to Washington to meet with members of Congress on the issue. He also convened a group of 100 Manhattan-based political donors for a lunch at which he handed out a wallet card of priorities, including "Eminent Domain - Oppose legislation that would cripple affordable housing and responsible re-development (like Times Square)."

Yesterday, he brought the campaign to an event in the Times Square neighborhood, which he argues couldn't have been cleaned up without eminent domain power - a portrayal challenged by some critics.

It's interesting that Bloomberg used the Times Square example. No one doubts the effect that the makeover had on the storied area, and on Mahattan as a whole. However, take a look at who now resides in that spot: corporations like Disney, Virgin, and so on. Why should government inject themselves into a transfer of property from one private owner to another -- and why should they be allowed to determine when the sale would take place?

If cities want to expedite the kind of transformation that Bloomberg desires, they have other means with which to achieve it. Cities can use tax incentives to revitalize an area and to convince both buyers and sellers to conclude deals in everyone's interests. Bloomberg can also use zoning regulations to prod less flexible owners into action. If the businesses in the area create crime and stagnation, as was the case for Times Square, get the city's elected officials to pass tighter legislation on how those businesses operate in order to either clean up the problem or convince the businesses to relocate.

The confiscatory power of government should only be used for truly public projects, not to turn over prime real estate to private parties who cannot convince the current owners to sell. If the government has the power to turn people out of their businesses and homes (remember, Kelo involved houses that had been around for over a hundred years) simply because the government deems the property to be insufficiently profitable under current ownership, then no one's home or business is safe from government seizure. Congress and the New York legislature have worked to ensure that rational limits exist to eminent domain, in response to the justifiable outrage over Kelo. It's unfortunate that Mayor Bloomberg has signed up as a confiscator rather than a defender of private property -- and given the nature of his fortune, it's not just unfortunate, it's hypocritical.

A Step Back For Porkbusters

The effort to put an end to earmarks -- the technical term for pork-barrel projects in the federal budget -- hit a snag yesterday when the US Senate voted to keep such unrelated projects out of emergency spending legislation on hurricane relief and the Iraq war effort. In a related development, Robert Byrd vehemently opposed a modified versions of the line-item veto that he supported during the Clinton administration:

The Senate voted Tuesday to protect home-state projects added by some of its most senior members to an Iraq war and hurricane relief funding bill as the tide turned against efforts by spending hawks to strip them out. ...

The price tag of the bill, therefore, has grown to more than $108 billion, despite Bush's promise to veto any measure that exceeds his request of $92.2 billion for the war and hurricane relief and another $2.3 billion to combat avian flu. ...

Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia led the Democratic assault on Bush's line-item veto idea, saying it would shift too much of Congress' cherished constitutional power of the purse to the executive branch and give the president a new club with which to threaten lawmakers. ...

"He could use this new leverage to squeeze members," Byrd said. "It is a weapon that the president could use to threaten and reward, and with the threat of that Damocles sword hanging over each member's head, he could expect to have his way on many issues."

Despite his vehemence Tuesday, Byrd supported the core idea when it was offered as a Democratic alternative to the tougher line-item veto law more than a decade ago.

The projects that got past Senate pork hawks like Tom Coburn were a $200 million bailout of Northrup Grumman for indemnifyng the defense contractor against losses that its insurers refuse to cover. Coburn faced stiff opposition from Trent Lott, the man who apparently wants to make a career out of defying voters on earmarks, and Thad Cochran. Both Republicans insisted that the government needed to replace the loss, even though Northrup made a 7.1% operating margin in 2005, up from 6.7% in 2004 and 5.6% in 2003. That represent $2.4 billion in profit, an increase from $2.3B in 2004 and $1.9B in 2003.

Why does a corporation that made $2.4 billion in profit need another $200 million from American taxpayers to cover a loss they've absorbed in that same year?

Rather than focus resources on the truly needy and on real emergencies, Lott and Cochran have manipulated the relief bill to stick money into Northrup's pockets. Perhaps folks from Lott's home state of Mississippi should ask themselves why Lott seems more concerned about the travails of a corporation that had its best year ever than those who had their entire lives wiped out by Katrina. No wonder Lott proclaimed himself "damned tired" of constituents who question his pork-barrel activities -- who'd want to keep explaining this?

The Pork Master also weighed in to protect his personal sinecures yesterday. Robert Byrd, who might be working on renaming his state Byrdsylvania to match the vast number of facilities named after him in West Virginia, warned against a line-item veto system that he supported under President Clinton. This system would not be a veto per se, but a requirement for any line item to which the executive objects to receive an individual up-or-down vote. It's weaker in that a simple majority can still pass the expenditure, but the potential exists for Congress to face thousands of such votes, given their proclivity for pork spending.

Byrd will have none of that. He needs to put his name on a few more bridges and museums before West Viriginians retire him, an event that could come quickly given his recent antics. He warned that presidents could use this power to hijack the projects of his political opponents -- a concern that somehow escaped Byrd when he supported this during a Democratic administration. It's just another hypocrisy from a man who had made a lifetime pursuit of it.

Until we get control of the spending process in Congress, politicians from both sides will exploit the power of taxation to ensure their re-election. Lott, Cochran, and Byrd all share the same addiction, and the American electorate continues to provide the fix through demands for increased federal power. Limiting government power is the only long-term solution to petty corruption and pork-barrel nonsense.

ADDENDUM: Congress has a rather narrow view of profit in a free-market society. When ExxonMobil makes 10.7% profit, they decry the "windfall profit" of a corporation. When Northrup Grumman makes 7.1%, they qualify for a bailout.

Illegal Immigrants Get Their Answer

The May Day protests by activists for illegal immigrants have resulted in an utterly predictable backlash, according to the Washington Post. Voters have sent bricks to their Congressional representatives as donations for a border barrier, and even those who considered themselves liberals want the government to start rounding up illegals and send them packing:

While a series of marches focused much of the nation's attention on the plight of illegal immigrants, scores of other Americans quietly seethed. Now, with the same full-throated cry expressed by those in the country illegally, they are shouting back.

Congressional leaders in Washington have gotten bricks in the mail from a group that advocates building a border fence, states in the West and South have drawn up tough anti-immigrant laws, and ordinary citizens, such as Janis McDonald of Pennsylvania, who considers herself a liberal, are not mincing words in expressing their displeasure.

"Send them back," McDonald said. "Build a damn wall and be done with it."

The anger invoked a word that immigrant organizers who opposed Monday's boycott feared: backlash. McDonald and other Americans were particularly disturbed by Monday's boycott and civil action, attended in large part by people who entered the country illegally and are now demanding rights enjoyed by U.S.-born citizens and immigrants who entered the country legally.

"How dare they," said McDonald, a research specialist for the University of Pittsburgh who said she voted for Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) in the 2004 presidential election. "If they are so active, why aren't they in Mexico City, why aren't they forcing their leaders there to deal with the quality of life? If you don't like it here, go home."

Why aren't they in Mexico City? Because the American government has turned a blind eye to its southern border, appeasing both the business community that wants to exploit cheap labor and the Mexican government that is only too happy to see young men go north rather than become political activists. The arrangement has emptied Mexico of its most ambitious workers, leaving behind an economic and political gap that enables corruption and stagnation. If the long-term solution to the immigration problem is the improvement of the Mexican economy, that solution will never come while its workers leave the nation by the hundreds of thousands.

Instead, they come here and get economically exploited by the business community, and then get exploited political activists with other axes to grind. International ANSWER, the prime mover behind yesterday's boycott, doesn't care for the illegals as much as they want shock troops for the revolution. Unfortunately for ANSWER, that agenda did not subtly work itself into the protests but instead erupted in Che Guevara t-shirts and demands for "one hemisphere". ANSWER tried to pass out enough American flags to cover its tracks, but the effort fell short -- and now Americans, both native-born and legally admitted, have become fed up with protests by its uninvited guests.

The real irony of this situation is that prior to the series of protests, with their demands and rejection of American sovereignty, the immigration hardliners did not have the momentum to get their program passed. President Bush had enough juice left to get a moderate reform program passed, one which granted earned citizenship and only superficially addressed border security. Now that the protestors have rammed their strident demands down the throats of Americans, the hardliners have won new support from a broadening group of voters. When they remained "in the shadows", they had a cachet of victimhood that lent sympathy to their plight. With them teaming up with the last and largest group of communist apologists and demanding that America stop enforcing its borders altogether, they no longer have the patina of waifs but as ungrateful and separatist activists.

In truth, the only solution to this problem has to blend approaches from both sides. Border security has to come first, if for no other reason than any reform program has to rely on enforcement to attract people to register rather than opt out. After the border gets secured, then we can negotiate the status of those still left.

We cannot possibly forcibly deport 12 million people, and they won't leave the US voluntarily unless we make America a worse place in which to live even without a job than Mexico ... and who among us would want to turn our country into that kind of misery? People aren't going to self-deport; even starving in the US beats starving in Mexico. Guest worker programs promise only to create a French solution where a permanent underclass exists with no hope of assimilation or equality. The only real option is normalization for those who have conducted themselves lawfully except for their entry, and a long path to citizenship marked by the payment of back taxes, fluency in English, and a fine for crossing our borders illegally.

Unfortunately, these demonstrations have made that almost impossible to achieve. We will get the border security of the House legislation, but will have to wait for passions to cool and immigration-activist leadership to get smarter before we can rationally discuss the remainder.

Tories Outpolling Separatists In Quebec

In a rather stunning political development, the Conservative Party has pulled ahead of Bloc Quebecois, according to a poll taken by La Presse. The reversal of years of decline in Tory fortunes comes as a shock to the separatists, who had almost reached majority support just a few months ago (via Newsbeat1):

The Conservatives are rapidly gaining support in Quebec and are now more popular than the province's separatist party, according to a new poll published on Tuesday.

The CROP poll for La Presse put the Conservatives at 34 percent in Quebec, up from the 25 percent the party won during the January 23 election. The separatist Bloc Quebecois, which a few months ago was flirting with 50 percent backing, dropped to 31 percent from 42 percent on January 23.

The Conservatives, led by Stephen Harper, unexpectedly took 10 of Quebec's 75 seats in the election, helping them win a fragile minority federal government and thereby ending 12 years of Liberal rule.

Four months ago, the Tories won a narrower mandate than initially predicted, and some analysts thought that Stephen Harper had taken the Conservatives to the limit of its support. The Liberals beat predictions of a meltdown in January and thought that a leadership change would invigorate the disgraced party and put a quick end to the Tory test drive.

Instead, Harper has surprised even his own supporters by building broad-based support for the Conservatives. He has expanded the party's reach into the urban power base of the Grits, making inroads with younger voters and minorities with his moderate approach to governing. Now in Quebec, Harper may have achieved his greatest achievement yet, displacing both BQ and the Liberals, roaring from a distant third in the restive province a year ago to the top of the polls. Once the dominant party in Quebec, the Liberals only poll a paltry 15%, less than half of the Tories or BQ.

These results almost guarantee a quick election in the near future. Canadians have discovered that the Liberal line on Harper and his supposedly "secret agenda" turned out to be nothing but an empty scare tactic by Paul Martin and others trying desperately to cling to power. They now reap the harvest of their dishonesty in this and many other issues, and if Harper gets his election, the Canadians may well turn their Tory test drive into a majority Conservative government.

101st Fighting Keyboarders: A Centcom Endorsement (Updated)

Sneakeasy's Joint joined the 101st Fighting Keyboarders and posted about his decision to join up -- which prompted a surprising e-mail from US Central Command:

Hi, Kiril:

I caught your post about the 101st Fighting Keyboardists. Good luck with the project! I’m not sure if you have been to the US Central Command website but we regularly post news, photos, audio and video from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. You (and your fellow bloggers) are welcome to use any materials you find on our site. If you’d like to receive the weekly electronic newsletter and monthly Coalition Bulletin, just ask.

If you could add a link to CENTCOM, it’d be appreciated (I’m trying to spread the word about our site!). I’ve attached the CENTCOM logo, should you want to use it with the link. Thanks!

SPC C. Flowers

CENTCOM Public Affairs

I have had some correspondence with SPC Flowers in the past, who handles relations with bloggers and other media. They have an RSS feed available at Centcom and regularly update it.

It's very gratifying to get this kind of validation for our effort, but I know from our correspondence that Centcom appreciates the support they receive from many people across the blogosphere. I wonder how many will refer to Centcom as chickenhawks?

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! I'm still way behind on the blogroll, but I'm working on it, I promise. For those who argue that Centcom didn't endorse this in an official way ... well, no kidding. It's hardly a form letter, either. Did anyone notice where SPC Flowers wrote, "I caught your post about the 101st Fighting Keyboardists. Good luck with the project"? That sounds to me like SPC Flowers appreciates this blogospheric effort to support the mission and the troops. He's certainly encouraging us to continue it.

The Intellectual Bankruptcy Of Some Bloggers

Mitch Berg wrote a provocative post yesterday on the enduring popularity of immaturity:

It's a good thing I have Cap'n Ed and King on the air with me on the NARN show. They are both very diligent in reminding me that when I slag on leftyblogs that there are exceptions to the rule; when I refer to leftybloggers who've been comedically outmaneuvered as "shrieking like a cagefull of poo-flinging monkeys", both were very conscientious about reminding me that there are exceptions. Josh Marshall, Matt Yglesias, Jeralynn Meritt, Flash - they tend to be able to separate the fever from the swamp. ...

Sponge seems to assume that anyone involved in the "101st" thinks the joke is in any way analogous to miltiary service. ("Yes, ladies and gentlemen, a midwest call center manager/blogger is comparing a hastily put-together jpeg and internet list with actual military recruitment.") Sponge? Is that really what Ed was doing? Because either Ed is stupid for saying such a thing, or you're taking target practice at little straw Charlies. I've met Ed, and he's no dummy, so I guess you should be sure to wear ear protection - to go along with the "logic" protection you must have worn while writing your little screed. I urge Mr. Sponge to take that up with Baldilocks, the Jarhead, the Sailor, and the other milbloggers and veterans who are laughing along with Ed; they might set him straight.

Of course, we have seen a lot of vitriol flung our way by the same people who usually do nothing but fling vitriol anyway. Yesterday we saw some goalpost-moving as the lefty bloggers attempted to equate "chickenhawk" with child molestation -- which again questions why they used it for anything else prior to the formation of the 101st FKs. It's a tactic born of desperation, as they see their favorite namecalling device defenestrated.

And namecalling is all these sites have. Writers like Glenn Greenwald, John Aravosis, Peter Beinart have actual argument on their side; they don't need to resort to name-calling to make themselves feel better. We may not agree with them, but we respect them and feel challenged by their arguments -- and they make us better at what we do with that challenge.

Others, however, simply make up slurs and silliness and pass it off as wit. One such example that I have seen recently is a perfect example of this. Some sites have now taken to referring to me as Special Ed. This supposedly sets them apart as intellectuals. I hate to burst their bubble, but anyone with the name Edward has heard this particular taunt about 1,000,000 times before he gets to middle school. (Guess what? I can also sing the entire theme song for "Mr. Ed", too. Just thought I'd save someone a little time.) Original, it's not ... and as an intellectual exercise, it puts you right up there with Nelson on "The Simpsons."

That's all they've got, these vapid and emotionally stunted people with computers and free time, on both sides of the political spectrum. They can't win with argument, so they use invective and silly schoolyard taunts instead. They fill their posts with obscenities and dance around with delight every time they come up with another taunt. It's the perfect example of why we formed the 101st Fighting Keyboardists and adopted the chicken hawk as our mascot. It reveals the intellectual bankruptcy of these very bloggers ... and provokes them into revealing it themselves.

Yours truly,

Mr. Special Captain Ed

Examiner Excoriates McCain

After John McCain made a statement last week on the Don Imus Show that he would trade the First Amendment for "clean government", one would have expected the industry enabled by that portion of the Bill of Rights to speak out against such talk. Oddly, not one major newspaper addressed the issue until today, when the Washington Examiner takes the Senator to task for his minimization of free political speech:

James Madison, the prime mover behind the U.S. Constitution, and his colleagues among the Founders rightly feared arrogant men like Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., so they limited the central government to a few, well-defined powers. As further protection, Madison and the first Congress approved the First Amendment to the Constitution to protect forever the right of every American to freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition. ...

McCain incited a blogstorm Friday with this comment, which epitomizes political arrogance:

“I know that money corrupts … I would rather have a clean government than one where, quote, First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I’d rather have the clean government.” ...

Who decides when government is “clean” enough? How “clean” must government be before politicians like McCain will let the rest of us regain our First Amendment rights? Why does McCain think he knows what’s best for Americans better than we Americans do? History teaches the lesson our founders knew so well — those who put their private political vision above everybody else’s essential freedoms cannot be trusted with the reins of power.

The national media has absented themselves from this discussion, and one has to wonder why. It's not the first abstention on free speech issues, either; the media maintained a strange sense of detachment when the FEC got forced into promulgating restrictions on Internet speech, which threatened political blogs of all stripes. For an industry that gets almost hysterical in its self-defense on First Amendment grounds, it appears to have little use for anyone else's free speech rights.

One explanation is that John McCain provided them with an exemption to the worst abridgement of political speech rights in a century. The BCRA specifically exempted newspapers and other media from restrictions on corporate commentary about candidates and referenda within the sixty days of an election. The media seems to want to protect McCain from his own statements by not reporting them or commenting on them, perhaps to keep its two-month monopoly on election commentary intact. After all, if this statement got enough press, people would realize exactly what McCain tried to do with the BCRA -- and it might finally get repealed, allowing everyone to speak out on elections and campaigns regardless of the calendar.

Regardless of the reason, the media's silence on McCain's statement should shame them all. Only the Examiner -- whose editorial pages are run by Mark Tapscott, a blogger -- had the courage to expose McCain.

Did We Say 'I Told You So' Yet?

When the Bush administration started off its second term by focusing its domestic agenda on entitlement reform, primarily on Social Security, it warned that the fiscal stability of these entitlements was eroding at a faster rate than predicted and pointed out the need for reform now, rather than waiting for the coming collapse. Democrats pounded the administration for its "scare tactics" and insisted that the programs had plenty of stability. Now the administration has released new numbers indicating that the erosion has picked up a little speed:

The financial condition of Medicare and Social Security deteriorated in the last year, the Bush administration reported Monday, and it warned again that the programs were unsustainable in their current form.

Medicare's hospital insurance trust fund, a widely watched gauge of the program's solvency, will run out of money in 2018, two years earlier than projected in last year's report, the trustees said.

And the Social Security trust fund will be exhausted in 2040, one year earlier than projected last year, the trustees said. At that point, in 2040, Social Security tax collections would be adequate to pay only 74 percent of scheduled benefits.

Lawmakers said they would never allow the trust funds to run dry. But the insolvency dates are a vivid way of showing that the programs are unsustainable. To keep them solvent, Congress would need to trim benefits, raise taxes or take some combination of such steps.

The reaction from the Democrats followed the same principle as in 2005: refusing to acknowledge the problem. Harry Reid proclaimed the reports as proof of entitlement stability, saying that "despite White House scare tactics, Social Security remains sound for decades to come." Max Baucus blamed the Bush administration for raising costs through the use of managed-care plans. And as before, none came forward to propose a reform that would address the looming fiscal disaster.

We can keep saying "I told you so" all the way until the system collapses under its own weight, following Europe to economic disaster, or we can continue to press for entitlement reform. The President took a courageous stand last year in demanding a national effort to address the Social Security problem. Some chastised him for taking that issue ahead of the much larger problem of Medicare, but it turned out that the Democrats were not prepared to work on even the lesser issue in any rational manner. Their party leadership still insists that no problem exists at all within either program. Porkbusting is a great idea, but at some point we have to address the far more destructive demographic time bomb in our federal budget.

We need leaders with courage and foresight in order to ensure that these government services do not trap us in massive financial burdens within the next generation. So far, those qualities do not appear abundant, especially among the Democrats.

Even The Law-Enforcement Model Gets Panned

A New York Times report shows that even a law-enforcement model for conducting the fight against terrorism will not satisfy some people. William Rashbaum reports on the testimony of a paid informer who reported conversations and activities at a Brooklyn mosque to New York detectives, which led to the unraveling of a plot to bomb the Herald Square subway station:

The paid police informer who is the central witness at the trial of a Pakistani immigrant charged with plotting to blow up the Herald Square subway station testified yesterday that he collected a wide range of information on his visits to two city mosques, from the tenor of the sermons to how many people attended the services.

The informer, Osama Eldawoody, 50, secretly recorded roughly two dozen conversations about the plot with the immigrant, Shahawar Matin Siraj, in the summer of 2004 — many of them incriminating. He was questioned by Mr. Siraj's lawyer about the information he provided to the police on his frequent visits to mosques in Brooklyn and Staten Island. The visits occurred over roughly 13 months in 2003 and 2004, both before and after the informer met Mr. Siraj.

Regardless of the outcome of the trial for Mr. Siraj, 23, who faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted, Mr. Eldawoody's testimony is shedding light on what seem to be new police tactics to uncover terrorist plots before they come to fruition. While a federal judge gave the police expanded powers in 2003, critics have nonetheless raised objections to the use of informers in places of worship, political events and other gatherings.

The use of informants for law-enforcement interception of conspiracies has a long and productive record. Informants infiltrate closed societies in order to alert police to violent activities. The FBI (finally) helped break the Klan through this method, and continue to do so with violent white-supremacist organizations, even those who form "churches" to spread their hate. No one seems to mind that application of law enforcement -- and rightly so -- but for some reason they find it objectionable when it gets applied to terrorism.

Like it or not, fair or not, the Islamofascists recruit and organize within mosques, and in order to use a law-enforcement model, the police and FBI have to penetrate them to find out whether any terror planning or support is occurring. They cannot plant bugs without a court order, and that requires some sort of probable cause, which once again requires some inside information. The only way to discover that is to have informers or undercover police at the mosques, talking to people and connecting into the social network.

In this case, it appears to have worked. Siraj wanted to bomb the subway station, or at least take part in the operation. Eldawoody caught him on tape discussing the plan to use backpack bombs to cause economic damage to New York, although Siraj demurred at killing people. This could not have been discovered any other way, leaving only the option of investigation after the attack occurred.

Rashbaum notes that critics oppose these kinds of tactics as an affront to religious freedom, although he doesn't name the specific critics or explicitly give their arguments. This argument shows why even the law-enforcement approach will not get support among those who seem to want America to stop defending itself. The problem isn't that the US wants to curtail religious freedom -- it's that our terrorist enemies use mosques as a cover for their plots. If the mosques want to avoid becoming the target of investigations, they should expel members who espouse violent jihad and report them to the authorities. When terrorists use mosques as their shield, the mosques become fair game for counterterrorism efforts.

Condoms And Catholics In The Age Of AIDS

The Vatican has undertaken a review of its teachings on condom use, as the conservative Pope Benedict reconciles the church's mission to protect life within the age of AIDS. The Pope requested a report from theologians about the doctrinal implications of condom usage within marriage when one partner carries HIV or has developed full-blown AIDS:

Even at the Vatican, not all sacred beliefs are absolute: Thou shalt not kill, but war can be just. Now, behind the quiet walls, a clash is shaping up involving two poles of near certainty: the church's long-held ban on condoms and its advocacy of human life.

The issue is AIDS. Church officials recently confirmed that Pope Benedict XVI had requested a report on whether it might be acceptable for Catholics to use condoms in one narrow circumstance: to protect life inside a marriage when one partner is infected with H.I.V. or is sick with AIDS.

Whatever the pope decides, church officials and other experts broadly agree that it is remarkable that so delicate an issue is being taken up. But they also agree that such an inquiry is logical, and particularly significant from this pope, who was Pope John Paul II's strict enforcer of church doctrine.

"In some ways, maybe he has got the greatest capacity to do it because there is no doubt about his orthodoxy," said the Rev. Jon Fuller, a Jesuit physician who runs an AIDS clinic at the Boston Medical Center.

Put another way, for those of us who follow politics, only Nixon can wear a rubber. An activist Pope would never have the standing in the Church to make this adjustment; a new teaching would, of course, be followed -- but it would likely get reversed during a succeeding papacy. If a Pope such as Benedict, with his lifelong adherence to strict doctrine, makes this change, the new teaching will have much more impact.

In order to understand why this would be an issue at all -- and why it isn't really that much of a change -- one has to know why the Church bans condoms at all. The Church has taught that the act of sexual intercourse has a natural purpose of procreation, the purpose for which God intended it. Therefore, when a married couple engages in sex, the pair must be open to procreation. Condoms and birth control in general frustrate this purpose, and turns the act into nothing more than an expression of lust with no sacramental quality at all. Therefore the Church bans their use.

Many certainly disagree with the Church, and for many reasons. Catholics have more or less decided to use this teaching as more of a guide than a rule since it was most prominently taught in 1968, with Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae. For some, conception could have severe complications for the woman, such as those with diabetes or some other life-threatening illness. Priests often (but not always) counseled such couples to pray about the decision to use birth control in marriage and follow their own consciences.

The spread of AIDS, especially in Africa where heterosexual transmission has caused the disease to race out of control, presents a clearer and more pressing example of the same dynamic. Regardless of whether one partner or the other has engaged in extramarital sex, the uninfected partner is a potential victim, and one which Humanae Vitae fails to protect. The implications for this policy are staggering. Teaching Africans that condom use is a sin creates conditions that kill people, and not just theoretically, and not just a few.

Given that the entire basis for the Church's position on condoms is the protection of life, this is obviously a policy that requires immediate rethinking. Pope Benedict should restate the church teaching on condom use to acknowledge that the married couple themselves deserve protection from sexual transmission of deadly diseases and from the consequences of pregnancy when it puts the mother's life in physical jeopardy. The fact that this Pope has agreed to review the policy shows a great deal of promise that a rational position may be at hand.

Addendum: Of course, this has no bearing on the use of condoms outside of marriage, but one has to put that Church doctrine in its proper context. Years ago, when I belonged to a young-adult group, our sponsoring priest held a wide-ranging Q&A with us, and one topic was premarital sex and birth control use. Father Walt told us that committing the sin of sex outside of marriage was by far the more damaging act. Refusing to wear a condom because of its supposedly sinful implications would be, at that point, rather laughable.

Saddam Produced Nerve Gas Detectors In 2000

Joseph Shahda has translated yet another of the captured Iraqi government documents, and this one shows that Saddam Hussein's government produced banned nerve gas detectors in 2000. Shahda's discovery shows that Saddam never intended on stopping his WMD programs nor planned on complying with UN resolutions that supposedly "contained" Saddam (via Power Line):

Beginning of Translation of page 5 of document CMPC-2003-016083

In the Name of God the Most Merciful The Most Compassionate

TOP SECRET

The Republic of Iraq

The Presidency of the Republic

The Military Industrialization Commission

Number 2/4/44

Date 13/1/2001

To: THE PRESIDENTIAL SECRETARIAT

Subject: Detection Equipment

Your top Secret letter number AA’/128 on 10/12/2000, we would like to show the following:

1. On 10/12/2000 a laboratory test was done on the new equipment and the results of the test was similar to the required quality compared with the Russian equipments

2. On the light of the above (1) a second equipment was received from the Ministry of Industry and Minerals and the total tests were done on it on 24/12/2000 using laboratory equipment to Chemical Detection Device (GSU-12) and with the presence of the Chemical Class representatives and the manufacturing party and its success was proven from the perspective of detection and reaction to NERVE AGENTS.

Please review… with regards

Signature

Abd AlTwab Abdallah AL Mulah Huwaish

The Minister of Military Industrialization

13/1/2001

End of translation of page 5.

Now on page 71 of the document there is a section that mentions that the production of “Nerve Gas Detectors” is PROHIBITED

Beginning of Partial Translation of page 71

Based on what is in the letter of the respected Presidential Secretariat (Top Secret) aa’/4 on 22/1/2001 followed by the Top Secret letter of (M.I.C) 2/4/44 on 13/1/2001 and after review of the technical report the commission recommend the following:

1. Consider it a work that reach level of Invention Works because it replace the need that occur to the Russian equipment that has an expired efficiency and that exist in the storages of the Chemical Class, and it is a PROHIBITED EQUIPMENT where the price of the effective material in it can reach 51,000 Dollars.

Nerve gas detectors normally have a defensive use, as Shahda notes in his introduction. However, the reason the UN banned Iraq from possessing this equipment is for its offensive uses. Units that deploy nerve gas have to ensure that it doesn't blow back at their own troops. Any army that manufactured, stored, or transported such material would have to deploy these detectors in order to ensure that their own soldiers did not get exposed to the poison. Banning them from Iraq should have kept them from protecting themselves from their own WMD -- and his clandestine desire to acquire them is a practical demonstration of his ambitions.

One has to wonder again why the American intelligence agencies that had these documents in their possession for so long never made the effort to investigate them. Perhaps the revelations coming from the work of Joseph Shahda will finally convince them to put more resources to the task.

CQ On The Air Tonight

I will be appearing on The World Tonight with Rob Breckenridge at Calgary's CHQR at 8:30 CT. Be sure to tune in -- we'll be discussing illegal immigration.

Sun Still Setting In The West

It appears that the nationwide strike by illegal immigrants and their supporters caused some headaches but little immediate economic impact, as outside of Denver, Chicago, and Los Angeles most demonstrations attracted significantly fewer numbers than earlier rallies. Despite numbering in the tens of millions, the demonstrations only mustered a few hundred thousand opponents to the get-tough approach taken by the House, forcing local employers to shut down but hardly causing a blip in the routine for most Americans:

Police estimated 400,000 people marched through Chicago's business district and tens of thousands more rallied in New York and Los Angeles, where police stopped giving estimates at 60,000 as the crowd kept growing.

An estimated 75,000 rallied in Denver, more than 15,000 in Houston and 30,000 more across Florida. Smaller rallies in cities from Pennsylvania and Connecticut to Arizona and South Dakota attracted hundreds not thousands.

In Los Angeles, protesters wearing white and waving U.S. flags sang the national anthem in English as traditional Mexican dancers wove through the crowd. In Chicago, illegal immigrants from Ireland and Poland marched alongside Hispanics as office workers on lunch breaks clapped. In Phoenix, protesters formed a human chain in front of Wal-Mart and Home Depot stores. A protest in Tijuana, Mexico blocked vehicle traffic heading to San Diego at the world's busiest border crossing.

So far it appears that Chicago outdrew Los Angeles, where the protests closed down about a third of the small businesses in the area, according to the AP. However, in a story that will likely have immigration hardliners talking for days, the AP reports that twenty-five percent of the children in the Los Angeles School District failed to attend classes today. After all, LAUSD's annual budget for its 746,000 students is over $13 billion, or about $17,000 per student. If the walkout caused 25% of the students to strike, that puts the annual educational cost for illegal immigrants at around $3.25 billion -- just for Los Angeles.

You can bet that a lot of people will do precisely these kinds of calculations nationwide. How many students walked out in Chicago? In Houston? In Denver? One of the reasons why illegal immigrants existed in the shadows was to avoid this kind of exposure, but that's no longer operative. Now that they have decided to make this kind of statement, the true costs of their residency will start coming into focus, as well as their production.

Not that the sacrifice will mean anything to the cause. One-day boycotts and walkouts rarely have any real economic impact, for one good reason: people will still return to shop tomorrow. The restaurants that closed yesterday may have the hardest time with a one-day strike as so much of their business depends on whim, but the groceries, clothing stores, and gas stations will recover with little ill effect. People will buy clothes, food, and gasoline when needed, and skipping a day will do almost nothing to overall production.

The political damage, however, may be quite extensive. The administration has attempted to quietly push a liberal reform package through Congress that delivers most of what the demonstrators demand. However, the spectacle of illegal immigrants demanding that Americans capitulate to their agenda only strengthens the opponents to the administration's approach. Time Magazine explains:

Congressional strategists in both parties say the boycotts and work stoppages across the country Monday are likely to hurt chances of persuading conservative lawmakers to go along with an immigration bill this year. Key aides still hold out hope for sending one to President Bush's desk before midterm elections, but were shaking their heads as they watched television coverage of small businesses that had to shut down and suburban work sites that were empty because of a national demonstration that proponents call a "Day Without Immigrants."

The size of the pro-immigrant marches that swept the country earlier this spring — fueled primarily by Spanish-language radio stations, Catholic organizers and liberal activists — stunned lawmakers and caused several Senators who had been on the sidelines to begin working for some compromise that would both tighten borders and give some hope for illegal workers who are already in the United States. But a quick survey of Capitol Hill Monday showed that the new round of events, coordinated by unions and civil-rights groups on behalf of illegal immigrants, may be counterproductive.

The demonstrations actually created a rare point of agreement among legislators from both parties: the boycott made it harder to argue against tougher enforcement of immigration laws. Americans don't particularly care for uninvited guests to dictate how the nation should define its borders, as Rassmussen notes; a majority of respondents disapprove of immigration protestors and over two-thirds oppose full amnesty, one of the key demands. When the public notes that the sun still set in the West after the boycott and rises in the east tomorrow, they will find these demonstrations even less persuasive.

Hot Air has ongoing field reports here.

UPDATE: For those disputing the notion that 25% of the students could be illegals, it's worth noting that Hispanics comprise 72% of the district's students. Also, the entire idea of the walkout was to demonstrate the impact and extent of illegal immigrants in our midst -- and you can be sure that the boycott's organizers will be heralding that number as proof of that impact. According to LAUSD guidelines, any absenteeism over 10% in a single day represents a mass absence that requires a special report to the Pupil Statistics Office. In 2004, the LAUSD found absenteeism such an issue that it required a special initiative to correct. The average absenteeism for that year was as follows:

Elementary Schools 95.33% attendance; 4.67% absent
Middle School 93.50% attendance; 6.5% absent
High School 89.93% attendance; 10.07% absent

That averages somewhere around 7% absenteeism, making today's figures more than three times that total. Even if the 7% normal figure would have no children of illegals, that makes 18% of the district illegals -- and those were just the ones who walked out. Eighteen percent of $13.4 billion still amounts to $2.4 billion, every year, and just in the LAUSD.

Another Reason To Thank Canada

One point I missed in my review of United 93 yesterday is one of the lesser-known complications of our actions in grounding air traffic on 9/11. In the movie as in real life, FAA operations manager makes the decision to ground all aircraft immediately, ordering every plane in American airspace to land at the nearest airport. Despite the fact that it will cost the airline industry billions (and later created a large federal bailout package), Sliney knows it's the right action to take, and every plane in America was on the ground by 12:06 PM on 9/11.

One of the consequences of closing American airspace was the denial of landing rights to all inbound international flights. Sliney's decision made it necessary for those flights to return home, or if that could not be safely done, then to find somewhere else to land besides the US. Sliney had no idea if terrorists had more attacks coming from foreign airliners, and his decision was undoubtedly correct, despite the potential risk for the inbound flights.

Guess where a number of those flights went? Canada granted permission for these inbound flights to land despite watching the terrorist attack on the United States. It's not a widely-discussed part of the 9/11 story, but Canada took the risk of bringing those flights into their country without knowing whether the terrorists might strike at their nation as well. No one knew what other operations the terrorists had planned for that day; some could have decided to strike airports when planes taxied to their gates.

The Canadian action took courage and selflessness and it probably saved lives. It's just another reason to be grateful for our northern neighbors despite our occasional political differences.

One more thought: After Sliney gave the order, all of the flights complied with the grounding. It's not hard to imagine what would have happened to a flight that refused to do so. The movie doesn't address it, but one has to suspect that the Air Force would have shot down any plane that tried to stay up.

When Gas Meets Hot Air

We can now file the $100 gasoline rebate idea into the political remainder bin, as no one appears to want to buy this pandering as policy. While the Democrats have been careful not to directly oppose it -- they claim that it could form part of an overall response to high energy prices -- the GOP's base has busied itself ridiculing it, and rightly so:

The Senate Republican plan to mail $100 checks to voters to ease the burden of high gasoline prices is eliciting more scorn than gratitude from the very people it was intended to help.

Aides for several Republican senators reported a surge of calls and e-mail messages from constituents ridiculing the rebate as a paltry and transparent effort to pander to voters before the midterm elections in November.

"The conservatives think it is socialist bunk, and the liberals think it is conservative trickery," said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, pointing out that the criticism was coming from across the ideological spectrum.

Angry constituents have asked, "Do you think we are prostitutes? Do you think you can buy us?" said another Republican senator's aide, who was granted anonymity to openly discuss the feedback because the senator had supported the plan.

Heavens, no -- if they thought we were prostitutes, they'd give us a lot more than $100, and at least the screwing would be honest. Just ask Randy "Duke" Cunningham.

This mess should never have made it off the desk of the political consultants who dreamed it up. The government does not indemnify consumers from normal variations in a commodities market, even when its own policies help to make the situation worse. Giving away $100 rebates only papers over the problem.

Even the structure of it made no sense. The government planned on basing its formula from income tax records, but consumers don't pay for their gas through federal taxes, although we buy a lot of hot air that way. The rebates would not have applied for the lowest-income people, who have been hardest hit by high energy prices. While tax cuts rightly benefit those who pay income tax in the first place, everyone pays gasoline taxes, and everyone therefore should have been eligible for this rebate.

Brit Hume called this proposal "silly". Rush Limbaugh demanded that lawmakers solve the problem instead of buying voters on the cheap. Trent Lott and Lisa Murkowski both appeared yesterday on television, denigrating the proposed rebate.

So who supports it? Bill Frist. And joining Frist is Senator Debbie Stabenow, who wants to up the payment to $500 while opposing one of the solutions to the problem: ANWR drilling.

This is one of the rare moments when the electorate shows maturity and insight. This rebate notion needs to get buried in committee, never to see the light of day. If Congress wants an equitable way to return cash to the pockets of consumers, suspend the federal tax on gasoline for a few weeks. That way it goes directly to the people who consume the product across all economic strata. They can use that time to create a rational process for increased production of domestic energy, including more drilling and more refineries, as well as expedited research into alternative energy production. Instead of buying us off, they can earn their pay.

Sino-Saudi Economic Ties Strengthening

An editorial by a Saudi economics professor in today's Arab News points out the growing ties between the oil-rich Middle Eastern nation and the growing economic behemoth of the East, mainland China. Dr. Mohamed Ramady argues that while enetrgy will provide the Saudi entree to Beijing, the potential for Sino-Saudi relations goes much farther (via Newsbeat1):

Between the pomp and ceremony of state visits and senior level meetings of Saudi and Chinese officials, there is indeed much to be pleased about concerning the blossoming relations between the world’s major oil producer, Saudi Arabia, and the emerging manufacturing superpower, China. It is no coincidence that President Hu Jintao of China came to Saudi Arabia straight after his state visit to the US in late April. The earlier state visit to China by Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah had already set the stage for an emerging economic bond between the two nations.

Oil and energy issues have moved to the top of China’s agenda as it seeks to assert its role as a full great economic power, and assure itself of reliable energy partners to feed its unmatched economic growth.

But it is not on the energy front alone that Saudi-Sino relations are being built. During President Hu’s visit, a number of accords were signed in security, defense, health, trade and youth matters. There were discussions about establishing a Chinese strategic oil reserve in southeast China with Saudi supplies, which again makes eminent sense given the possibility of a breakdown of Iranian oil supplies to China. In other major developments, Saudi Aramco and Sinopec, China’s top refiner and petrochemical producer, signed memorandums of understanding to increase trade cooperation as well as reviewing Sinopec’s gas exploration activities in the Saudi Al-Rub Al-Khali (Empty Quarter). At the same time, Saudi Basic Industries Cop. (SABIC) discussed with their Chinese counterparts plans to establish a $9.3 billion refinery and petrochemical project in northeastern China. It is now obvious to the major petrochemical players of the world that, with both Saudi Arabia and China having acceded to the WTO, the only viable competitive route open to multinational companies is to enter Saudi Arabia as a major petrochemical producer. In this way they can ensure competitive supplies to their domestic markets, as well as feed China’s growing petrochemical needs from their Saudi Arabia operations.

However, it is the increasing economic and investment ties at the private sector level that is gathering pace between the two countries. The private sectors of Saudi Arabia and China have come of age. The Chinese, while operating under a benign centralized economy, to all intents and purposes are working on a free market basis. In mid-April, the Chinese government has started the legal process of establishing the conditions for private oil companies to engage in oil exploration, which until now has been monopolized by the three giant state owned companies — PetroChina Co. Ltd., the offshore oil producer CNOOC Ltd. and Sinopec. The Saudi private sector has now matured well enough to be able to source strategic investment partners of choice away from more traditional trading partners in the Western world. The opening up of such strategic sectors of the Chinese economy should provide opportunities for Saudi private sector companies to establish advanced technology, primarily offshore, oil exploration joint venture companies.

Ideally, this would work to the benefit of both nations and to the promotion of free enterprise. The cash-rich Saudis can invest some of their money away from their own oil fields and into Chinese operations. The Chinese can move farther down the path of free enterprise and away from central planning and control, allowing more of their citizens to create wealth and put pressure on Beijing for more economic and property rights. That could move China towards greater freedom, although it would take decades for that kind of evolutionary change to occur. The Saudi investments could help China find more of its own oil, putting less pressure on world markets -- and perhaps make China's reliance on Iran less of a problem.

The Saudi business contacts will not restrict themselves to oil, according to Ramady. He states that Saudi Arabia has untapped wealth in mining, an economic potential probably overlooked due to their focus on pumping oil. The Saudis hope to eventually garner Chinese interest in their mineral production. This would give the Saudis a fallback position if the West succeeds in either developing practical alternative energy production or start drilling their own oil, especially the US.

The Eastern turn of Saudi Arabia warrants cautious oversight, however. Saudi Arabia is still a nation built on radical Islam, and although its ruling class has been until now pro-Western, that appears to be changing. The Saudis may prefer to do business with the non-judgmental (to put it mildly) Chinese, who appear to have no problem funding genocidists in Southwest Asia and Africa. We need to ensure that these new economic ties do not encourage the Saudis to fling off the West and adopt the querolous tones of the Iranian mullahcracy.

UPDATE: Not everyone likes the "emerging Asian dragon":

Militants in Nigeria's volatile oil-producing region detonated a car bomb late Saturday and issued a warning that investors and officials from China would be "treated as thieves" and targeted in future attacks.

The threat came as Chinese President Hu Jintao returned home from a week-long tour of Africa in which he reached a series of deals securing access to oil and other resources to meet the needs of China's booming economy. On Wednesday, Hu and Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo signed several major business deals, including one that offers China four oil exploration licenses, the Associated Press reported. ...

In a second e-mail, the spokesman, who uses the pseudonym Jomo Gbomo, specifically criticized the Chinese, who last year took a $2.2 billion stake in an oil field in the Niger Delta. Nigeria is a major oil exporter and the fifth-largest supplier of oil to the United States.

Welcome to the free market. Lunatics, unfortunately, come with the territory.

How Big Will The Walkout Get?

Today's planned boycott and walkout on behalf of illegal immigrants garnered plenty of press in the past week, but some question just how many will actually risk exposure and the loss of their jobs. The Washington Post notes the divisions within the ranks of immigration activists and their trepidation at the bedfellows that have hitched a ride on this issue:

Some local activists predicted that thousands of Washington area immigrants would participate in a national economic boycott today, but immigrant groups who have spoken out against the boycott said they fear that the immigration reform movement is being commandeered to promote political causes beyond immigration.

The public tug of war, which continued in the Washington area yesterday on Spanish-language radio, could result in more limited participation in the region than is expected in Dallas and Los Angeles, where the organizers of last month's massive protests have been more unified in support of today's boycott, which asks immigrants to refrain from buying goods and to stay home from work and school. ...

The discord, Contreras said, is not over whether boycotting is a valid tactic. But with Congress just back from a recess after a contentious debate on the subject -- and with a recent CNN poll showing that 77 percent of Americans favor allowing some illegal immigrants to apply for citizenship -- he said most local activists feel it is best to wait to see how Congress reacts.

Some local Latino leaders said they worry about being associated with a Los Angeles-based group, Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER), that has been active in promotion of the boycott. They said they fear that the group's broad-based opposition to Bush administration policies could hinder attempts to win allies for immigration reform on Capitol Hill.

The unabashed Stalinsts at ANSWER create a huge problem for the immigration-reform activists. The impression given by ANSWER's inclusion is that the issue has become a Trojan horse for eliminating national sovereignty and the promotion of communism, much as their anti-war protests became. The last thing that the more reputable immigration groups need is another march on national TV with thousands of Che Guevara T-shirts in the fore.

The scheduling of the boycott also plays into this. It probably would have made more sense to protest on Friday, which is already a big cultural holiday in the American Southwest and a national holiday in Mexico: Cinco de Mayo. In fact, many of those protesting probably already made arrangements for celebrations and time off from work. Conducting a walkout would have not only been easier, but it would not have required the additional work break that this boycott now demands of them. However, May 1 hold special significance as a socialist holiday, which is why ANSWER selected it for this walkout.

The groups that had sponsored earlier demonstrations have their reservations about associating with the Socialists. As the Post notes, a number of the people involved have bad experiences with communists in Central America and came to the US to avoid them. Others do not want their cause confused with the radical-left agenda that ANSWER promotes. As a result, only one of the 47 organizations that backed earlier immigration demonstrations has officially endorsed the May Day Boycott. Not surprisingly, Mexicans Without Borders supports many of the same leftist agenda items as ANSWER -- anti-war, opposed to national sovereignty, and anti-globalization.

Speaking of which, has anyone ever asked these dolts how they can oppose national sovereignty in the same breath as globalization?

This internal conflict will probably result in smaller turnouts than predicted, although the walkout will probably get some traction in Los Angeles, Phoenix, Dallas, and other major cities of the Southwest. The demonstrations will probably consist of those who could not work today anyway. Most of the rest will probably remain on the job, afraid of losing their economic lifeline and of getting discovered as illegals by their employers or the INS. Expect the media to magnify the crowd numbers, however.

If the walkout gets as big as ANSWER wants, they should be prepared for the backlash in Congress. This is one demonstration that has a large capacity for unintended consquences.

Join The 101st Fighting Keyboardists! (Bumped)

** Scroll down for updates -- script for blogroll in Update V! **

Our friends on the port side of the blogosphere have had quite a time tossing around funny little nicknames for those of us who support the war on terror and use our blogs to express our convictions about it. We've seen the names here at CQ in the comments section -- the term "chickenhawk" has appeared more than once, and others in the blogosphere have assigned us to a unit called the 101st Fighting Keyboardists.

I've thought about that for a while, wondering what exactly about both epithets appear so fascinating to left-wing bloggers. As a middle-aged grandfather supporting a chronically ill wife, I have few options for doing my part in the war on terror. After 9/11, I spent weeks looking into different options for service while trying to balance my family obligations. Our family found out just three weeks after the attack that the Little Admiral would soon join us, and the implications of terrorism and war weighed heavily on my mind. I resolved to use the skills I had -- writing -- to make the case for fighting a forward strategy against terrorists. Eventually that led me to this blog, but in the interim I argued for a continued muscular offensive against the Islamofascists that had murdered thousands of our fellow Americans.

Is that the same as military service? Of course not. The men and women of the military do the real fighting, and we salute them and support them by supporting their mission. Milbloggers give us the best of both worlds by not only defending our nation and fighting (and beating) terrorists around the globe, but also by reporting on the fight first hand. There is honor in engaging in public debate for policies which we believe are in our nation's best interest as well. For many of us, we know that without presenting our arguments in the national forum, many in the media and the public will quickly overpower the debate and threaten the policies we feel give us the best long-term opportunity to defeat terrorism and the states that fund and shelter them.

Many on the left disagree, however, and often they provide challenging arguments and valuable perspectives on policy and the manner in which it gets implemented. However, many more do little but make ad hominem attacks on those with whom they disagree. They spend a great deal of effort labeling people rather than providing rational arguments on policy, and even the labels they select don't provide much more than amusement.

That's why Frank J of IMAO, Derek Brigham of Freedom Dogs, and I have decided to create -- for real -- the 101st Fighting Keyboardists and adopt the chicken hawk as our mascot. First of all, the term "fighting keyboardist" describes our efforts pretty well, and we think the pseudo-military terminology is pretty danged amusing. Derek himself designed the logo.

And why the chicken hawk? When we looked into it, it turns out that the chicken hawk is a pretty impressive predator. It's the largest of its family. This species vigorously defends its territory, getting even more aggressive when the conditions get harshest. It adapts to all climates. Most impressively, it feeds on chickens, mice, and rats.

Make of that what you will.

Frank, Derek, and I invite you to join the 101st Fighting Keyboardists (motto: We Eat Chickens For Lunch). I'm starting a blogroll and will post the code for other members to display on their blogs. We welcome all of those who feel they qualify for the unit, but especially those who have a sense of humor as well as a sense of purpose. This way, the next time someone refers to you as a chicken hawk for your blogging, you can remind them that as a member of the 101, your talons are your best weapon and that feeding time is near!

UPDATE: Added the blogroll on the sidebar and have added a few new recruits. The first volunteer was a milblogger -- Baldilocks. I'll work on getting the code out to those who want to display the blogroll on their sites ...

UPDATE II: King Banaian has formed a subunit of vegetarian keyboardists.

UPDATE III: Bumped to the top for more recruitment. I hope we don't get pushed off campus at UC Santa Cruz ...

UPDATE IV: Wow, no sooner do we form this new unit than we get attacked! Hosting Matters came under a Denial Of Service attack from Saudi Arabia, which affected not just the 101st but a . They've resolved it now, but we'll keep an eye out. Also, the blogroll only displays the last 25 members who have updated their blogs -- I'll fix it so it displays the entire list later tonight.

UPDATE V: I'm getting swamped with recruits for the Fighting Keebees! We're up to 66 members already, and I'm behind on adding more. (If you've already sent me an e-mail, be patient -- I'm trying to catch up.) I've posted the blogroll code below. Replace the bracket characters with the sideways-carat characters when you plug this into your website:

[script language="javascript" type="text/javascript" src="http://rpc.blogrolling.com/display.php?r=e8becc33a3c05f8353dee2213a9a4639">

Also, plenty of non-blogging commenters have asked whether they can join. I can't put you on a blogroll, but rest assured, you're full-fledged members. Others have asked about T-shirts and caps, and I believe Frank is going to look into that. Feel free to download the large and small logos from our sites, but if you use them for your blogs, please host them at your own site first!

UPDATE VI: Read through some of the comments to find those on the left who completely lack any sense of humor on this topic. You can also find others of the same temperament on a Technorati search, too. One of the few of the left who posts thoughtfully on this subject is the Middle Earth Journal, which isn't crazy about our project but doesn't like the whole "chickenhawk meme" either.

UPDATE VII: Frank J has the definitive Chickenhawk FAQ on his site -- and it perfectly captures the tone of this entire effort. Have a few laughs and check it out. I am WAY behind on updating the blogroll, but I hope to get it updated over the next couple of days. I have dozens of requests I still need to sort out. Feel free to copy the script and add the blogroll to your site in the meantime; some blog systems may requires a [/script tag] at the end (replace the brackets with the less than/greater than symbols). Derek, in the meantime, will start looking into hats, shirts, and so on.

Iran Invaded Iraq

Iran sent troops across the Iraqi border three miles towards Haj Oman nine days ago, where Kurdish opposition bases itself for its efforts to unseat the mullahcracy in Teheran:

Teheran has attacked an anti-Iranian Kurdish group based in Iraq, it emerged yesterday, raising fears that instability there could spill over into the rest of the region.

Iraq's defence ministry said more than 180 artillery shells were fired and Iranian troops crossed three miles into Iraqi territory before withdrawing.

The incursion, which occurred on April 21, came after Iranian claims that a number of attacks had been conducted against Iranian army and Revolutionary Guard posts in recent weeks.

They are accused of operating from bases around Haj Oman, which was the centre of the Iranian attack. Four peopile were said to have been wounded.

Interesting. Apparently Iran does not want to make friends with Iraq as much as they want to stir up trouble. The Iraqi population recalls the war between the two nations all too well, and an Iranian attack on their people for any reason will tend to solidify their distrust of the radical mullahcracy. If the Iraqis believe that Iran presents that great of a threat, it will do more for Iraqi unity than anything else in the past three years. The mullahs may have done the US a favor.

What could the Iranians be thinking? The Pejak cannot be anything more than a nuisance at this point; they have no financing thanks to their connections to the PKK. All they have are small arms and ethnic relations with a minority inside Persian Iran. The West would find it pleasing if the Pejak could build influence inside Iran in order to destabilize the rule of the mullahs, but it seemed a rather remote possibility until Iran decided to invade Iraq over their provocatoins.

The Iranians are playing a dangerous game, and not just with the Iraqis. One has to wonder why the Iranians seem so determined to provoke a military reaction from the US. It looks like they want an excuse to launch an attack on Israel without appearing to be the aggressor. They may want to provoke an attack by Israel itself in order to launch its desired war on the Jewish state. Expect the Iranians to keep increasing their provocations.

Outlook Bleg

I've been noticing a problem with my computer ever since I switched to Microsoft Outlook as my mail client after multiple meltdowns with Mozilla Thunderbird. Even though I have 504 MB of RAM, the program thrashes the hell out of my hard drive and sometimes locks everything up until I close it down -- which takes several minutes when it happens. Tonight I turned off the Microsoft Word option for e-mail editing, and it seems better for the moment.

Has anyone else experienced any problems with this? Leave a comment with your thoughts.

Kadima Gets A Majority, Announces Jerusalem Wall

The new Israeli political party founded by Ariel Sharon before his stroke cemented its parliamentary majority and announced its plans to erect a security barrier around Jerusalem. Ehud Olmert and his Cabinet agreed on the route for the wall, separating thousands of Palestinians from their jobs and paying Hamas back for their support of the terror attack in Tel Aviv:

Israel modified the route of its West Bank separation barrier on Sunday, moving forward with Interim Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's plan to quickly define the country's final borders as his Kadima Party secured a parliamentary majority.

The Israeli Cabinet voted to reroute an area near the major settlement of Ariel deep in the West Bank and approved putting temporary fencing around areas of Jerusalem abutting the West Bank. The moves will put thousands of Palestinians on the "Palestinian" side of the enclosure, officials said. ...

"We must make a supreme effort to complete the security barrier wherever possible," Olmert told the ministers. "The decisions we take today will allow us to complete the construction of the fence very quickly in critical areas, and therefore improve our ability to thwart attempted attacks."

Israel began construction of the barrier four years ago, saying it needed to keep suicide bombers out of the country. Olmert says the barrier will serve as the basis for Israel's final border with the West Bank, which Israel won from Jordan in the 1967 Middle East war.

Olmert, whose Kadima Party won March 28 elections, says he hopes to reach an agreed settlement with the Palestinians but will move forward unilaterally if he concludes there is no negotiating partner on the other side.

Kadima reached an agreement with Shas to form a majority government, which will complicate this decision. Shas opposes any withdrawal from the West Bank, one of the predicates for establishing the final position of the wall. Shas apparently didn't have much to say about that issue today, but it will likely not remain silent if the Olmert government begins to pull settlers out of the West Bank.

Beyond that, Olmert will probably find his plan for Jerusalem very popular among the Israelis as a whole. The gap in their security barrier has been the focus of speculation on how the latest bomber made entry into Israel. With the success of the barrier in other areas, Israelis have to wonder why it took so long for their government to get it finished.

It also puts Hamas in a bind. When most Palestinian government employees have stopped receiving paychecks thanks to their diplomatic incompetence, their support for the terror attack will throw more of their people out of work. So far, Hamas has not given Palestinians any reason to believe that they can govern capably, and it doesn't appear that their track record has any chance of changing in the near future.

Movie Review: United 93 ** Spoilers **

Most CQ readers know that I love films, and I often see provocative movies for the purpose of evaluating them. Munich was one such film that I probably would not have bothered to see otherwise, at least not in the theaters. Oddly, I felt the same trepidation with United 93, but for completely different reasons. I had no real fear that the movie had been politically skewed; I just wasn't eager to relive the attacks of 9/11. Nevertheless, this afternoon the First Mate and I both attended the matinee at our local theater, and while we both were glad to have seen it, we also won't see it again soon.

Paul Greengrass, who wrote and directed the film, should be commended for his brilliant documentary style and his decision to avoid using well-known actors. People may recognize one or two of the cast from other films, especially David Rasche, who once played the lead in the television series "Sledge Hammer!" However, the use of relative unknowns heightens the gritty, realistic style employed by Greengrass in both the cinematography and direction. Conversations appear natural in control centers, airports, and in the plane itself prior to the hijacking. This natural style underscores the shock of what begins to unfold almost immediately in the movie.

The movie opens with a black screen and the sound of prayers in Arabic. The first scene shows the United 93 cell completing their ablutions, shaving themselves, reviewing the Qu'ran, and embracing each other before leaving for their mission. This provides a shock for the audience, and a reminder of the nature of the attackers. I could hear the audience fall quiet immediately; the effect is startling and powerful. It immediately brings the viewer back to 9/11, a bright and clear day across an entire nation that had no idea what was about to hit it.

United 93, some will remember, was the last flight to take off on September 11th. Airport delays held the plane on the ground for a half-hour, during which time air traffic control centers started noticing strange events. American 11 stopped responding, but not before a controller heard "something not American" over the radio. While ATC supervisors pulled the tape, other centers began noting events outside of the routine. As the film goes along, the tension builds in the control centers and in the military control center that planned a military exercise off the Atlantic coast, but soon found itself frustrated by the reports of hijackings and confusion about which flights had been hijacked.

All the while, we keep coming back to United 93 and its passengers and crew. Even while we see the Twin Towers explode, United 93 continues in its bubble, blithely unaware of the danger it faces until it hits. The tension builds only for the four al-Qaeda terrorists, who await a propitious moment to launch their attack. When it comes, it gets bloody; the film pulls no punches in this regard. The two pilots are stabbed to death on screen, and the flight attendant who attempted to comply with the hijackers gets her throat slit while the two terrorists on the flight deck offer prayers for their efforts. We see one passenger get stabbed during the initial attack, and more follows.

One of the difficult issues in reconstructing a historical event where all witnesses to it have died is to make it believable and to fit the facts, a challenge which Greengrass masters. He avoids heroic speeches and flawless heroes. Everyone aboard that flight could have been someone who has sat next to me on any other flight. Some passengers cried, some got irate, and some of both quickly surmised that they would not survive if they did nothing to stop the hijackers.

A criticism I have seen about this film has been the amount of time spent on other venues than United 93 (although I consciously tried to avoid reading any critiques before seeing the movie). I disagree; I think that the wider focus on the frustration, anger, and anxiety in the control centers helps the movie in two distinct ways. First, it allows the audience to remember the context of United 93 in the course of 9/11, making the timing easier to understand. More importantly, when the passengers finally rally and start to plan the attack, the amount of time left in which to do something comes as a shock to everyone. Rasche, who plays civilian pilot and passenger Donald Greene, tells the group that the plane is flying too low to allow the hijackers much more time, and that the counterattack had to separate them from the controls immediately. Any attempt to dive would not allow enough time to pull up.

That time frame could not be overcome, although the movie shows the passengers reaching the cockpit and engaging the terrorists on the flight deck. The last images of United 93 come from the cockpit window, where the Pennsylvania countryside spins ever close to the plane, until the screen suddenly goes black.

Brilliant. Brilliant, and yet almost unbearably sad.

I believe that everyone should see this film, but not because of any political point of view. In fact, the film steers away from engaging politics at all, not even regarding the Islamist nature of the attacks, and that's as it should be. No one depicted in this movie really knew of that aspect of 9/11 during the attack, or what it meant. The only reference to what would follow is a statement by the FAA operations manager Ben Sliney (playing himself) ordering all planes in the US to be grounded and all international traffic turned away because "we're at war with someone out there". No other reference is made to anything happening after 12:06 ET on 9/11.

The reason we all should see this film, at least once, is for the passengers of United 93. Alone, frightened, and under the knife, they stood up and fought back. They died trying to beat the terrorists and made clear that we would not go quietly. We owe them for their sacrifice and the lives they undoubtedly saved in their desperate attempt to regain control of United 93. That, I am absolutely certain, is something which will unite most Americans regardless of how we feel about what came afterwards.

Addendum: Someone needs to scold the normally excellent folks at IMDB. One of the categories in which they've placed this film is "Fantasy".

UPDATE: I had hoped that this movie (and this review) could escape partisan cheap shots, but according to my referral log, it's not the case. Let me explain what "spoilers" mean for the neuron-challenged. At IMDB, where I have posted a number of reviews over the years, it is considered bad form to reveal any particularly important point about a movie, and not just the ending. People add "** SPOILERS**" to note that the review contains these items, so that people who want to avoid knowing them do not read the review. (Sometimes they're also in the body of the post, which I didn't do here.) Since I note that the film shows the passengers stabbing one of the hijackers and actually reaching the cockpit and fighting for the controls, I thought I'd be polite and add that tag. Also, the opening sequence is so striking that hearing about it beforehand might take away some of its power, but that was a more minor characterization.

Most readers with any sense of perspective would have realized this, but I forgot that certain sites which specialize in namecalling over actual argument would need this spelled out for them.

The Sugar Ray Strategy In Reverse

When an enemy changes strategy to play to your strength, it indicates either desperation or unbridled folly -- both of which augurs nothing but good news. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi now will indulge this desperation or folly in fighting the Americans. The leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq has decided to abandon suicide missions in favor of military operations, according to the London Times, due to a lack of volunteers for the former:

THE leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, is attempting to set up his own mini-army and move away from individual suicide attacks to a more organised resistance movement, according to US intelligence sources.

Faced with a shortage of foreign fighters willing to undertake suicide missions, Zarqawi wants to turn his group into a more traditional force mounting co-ordinated guerrilla raids on coalition targets.

Al-Qaeda is sending training and planning experts to help to set up the force and infiltrate members into Iraq with the assistance of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, the sources said.

This reminds me of the two boxing matches between Sugar Ray Leonard and Roberto Duran in the 1980s. In the first fight, Leonard announced that he would abandon his traditional fluid boxing style to fight toe-to-toe against the slugger Duran, who was also heavier and slower than Leonard. No one thought Sugar Ray was serious until the fight, when he proved that he meant exactly what he said. Leonard lost, narrowly but clearly, as he and Duran fought one of the classic boxing matches of all time.

In the rematch, Leonard learned his lesson and fought his own fight, using all of his skills. Duran could not keep up with Leonard, who moved brilliantly and pounded Duran with his trademark flurries. Duran memorably and dishonorably quit halfway through the fight as Leonard humiliated him.

Zarqawi now wants to try this in reverse, and the results will not get pretty. As a terrorist mastermind, he's proven himself less than adequate. He has alienated even those in Iraq who share his goals of Islamist domination. Now he wants to create an army and play general against the most powerful armed force in world history. He has crapped out using his own strengths against the Americans, and now he wants to play directly into American strength in a stand-up fight. He may think that this will frighten the US military and its leadership, but right now I'd bet dollars to donuts they're either (a) laughing themselves silly, (b) high-fiving all around Centcom for having forced Zarqawi into this desperation tactic, or (c) both.

He'd be better off adopting Roberto Duran's strategy in the second fight. A 'no mas' at this juncture would save him a lot of humiliation and what's left of his following.

Teheran Tries To Turn Back Time

Iran attempted to shift the non-proliferation process into reverse yesterday by proposing that the UNSC drop its review of the IAEA dossier on their uranium enrichment program, even while they insisted the program would continue. The US didn't bite on the Iranian time-machine gambit, and even Russia got blunt in their demand to an end to Teheran's enrichment activities:

Iran said on Saturday it would allow United Nations inspectors to resume snap inspections of its nuclear facilities, but only if the dispute again went before the U.N. nuclear monitor.

The White House rejected the offer, which apparently came as Iran sought to avoid a full-blown U.N. Security Council debate over sanctions.

"Today's statement does not change our position that the Iranian government must give up its nuclear ambitions, nor does it affect our decision to move forward to the United Nations Security Council," White House spokesman Blaine Rethmeier said.

Russia, which has steadfastly opposed possible sanctions against Iran, joined the international chorus in telling Iran it must stop nuclear enrichment. ...

Iran gave no ground on the enrichment program but offered to reopen it to IAEA inspectors were the Security Council to drop the matter.

"If the issue is returned to the International Atomic Energy Agency, we will be ready to allow intrusive inspections," Mohammed Saeedi, Iran's deputy nuclear chief, told state-run television.

In effect, Teheran wanted the UNSC to ignore its defiance of the world body while it continues to publicly defy them more. One has to admire the chutzpah of such an offer; it basically asks everyone to sit back and allow Iran to continue doing whatever it wants, but to feel really good about it. As far as intrusive inspections go, that amounts to little more than a temporary inconvenience for the Iranians; they will have to admit IAEA investigators into the declared facilities to show them that they continue to do exactly what they say they will do -- which is to keep enriching uranium, in defiance of the IAEA and UNSC. That will only last until Teheran tires of it again, which will prompt the entire merry-go-round to begin again.

Even Russia appears to be losing patience with the Iranians. Moscow's foreign minister warned his Iranian counterpart that Russia expects Iran to cease all enrichment programs and to comply with the IAEA and UNSC resolutions and rules on the matter. In response, Iran announced that they would continue with enrichment and the world had better get used to a new nuclear power (peaceful, of course!) in Southwest Asia.

Russia and China have the most to lose diplomatically from Iranian defiance. They need a credible UNSC to guard against American economic, military, and diplomatic hegemony in the same manner that France tried to use it in 2003. If the West finally decides that the UNSC has no will or ability to enforce its own resolutions (again), if the Iranians play Russia and China against the West long enough to develop a nuclear weapon, then the UNSC is dead and so is its parent organization. Russia and China will bear the blame for this development and lose the one diplomatic tool that has -- until recently -- contained American diplomacy and military forces.

If Iran continues to make such a public spectacle of its defiance, Russia may have to cave on sanctions, and China would likely follow. If that doesn't happen soon, however, the West may complete the collapse of the UN and render it into the dustbin of history. After all, if the UN serves as an obstruction to the defense of its member nations, then it has no purpose at all.