Hospiblogging No More: Home Again

I left the hospital this afternoon and returned home to recuperate further. The Admiral Emeritus and his wife have come out for a week to take care of both the FM and me, and after that my sister will do a tour of duty here in Sick Bay. I am comfortably ensconced in the recliner on the lower level; my doctors and nurses advised me to avoid using a bed until I could comfortably rise from a full laying position. Well, that day is still a few more off, so downstairs in the recliner I will stay!

It's good to be home -- and it's good to have family around. I'll be back later.

Joschka Fischer To Teach At Princeton

Princeton has invited former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer to teach at the university starting this fall. Fischer, known to Americans as a bitter opponent of the Iraq War, will teach courses on crisis diplomacy:

The Bush administration didn't much like what Joschka Fischer had to say during the Iraq war. So what will Washington say now that the former German foreign minister is trading his parliament seat for a professor's cap at Princeton? This fall, Fischer will teach the next generation of American elites about international crisis diplomacy at the university.

Fischer will begin his new job as a guest professor at the Ivy League institution, SPIEGEL is exclusively reporting this weekend. He has also been given a contract to work as a scholar at the respected Council on Foreign Relations think tank. Fischer is currently a Green Party member of the German parliament, but he hasn't said when he will give up his seat. The 58-year-old, a high school drop out, published a book last year about the post- 9/11 world order. And in May, he began writing the " Rebel Realist," a syndicated column published in newspapers around the world. News of Fischer's new post emerged when students at the school found an announcement about the seminar on Princeton's Web site. Last week, the university removed the information.

So Princeton has decided to hire high-school dropouts as college professors? I suppose that Fischer meets the one unalterable prerequisite for employment in Academia: he hates the Bush administration. Ray D at Medienkritik has a long and informative post about Fischer, who was rendered somewhat irrelevant in the last German election that put the center-right in control of the government:

"After all, since the administration of George W. Bush decided to remove Saddam Hussein from power by war, just about everything went wrong that possibly could have. What is more, the reality in Iraq and the surrounding region far surpassed all negative expectations and fears, and it continues to do so today."

It would be ridiculous to claim that all is well in Iraq. But it is equally ridiculous for Mr. Fischer to claim that the reality in Iraq and the surrounding region has "surpassed all negative expectations and fears." How could one interpret Libya's recent surrender of its weapons programs or Syria's retreat from Lebanon as confirmation of our darkest fears for the Middle East? How could one interpret the elections and the formation of an Iraqi government as such? How could one interpret the systematic training and expansion of Iraqi security forces as such? ...

There has not been a wider war. There was not and has not been an exodus of millions of refugees. Hundreds-of-thousands or millions have not died. Iraq is on a slow and admittedly painful path to self-rule and democracy. Wouldn't it be nice if Mr. Fischer had the moral courage to admit that members of his own party and government were wrong instead of perpetuating the ridiculous lie that all negative expectations have been surpassed? It seems that our ex-Foreign Minister has a highly selective memory. He continues:

"The question is whether the majority of US citizens were ever really prepared to pay the very high military, political, economic, and moral cost for such an imperial enterprise, and to pay for it over a long period of time. We know today that the answer is "No." But such a negative answer was already to be expected in 2002 and 2003, and would have been the starting point if the actual reason for the war had been placed at the center of the domestic debate in the US. That's why other reasons for going to war were invoked - weapons of mass destruction and international terror - reasons that have quite obviously not held up to reality."

It is interesting to note that Mr. Fischer, who now basks in the glow of hindsight, belonged to a government that itself believed that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD and was dangerously close to building an atomic bomb as late as 2001. Additionally, while Saddam Hussein may not have been closely linked to Al-Qaeda, he did support international terror by awarding the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $25,000. He also ran a government that terrorized, murdered, raped and tortured its own people on a mass scale and invaded two neighbors.

Ray has more on Fischer for those who have forgotten him and his Saddam apologias in the run-up to the war. Be sure to read it all, especially if you go to Princeton or sending your sons or daughters there.

Lieberman: Put National Interest Above Partisan Interest

David Broder's column in tomorrow's Washington Post reviews the conundrum of Joe Lieberman, a leader in a Democratic Party that has largely stopped following him. Lieberman knows why his party, especially the state party, appears poised to throw him under the bus, and he forcefully answers their complaints about the Iraq War:

"I think we did the right thing in overthrowing Saddam, and I think we are safer as a result," he continued. "Second, while I have been very critical of the Bush foreign policy before the war and the Rumsfeld-Bush policies in Iraq after Saddam was overthrown, I also made a judgment I would not invoke partisan politics on this war."

That was the point of a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece Lieberman wrote last November endorsing the president's announced strategy to defeat the insurgency and establish a democratic government in Iraq. That article infuriated Lamont and launched his candidacy. "It was decisive," Lamont told me in an interview. "Lieberman suggested that the critics were undermining the credibility of the president. I thought he was wrong."

"My opponent says it broke Democratic unity," Lieberman said. "Well, dammit, I wasn't thinking about Democratic unity. It was a moment to put the national interest above partisan interest."

Lieberman waxes philosophical about the issue for the most part, telling Broder that he anticipated a primary challenge from the Left even while he ran for President in 2003-4. It sounds as if he didn't anticipte that Ned Lamont would capture so much of the vote in the caucuses, and that shock may have an impact on whether he decides to run as an independent if Lamont wins the primary. Lamont now only sits six points behind Lieberman in the polls, up from a 2-1 disadvantage in the caucus.

The trouble with an independent run is that Lieberman would have to have 7500 signatures to qualify, and the due date will be the day after the primary. If Lieberman wants to prepare for an independent run as a backstop to his primary bid, he will have to start collecting signatures at some point -- which will alienate a good chunk of the Democrats in the primary. It's a tough catch-22. Likely, some pro-Lieberman PAC will start collecting signatures instead of Lieberman doing it directly, allowing Lieberman to get drafted into the election.

This fascinates me as an example of how the far Left used a primary challenger to turn out a centrist candidate, in this case a center-left Senator who has one of the few credible voices on national security. It shows how conservatives choose to do so, we can address our high-spending and porked-up Republicans in a similar manner. However, in Lieberman's case, it really seems as though Connecticut Democrats are cutting off their noses to spite their faces. As a Senator, Lieberman cannot affect the course of the war, other than to provide constant anklebiting like John Kerry and Ted Kennedy. His principled stand against allowing partisan politics to occur past the water's edge used to be the protocol for all American politicians, and Lieberman is paying for adhering to an honorable standard.

The Democrats should be worried about the independent run. Lieberman may have a tough time winning the primary, but he should win the seat back as an independent easily, or create a big enough split to hand the seat to the Republicans. If Lieberman wins, he will likely caucus with the Republicans, who will be happy to give him a committee chairmanship for his trouble.

Northern Alliance Radio On The Air

The Northern Alliance Radio Network goes on the air at 11 am CT. The opening half includes John from Power Line, and Chad and Brian from Fraters Libertas. At 12:30, we will have Dr. Charles Kupchella of UND, discussing their lawsuit against the NCAA regarding their school's "Fighting Sioux" nickname and logo.

The second half will feature Mitch from Shot In the Dark and King from SCSU Scholars from 1 to 3 pm CT. Unfortunately, I will not make it into the studio, but Mitch and King have a great week of news to review and may have a few surprises up their sleeves. Call in and join the fun at 651-289-4488, or send an e-mail to comments@northernallianceradio.com!

Nailing AQ's Hacker/Blogger In Chief

The Toronto Star has the story this morning on the British capture of al-Qaeda's chief online resource, Irhabi007, and how badly the discovery has impacted the entire AQ operation. His arrest eight months ago allowed Western nations to make almost 40 arrests around the world, including important links to the 17 Canadians arrested in Toronto last month:

On a cold night last October, police stormed a West London apartment and found Younis Tsouli at his computer, allegedly building a Web page with the title "You Bomb It."

Initially, the raid seemed relatively routine, one of about 1,000 arrests made under Britain's terrorism act during the last five years.

The more eye-popping evidence was allegedly found in the London-area homes of two accused co-conspirators: a DVD manual on making suicide bomb vests, a note with the heading "Welcome to Jihad," material on beheadings, a recipe for rocket fuel, and a note with the formula "hospital = attack."

But as investigators sifted through computer disk information the picture that emerged was dramatic. Police had apparently stumbled on the man suspected of being the most hunted cyber-extremist in the world.

Tsouli, a 22-year-old Moroccan, is being widely named as a central figure in a cyber-terrorist network that has inspired suspected homegrown extremists in Europe and North America, including the 17 people recently arrested in the Toronto area.

The massive, 750 gigabytes of confiscated computer and disk information — an average DVD movie is 4.7 gigabytes — found on Tsouli's computer files is an Internet trail believed to link some of the 39 terror suspects arrested in Canada, Britain, the United States, Sweden, Denmark and Bosnia over the past eight months.

The intelligence efforts of the West have made real inroads against the terrorist networks and their support networks. Internet users can be difficult to track as they can change locations easily, mix up their accounts, hack into otherwise secure machines to push their product and their murderous philosophy across the Internet. Apparently Tsouli did more than just hack and blog, however. According to the Star, Tsouli did some active recruitment and coordination for AQ efforts worldwide, making him a valuable member of the Islamosfascist network.

Now, of course, the arrest transformed Tsouli into one of AQ's biggest liabilities, perhaps their biggest liability since the capture of Naeem Noor Khan in Pakistan almost two years ago. Tsouli belongs to the later generation of AQ operatives, nicknamed AQ 2.0, the looser affiliation of Islamists anxious to kill Western civilians but not tied directly to central AQ command. As such, Tsouli apparently kept extensive records of his operations, all of which the British captured when they found him, and at least some of which resulted in the arrests throughout the world.

The extent of the damage Tsouli's arrest has made will be apparent later, but it seems significant that the British have just now begun to talk about getting Irhabi007, with his pathetic reference to James Bond and his deadly dealings with Britain's enemies. The delay means that the Brits had plenty of time to exploit Tsouli's connections and his data, and only now have run out of fresh leads to pursue directly from Tsouli's records. Like so much of this type of warfare, the dots connect at odd angles, and although Tsouli's data may be completely exploited, they may well have found even more threads to roll up even more AQ cells.

The five-year war on Islamofascism has had more success than we know. It takes months to get news on intel operations, and during that time we keep rolling up more and more of the AQ network. Even the terrorists understand that they are losing. The only people who haven't realized it are in Congress.

2006 Agenda 2.0

The Democrats have announced their latest version of the electoral agenda for the 2006 midterms, but they selected an unusual news day for its release. Politicians use Friday afternoon to release information that they hope will see little coverage, and in reviewing Agenda 2.0, one can understand why:

Their plan, presented at a news conference, included promises to raise the minimum wage, make college tuition tax deductible, eliminate subsidies for oil and gas companies, negotiate lower drug prices for the prescription plan passed last year, increase stem cell research and restore a pay-as-you-go policy for federal budgets.

They noted that Congress had not increased the minimum wage, now at $5.15, since 1997, a fact that Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, declared "immoral." Their proposal to raise it to $7.25, they said, would benefit seven million workers. They rejected the argument that such a raise would shrink the economy, noting that jobs increased after the last raise.

The Democratic leaders also pledged a 25 percent reduction in oil use by 2020, largely by developing fuel alternatives in the United States. "We want to send our energy money to the Midwest, not the Middle East," Ms. Pelosi said.

Over and over, the leaders contrasted Republican priorities — which they deemed "the wrong direction" — with their own — "a new direction." Under Republican rule, they said, health care, college and gas costs have risen faster than incomes.

They also opposed eliminating the "death tax", claiming it would cost the Treasury $1 trillion in revenue over the next ten years. However, if that number is true, then it shows that the estate tax affects a lot more people than just the superwealthy. Most of the billionaires already have their fortunes in foundations and trusts in order to protect their children and grandchildren from a double-dip from the federal government; just ask the Kennedys, whose foundations will keep their extended family in Hyannis digs for at least two more generations. The upper middle class will bear the burden of that tax as they do now -- the independent business owner whose family will either have to sell out to pay the taxes or shut the business down entirely, either way losing a great deal of sales leverage.

As far as the other items mentioned, at least two of the three can get chalked up to excessive government interference in the particular markets. Government subsidies for college is one of the factors driving tuitions out of sight. Calleges rely on these subsidies in the form of grants and loans to continue increasing their rates. Health care has a panoply of requirements from the federal government which increase costs. Since the traditional Democrat approach on these issues is to throw more money and more regulation at them, their agenda will do nothing but throw gasoline on the fire.

Does anyone notice what the Democrats did not have on their agenda yesterday? Not a mention was made about investigations into the Bush administration, which was central to the agenda they announced five weeks ago. Back then, the "confident" Democrats announced their agenda for the Sunday paper instead of the least-read Saturday editions, and their leaders crowed about their intent to turn the House into the Washington Inquisition:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said in an interview last week that a Democratic House would launch a series of investigations of the Bush administration, beginning with the White House's first-term energy task force and probably including the use of intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Pelosi denied Republican allegations that a Democratic House would move quickly to impeach President Bush. But, she said of the planned investigations, "You never know where it leads to."

We found out where it leads -- it leads to voter turnoffs and riling the restive conservative base enough to have them turn out it large enough numbers for the Democrats fail to win control of the House. That announcement, coming in close conjunction with Russ Feingold's push to censure George Bush, reminded everyone why having a Speaker Pelosi instead of Minority Leader Pelosi would do real damage to the nation. Apparently, the Democrats figured it out as well, and tried to sneak this watered-down update through on a Friday afternoon press conference when the fewest people would pay attention.

That speaks volumes about how the Democrats feel about their agenda, and how strongly they will feel bound by it. I suspect that after the election, we will soon see Agenda 3.0 if they manage to win control of the House.

UPDATE: Kennebunkport should have been Hyannis; thanks to commenters below.

Kerry Loses The Center-Left

If the lopsided vote against a duplicate of John Kerry's amendment to the defense authorization bill signaling surrender in Iraq didn't tell him that he had joined Fringeland, then a scolding from Martin Peretz at The New Republic should correct any misunderstandings. Peretz not only dislikes Kerry's stand on the war, but he believes that Kerry is the wrong messenger for the message:

John Kerry can be trumped by just about anybody. But today, the titular leader of the Democratic Party was trumped by Mitch McConnell, consummate cynic and the second-ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate. Kerry had announced that he would soon offer a measure requiring the administration to withdraw almost all of the American troops now in Iraq by the end of the year. What was in the tactical side of his brain when he made this pronunciamento before he had figured out the details of his proposal? Well, a way to get headlines, I suppose.

Peretz thinks that Kerry hadn't "worked out the details" of his proposal because that's what Kerry said about the vote on Thursday, but Kerry had not been truthful about that. He actually had the amendment read into the Congressional Record on Monday, June 12th. It appears in the Congressional Record at page S5726, amending bill S2766, and it contains the complete cut-and-run along with this passage (emphases mine):

(b) Iraq Summit.--The President should convene a summit as soon as possible that includes the leaders of the Government of Iraq, leaders of the governments of each country bordering Iraq, representatives of the Arab League, the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, representatives of the European Union, and leaders of the governments of each permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, for the purpose of reaching a comprehensive political agreement for Iraq that addresses fundamental issues including federalism, oil revenues, the militias, security guarantees, reconstruction, economic assistance, and border security.

Again, that would require George Bush to have Iran and Syria decide what is best for the Iraqis, and gives no consideration to Iraqi sovereignty. Even if this amendment passed Constitutional muster, which it wouldn't given that foreign policy is the purview of the executive branch, it demands this conference whether the Iraqis want it or not; it doesn't have any conditions for an Iraqi refusal to have their policies on oil revenue, reconstruction, or federalism reviewed and approved or denied by Iran and Syria, two of the more oppressive regimes in the area.

Once again, Kerry shows his disdain for democracy. Once again, Kerry has managed to tell two different stories about his participation in an issue. He submitted the details before he had worked all the details out.

Peretz looks at the Senate vote and calculates the message:

[F]or all their ragging against Bush's war, as they term it, even the Democratic Party isn't for a withdrawal from the field. Of course, this does not bode well for Kerry's perpetual aspirations to be president. But nothing else does either.

The Democrats came together a bit more forcefully in the House than in the Senate, where over 150 of them voted for a similar resolution. Most represent very safe districts which probably support a full-tilt retreat, where the Senatos have to get re-elected in statewide races -- and they have a much clearer idea what a cut-and-run vote will do to their chances. It exposes most of the complainers as defeatists, people who cannot support victory even when it stares them in the face. Kerry would give it away to the very governments we hope to transform into responsive, representative democracies through a success in Iraq, and even most Democrats won't go that far.

McKinney Walks

Rep. Cynthia McKinney will not face charges for her assault on a Capitol Hill police officer in an incident started by her refusal to stop and show identification at a security checkpoint. The Washington Post reports that the grand jury could not find probable cause for an indictment, according to the office of the US Attorney handling the case:

A grand jury has declined to indict Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) in an incident at a House office building where she admitting hitting a police officer who tried to stop her from entering after she failed to show identification.

The grand jury found "no probable cause" after an "extensive and thorough" investigation, according to a news release from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia.

"We respect the decision of the grand jury in this difficult matter," U.S. Attorney Kenneth L. Wainstein said in the release.

The grand jury's decision closes the case that had sparked much debate on Capitol Hill about race and the conduct of legislators and the police assigned to protect them. McKinney is black and the officer involved in the March 29 scuffle, Paul McKenna, is white.

Let's set that record straight. The only reason race got mentioned at all was because Cynthis McKinney used it as an excuse for slugging an officer after she breezed through the security checkpoint without wearing her ID pin. That covered up the real issue, which is the sense of entitlement that some of our elected officials feel to disregard laws that they insist the rest of us obey, including passing through those same security checkpoints, which I have done on a couple of occasions. Had I simply walked around their checkpoint, I would have also been chased down and physically stopped from proceeding -- and deservedly so.

Race baiting was the only defense McKinney could offer, and the same people who keep sending her back to Congress ate it up. So did the CBC in a shameful abandonment of the police officers who put their lives on the line to protect them. McKinney offered only the bare minimum of apology, stating that "there should not have been any physical contact in this incident" -- which leaves the strong implication that the police officer started it by stopping her from proceeding. In oher words, her apology only conveyed regret that people can't understand that it wasn't her fault.

One wonders how the Capitol Hill police will react. McKenna got a lot of support from his union, and they may retaliate by tightening security at the entrances of the buildings. My guess is that the lapel pins will be the first thing to go and that ID badges might be required. They may get mad enough to stage a limited walk-out, shutting down the offices in one of the House buildings as a protest. I doubt they will sit back and do nothing.

In the meantime, someone should get a copy of the dictionary to the grand jury and a Toastmasters club membershio for the US attorney. If someone hits a police officer with a cell phone while he is performing his duties, and witnesses and even the suspect confirms it, how can that not rise to the level of "probable cause"?

House Joins Senate In Defeating Cut-And-Run Strategy

One day after a near-unanimous vote against retreating from Iraq in the Senate, the House also rejected the cut-and-run strategy, although this time on a mostly party-line vote. Forty-two Democrats joined all but five Republicans in refusing to abandon the democratic Iraqi government before the Maliki government wants us to go:

The House of Representatives voted, 256 to 153, today in favor of a resolution promising to "complete the mission" in Iraq, prevail in the global fight against terrorism and oppose any "arbitrary date for withdrawal" of American troops.

The nonbinding but politically significant resolution was approved with just three Republicans voting against it and 42 Democrats voting for it. The measure also expresses gratitude for the valor and sacrifice of American and coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and congratulates the new Iraqi government.

This morning's vote, coming after an emotional and partisan debate, was a victory for President Bush, who has declared that it is in the national-security interest of the United States to stay in Iraq until that country is secure. It was a victory, too, for the House Republican leadership. ...

The breakdown of the voting was as expected, largely along party lines. Two of the Republicans who voted no today, Jim Leach of Iowa and John Duncan of Tennessee, were among the few Republicans to vote against the use of force in Iraq in 2002. The other Republican who voted no today was Ron Paul of Texas, described by The Almanac of American Politics as an "isolationist" who supports "virtually no role" for the United States government overseas.

Five lawmakers answered "present" instead of voting yes or no. They were Walter Jones Jr. of North Carolina and Thaddeus G. McCotter of Michigan, both Republicans, and F. Allen Boyd of Florida, Brad Miller of North Carolina and Brad Sherman of California, Democrats.

Needless to say, the die has certainly been cast for the midterm elections. Where the Senate Democratic caucus largely abandoned John Kerry for the carbon-copy of the amendment he introduced on June 12, the House Democrats largely supported John Murtha's efforts. Perhaps the Senate actied thus because Kerry's amedment not only advocated a full retreat to an "over the horizon" position, but also instructed the President to convene a meeting to determine Iraq's future and to invite the governments of "bordering states" to participate in eliminating Iraqi self-determination, and two of the bordering states support terrorism: Iran and Syria. That isn't just a retreat, that's a full-bodied surrender.

The House measure had no such provisions, and Democrats may have felt more sanguine about just supporting a retreat and letting the Iraqis do the surrendering. This did nothing more than continue the debate from the 2004 election, one that the Democrats lost then when Iraq looked less promising than it does now. In the eighteen months since that election, the Iraqis approved their constitution by plebescite and elected their first permanent representative government, and over 200,000 Iraqis have joined their new security forces. They have improved steadily over that period, to the point where they completed by themselves over a third of the 450 raids conducted after the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Yet to listen to these Democrats, one would think that the earth had opened up and swallowed the region whole. Nancy Pelosi called it a "grotesque mistake". Murtha complained that the admnistration had no plan, although the White House has consistently outlined the plan and sent out a very detailed report last November that spelled out the Iraq strategy in detail. The Democrats may not like that plan, but the only plan they've offered in response is to run away (Murtha), or to run away and to surrender to Iran and Syria as well as the Arab League (Kerry).

And somehow, the House Democrats believe that these plans will resonate with American voters in November. Their Senate counterparts, other than Kerry and his Freak-Out Five, knew better.

Hospiblogging, Day 4: Did Anyone Get The Number Of That Truck?

I'm out of surgery -- the doctors squeezed me in early in the schedule. So far as I can tell, it looks like it went well. It hurts, but it's a different kind of pain; it feels more like a typical lower-back muscle ache. The shooting pain down the right leg is gone, and I was able to stand for a few minutes in the last half-hour or so.

The prevailing opinion is that I will be released sometime tomorrow or Sunday at the latest, depending on some secondary considerations. Anesthesia causes the bowels to go to sleep, so we have to make sure they return to normal function first. I'll know more by tomorrow morning.

In the meantime, I'll be enjoying that cleal-liquid diet that I've been looking forward to having all week. I'm very encouraged, and with any luck I'll be home very soon!

The Criminalization Of Political Differences

Michael Barone pens a must-read editorial for the Wall Street Journal that reflects on the charged political environment of the past few decades. He remarks on how the media have changed its approach to political coverage and how the political landscape has adapted to it:

It has been a tough 10 days for those who see current events through the prisms of Vietnam and Watergate. First, the Democrats failed to win a breakthrough victory in the California 50th District special election--a breakthrough that would have summoned up memories of Democrats winning Gerald Ford's old congressional district in a special election in 1974. Instead the Democratic nominee got 45% of the vote, just 1% more than John Kerry did in the district in 2004.

Second, U.S. forces with a precision air strike killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, on the same day that Iraqis finished forming a government. Zarqawi will not be available to gloat over American setbacks or our allies' defeat, as the leaders of the Viet Cong and North Vietnam did.

Third, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald announced that he would not seek an indictment of Karl Rove. The leftward blogosphere had Mr. Rove pegged for the role of Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman. Theories were spun about plea bargains that would implicate Vice President Dick Cheney. Talk of impeachment was in the air. But it turns out that history doesn't repeat itself. George W. Bush, whether you like it or not, is not a second Richard Nixon.

Barone notes that since Viet Nam and Watergate, the press has changed the way it covers government. Be sure to read the entire essay.

Knock, Knock!

The Supreme Court ruled that evidence collected on a valid search warrant can be admitted in court, even if the officers did not knock on the door to announce themselves at the time of the search. The ruling narrows the exclusionary rule which normally would render invalid any evidence arising from a search with any defect, a limit that will have civil libertarians seeing red:

Evidence found by police officers who enter a home to execute a search warrant without first following the requirement to "knock and announce" can be used at trial despite that constitutional violation, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.

The 5-to-4 decision left uncertain the value of the "knock-and-announce" rule, which dates to 13th-century England as protection against illegal entry by the police into private homes.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in the majority opinion, said that people subject to an improper police entry remained free to go to court and bring a civil rights suit against the police.

But Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the dissenters, said the ruling "weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce protection." He said the majority's reasoning boiled down to: "The requirement is fine, indeed, a serious matter, just don't enforce it."

The decision followed a reargument less than a month ago, with the newest justice, Samuel A. Alito Jr., evidently casting the decisive vote. Justice Breyer's dissenting opinion was clearly drafted to speak for a majority that was lost when Justice Sandra Day O'Connor left the court shortly after the first argument in January.

Breyer gets this wrong, as did previous court decisions that gave a free pass to defendants regardless of the basic legality of the search itself. For decades, the court has forgotten that every criminal case involves two parties: the defendant and the People. Justice means treating each party fairly and attempting to reach the truth. Instead, the exclusionary rule penalizes the People and ignores the truth of the case.

In the case of a search executed with a valid warrant, the issue of knocking on the door does not change the quality of the evidence found once the search gets executed. Drug stashes do not change their intrinsic nature based on whether the knuckles of a police officer touch the door. Prior to Hudson, that evidence would have been discarded and the trial would have served as a cover-up for the truth.

The exclusionary rule has its applications, but it should apply where the failure to follow tghe rules changes the nature of the evidence. To use an extreme example, if a confession comes from torture, that changes the nature of the evidence and should be excluded. If the police search a residence without permission or a warrant, then any evidence collected must be excluded, even if one could argue that a warrant could have been easily obtained. A search with no permission or warrant changes the nature of the search itself, as abuse is inherent in such a search.

The failure to knock should carry some penalty, but it shouldn't get applied to the benefit of the criminal; it should get applied to the detriment of the officer who failed to knock. Penalizing the People and returning a criminal to the streets has no direct consequences to the person by whose failure the defendant benefits, and it transforms criminal trials from a search for the truth to a laughable series of procedural hurdles, each of which contain a Get Out Of Jail Free card. The defense should have the right to bring up the failure of the police officer to knock during the search and let the jury consider the circumstances while considering the evidence it provided.

SCOTUS got this one right. In order to come to true justice, the jury needs to see as much of the truth as possible. Penalizing the People by having the judiciary create such hurdles hides the truth rather than expose it. The penalty for violating the knock rule should be applied to the individual responsible for the failure. And if Congress and the states want to reinstate the exclusionary rule in this instance, they have the ability to pass legislation to mandate it rather than have SCOTUS create the hurdles themselves.

UPDATE: Daniel Freedman at It Shines For All notes that the New York Times doesn't mention the valid search warrant in its editorial about the decision:

The case arose out of the search of Booker T. Hudson's home in Detroit in 1998. The police announced themselves but did not knock, and after waiting a few seconds, entered his home and seized drugs and a gun. There is no dispute that the search violated the knock-and-announce rule.

The question in the case was what to do about it. Mr. Hudson wanted the evidence excluded at his trial. That is precisely what should have happened. Since 1914, the Supreme Court has held that, except in rare circumstances, evidence seized in violation of the Constitution cannot be used. The exclusionary rule has sometimes been criticized for allowing criminals to go free just because of police error. But as the court itself recognized in that 1914 case, if this type of evidence were admissible, the Fourth Amendment "might as well be stricken."

The court ruled yesterday that the evidence could be used against Mr. Hudson. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, argued that even if police officers did not have to fear losing a case if they disobeyed the knock-and-announce rule, the subjects of improper searches could still bring civil lawsuits to challenge them. But as the dissenters rightly pointed out, there is little chance that such suits would keep the police in line. Justice Scalia was also far too dismissive of the important privacy rights at stake, which he essentially reduced to "the right not to be intruded upon in one's nightclothes." Justice Stephen Breyer noted in dissent that even a century ago the court recognized that when the police barge into a house unannounced, it is an assault on "the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life."

That's ludicrous. It would be true if the police hadn't obtained a valid search warrant, but they did have it and the search would have commenced regardless of whether the police knocked. This is precisely the kind of silly technicality that undermines confidence in our judicial system. Penalize the man who failed to knock, but that missing knock should not shield the jury from the evidence collected from a valid search warrant. A search is always an "assault on the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life," but that's why we have judicial approval on search warrants, and a knock on the door does nothing to alleviate the "assault".

The Times editorial board has this annoying habit of simply ignoring facts that don't fit their mindset, and this is yet another example.

Other Than Strapping On A Bomb Vest, Of Course

Newly freed Indonesian Islamist Abu Bakar Bashir, the spiritual leader of the Bali bombers that killed 202 people, might appear to be the best authority on salvation in ... well, anywhere or any time. However, that did not keep Bashir from advising world leaders to convert to Islam or face eternal damnation:

A reputed leader of an al-Qaida-linked terror group blamed for deadly bombings across Indonesia on Thursday accused President Bush and Australia's prime minister of waging wars against Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Militant cleric Abu Bakar Bashir also called on Bush and Prime Minister John Howard to convert to Islam, saying it was "the only way to save their souls."

I doubt that either Blair or Bush will take the oportunity to act in accordance with the wishes of a terrorist leader and murdering thug who exhorted his followers to commit mass murder in the name of said religion. If that doesn't sound arrogant enough, he also offered advice to the families of his victims:

He added that families still grieving after the 2002 Bali blasts that killed many foreigners should also become Muslim to find "salvation and peace."

Un-freakin'-believable. He kills their loved ones in the name of Islam, and then he tells them that they're damned? Puh-leeze.

And while we're on the subject of disbelief, who greenlighted Irwin Firdaus' description of Bashir as a "reputed leader" of a terrorist group? Bashir was convicted on those charges, and obviously did not spend enough time behind bars for it. He has spoken out on behalf of terrorists. What part of Bashir's background did Firdaus and the editors at the AP miss? For once, I would like them to explain at what stage the status of "terrorist leader" become final. (via the excellent NY Sun blog It Shines For All)

Iran Turns East

Facing a showdown with a delicate coalition on the UN Security Council demanding a cessation of its uranium-enrichment program, Iran has decided to do its best to split the East from the West before answering the offer it received this week. The Times of London reports that Iran has opened talks with Russia and China concerning the creation of a diplomatic and military bloc that would oppose the US and the West:

MAHMOUD Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President, held talks with Chinese and Russian leaders at a summit meeting yesterday to build up a security grouping in opposition to the US and Nato.

Mr Ahmadinejad was invited to address a meeting of the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation (SCO), a China-sponsored proto-alliance that aims to strengthen defence links across Central Asia.

In an implicit reference to the US and its pressure on Iran to end its nuclear weapons programme, he said that the SCO could “ward off the threats of domineering powers to use their force against and interfere in the affairs of other states”.

The summit was also attended by the leaders of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Mongolia, India and four Central Asian former Soviet republics. A joint declaration signed by those attending appeared to back the Iranian President.

“Differences in cultural traditions, political and social systems, values and models of development formed in the course of history should not be taken as pretexts to interfere in other countries’ internal affairs,” the joint declaration said.

No one expected Iran to sit quietly and wait for the deadline to pass without trying for a little more brinksmanship. However, if the SCO offers anything more than lip service to multiculturalism, I'll eat my hat. Three of the four other countries named as attending members of the SCO have more to lose by alienating the US than they have to gain by befriending Iran. India wants the treaty Bush engineered to get through the Senate, already a dicey affair, and they will not risk American ire just so the nation that provides inspiration and funding to India's own Islamists can develop nuclear weapons. Pakistan's Musharraf has already cast his lot with the US irrevocably; a change on his part to support Iran will put a squeeze on Pakistan from two sides and make the US forces in Afghanistan a lot more cavalier about border crossings to chase al-Qaeda suspects than before.

In effect, though, Iran has set itself up as a pawn for the two Asian nations. Neither China nor Russia want Iran to have nukes any more than they wanted Kim Jong-Il to have them. They don't mind playing Iran as a bargaining chip in their diplomatic efforts to hamstring the US. After all, an Iranian crisis means that the US has to shift focus from the Central Asian republics, allowing Russia to entice them back into the fold. China also need Iranian oil output to keep energy prices as low as possible for its efforts at rapid industrial expansion. A resolution to the Iranian crisis means that the US has time and energy to increase its influence in Central Asia, and that will force Russia and China to cosy up to Ahmadinejad.

Iran may get a symbolic boost from its membership in the SCO, but in the end it won't make much difference either way. Russia and China need the UN to act as a brake on American ambitions, making the SCO irrelevant in this context anyway. If the SCO attempts to create a NATO-like alliance, the US and UK might be tempted to declare Turtle Bay a failed experiment and do all of their diplomacy through NATO instead. That would be the end of their political leverage against American action -- after all, they do not belong to NATO themselves -- and they will find the SCO cold comfort when that happens.

Iran is stalling, and the Russians and Chinese are acting as enablers, at least for a while. Ultimately Iran will still have to provide an answer to the West, and the SCO will not alleviate that responsibilty.

Jefferson Ousted In Democratic Power Play

Rep. William Jefferson, whose freezer held over $90,000 when the FBI searched it in connection with an ongoing bribery and corruption probe, has lost a vote by the House Democratic Caucus to retain his committee seat on the Ways and Means Committee. The lopsided vote affirmed Nancy Pelosi's influence as caucus leader, but may have caused a bitter racial split among her colleagues:

House Democrats, determined to make an election-year point about ethics, voted to strip Rep. William Jefferson of his committee assignment Thursday night while a federal bribery investigation runs its course.

Members of the rank and file approved the move after Jefferson refused for weeks to step aside on his own, and despite claims by some members of the Congressional Black Caucus that he was being treated unfairly.

Officials said the vote was 99-58. The action must be ratified by the full House, and Jefferson left open the possibility that he might at long last relent and surrender the seat on his own. "I don't want to speculate," he said. The session marked the culmination of a drive by the Democratic leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, to take action against the embattled Louisiana lawmaker, who maintains his innocence and has not been indicted.

"This is not about a court of law. This is about a higher ethical standard, and you know when it isn't being met," she told reporters several hours before the meeting.

Jefferson is black, and Pelosi, brushing aside criticism from members of the black caucus, told reporters she had been "more than fair."

This may surprise some readers, but Jefferson has a point in his argument, although it has nothing to do with the racial paranoia exhibited by the CBC. Jefferson has not yet been charged with any crime, nor has any grand jury been empaneled to consider an indictment, as far as I have heard. While I think that Jefferson should have taken the honorable action of resigning -- both from the committee and the House -- Pelosi has effectively punished him for a crime for which he has not yet had his due process.

Granted, committee assignments are political in nature, and no doubt Jefferson has embarrassed the Democrats and stolen what they thought was their magic bullet for the midterms, the so-called Republican culture of corruption. However, if that caused Pelosi to take this to a caucus fight, it's more than just a little hypocritical, especially after she and Dennis Hastert asserted that the FBI could not execute a search warrant on Jefferson's office without violating a previously unknown clause in the Constitution that makes Capitol Hill into the halfway House for political delinquents. If embarrassment is good enough reason to split the caucus and cause an eruption of racial disharmony just a few months before the elections, then Pelosi should consider resigning her post as well.

Pelosi argues that the Democrats have a higher ethical standard, and that prompted her to seek his expulsion from committee assignments. If she means that, then she could have just as easily referred him to the Ethics Committee, and let them review the evidence and allow Jefferson his say. It appears that Pelosi wanted more than just a chance to flash some ethics chops. She wanted to show the caucus who's boss, and she succeeded.

I won't mourn for Jefferson, who should have resigned on his own, as I wrote earlier. Failing that, Pelosi should have kept her powder dry until the Department of Justice took some concrete legal action against Jefferson. If they do not turn up enough evidence for an indictment, Pelosi will look very foolish.

Hospiblogging, Day 3: The Kindest Cut?

Today was a day of clarity for the doctors and myself, as the cortisone injection failed to produce any good results. I woke up this morning feeling a little less pain, and I even managed to get a shower for the first time here. Let me tell you, I've used more luxurious bathrooms but I never had a shower that felt so good. In fact, I concentrated so hard on getting into the shower that I forgot I still had my glasses on until I knocked them onto the floor.

That respite was short-lived, as it turns out. By the end of the morning, all of the pain had returned and it became apparent that cortisone therapy would not address the rupture. My two doctors and I decided that surgery would be the best course of action, and so we have it scheduled for tomorrow, either early in the morning or in mid-afternoon. I spoke with the specialist and my primary-care physician about the risks and benefits, and all of us agreed that there wasn't much point in waiting any further. None of us thought that the injection would do much, but we had all agreed that it made sense to at least try it first, as it didn't impact the surgery option anyway.

I'm a bit nervous about the surgery, but I will be glad to get rid of the excruciating pain that thunders through my leg every time I move. The doctor tells me that the relief will be immediate, and that I could go home in a day or two after the surgery, depending on how I heal. I will be out of work for at least a week and maybe two; I have a 40-minute commute to work that is the real threshold on my ability to return.

The surgery may happen at 7:30 am or 4:00 pm CDT, depending on OR availability. I'm hoping for the early slot, if only to get the whole issue resolved that much sooner. If I'm still blogging at 8 am, you'll know that I didn't get lucky on the scheduling.

The First Mate is doing fine, and we have family staying with her for support.

Why Competition Improves The Media

Mary Katharine Ham makes her debut as a member of the Examiner Blog Board in an excellent column regarding competition and accountability in the media. Mary Katharine might be the only one of us on the board who has worked in the mainstream media, and she brings her unique perspective to the issue of external checks and balances for newspapers and broadcast media outlets:

I grew up in a cross-town newspaper battle — one of the few left in a news climate where chains had bought most major dailies and many markets had become monopolies. I learned early that two newspapers fighting for scoops and readers meant that readers got better news coverage than they would have gotten if they were served by one paper.

I know because I watched both papers grow. We got the competition’s newspaper delivered to our house for opposition research. ...

I decided to give up newspapers when I started thinking of blogs and conservative media as just another competitor to the Mainstream Media. I don’t have to be the mortal enemy of the papers I grew up with. Sure, they do stupid things, and I love to call them out for it just as they love to call out bloggers, but the truth is that blogs have the ability to push newspapers and other mainstream media to be better.

I need the foreign bureaus and the years of experience embodied by an MSM news organization in order to be a decent blogger. I see the virtues of the MSM despite its many gaffes. After spending half my career in the newsroom and the other in my pajamas, as is the blogger custom, I know that if more members of the MSM did the same, we’d all end up with better products.

There is a reason the competition newspaper landed on our doorstep every day growing up. It thumped against the stoop next to “our” newspaper, weighty with ideas that could be used and tweaked in competition against it.

How many major cities now have only one major daily? It's much easier to ask how many have two, let alone three or four. Consolidation in print journalism began decades ago, when advertising dollars couldn't spread enough to subsidize more than one or two newspapers in a given market. New York and Chicago may have the only true competitive markets with two or more major newspapers still left in metropolitan America. Los Angeles, with its enormous population and incredible mass -- it's the second-largest city in square miles -- should have at least two majors, and probably three or four. Instead, its only competition is in Orange County, where the Register has a long history of Ayn Randian libertarianism as a balance to the Times' unabashedly liberal editorial profile.

That competition not only kept the newspapers honest, it made them better newspapers. That's what competition brings -- more efficiency, better results, and in the media, better service for its consumers. Be sure to read all of Mary Katharine's article.

Also, I neglected to mention Lorie Byrd's first column, in which she wonders whatever happened to honesty in politics. That day was a bit hectic for me, and I just realized I never posted a link to it. She wrote a wonderful piece, so be sure to read it if you haven't already.

UPDATE: Misspelled Mary Katharine's middle name; I've corrected the text. Thanks go to CQ reader and blog-hostess extraordinaire Emily D from Heritage Foundation. (Actually, she's the event planner who made sure I had a wonderful experience in Colorado Springs earlier this year and one of the nicest people you'll ever meet.)

Cut And Run Gets Run Out Of Senate

Both houses of Congress spent today debating the Iraq War and the troop deployment, and the Senare voted on a bill presented by the GOP caucus that mirrored John Kerry's amendment to the defense authorization bill calling for a withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq by the end of the year. When the rhetorical dust had settled, the motion failed by a whopping 93-6 vote, embarrassing Democrats who have stepped up calls for exactly such a withdrawal:

The Senate rejected a call for the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq by year's end on Thursday as Congress erupted in impassioned, election-year debate over a conflict that now has claimed the lives of 2,500 American troops.

The vote was 93-6 to shelve the proposal, which would have allowed "only forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces" to remain in 2007. ...

The Senate voted unfolded unexpectedly as the second-ranking leader, Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., introduced legislation he said was taken from a proposal by Sen. John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat and war critic. It called for Bush to agree with the Iraqi government on a schedule for withdrawal of combat troops by Dec. 31, 2006.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said if the United States withdrew, "I am absolutely convinced the terrorists would see this as vindication." He predicted terrorism would spread around the world, and eventually reach the United States.

Democrats sought to curtail floor debate on the proposal, and the vote occurred quickly.

Kerry and other Democrats accused Republicans of political gamesmanship, and promised an authentic debate next week. He and five other Democrats were in the minority on the vote — Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Barbara Boxer of California, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Tom Harkin of Iowa, and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts.

Like its predecessor in the House last fall, the Democrats that have demanded such a move saw all support for their position disappear once the Republicans forced a vote on the issue. Kerry demonstrated his residence in the fringe of American politics with his slim coterie of supporters, all but Robert Byrd occupying the far-left side of the Democratic caucus. It also shows the bankruptcy of their argument that they would again make this demand after a week that has shown so much promise, as Nouri al-Maliki has hit the ground running as PM in the new Iraqi government by deploying Iraqi forces successfully to root out terrorists and start to bring calm to Baghdad.

Some have complained that the Republicans did this as a political stunt; the same complaints came last year in response to John Murtha's demands being sent as a resolution to the House floor. Those complaints ring very hollow, especially as it applies to John Kerry. Kerry has spent the past week writing columns and making speeches demanding a complete withdrawal from Iraq by the end of the year. That is politics as well, and any notion that Democrats aren't trying to harness anti-war sentiment or Iraq fatigue for the midterm elections is laughable on its face. Kerry himself proposed an amendment demanding the exact same action on June 12!

If anyone politicized this issue, John Kerry, with a lot of help from the Democratic caucuses in both houses. For those who find themselves annoyed because the cut-and-run poses from Kerry, Feingold, Kennedy, Boxer, Harkin, and Kennedy make the Republicans look good, they should direct their ire to Kerry and the Freak-Out Five. Congress exists for the debate and resolution of issues, and Kerry initiated the debate with his amendment. The GOP leadership simply gave Kerry what his action demanded -- debate and a vote that put everyone in the Senate on record as to whether they would abandon the Iraqis before they could effectively defend themselves.

Now we know the extent of the cut-and-run caucus in the upper chamber; they put themselves on record. If that qualifies as a "stunt" for some people, they must regard the entire American experiment as a strange public-relations campaign where the only issues that Congress can handle are how cold a refrigerator should get while storing cash.

Did They Run Out Of Rockets?

Less than a week after declaring an end to the "truce" with Israel -- a truce that allowed Palestinian terrorists to continue launching rockets at Israeli citizens -- Hamas has offered to resume the truce. This time, Hamas leaders will pledge to stop all other groups from launching separate attacks:

The Hamas-led government offered Thursday to restore a cease-fire with Israel, several days after calling off the truce to protest a deadly explosion on a Gaza beach, but said the calm would depend on Israel's response.

Hamas said it is ready to put pressure on other militant groups to halt rocket fire against Israel. The rocket attacks have drawn tough Israeli reprisals and raised the possibility of a broader conflict.

"This is very clear for us. We are interested to keep the situation and quiet, especially in the Gaza Strip," said government spokesman Ghazi Hamad. "We have contacts with the Palestinian factions. We are ready to do it, but (only) if the Israeli side has a strong intention to respond positively to the call ... to stop their aggression."

Israel welcomed the gesture. "If it is quiet, we will answer that with quiet," said Mark Regev, spokesman for Israel's Foreign Ministry.

Hamas has belatedly realized that they had initiated a two-front war, one with their rival Fatah terrorists and the other with the IDF. Nothing has shown Hamas capable of beating either of them separately, and they certainly could not fight both at the same time. For a brief moment, Hamas had some hope that Fatah might throw in with them and Islamic Jihad in a united fight against Israel with the deaths of several Palestinian civilians that Hamas blamed on Israel. Unfortunately for PM Ishmael Haniyeh, president Mahmoud Abbas did not rise to the bait, and the explanation of those deaths shifted the focus from IDF shells to illegal mining of the Gaza beaches.

Both Hamas and Fatah have a big problem with their own people. They have had to resort to smuggling cash over the border to fund government functions, and they do not have the resources to fight a war against a modern, fully-equipped army like the IDF. The Palestinians now want to get paid so they do not lose what little they have to bankruptcy and foreclosure, and the rationing of pay will undoubtedly erode what little confidence the Palestinians have with their government. Despite smuggling $22 million into the territories in two successive days, it only comprises less than eight percent of what the Palestinian Authority owes in wages alone. Until Hamas proves it will renounce violence and recognize existing treaties signed with Israel and the West, their economic catastrophe has no hope of ending.

However, what seems to have finally prompted the Hamas offer was a warning from the Israeli defense minister that Hamas leadership would be considered open targets if hostilities continued. That apparently caught the attention of Haniyeh and his cohorts and convinced them to look for a way out.

So far, the Hamas government has produced a disaster for the Palestinians who voted them into power. People argue that the Palestinians voted for Hamas as a protest against the corruption of Fatah. However, even Fatah managed to make their payroll on a regular basis, and they also had made progress with the West in pressuring Israel for more creative solutions to end the 39-year impasse over the occupation. Now all of the goodwill has dissipated, thanks to Hamas, and if the corruption has truly stopped, it's due to the fact that no one has any money to steal.

Perhaps the Palestinians might learn a lesson from this debacle, but first they have to accept responsibility for it. If they truly want peace and a two-state solution, they need to start demonstrating this by electing politicians who also support that conclusion. Until now, they have shown no inclination to do so. Maybe those mobs in the street rampaging through the Palestinian parliament would be better served by forming a political party based on clean government and engagement with Israel and the world in order to get the soverignty they desire.

A Treasure From The Trove

Iraqi officials released a document found in the run-up to the Zarqawi mission that discussed al-Qaeda in Iraq tactics and strategy, accompanied by a gloomy prognosis for the AQI network. In the memo, the author acknowledges that the momentum had shifted to the Americans and that AQI would quickly run out of time and recruits, and proposed starting another war with America as a distraction -- preferably with Iran:

A blueprint for trying to start a war between the United States and Iran was among a "huge treasure" of documents found in the hideout of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Iraqi officials said Thursday. ...

While the coalition was continuing to suffer human losses, "time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance," the document said.

The document said the insurgency was being hurt by, among other things, the U.S. military's program to train Iraqi security forces, by massive arrests and seizures of weapons, by tightening the militants' financial outlets, and by creating divisions within its ranks.

"Generally speaking and despite the gloomy present situation, we find that the best solution in order to get out of this crisis is to involve the U.S. forces in waging a war against another country or any hostile groups," the document said, as quoted by al-Maliki's office.

According to the summary, insurgents were being weakened by operations against them and by their failure to attract recruits. To give new impetus to the insurgency, they would have to change tactics, it added.

"We mean specifically attempting to escalate the tension between America and Iran, and American and the Shiite in Iraq," it quoted the documents as saying, especially among moderate followers of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most influential Shiite cleric in Iraq.

"Creating disputes between America and them could hinder the U.S. cooperation with them, and subsequently weaken this kind of alliance between Shiites and the Americans," it said, adding that "the best solution is to get America involved in a war against another country and this would bring benefits."

This corroborates the memo discovered in April by US forces during a raid on a terrorist safe house, one in which an anonymous AQ analyst claimed that "every year is worse than the previous year". The analyst also wrote that AQI had started to run out of munitions and weapons, and that they appeared unable to resupply their cells. It also calculated the number of AQI members in Baghdad at 110, perhaps coincidentally close to the 104 killed throughout Iraq in the massive sweep by Iraqi and American forces this week. (See Update for a clarification on this sentence.)

No one should be surprised by AQI's intent to start a war between Iran and the US. For them, it would have been the best of all possible events. The Americans would have to disengage from Baghdad and its environs. leaving the motivated but inexperienced Iraqi security forces in charge. It would also have placed American power directly in oposition to the Shi'ites, whom Zarqawi wanted to kill in great numbers, if possible. All of that would have given Zarqawi and his Islamist lunatics an opportunity to grab power, or failing that, to topple the elected government and have a more friendly strongman take Saddam's place in Baghdad.

Our efforts in Iraq have put an end to that kind of plotting. Had we bailed out of Iraq last year as Jack Murtha had demanded, or this year as John Kerry now insists, we would not have had the intel and the opportunity to put those plans to an end along with the AQI leader proposing them as their last-ditch solution. AQI and the other terrorists understand that we are winning, even if our own leaders do not or will not comprehend it.

UPDATE: CQ reader Burt in the comments notes that I mixed apples and oranges in comparing the total AQI members, and he's correct (but I didn't intend on misleading people). The earlier AQI total referred to their agents in Baghdad, while the roundup numbers come from nationwide raids. I've fixed the text above.

Report Card Adds Up To A Turning Point

Once dominoes start to fall, it becomes increasingly difficult to stop their momentum. The terrorists who pledged allegiance to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi until he attained room temperature have discovered this, much to their dismay. CENTCOM spokesman General William Caldwell gives us the scorecard on the Zarqawi mission, and it looks like a rout:

American and Iraqi forces have carried out 452 raids since last week's killing of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and 104 insurgents were killed during those actions, the U.S. military said Thursday.

Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, said the raids were carried out nationwide and led to the discovery of 28 significant arms caches.

He said 255 of the raids were joint operations, while 143 were carried out by Iraqi forces alone. The raids also resulted in the captures of 759 "anti-Iraqi elements."

That result should impress even the deepest cynics. 452 raids killed 104 terrorists and captured almost 800 more insurgents. The intelligence gathered before and during the Zarqawi mission has yielded unbelievably good fruit, and the AQI network has suffered a catastrophic blow, if not a total loss. For those who sniffed at the importance of killing Zarqawi, this shows how little they understand this type of warfare.

Assuming that all 104 dead and 759 captured comprised only AQI elements, we can presume that the foreign insurgency has all but disappeared -- a critical victory not just for the US, but also for the new Iraqi government. The main trigger for sectarian violence came from the Zarqawi network, who alienated many Iraqis by exhorting them to kill Shi'ites in Iraq. Removal of that element in its entirety would mean that part of the momentum towards civil war has been negated, perhaps all of it. For the US, we have beaten al-Qaeda in the field as they hid themselves among the Iraqi civilians, a victory that will have serious repercussions for the credibility of AQ in the future.

Another piece of this news will probably get overlooked. Over a third of the missions were performed by the Iraqis on their own. Caldwell did not specifiy how many kills and captures the Iraqis got, but the show of skill by the much-maligned Iraqi security forces will also bolster the credibility of the new Iraqi government, and their entire demoratic enterprise as well. Many have dismissed this effort as misguided and claim that Muslim Arabs can only function within a strong-man autocracy. As the security forces gain more victories such as this, we should expect to see that argument quietly dropped.

This is a solid turning point for the Iraqis and the Coalition. This shows that insurgencies can get stamped out with enough time and effort, and that should help convince the native dead-enders to fold their tents and accept Maliki's amnesty offer.

Zarqawi's Thumb Drive Fingers Associates, Maliki Tries Amnesty

If al-Qaeda in Iraq reads Western news sources, and their media-savvy but tactically insane recent communications suggest they do, they may soon decide that their operation has blown its cover completely. After an AQ associate dropped a dime on Zarqawi, they now have a much larger security breach than they knew:

Iraq's national security adviser said Thursday a "huge treasure" of documents and computer records was seized after the raid on terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's hideout, giving the Iraqi government the upper hand in its fight against al-Qaida in Iraq.

National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie also said he believed the security situation in the country would improve enough to allow a large number of U.S.-led forces to leave Iraq by the end of this year, and a majority to depart by the end of next year. "And maybe the last soldier will leave Iraq by mid-2008," he said.

Al-Rubaie said a laptop, flashdrive and other documents were found in the debris after the airstrike that killed the al-Qaida in Iraq leader last week outside Baqouba, and more information has been uncovered in raids of other insurgent hideouts since then.

He called it a "huge treasure ... a huge amount of information."

When asked how he could be sure the information was authentic, al-Rubaie said "there is nothing more authentic than finding a thumbdrive in his pocket."

Coalition forces picked up quite a bit of intelligence after other captures, and we saw the effects in rapid raids and domino-style takedowns of small parts of the AQI network. When we hit the leader, it allowed the Iraqis and the US to get solid information on the entire network. We saw the effects of this when Coalition forces doubled their initial raid targets in the aftermath of Zarqawi's demise, hitting 39 sites instead of the initial 17.

Insurgencies fail when they lose cohesion and the governments they fight gain enough intelligence to roll up their operations. AQI is in the process of finding this out. It also puts the other insurgents at risk depending on their coordination with AQI, and I suspect we'll find out that the Ba'athist dead-enders had more links to Zarqawi than we know.

Will it end all of the insurgencies? Of course not, but it will make them much less effective in coordination, recruitment, and proper training. Those issues had already caused Zarqawi a great deal of concern, and with him and his closest associates either dead or captured, that will debilitate them to the point of nonentities soon enough.

Prime Minister Maliki has a plan for the other native insurgents: amnesty. However, his proposal has a clause to which the US will plainly object, which allows terrorists who have conducted attacks on US forces in the past to walk free if they lay down their arms:

In addition to announcing the security crackdown, al-Maliki opened the door Wednesday for talks with insurgents opposed to the country's political process as part of a national reconciliation initiative, but he said any negotiations would exclude terrorist groups. The plan could include a pardon for some prisoners.

A senior White House official said the Iraqis have indicated that they are looking for "models" in national reconciliation. Another official said al-Maliki had inquired whether Bosnians or South Africans might be able to provide expertise.

"There is also a space for dialogue with insurgents who opposed the political process and now want to join the political process after offering guarantees," al-Maliki said. "But on the other hand we are not going to negotiate with the criminals who have killed the innocent."

A top al-Maliki adviser told The Washington Post the plan could include pardons for those who had attacked U.S. troops. Adnan Ali al-Kadhimi told the Post "there is a patriotic feeling among the Iraqi youth and the belief that those attacks are legitimate acts of resistance and defending their homeland. These people will be pardoned definitely, I believe."

This sounds appalling, but it probably reflects the reality of Iraq today, and will be the only realistic way to bring an end to the infighting. We can demand that Mailiki rescind the offer, but a refusal would only burnish his credentials as an independent leader. In fact, we should protest to give him that chance. I would like nothing more that to see the cowards hand from the nearest gallows, but insisting on that point would likely make almost everyone ineligible for the amnesty. Maliki has already narrowed down eligibility to those who have not attacked civilians, which will prove problematic enough to enforce.

At some point, Iraq needs a national reconciliation if it is to avoid a civil war. The Shi'a and Kurds will have to find ways to connect to the Sunni minority on a rational political basis, and the best way to get to that stage is to combine a crackdown on insurgents and a ban on militias with a general amnesty for those who wish to return home and live normal lives. Their motivation has not been radical Islam in most cases but sectarian hatreds and a reaction to occupation. If we want to stabilize Iraq, we will probably need to bend on this concern, as hard as it will be, in order to hasten that reconciliation and help the Iraqis move farther away from politics at gunpoint.

So far, Maliki has hit all the right notes in his short tenure as Prime Minister. He has acted with much more alacrity and conviction than Ibrahim al-Jaafari, who got forced into withdrawing from the run for Prime Minister. We need to continue to support Maliki and his efforts to bring his nation to healing.

UPDATE: Rick Moran shares my reluctant acknowledgement of the necessity of this amnesty offer:

I don’t like it any more than you do.

The prospect of granting a limited amnesty in Iraq – especially to those Iraqis who participated in attacks on Americans – sticks in my craw. I believe that amnesty would cheapen the sacrifice made by the more than 2,500 Americans who have given their lives in Iraq and would be a slap in the face to the families of the fallen.

But all things considered, it may be the price of a full, unqualified victory in Iraq – a stable democratic government that promises full political participation for all Iraqis and that would be an example to follow for the rest of the autocratic Middle East.

This was the goal when we initiated the overthrow of Saddam. And achieving that goal would hearten democrats in the entire Muslim world while striking a huge blow at al Qaeda and their brothers in terror across the Middle East.

I believe this falls into the category of keeping to our long-term strategy rather than short-term tactics. It's not the best of all worlds, but if it hastens the end of the Iraqi insurgencies, then we should not obstruct the Iraqi government from carrying out this policy. Hot Air has similar thoughts.

Government Has Broad Powers To Detain Non-Citizens Indefinitely: Federal Court

In a ruling that affirms executive branch power in wartime, a federal judge ruled yesterday that the government has broad powers under immigration law to detain non-citizens indefinitely, and to do so on a wide variety of criteria. This ruling deals a strong blow to a class-action effort by Muslims rounded up after the 9/11 attacks, who claimed that the US violated their rights to due process:

A federal judge in Brooklyn ruled yesterday that the government has wide latitude under immigration law to detain noncitizens on the basis of religion, race or national origin, and to hold them indefinitely without explanation.

The ruling came in a class-action lawsuit by Muslim immigrants detained after 9/11, and it dismissed several key claims the detainees had made against the government. But the judge, John Gleeson of United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, allowed the lawsuit to continue on other claims, mostly that the conditions of confinement were abusive and unconstitutional. Judge Gleeson's decision requires top federal officials, including former Attorney General John Ashcroft and Robert S. Mueller III, the F.B.I. director, to answer to those accusations under oath.

This is the first time a federal judge has addressed the issue of discrimination in the treatment of hundreds of Muslim immigrants who were swept up in the weeks after the 2001 terror attacks and held for months before they were cleared of links to terrorism and deported. The roundups drew intense criticism, not only from immigrant rights advocates, but also from the inspector general of the Justice Department, who issued reports saying that the government had made little or no effort to distinguish between genuine suspects and Muslim immigrants with minor visa violations.

Lawyers in the suit, who vowed to appeal yesterday's decision, said parts of the ruling could potentially be used far more broadly, to detain any noncitizen in the United States for any reason.

"This decision is a green light to racial profiling and prolonged detention of noncitizens at the whim of the president," said Rachel Meeropol, a lawyer for the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represented the detainees. "The decision is profoundly disturbing because it legitimizes the fact that the Bush administration rounded up and imprisoned our clients because of their religion and race."

This ruling will no doubt raise controversy about the nature of rights and their relationship to citizenship under American law. (Oddly, the New York Times ran this story in its Metro/Region section rather than in National News, where it would gain more attention.) It revives a debate that erupted in the wake of government action after 9/11, when the administration arrested hundreds of Muslim immigrants to determine whether any of them presented a threat for more terror attacks.

The ruling hinges on whether the government can selectively enforce laws against non-citizens, and states that they can be held indefinitely only if the government has received a deportation order, or if such an order is "reasonably foreseeable" under the individual circumstances. Gleeson acknowledged that such actions run counter to the notion of American due process, but that their non-citizen status makes their stay in the US subject to regulation by Congress and enforcement by the executive branch. Gleeson further stated that both can create and enforce laws that would be viewed as "suspicious" if applied to American citizens.

Under normal circumstances, we would rightly view any kind of roundup and indefinite detention as "suspicious", and even now it gives the federal government tremendous power and little recourse to the immigrant. However, radical Muslims have attacked our nation, and nineteen of them did so while immigrating normally to the US. The nation has a right to defend itself, and due to the nature of the enemy we face, that does mean focusing our efforts on those who espouse radical Islam among immigrant populations. Also, immigrants who have not become American citizens should not have an entitlement to remain in the US; they are here as guests, and we have a right to ask them to leave.

The only part that bothers me at all is Gleeson's ruling on indefinite detention. It seems to me that unless the government has a reasonable suspicion of involvement in terrorist, either directly or by supporting terrorist groups, then the detainee should be deported immediately, or at least within a reasonable period of time. Having the US vet immigrants based on their country of origin or even their religion under these circumstances is reasonable, given the Islamist nature of the terrorists arrayed against us and the danger of radicalizing mosques to recruit American citizens into their ranks has proven a problem in other Western countries as well as our own (Johnny Lindh springs to mind).

Bear in mind that this ruling has no precedential value ... yet. Expect the plaintiffs in this suit to appeal the ruling, probably all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. The claim of violation of due process formed the heart of their lawsuit, and all they have left is a claim of damages from the conditions of their confinement. They need this central claim in order to win anything significant from their efforts.

Minnesota Bats .747 On Missing Sex Offenders

Minnesota has just completed a twelve-day roundup of sex offenders who have failed to keep their registrations up to date. They managed to resolve a little over half of these cases, most of whom just neglected to send their paperwork back on time:

A 12-day sweep by law enforcement officers across Minnesota has rounded up hundreds of sex offenders who failed to keep current with the state's tougher registration requirements, officials said Wednesday.

Of the 636 offenders targeted in the dragnet May 15 through 26, the first such statewide sweep, 219 were brought into compliance, 35 were arrested and 90 cases were forwarded to prosecutors for possible felony charges, said Tim O'Malley, assistant superintendent of the state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA).

Another 215 offenders had responded to reminder mailings sent out before the sweep.

Assuming that the 90 cases referred for felony prosecution have skipped town (since those arrested got counted separately), it means that Minnesota resolved three-quarters of their open cases of registration violations. That's not bad for a specific effort in a short time frame, and of course their effort continues past this point. However, the fact that this many sex offenders had escaped attention for this long should disturb Minnesotans, who rely on this registry to keep them informed of potential trouble in their neighborhoods.

Governor Tim Pawlenty made this special project possible through an executive order, the first of its kind, authorizing $100,000 for overtime and specific costs of the project. Pawlenty's initiative deserves appluase from all quarters, but the legislature should start allocating more money for registration and enforcement efforts. Minnesota has 1,400 non-compliant sex offenders, and while Pawlenty would like to get an on-line database highlighting the cases and asking for tips, that only assists in enforcement. If a one-time expenditure of $100,000 can net 75% of its target cases in twelve days, we surely can afford to spend the relatively minor amount of money to protect ourselves and our children from sexual predators before they victimize more MInnesotans.

We need to send this message to our elected representatives in St. Paul: 1,400 sex offenders left unaccounted is 1,400 too many. Governor Pawlenty did his part, and now the legislature needs to do theirs.

Another Confluence of Pork And Influence (Update With Hastert Response, And Reader Response)

Note: Be sure to read Dennis Hastert's response through his attorneys in the updates below, as well as more information on the transaction.

The Sunlight Foundation reports that another apparently clear linkage between pork and a politician's pocket exists in the business dealings of Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL). They report that Hastert has pushed through $207 million in earmarks for a business venture financed by a trust owned in part by Hastert himself:

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert has used an Illinois trust to invest in real estate near the proposed route of the Prairie Parkway, a highway project for which he's secured $207 million in earmarked appropriations. The trust has already transferred 138 acres of land to a real estate development firm that has plans to build a 1,600-home community, located just a few miles from the north-south connector Hastert has championed in the House.

Hastert's 2005 financial disclosure form, released today, makes no mention of the trust. Hastert lists several real estate transactions in the disclosure, all of which were in fact done by the trust. Kendall County public records show no record of Hastert making the real estate sales he made public today; rather, they were all executed by the trust.

The trust, called the Little Rock Trust #225, transferred 138 acres of farmland in which Hastert had an interest to a company called RALC-Plano LLC on Dec. 7, 2005. (See Document 1, attached) Illinois Secretary of State records show that the company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Robert Arthur Land Company. The company’s Web site lists plans for a Plano development called North County, with lots for 1,635 homes, 33 acres for commercial and retail businesses, and 18 acres set aside for a public school.

Peruse the documents that Sunlight posted at its website. They make a pretty good case for a direct correlation between earmarks and benefit to the politician who pushed them. Hastert owned land through this trust, and the federal projects he earmarked and inserted into the budget made that land a lot more valuable than it otherwise would be now. Hastert transferred the title to the land into the Little Rock Trust, where Dallas Ingemunson acted as trustee and handled the sales of these parcels for millions of dollars -- after Appropriations attached the earmarks to spending bills.

Ingemunson isn't just a local partner in investments in that part of Illinois. He chairs the Kendall County GOP and also serves as treasurer for Hastert's re-election campaign committee. Even if Hastert never owned a single portion of the Little Rock Trust, he still would have to answer why he felt it necessary to spend our tax dollars on projects that directly enriched his campaign staff.

We wondered what the dickens Hastert had in mind when he accused the FBI of un-Constitutional behavior when they executed a legal search warrant on William Jefferson's offices. Now we understand his reluctance to allow investigations into Congressional offices and insisted that only Congress can police Congress. He apparently had his own shenanigans in mind when he attempted to turn Capitol Hill into a sanctuary for wayward elected officials.

Hastert needs to have a response that answers these allegations in toto. As Sunlight tells the story, this looks more like embezzlement than simple corruption, and the documents seem to support these allegations. Legally, we presume Hastert innocent until proven guilty, but in the political realm, this stands to damage the GOP and Congress as a whole.

Mark Tapscott says that these revelations have made life more difficult for "politicos taking advantage of their positions". We need to make sure that discomfort level keeps increasing by aggressively searching out those who enrich themselves and their cronies by spending our money. If GOP leaders think that we will overlook corruption in our party for the sake of an election, they are very much mistaken. The American people have had enough of pork and the corruption it brings, and speaking for myself at least, I have no intention on ignoring it based on party affiliation.

My Congress is not for sale, and neither is my vote.

UPDATE: Is this disillusioning? I suppose it is; I like Hastert, who has done a good job as Speaker in holding the caucus to the party agenda and has delivered victories for conservatives. If -- and this is a big if -- Hastert has used taxpayer money to enrich himself and his cronies, then none of that matters. In my opinion, we can shrug our shoulders and accept that we elect people to Congress and pay them $165K per year (plus per diem while in session) to steal from us and enrich themselves, or we can insist on ending political careers for corruption. I never had any illusions that corruption limited itself to the Democrats, so my disillusionment is strictly personal regarding Hastert, again if this story proves true. I will be looking for Hastert's response to the Sunlight Foundation's allegations, and I will publish it here when it comes.

I still support the Republicans because they come closest to my political philosophy. Therefore, it is incumbent on me and others to ensure that we expose corruption and demand clean leadership in our party.

However, if others feel differently, Preston Taylor Holmes has a solution for you ... if you don't mind truth in advertising ...

UPDATE II: As promised, here is Hastert's response through his attorney, posted on Sunlight's original post:

Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 4:10 PM To: Eric Schmeltzer; Bill Allison Cc: Passantino, Stefan Subject: Legal Demand for Immediate Action

Dear Mr. Schmeltzer and Mr. Allison:
The statements in your release below are untrue. Rather than simply disclose participation in a trust (without disclosing what the trust owns), Speaker Hastert disclosed the amount of his interest and the location of the property on the Financial Disclosure for the year in which the closing of the transaction occurred. This is confirmed by the entries on the Financial Disclosure forms themselves confirming the interest (including amount), the property, and the type of transaction (sale, purchase, or exchange). The statements and innuendo in your release are thus false and misleading.

In addition, the property purchased is adjacent to his home and is more than 5.5 miles from the Pairie Parkway Corridor. This would be like complaining about a purchase in Alexandria, Virgina based on rennovations at the Capitol.

Demand is hereby made that the false, libelous and defamatory matter be immediately withdrawn and corrected. The failure to do so will confirm intentional and wilful conduct by you designed to injure the reputation of Speaker Hastert after becoming actually aware that the published statements were false. All available remedies will be pursued for such conduct.

Sincerely,
Randy Evans
Counsel to Speaker J. Dennis Hastert

That answers some of the disclosure questions, although as SF states, it also appears to confirm that he never disclosed his interest in the trust to which he transferred the property. It still leaves open the question as to why he pushed for federal money for a major connector less than six miles from his own property. Looking at the proposed corridor, it runs within a few miles of an already-extant county road 47, which runs parallel to most of the new road. It looks at least as long of a connector between I-88 and I-80 as the 47 does. Further west, Interstate 39 connects the two interstates, and State Route 59 connects them in the most direct manner. It would make a lot more sense (and probably cost a lot less) to upgrade 59 to an interstate connector road rather than have this meandering route that just happens to go past Little Rock.

Why does the federal government need to spend $207 million to build this corridor? Why would Denny Hastert push so hard for what looks like a superflous project? The people who stand to gain from this odd path that runs through barely-developed land are those prescient enough to have bought property in the area.

Right now, residents in Little Rock have to travel 27 miles to get to the 39, or 35 miles to get to Minooka. With that much space between Little Rock and major highway traffic, few investors would have ever thought to build 1600 houses and 33 acres of commercial and retail development.

UPDATE III: Little Rock presently has a population of 7,662 and 2,683 housing units. Now they will add 1600 more houses and 33 acres of commercial and retail development, and just coincidentally the entire reason for this expansion is a federal highway creating a traffic corridor 20 miles closer than any major road, also coincidentally pushed through Congress by the man who had an ownership stake in the property on which all of this will be built.

Sorry, but if that's politics as usual, then we need a much bigger housecleaning than we imagined.

UPDATE IV: The readers disagree, and I would say that Bill R (in a nearby area to the proposed road) gives a typical reaction:

In the scheme of things in Illinois, this is small potatoes to be honest. Basically, he's gone out to get a public works project for his district. His property is likely to be *in* his district (that's where he lives when not in DC) and there's no sign that he used insider information to acquire property right *on* the corridor at bargain rates, which *would* strike me as improper.

His property will no doubt increase in value, but it doesn't seem like it will be any more valuable than any of the other property in his district. As long as that's true, it seems like no harm, no foul. He's gotten a relatively "good" pork project for his district.

The opposition to this expressway, BTW, is pretty much the same as the opposition to the other proposed expressways in the Chicago area -- we mustn't encourage suburban sprawl, etc. It's *not* that this would be a
useless road or a Highway to Nowhere.

Fair enough. However, the fact is that Hasert did tranafer property to a trust in that area a couple of years before its value increased substantially, and that rapid increase came from Hastert's earmarks, and he didn't identify the his ownership in the trust in his disclosure -- although, oddly, he did identify the land the trust received as a personal purchase when it was not, and gave a vague description which revealed almost nothing about its proximity to the project.

I wouldn't put this in the same class as William Jefferson; Hastert hasn't taken kickbacks. However, he manged to profit a great deal from pressing for pork which he knew would benefit his trust. That may not be "corruption" in the legal sense, I grant you, but it smells pretty bad. And it's a great example of why earmarks have to be eliminated from the budgeting process.

UPDATE V: The Chicago Sun-Times has more on this issue, including the profit made by Hastert on the property:

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert pocketed almost $2 million from real estate deals adjacent to his Plano home in booming Kendall County, one of the fastest growing areas in the nation.

The transactions prompted questions Wednesday from the Sunlight Foundation, a new watchdog group, about whether Hastert, who earmarked $207 million in federal dollars for the proposed Prairie Parkway, had his profits swollen because of the highway. ...

Hastert and his wife bought a 195-acre farm in Plano in 2002, of which 69.5 acres had no access to roads.

In 2004, Hastert formed a partnership with two friends, GOP power broker Dallas Ingemunson and Tom Klatt. The partners purchased 68.9 acres, with Hastert owning one quarter of the parcel, which fronts a road. This land is adjacent to the other Hastert property.

In December 2005, the 68.9-acre parcel and the 69.5-acre parcel were sold to a developer, which wants to build at least 1,700 residential units plus commercial space there.

Hastert's share of the profits from the sale is close to $2 million.

The Sun-Times reports that Hastert paid $11000 per acre for his 195-acre purchase, or about $2.2 million. If his profit came to $2 million, that doubled his investment in three years. That's not quite the same rate as Hillary Clinton and the cattle futures, but it's still troubling. He also has been pressing this project since March 2002, coinciding with at least they year in which Hastert acquired the property. The Sun-Times also reports that Hastert's property falls within three miles of the corridor, not 5.5.

Baghdad Crackdown Gets Results

Iraqi forces set out to crack the country's toughest security problem in a mission launched today, and the early returns look promising. CNN reports that the security forces freed hostages and captured several terrorists as the violence dipped in the Iraqi capital:

Iraqi troops Wednesday uncovered a kidnapping ring, seized weapons -- including three rockets -- and defused two roadside bombs after beginning a security clampdown on the often lawless streets of Baghdad.

In the first day of the new government's push to restore order in the capital, Iraqi troops also enforced a curfew from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. and issued a weapons ban for civilians.

Four insurgents were detained at one checkpoint after three people emerged from a car "screaming for help," said Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad.

"We found eight people that had been kidnapped now for four days that we were able to return back under control of the Iraqi government," Caldwell said. "They worked for an electrical company down south of Baghdad."

The Maliki government announced that 70,000 troops would deploy across the city to bring an end to the violence and lawlessness that has kept Baghdad on edge ever since liberation. George Bush announced lower numbers: 26,000 troops combined with 23,000 police officers, plus 7,200 American troops working in support roles. The Iraqis sported new uniforms today in order to distinguish themselves from militia and from terrorists who have often impersonated Iraqi security forces in their attacks.

The results look promising. The rescue of hostages signals a new phase in which kidnappers face real consequences for their actions. Too often hostages have resulted in paid ransoms, and captures of kidnappers have been too infrequent, making the risk-reward ratio dangerously skewed in favor of the criminals and/or terrorists. Weapons confiscated will be easily replaced, unfortunately, from the vast caches left over from Saddam's regime, but finding and defusing roadside bombs shows real skill and tenacity by a still-green security force.

The Iraqis have a good start in Baghdad. Apparently, the tough curfew and the rapid deployment of the security and police forces caught some off guard, and that will put them on the defensive. The Iraqis need to keep them on the run to clean up Baghdad and allow for the rebuilding effort that will hopefully transform the city into a safer and more stable environment.

Hospiblogging, Day 2: The Needle Cometh (And Goeth)

Not too much to report on Day 2 of my personal hospiblogging quest. I received an epidural cortisone injection as a first tactic to resolved the ruptured disc, but both of my doctors don't hold out a lot of hope that it will bear much fruit. The anesthesiologist took a few moments before the procedure to show me a model of vertebrae with discs in various stages of injury. ("This is a normal disc ... and this [pulling out a model reminiscent of Igor] is your disc, Mr. Morrissey.") It went well enough, since they sedated me prior to the procedure. I woke up in time to get moved back into my own bed.

So far, I haven't noticed much difference. I still cannot walk more than a couple of steps without serious assistance, and the pain even in rest has not improved much. This solution takes a couple of days to evaluate, though, so I have to have some patience. Hopefully a night's sleep will move it along.

I did have a roommate briefly today, which wouldn't have been so bad except that I got all of his family in here all day long. That wouldn't have been so bad either, except that they were in the middle of an argument over treatment that went all day long, and everyone kept weighing in on the subject. Meanwhile, the three grandsons kept pushing the TV louder and louder and proceeded to ignore it entirely while they played video games. I suspect that they had wireless game controllers, because I constantly lost my wireless connection during their stay. After five hours of this, they finally arranged for the grandfather to receive treatment at another hospital and packed up.

It's quiet again, and I'm definitely OK with that!

For those who missed it, the First Mate came home yesterday, and she seems to be doing very well. She's walking unassisted and getting a little caught up on her sleep, and our son and daughter-in-law are keeping her company. The Admiral Emeritus and his wife will be out on Friday to assist her, and the week after that my sister will replace them in the rotation. The FM wants me to tell all of you how much your prayers and kind thoughts meant to her over the past few weeks. They gave her great comfort, and I thank you as well.

Now that it's quiet, I might take a gander at a couple of the DVDs I brought with me ... or I might just keep blogging. We'll see...

Line Item Veto Coming To House Floor

The House Budget Committee has returned the line-item veto to the full House on a bipartisan vote, 24-9, delivering a potentially valuable tool in the fight over earmarks. The new bill would allow the President to return line items from bills for an up-or-down vote in Congress, forcing porkers to take responsibility for their spending habits and links to benefactors:

Congress is moving to give President Bush and his successors greater power to try to weed bills of certain spending, though the new power would pale compared with the line-item veto law struck down by the Supreme Court in 1998.

The House Budget Committee on Wednesday approved by a 24-9 vote a bill to allow the president to single out wasteful items contained in appropriations bills he signs into law, and it would require Congress to vote on those items again.

The idea is that wasteful "pork barrel" spending would be vulnerable since Congress might vote to reject such items once they are no longer protected by their inclusion in bigger bills that the president has little choice but to sign.

This is a far weaker version of the line-item veto that Republicans in Congress gave President Clinton in 1996. That bill allowed Clinton to strike items from appropriations and tax bills unless Congress mustered a two-thirds margin to override him. The bill was found unconstitutional since it allowed the president to amend laws passed by Congress.

The act of returning line items for specific votes may not do anything to stem the tide of pork flowing out of DC. After all, the President has to first flag those items with this new procedure, and this particular President has not had the inclination to send anything back to Capitol Hill for over five years. Once he does start requiring votes for specific items, Congress can simply vote their earmarks back into the budget in open session. Certain tax incentives have been made out of bounds for a Presidential rejection, which makes this a less-useful tool than it should be.

However, it allows the White House to exercise budget control if desired, and the existence of the tool makes it more difficult to blame Congress entirely for out-of-control spending. Any President will find some motivation to select at least a handful of the most egregious earmarks, simply to appear cognizant of taxpayer outrage. And while Congress can restore funding with a simple majority for these pork-barrel line items, pulling them into the sunshine will undoubtedly make legislators significantly less enthusiastic about casting a specific vote to spend money on bridges to nowhere, bailouts for corporations making record operating income, and the like. The time has passed where voters paid little attention to the padding that accompanies appropriations bills, and every line item restored will be one more vote that opponents will use against them in their next election.

This system does not come close to perfection. In its way, though, it pushes accountability on both elected branches of government, and it will put at least some of the pork on display for all Americans to see for themselves. As it stands, no one has any accountability for the pork feasts in DC -- and taxpayers are tired of picking up the bill all by themselves.

Finishing The Final Solution

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has shown a peculiar obsession with the Holocaust, claiming that it never occurred and that the establishment of Israel therefore has no legitimacy. This claim goes along with many other conspiratorial claims about Jews and their supposedly destructive history, a disturbing characteristic of a national leader seeking nuclear arms and believing in a messianic vision. One might hope that Ahmadinejad's advisors might hold a moderating influence on his anti-Semitic paranoia, but unfortunately they appear to feed his madness. MEMRI has just posted a translation of remarks made by Ahmadinejad's advisor Mohammad Ali Ramin, who both questions the Holocaust and insists that the question will only find an answer in Israel's destruction:

On a visit to Gilan University, president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s advisor Mohammad Ali Ramin said to a group of students in the town of Rasht, 'Ten years ago, when I brought up the issue of the Holocaust for the first time in this country, my goal was to defend the Jewish people. But among the Jews there have always been those who killed God’s prophets and who opposed justice and righteousness. Throughout history, this religious group has inflicted the most damage on the human race, while some of its groups engaged in plotting against other nations and ethnic groups to cause cruelty, malice and wickedness.

'Historically, there are many accusations against the Jews. For example, it was said that they were the source for such deadly disease as the plague and typhus. This is because the Jews are very filthy people. For a time people also said that they poisoned water wells belonging to Christians and thus killed them,' Ramin said.

This demonstrates the typical thinking of bigots. They offer tautologies as proof and produce no evidence whatsoever. Take the argument that the Jews spread plague and typhus. We have known for centuries how the plague spread: from rats and the fleas that infested them. This means nothing to Ramin, however, because he asserts that the Jews are a "very filthy people," and this assertion somehow proves his argument. Besides, all he's doing here is simply passing gossip. For a time, people also said that they poisoned water wells.... I suppose they did until they finally discovered that such tripe was patently false.

Of course, arguing logic with bigots only has the effect of honing one's own debating skills, because people like Ramin do not think on a rational basis on their hatreds. The point of publishing this account isn't to convince Ramin and the governing Iranians the error of their ways, but to demonstrate just how little effect negotiating with the Iranian mullahracy will have. While we're trying to find common ground to bring an end to their nuclear program and find a way for them to fit into the global community, Ramin busies himself blaming Jews for spreading AIDS, SARS, the bird flu, and "the deadly epidermis".

How does one negotiate with a group of people this utterly insane?

The Iranian view of the Holocaust, however, shows a particular strain of madness that we simply cannot afford to ignore or shrug off. Ramin reveals that Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial forms an integral part of the Iranian strategy in the Middle East:

Claiming that the Holocaust was the principal reason why Palestine was occupied while Israel was the main cause of crises and catastrophe in the Middle East. 'So long as Israel exists in the region there will never be peace and security in the Middle East,' he said adding, 'So the resolution of the Holocaust issue will end in the destruction of Israel.'

Ramin says he did not advise Ahmadinejad to make his remarks about denying the Holocaust but instead suggesting setting up a panel to determine the accuracy of the historical record. However, when one operates from the unchallengeable assumptions that Jews spread plague, typhus, poisoned Christian water wells, and now spread AIDS, SARS, and such, the historical review of such a group will have an obvious conclusion before the Iranians even bother to name the panel.

All of this is window dressing to the real worldview of the Iranian mullahcracy. They see Jews as inherently evil and subhuman, descended from pigs and/or monkeys, and they want to rid themselves of any Jewish presence in what they see as the ummah. Denying the Holocaust gives them some strange moral imperative to eliminate the result, as they see it, of the Holocaust's aftermath: Israel. None of these comments have any benign interpretation. They are making it clear that they intend to wipe Israel off the map, and anyone who comes to their aid. Mutual deterrence will not stop them from eventually acting to "resolve" the Holocaust question. And any policy of containment or MAD will fail as a result.

We have to keep Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and we have to do it soon. Otherwise, we will see Iran take its chances with the West that we will not intervene after an attack on Israel as long as Iranian rockets can reach London. Given the current state of global leadership, that's a bluff they may well win.

NOTE: The excellent New York Sun blog, It Shines For All, pointed this out to me.

Rare But Necessary Bipartisanship

On occasion, a candidate for election demonstrates such poor judgement that both Democrats and Republicans wind up endorsing the same person in the general election. This usually happens in local and state races for legislative or executive positions. In North Carolina, the voters face this unusual situation in the state Supreme Court race after one of the major-party candidates started violating Godwin's Law as if it were the 55-MPH speed limit:

The leaders of the state's Democratic and Republican parties have asked voters not to cast ballots for state Supreme Court candidate Rachel Lea Hunter, whose fiery rhetoric in recent weeks has included comparing the actions of a black congressional candidate to that of a slave.

"She's unstable and unqualified, and the thought of her serving on the highest court in North Carolina is scary," state Republican party chairman Ferrell Blount said Tuesday.

Blount's comments came after Hunter, a former Republican running as a Democrat, used the title "Dur Fuhrer" -- commonly associated with Nazi leader Adolf Hitler -- when referring to state Democratic party chief Jerry Meek. Such rhetoric led Meek to endorse Republican-backed incumbent Mark Martin in his race with Hunter for a seat on the state's high court.

"From my own personal perspective, I think she lacks the judgment and temperament to be a judge at any level," said Meek, who called Martin an "able and competent member of the court."

Both parties now will endorse Mark Martin, and I doubt many Democrats will object in the slightest. Voters in North Carolina can immediately grasp the conundrum between voting Republican or putting a woman on the bench whose website greets visitors with this message:

Der Fuhrer Meek Speaks

Hypocritical
(sung to the tune of Unforgettable)

Hypocritical, that's what you are are.
Hypocritical, though near or far.
Like poison ivy that clings to me,
How your actions do painful things to me.
Never has someone been more
hypocritical in every way.
And forevermore, that's how you'll stay.
That's why its incredible,
that someone so hypocritical
Thinks that I am just like you.

Hunter's sense of meter is a crime in itself. Even more hilariously, her campaign responded to allegations of a lack of mental stability with an offer to under psychiatric evaluation "any time, anywhere". I guess the Hunter team fails to understand that when a candidate has to make an offer like that in order to restore voter confidence, the only base she has left is at the mental-health facilities where she would get that evaluation.

Kudos to the North Carolina Democratic Party for putting their state ahead of their party and disavowing Hunter. Hopefully enough people get the message to ensure she doesn't win the election.

Government As Gangsters

The Russian democracy has begun to resemble Russian communism in the way in which its government has become pre-eminent among thieves. The New York Times reports that government agencies and the police are less likely to protect Russians from crime than to participate in crime themselves. Motorola just experienced a multi-million dollar lesson in the Russian concept of free-market international trade:

On March 29, agents of the Interior Ministry seized 167,500 mobile phones that Motorola had shipped into Sheremetyevo Airport in Moscow, dragging the company into the Kafkaesque world where Russian justice intersects with business.

The phones were first declared counterfeits, then contraband, then a health hazard, and now they are evidence in a criminal investigation focused, again, on suspected smuggling.

In April, the Interior Ministry made a show of destroying some of the phones — 49,991, officials said — after saying that one model violated safety standards, though suspicion abounds that not all the phones were destroyed. The same model remains on sale in shops around Moscow.

Then a patent dispute began.

The story quickly becomes a Byzantine exploration of government confiscations and criminal prosecution that works to protect Russian business interests and provide material for the black market. The Kremlin bureaucrats who managed to confiscate over $17 million of cellular phones from Motorola have probably done far worse on smaller scales that keep their fraud off the radar. In this instance, they got a bit too greedy, and reacted badly when caught. The patent dispute escalated into a criminal case, even though Motorola had produced these particular phones prior to the Russian patent award.

Interestingly, Vladimir Putin actually improved the situation by sacking members of the government perpetuating the fraud. It still shows that Russia has to improve their performance on private property rights by at least an order of magnitude before we can trust them to participate in free-trade agreements honestly. If the Motorola case and other examples of Russian corruption have not made it onto the G-8 agenda, the US needs to make sure it gets addressed.

Afghan Delegation: Gitmo 'Humane'

A delegation from Afghanistan spent ten days at the US detention center in Guantanamo Bay and pronounced conditions at the facility 'humane':

The head of the delegation, Abdul Jabar Sabhet of the Interior Ministry, said the delegation was given the chance to speak freely with all 96 Afghan prisoners about their living conditions. Sabhet said there were "only one or two" complaints.

"Conditions of the jail was humane. There were rumors in this country about that. It was wrong. What we have seen was OK," he said.

Sabhet's assessment comes five days after the suicides of three detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.

Much has been made of the three suicides last week at Gitmo. While any suicides should be investigated, it is plain to see that the men involved took their own lives as a protest, a means of generating publicity for the overall cause. The US had stopped several such attempts in the past, and will continue to do whatever possible to save lives within the facility. This is no different than at any other American prison; suicide rates in prisons are three times higher than among the general population, and ten times higher in pre-trial detention facilities. We do not shut down our jails and prisons because inmates in either place sometimes commit suicide, and that should not be a determinative factor in Giitmo's status either.

In fact, this shows that the US has operated the Guantanamo facility in an orderly and humane manner. Even when given the opportunity to speak to the Afghan government, 96 inmates only voiced "one or two" complaints. The delegation came looking for inhumane conditions, by their own admission, but found nothing.

How many outlets do you think will carry this wire report?

UPDATE: Some commenters have expressed indignation that I would assume that Islamists committing suicide are a form of protest. Hmmm. Perhaps they have a point. After all, who has ever heard of Islamists committing suicide as protest before? After all, it's not like the Gitmo detainees tried using suicide as a tactic for a revolt before ...

All of this wailing and gnashing of teeth from the Left is intended to distract from the Afghan delegation's evaluation of the detention facility, which contradicts every allegation the Left has leveled against the Gitmo detention center.

Post Editors: Bush Iraq Visit An Important Boost

The Washington Post editorial board recognizes the value in yesterday's surprise visit to Baghdad by George Bush. In its unsigned editorial today, the Post applauds the message that Bush delivered by his presence as well as his words -- and the Post has a few words for John Kerry as well:

PRESIDENT BUSH delivered an important demonstration of American support for Iraq's new democratic government in his visit to Baghdad yesterday. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki represents the best and maybe last hope that a national government can stem sectarian bloodshed, defeat Islamic terrorist organizations and die-hard defenders of Saddam Hussein, and make economic recovery possible. He has formed a unity cabinet, appointed a well-qualified defense minister and spelled out the right agenda, including an imminent campaign to pacify Baghdad with tens of thousands of Iraq's newly trained troops. But Mr. Maliki desperately needs international help to turn the tide of violence and chaos. Mr. Bush's appearance, and his assurance that America "will keep its word," should reassure Iraqis who have feared that the United States would precipitously withdraw rather than defend the country's first truly democratic government. ...

[W]hat Mr. Bush can do is give the government some precious time by continuing to provide American troops and aid to a regime that is nowhere near able to defend itself or rebuild the country on its own. ... If Democratic leaders such as Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) had their way, almost all U.S. troops would be out of Iraq by the end of 2006 -- a blow that Mr. Maliki's government almost certainly could not survive.

The Post editorial notes that Bush is spending what little political capital he has left to buy more time for Maliki's government to survive by defying calls from Kerry and others to announce withdrawal dates. Bush has made it clear that he will not get pushed into a precipitous withdrawal but will wait for conditions on the ground to improve enough to allow for a sensible and rational reduction in forces in Iraq. This mission has not yet been completed, and the Post recognizes that without Bush's will to see it through to the end, it will certainly fail -- with dire consequences for the Iraqis and the region.

Kerry, for his part, continues to demand not only a withdrawal but an invitation to Syria and Iran to determine the fate of the Iraqi people. In fact, the junior Senator from Massachussetts would have us enter into diplomatic relations with Iran for the first time in 27 years specifically to allow us to capitulate on Iraq, even though the Iraqis have their own elected government to represent themselves. Kerry manages to make Neville Chamberlain look prescient in Kerry's rush to give terrorist-supporting states sovereignty over Iraq and its future in the region.

The Post, at least, understands the stakes involved in Iraq. It keenly observes that victory will have to come from the Iraqis themselves, but they need help to stand up to those who want to turn Iraq into a Somalia with better oil reserves. Kerry's insistence on surrender to Syria and Iran demonstrates how fortunate we were to re-elect George Bush.

Truman The Unilateralist

After making references to Harry Truman in recent speeches, George Bush received criticism from Democrats who complained that Bush falsely assumed Truman's mantle in foreign affairs. They claimed that Truman set the standard for multilateralism through his founding of the United Nations, bringing his predecessor's dream to fruition. Max Boot answers them in today's Los Angeles Times by reminding them that even Truman found the UN and an insistence on multilateralism to be a hindrance to American security:

WHEN HE delivered the West Point commencement address last month, President Bush compared his efforts to stand up to terrorists to Harry Truman's efforts to stand up to communists during the early years of the Cold War. Liberal pundits were outraged. How dare this Republican cite a sainted Democrat as his inspiration? Commentators such as Peter Beinart, the former New Republic editor, suggested that Bush should instead learn from Truman about the need to recognize the limits of American strength, eschew grandiose rhetoric and unilateral action and encase American power in a "web" of multilateral institutions such as the United Nations and NATO.

This is a refrain that has been heard since 2001, and it is worth correcting the historical record before this mythology becomes accepted as fact. The reality is that Bush is far more multilateral and Truman was much less so than commonly assumed. ...

True, he did preside over the founding of the United Nations, and he sometimes expressed grandiloquent hopes for this "parliament of man." But in practice his viewpoint was closer to that of his hardheaded secretary of State, Dean Acheson, who believed that the U.N. Charter was "impracticable" and who scoffed at the idea that "the way to solve this or that problem is to leave it to the United Nations."

Acheson did make effective use of the U.N. in 1950, when he secured a resolution authorizing an armed response to North Korea's invasion of South Korea, but only because the Soviet delegate was boycotting the Security Council. In any case, Truman had already committed air and naval forces to combat before the vote. As he wrote to Acheson, a U.N. failure to act would not have altered his plans — "we would have had to go into Korea alone." Truman was equally clearheaded about the U.N.'s limitations in an earlier crisis — the British cutoff of aid to Greece and Turkey in 1947, which left those countries exposed to communist aggression. Truman told Congress: "The situation is an urgent one requiring immediate action, and the United Nations and its related organizations are not in a position to extend help of the kind that is required." So the U.S. offered $400 million on its own.

The same pattern is evident throughout Truman's presidency. The decision to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki? A unilateral U.S. initiative. The Marshall Plan to aid European recovery? Ditto. The 1948-49 airlift to break the Soviet blockade of Berlin? More unilateralism.

Even NATO, as Boot points out, came after the decision by America to permanently base a good portion of our armed forces in liberated Europe as a counter to Soviet aggression. The formal NATO structure came later, and while its multilateral nature became an important part of our foreign policy and security, the impetus for its formation came from the US and UK.

And as Boot points out, Bush is nowhere near the unilateralist that his critics claim him to be. That meme started with his withdrawal from the Kyoto Accord, but critics usually fail to remember that the Senate unanimously rejected the treaty before Bill Clinton had the chance to present it to them. Without ratification, the President cannot bind the nation to treaties, so that bit of unilateralism belongs to both parties, not Bush, who can hardly be blamed for withdrawing a treaty that had already had no votes from either party.

He successfullly garnered support from the UN and NATO for the Afghanistan mission, and he spent five months at Turtle Bay while the best weather conditions in Iraq disappeared trying to forge a consensus on finally enforcing 16 UNSC resolutions over a twelve-year quagmire that had made it necessary to keep significant levels of American and British armed forces engaged in a failing containment strategy. Only when France, Russia, and China made it clear that they would never agree to enforcement did Bush act, and he acted in concert with dozens of nations in support, and with a number of them contributing troops, including the UK, Australia, Italy, Poland, South Korea, and others.

Bush did withdraw from the ABM treaty in order to develop anti-missile systems, a rare unilateral move that time has shown to be prescient. With North Korea and Iran both developing long-range ballistic missiles and the nuclear weapons with which to arm them, the ABM would have done nothing but leave us exposed to their threats in the post-Cold War era. The ABM made sense in a binary-power world, but by 2001 had outlived its usefulness. And regarding both Iran and North Korea, Bush has been scrupulously multilateral, insisting in both cases that efforts to address the nuclear threats come from a number of nations and not just George Bush.

The truth of American foreign policy under George Bush is not that is unilateral, but rather that it no longer relies on unanimity of international opinion before taking action in defense of the US. Like Truman, Bush has tried to build that consensus where possible, but when unanimity cannot be achieved, he acts in the interest of American security and builds alliances outside of the UN as broadly as possible.

America's Most Wanted Politicians

Almost three weeks ago, I posted about a new FBI focus on public corruption, adding more than 200 agents for their work in discovering and stopping bribery and malfeasance by public officials. At the time, the FBI stated that most of the new effort would go to investigating illegal campaign contributions rather than an increased effort to catch outright bribery and payoffs. Now the FBI wants to clearly show a broad effort in this fight -- and they're hoping to use some new Internet tools to help them succeed:

Even with stories about public corruption probes flooding the morning papers, Internet and cable news airwaves, the FBI's new Web site for individuals to report malfeasance and just plain bad behavior hasn't made splashy headlines.

But the site, reportcorruption.fbi.gov, is up and running and the G-Men are paying attention. ...

Tipsters from any walk of life are welcome to report suspicious activities, but since most of the would-be criminal action occurs behind closed doors, the bureau expects most contributions to come from individuals who work within the government.

The FBI's anti-corruption Web site offers visitors links where they can enter a tip or find phone numbers for local FBI field offices. Kodak said tipsters can leave as much or as little information as they want and assures that if tipsters want to remain anonymous, the FBI won't reveal their identities.

The web site contains much more than just a tip sheet. It lists all of the toll-free hotlines for its field offices, offers links to press releases on existing investigations, and links to the strategic plan to combat public corruption and other resources, including e-mail and Internet scam FAQs. It's a one-stop shop for those following corruption stories and gives potential whistleblowers a tool always at the ready. The FBI says that it has already received plenty of solid tips through their usual hotline numbers. They hope that the website will make it even easier for tipsters to pass along actionable information.

The idea sprang from the FBI's use of a similar website to combat Hurricane Katrina fraud. The site generated plenty of leads and allowed the FBI to aggressively attack relief fraudsters and shady businesses that preyed on the victims of our worst natural disaster. Success breeds success, and the FBI should be applauded for learning best practices and applying the lessons wherever appropriate.

When the House erupted with indignant anger from the FBI's enforcement of a legal search warrant on the offices of William Jefferson, some fools in Congress thought they could intimidate the Department of Justice into backing down by issuing threats of impeachment. Instead of being cowed, Robert Mueller and his agency has just sent a message that the FBI will use all the tools legally at their disposal to uncover corruption regardless of where it lies. That message should escape no one's attention on Capitol Hill.

Key Bali Bombing Player Released In Indonesia

Indonesian authorities have released the cleric who gave his blessing to the bombings in Bali that took over 200 lives in 2002, mostly Australian tourists. Scores of Islamists greeted him enthusiastically at the gates as their spiritual leader:

Authorities released militant cleric Abu Bakar Bashir from prison on Wednesday, and about 150 of his supporters jubilantly greeted him with shouts of "God is great!"

The 68-year-old cleric, an alleged key leader of the al-Qaida-linked Southeast Asian militant group Jemaah Islamiyah, had served 26 months in prison for giving his blessing to the 2002 Bali nightclub bombings, which killed 202 people, most of them foreign tourists.

Bashir's supporters gathered at Jakarta's Cipinang prison for his release, which came about 45 minutes earlier than expected. "God is great!" they shouted.

Bashir has maintained his innocence of the charges, but an Indonesian court found him guilty of the crime. In a sentence that sent the message that Indonesia hasn't taken terrorism seriously, he received only thirty months for his part in the deaths of 202 people. Even worse, Indonesia then reduced the sentence almost by half, which has led to his release today.

If Indonesia thought that they could pacify the Islamist impulse through a show of mercy, they will find themselves very much mistaken. That is as true now as when they gave Bashir the unbelievably light sentence for one of the worst terrorist attacks in that region's history. This will be akin to waving a red flag in front of a bull, and we can expect the Islamists in Indonesia to build on this momentum.

Another Pork Protector Revealed

The Hill quotes another Congressman who believes he has a right to spend our money on whatever pork projects he can fund. At a time when serious questions arising from Appropriations chair Jerry Lewis (R-CA) have cast doubt on the credibility and integrity of the House committee, another of its members, Rep. Ray La Hood (R-IL), declared that he has had enough of the taxpayers' "crap":

Appropriations members have already vowed to fight any move to strip spending from the bill. “I’m not going to take their crap,” Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.) said last week. The Illinois appropriator said he included several projects for his district and would fight to keep them all.

“They think they’ve gotten a little steam building, and we’re going to have to shoot them down,” LaHood said. He ripped RSC members this year on the House floor for successfully stripping $507 million in construction projects from a military spending bill.

The Republican Study Committee had circulated a memo among the GOP caucus questioning the budget designation of unspent funds from previous years into this fiscal cycle. Simply put, those funds do not get counted for the purpose of totalling the cost of a bill. Congress does not recognize unspent funds as savings, which allows them to spend the cash on pet causes with little or no accountability. The RSC wants to rethink that process and correctly show those monies as savings, which would then require their use in other budgets to be calculated as part of the total cost. Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), responsible for budget issues at the RSC, believes the existing system a "budget gimmick" that exists to bypass the spirit of budget rules.

Obviously, Rep. La Hood disagrees, and rather vehemently at that. His salty language and scatalogical reference to those who would demand more accountability for taxpayer money shows his priorities when it comes to budgeting process. La Hood, like Jim Moran, wants to have his pork and spend it too, and like Moran wants it to ensure his popularity among his beneficiaries, er, constituents back home. La Hood should explain why he thinks that money he and his committee spends should not be counted as expense, and why he thinks that unspent federal monies should get redirected rather than applied as savings from the previous fiscal year.

Update On Hospiblogging

A quick update on the hospital stay and some technical issues arising from it ...

I have confirmed that the rupture is between L3 and L4 and that it is causing the pain that pretty much disabled me for the past few days. Tomorrow we will try an epidural cortisone injection to see whether that resolves the problem enough to avoid surgery. I should know within the next couple of days whether it will do the trick. Some of you had commented and e-mailed with that suggestion, and it looks like you were correct.

I do have Internet access and can keep up with the news and blogging, and I can get e-mails, but for some reason I am unable to send e-mail. I do not know whether that is a problem with the hospital connection or with my hosting service, but I'm trying to get it resolved. If you're expecting a response from me, it may not be forthcoming.

Trackbacks still work wonderfully after the guys from Hyscience fixed the problem for me. Some trackbacks get stuck in the junk algorithm and have to be manually approved by me. If you're not seeing your trackback, it will probably appear in the next few hours when I get a chance to approve it. That may take a little longer over the next couple of days, for obvious reasons!

Okay, now, back to work ...

Kerry's 'So Is Your Mama' Mature Response

Regardless of whether a voter trends liberal or conservative, one expects their leaders to display a certain level of maturity in their public pronouncements. John Kerry's office has demonstrated their own level of maturity by calling Karl Rove fat in response to his criticism of their stamina in the Iraq War, and Raw Story has the specifics:

The move comes one day after Rove called plans to exit Iraq proposed by Senator Kerry and Representative John Murtha (D-PA) "profoundly wrong" "cut and run" strategies. "They may be with you for the first few bullets," Rove said, "but they won't be there for the last tough battles."

Both Kerry and Murtha are decorated service veterans.

"The closest Karl Rove ever came to combat," said Kerry spokesman David Wade, "was these last months spent worrying his cellmates might rough him up in prison. This porcine political operative can't cut and run from the truth any longer."

In their defense, Kerry's staffers did run through Roget's Thesaurus to find a cool-sounding alternative to fat. Rove's weight has no bearing on his political positions, nor did Rove make the debate personal in his remarks. The remarks by Rove came in response to a new amendment Kerry introduced yesterday that would require all American troops to be withdrawn by 12/31/06. This amendment, SA 4203 attached to the DoD authorization bill S2766, leaves in some weasel words about mission-critical troops being left in place while all the rest get the John Murtha "over-the-horizon troop presence" effective retreat from Iraq.

Perhaps Senator Kerry still has not learned that on those rare occasions where he actually offers legislation, others have the right to disagree with it and speak out against the effort. In essence, SA 4203 gives us the same Murtha proposal that Republicans offered for debate last year in the House, and which went down to utter defeat, only gaining three votes -- none of them Murtha's.

The amendment itself has even more surprises hidden within it. Since it has no permanent URL at Thomas, I will reproduce it here:

SA 4203. Mr. KERRY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 2766, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 437, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

SEC. 1084. UNITED STATES POLICY ON IRAQ.

(a) Withdrawal of Troops From Iraq.--

(1) SCHEDULE FOR WITHDRAWAL.--The President shall reach an agreement as soon as possible with the Government of Iraq on a schedule for the withdrawal of United States combat troops from Iraq by December 31, 2006, leaving only forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces.

(2) CONSULTATION WITH CONGRESS REQUIRED.--The President shall consult with Congress regarding such schedule and shall present such withdrawal agreement to Congress immediately upon the completion of the agreement.

(3) MAINTENANCE OF OVER-THE-HORIZON TROOP PRESENCE.--The President should maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests.

(b) Iraq Summit.--The President should convene a summit as soon as possible that includes the leaders of the Government of Iraq, leaders of the governments of each country bordering Iraq, representatives of the Arab League, the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, representatives of the European Union, and leaders of the governments of each permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, for the purpose of reaching a comprehensive political agreement for Iraq that addresses fundamental issues including federalism, oil revenues, the militias, security guarantees, reconstruction, economic assistance, and border security.

First of all, the retreat from Iraq to OTH position assumes that we have an ally in the region that would like to house 135,000 American troops -- one other than Iraq itself, which has repeatedly stated that it does not want the US to leave Iraq yet. It also assumes that having all of our troops somewhere else will have some tactical advantage over having them on the spot when trouble arises. As long as it would take to get troops out, it would take almost the same amount of time to bring them back -- which would probably be far too long to give assistance in any meaningful way. In the meantime, we would lose a significant part of the intelligence we would need to correct any security threat once called.

The final paragraph is nothing more than John Kerry's global test writ specific. He wants to force the President to call a summit that includes two terror-supporting nations, Iran and Syria, to determine the future of Iraq, including oil revenues. Someone may have forgotten that Iraq has sovereignty over much of the issues specified by Kerry in this amendment. Iran and Syria do not need to offer their opinions on how Iraq should manage its own oil revenues, and strictly speaking, Iraq doesn't need our advice either. Only Kerry would write this amendment to require the President to listen to the Iranian mullahcracy and the Syrian dictatorship on how best to implement a democratic government. It's asinine on its face, and yet Kerry apparently offered this with a straight face.

As usual, when a child on the playground starts throwing around personal insults, it's because he knows he's been embarrassed. Kerry and his staff can deploy all of the personal insults over the horizon they desire, but the truth is that Kerry's amendment is nothing less than a retreat from terrorism, and a demonstration of how feckless our foreign policy would have been under a Kerry administration.

UPDATE: Senator Bill Frist blogs about SA4203 on his VolPAC site:

[Kerry]’s working to ensure American failure in Iraq by requiring immediate troop withdrawals. And he’s working to impose his infamous “global test” on our prosecution of the War of Terror by requiring the President to consult with the tyrants who rule Syria and Iran, with the leaders of the Arab League, with the European Union and with the United Nations amongst others.

Kerry’s policy would result in retreat, the disintegration of Iraq, and the strengthening of the Middle East’s sworn enemies of America.

Frist says that SA4203 will come up for debate this week. We will keep a close eye on the rhetoric and the final vote.

Hospiblogging, Up Close And Personal

I just got the results back from my MRI, and it isn't good news. I've had a ruptured disk between L3 and L4 that has caused all the mischief, and I will be admitted to the hospital later today for treatment. I don't know what the treatment might be, but it's going to keep me for a while. I'm hoping to have internet access, but if I don't, CQ will be off line for a few days. I'll try to post an update when possible.

Just do me a favor, and don't let anything really cool happen while I'm gone, mm-kay?

Blessings to all of you who have written and prayed for my health and that of the First Mate. She's coming home today, but she's going to have the place to herself for a bit.

UPDATE: I can cheerfully report that the hospital does indeed have a wireless network for its patients. I will have little else to do but read and blog, between naps and treatment, of course. I'll continue to update you on my status.

Six Questions For Senator Frist

I had an opportunity to speak with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist this morning and talk to him about immigration, spending, and the upcoming elections. Senator Frist and his staff graciously squeezed me into a tight window between television appearances.

Q1: The immigration bills are now heading into conference. When will we know the composition of the committee?

The composition of the committee will not be announced until the committee starts its work, Senator Frist told me. He plans on making sure the committee is large and diverse on this topic. The Senate side will split equally on supporters and opponents of the Senate version of immigration reform. The House has not yet made its selections, according to Frist, so he has no idea about its composition.

Q2: For you, what are the essentials that the final bill must have for you to support?

The bill has to have strong border security to gain Frist's support when it returns from committee. He is especially interested in empoyment enforcement to cut off the demand for illegal workers. Frist told me, "We have to stop the bleeding," an interesting metaphor from a physician.

Q3. A lot of speculation arose last week about phased implementation, where normalization programs will only kick in after border security gets put in place. Has this actually been proposed, and if it has, do you think it will allow the comprehensive reform aspects to pass on the house?

Ultimately, Frist believes that the final bill will make use of this strategy. He supports it in concept, but needs to see how the bill would structure it. It has to put all of the elements of security in place before kicking off the normalization and guest-worker programs if it is to succeed in the house.

Q4. Let’s talk about earmarks. The Senate took a lot of heat over the earmarks in the emergency appropriation bill. What steps will you take to keep the lid on earmarks?

Frist was not surprised it became an issue. The US Senate now recognizes the problem. The bill as it exists now shows the fiscal responsibility that we must have. Frist voted against the initial bloated package, recognizing the lack of discipline it revealed. The Senate will be pushing budgetary reforms such as a line-item veto, biennial budgeting, and other strategies for keeping wasteful spending out of the budget. He points out that the Republicans really wanted to tackle entitlements in this session, starting with Social Security, but the Democrats refused to come to the table. It's one of the ways in which he will show the difference between the two parties.

Q5. Tom Coburn has introduced S 2590, which would establish a public database for all earmarks. What is the status of that bill, and when can we expect that bill to reach the floor?

At first, Senator Frist didn't recall 2590 by number, but after I gave a brief description, he noted that it's currently sitting in committee. He says he's looking forward to bringing it to the floor if the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee returns it soon. [Right now it appears that its status has not changed since being referred to HSGA in April.]

Q6. Conservatives have debated whether to support the GOP in the midterms or to stay home as a protest over a number of issues, including immigration and spending. How do you intend to engage the conservatives and get their support?

Senator Frist gave his longest answer to this question, and it's clearly on his mind heading into the midterms. He repeated his belief that the GOP has to "govern with meaningful solutions". That means the Republicans will focus on the war on terror, keeping taxes low, and eliminating the death tax altogether. Frist also wants the last months of this session to work on securing America’s values, including flag-burning and gay marriage, and continue to press on judicial nominees. He believes that the GOP can show the contrast between Republicans and Democrats, even on spending. The GOP will remain stalwart on the war. Frist says that John Kerry’s new bill demanding a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq will show Democrats as the cut-and-run party. Frist knows that they need to show that the voters have a real choice to make in the midterms, and they plan on highlighting those policy issues in the last few months before the midterms.

Note: Due to a malfunctioning device on my end, the conversation did not get recorded, and the results are taken from my notes.

Bush To Baghdad, Post To Desperation

George Bush paid a surprise visit to Baghdad and the newly-formed constitutional government of Iraq. Keeping the news secret until he landed in Baghdad, he delighted the new Prime Minister, who greeted him enthusiastically:

President Bush arrived in Baghdad this afternoon for a face-to-face meeting with new Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki -- an effort, the White House said, to get a clear sense of the premier's priorities and how the U.S. government could help his government succeed.

The White House originally had said Bush was scheduled to be at Camp David and to hold a video-conference with Maliki this morning. Instead, without telling the Iraqi government or all but his closest advisers, the president slipped out of Washington last night and made the 11-hour trip to Baghdad International Airport, landing at 4:08 p.m. Baghdad time (8:08 a.m. EDT). ...

"Good to see you," Maliki said to the president, who was escorted by a retinue of aides, including U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalizad and the senior U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey Jr.

"Thanks for having me," Bush replied, before disappearing with Maliki into one of the offices. Maliki learned of Bush's visit only after his Nighthawk helicopter had landed in the Green Zone following a six-minute ride from the airport, part of the extraordinary security measures associated with the trip.

The trip has powerful symbolic and political value beyond the issues that the two leaders will debate and decide today. Bush shows that he considers Iraq and its new government important enough to take extra risks to meet them on their own ground. It shows that the US wants to work closely with the new government and that we will do what we can to normalize their stature in the community of nations. For the Iraqis, who have risked their lives to install a permanent constitutional government, it sends the message of success and recognition.

Domestically, it sends another clear message. The Bush administration has come under pressure to back away from Iraq, to declare victory with the death of Zarqawi especially and to retreat from the mission of creating a self-sufficient security force. This visit shows that Bush has no intention of doing a cut-and-run, and that he's willing to put himself in the same theater as his soldiers and Marines in order to secure a democratic future in Iraq. The President does not travel on a whim; no matter who occupies the Oval Office, a presidential visit is always meaningful, and this more than most.

The Washington Post article notes this, but gets the message wrong and a bit overly dramatic (emphasis mine):

Bush had summoned his senior advisers to Camp David this week to outline new ways to help the fledgling government. Administration officials see the success of the new government as their last best hope to stabilize the situation in Iraq.

"Last best hope" is a trite phrase that belongs on a movie poster and not in a serious newspaper. The so-called "last best hope" is the strategy that the Bush administration planned all along: the creation of a constitutional government. That has always been Plan A, so it's hard to see why Michael Abramowitz chose to paint it as some last-gasp strategy that by implication means that we've changed course in any way. It's equally difficult to understand why his editor allowed that sentence to remain in the article,

This war has afforded the American media with a number of opportunities to demonstrate their firm conviction that they are an objective system designed to discover and report the truth. Instead, they have repeatedly shown in ways small and large that they allow their personal biases to flow into their news reporting, underscoring the widespread knowledge that they ceased being objective decades ago.

Fizzlemas

Karl Rove will not face any charges stemming from the leak of Valerie Plame's identity or of any cover-up in its aftermath, the New York Times reports. The decision brings an end to the politically-charged waiting game that had some of George Bush's opponents salivating for Rove's head:

The prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case on Monday advised Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, that he would not be charged with any wrongdoing, effectively ending the nearly three-year criminal investigation that had at times focused intensely on Mr. Rove.

The decision by the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, announced in a letter to Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, lifted a pall that had hung over Mr. Rove who testified on five occasions to a federal grand jury about his involvement in the disclosure of an intelligence officer's identity.

In a statement, Mr. Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."

In the end, Fitzgerald had no case, and the only case he has been able to build was one against Libby for supposedly lying to prosecutors. It remains to be seen whether that prosecution will actually come to fruition either. The entire execise thus far appears to be an investigation in search of an actual crime.

At least one blogger has just watched his credibility circle the drain. Jason Leopold will now either have to name his source or bear the entire blame for reporting that Fitzgerald had already gotten an indictment against Rove. His entire story has now collapsed, and if he truly did get this information from an inside source, that source used Leopold to spread a lie. Leopold now owes his source nothing. He may choose to keep the source's anonymity, but it's hard to see why, and it will reinforce the less-complicated conclusion that Leopold made the whole story up.

Now that Rove has been cleared of any legal action, he can concentrate on the upcoming midterms. He might find some extra motivation to pull one more rabbit out of the hat after experiencing the venomous coverage of this non-event for the past two years. The rest of us will continue to shake our heads at yet another useless special-prosecutor investigation and wonder when we will finally stop creating these extra-Constitutional witch hunts and force the Department of Justice and Congress to do its own dirty work.

Did A Land Mine Kill The Palestinians On The Beach?

The Israeli Defense Force believes that the explosion that killed seven members of a Palestinian family on a Gaza beach did not come from Israeli guns. After analyzing the shrapnel taken from the bodies of the dead and reviewing the records of their assault on the Palestinian firing position, the IDF suspects that the explosion came from a buried device meant to discourage an Israeli invasion:

The IDF probe investigating the deaths of seven Palestinian civilians, caused by an explosion on a beach in Gaza on Friday evening, concluded that chances were slim that the accident was caused by IDF shelling.

According to Channel 2, the findings, expected to be formally released on Tuesday, showed an inconsistency between the shrapnel found in the body of one of the wounded babies and the metal used in IDF artillery.

Moreover, the investigation noted the absence of a large enough crater at the site of the explosion, as would be expected if an IDF shell had landed there.

The third observation casting doubt on the possibility of IDF shelling was the gap between the time when the army shot the artillery and when the commotion on the beach began. According to the probe's findings, several minutes [passed] after the shelling, before the Palestinians on the beach reacted.

Once again, it appears that the story might have more complications than the original reporting. The video of the explosion's aftermath have spread around the world, and people have concluded that the IDF shelled a picnic due to incompetency or worse. The media has already plotted out the story: another atrocity by a Western power, perhaps deliberate but more likely just an offshoot of brutal training methods and an overtaxed enlisted corps. Facts will not much matter after they have the meme resolved.

Even if it turns out to be an errant IDF shell, we need to remember that the Israelis do not target civilians for attack as a matter of policy, while their enemies do. Their enemies hide among civilians before, during, and after their attacks in order to goad the IDF into taking shots that might kill civilians. The entire theme of outrage from Hamas in this regard is nothing short of laughable. They endorsed the bombing of a falafel stand in Tel Aviv that killed three times as many Israeli civilians two months ago.

The media has been taught two lessons about reporting on war events, with the Zarqawi non-beating and now the questions about the presumed beach shelling. They do better to wait for confirmation before jumping to the conclusion, and when they do not, they do damage to the truth.

Wear The Helmet, Big Ben

Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger broke his jaw and injured his knees in a motorcycle accident late this morning. According to reports, he has undergone surgery to repair the injuries and has shown no signs of brain damage:

Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger was badly hurt in a motorcycle crash Monday and undergoing surgery. The extent of his injuries was not known.

Roethlisberger was in serious but stable condition, said Dr. Larry Jones, chief of trauma at Mercy Hospital.

"He was talking to me before he left for the operating room," Jones said before the operation. "He's coherent. He's making sense. He knows what happened. He knows where he is. From that standpoint, he's very stable."

The 24-year-old Roethlisberger likes to ride without a helmet, a habit that once prompted coach Bill Cowher to lecture him on the dangers. It was not known whether Roethlisberger was wearing a helmet when he crashed. ...

Pittsburgh media outlets reported that Roethlisberger was in surgery for a broken jaw. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, citing a police source, reported Roethlisberger also broke his left sinus cavity, suffered a 9-inch laceration to the back of his head, lost teeth and has knee injuries from hitting the pavement. A plastic surgeon has been called in, the source said.

We're keeping Big Ben in our prayers. We're hoping that the injuries prove a meddlesome irritant and not a career ender, as Ben had shown tremendous promise and poise during his first two seasons with the Steelers. Hopefully he can return quickly and start the season in uniform for the Steelers. Perhaps he will also listen to Ben Cowher and suit up appropriately for his motorcylce rides in the future as well.

UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt shows how sportsmen regard their opponents.

UPDATE II: Ben's out of surgery, and it looks like they fixed everything:

A medical team completed work on what was described as multiple facial fractures at 9 p.m. and Roethlisberger's condition was reported to be serious, but stable, and not expected to change overnight.

Representatives of the medical team said that Roethlisberger's brain, spine, chest and abdomen appeared to be without serious injury and, at this time, there were no other confirmed injuries from the accident. The procedure took about seven hours and all the facial fractures were reported to be have been successfully repaired.

Earlier, Dr. Larry Jones of Mercy Hospital addressed the media at 1:25 p.m. and said that Roethlisberger was in serious but stable condition and was headed to surgery. The doctor did not detail the injuries, but a source said they included a broken jaw, chipped tooth, broken nose and head lacerations.

Jones said that Roethlisberger was talking, was coherent and was cognizant of the situation.

Police confirmed Roethlisberger, 24, was not wearing a helmet as he operated his 2005 Suzuki Hayabusa cycle.

Good news indeed. Also, it takes about seven weeks to recover from a broken jaw, and with the season opener coming in twelve weeks, it looks like Ben could return in plenty of time for the Steelers.

Democrat Wants To Pork You Up

Every once in a while, a politician provides a moment of utter clarity, usually inadvertently, which defines their character so well that further defense is pointless. Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) not only did that for himself but for his entire party, and provided the Republicans with a valuable sound bite for the upcoming mid-terms in every district:

If Democrats win back control of the U.S. House of Representatives in November, U.S. Rep. Jim Moran said he would use his position in the majority to help funnel more funds to his Northern Virginia district.

Moran, D-8th, told those attending the Arlington County Democratic Committee's annual Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner on June 9 that while he in theory might oppose the fiscal irresponsibility of “earmarks” - funneling money to projects in a member of Congress's district - he understands the value they have to constituents.

“When I become chairman [of a House appropriations subcommittee], I'm going to earmark the shit out of it,” Moran buoyantly told a crowd of 450 attending the event.

Let's remind people what earmarks are and how they work. Earmarks, also known as pork, specify funding for programs or products rather than general funding for a department. Representatives and Senators claim that earmarks allow them to ensure that worthy programs get funded and that petty bureaucrats cannot defy the will of Congress by spending their budgets on less-worthy matters. In reality, earmarks allow politicians to direct federal funds to a wide array of lobbyists' clients and campaign contributors without having to go through the messy and potentially embarrassing necessity of a vote. The only vote for which they are subject are those for the entire bill on which they ride.

Essentially, then, Moran has sworn to use an abused process directly linked to a number of lobbying scandals in order to direct money to his constituents instead of supporting national priorities. Moran doesn't show any embarrassment about it, either. He proudly states that he will make it his business to pork up Arlington -- an area that gets more than its share of federal dollars from its proximity to Washington DC -- but that the effort will require a Democratic majority in the House.

So far, that may be the only specific action on the Democratic agenda for this mid-term election. Despite acknowledging the corrosive nature of earmarks, Moran intends to apply them liberally (in all senses of the word) in order to feather Democratic beds rather than those from the GOP. In making this pledge, he returns Congress to its spoils system rather than seeking any kind of reform. The Democrats want to run on the culture of corruption this fall, but they don't want to do anything to stop it. Instead, they'd just like to be in charge of it for a while.

Moran's seat is probably safe, and his constituents might not mind receiving the benefits of his largess using our money. However, as Moran notes, without a Democratic majority in the House, his efforts will likely fail. We need to make sure that everyone understands the stakes involved in these House races and deny Moran the political power he seeks.

The Beat Didn't Go On

Contrary to the AP's uncorroborated witness who claimed that American servicemen beat Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to death, an autopsy performed on his corpse reveals that the al-Qaeda leader died from injuries consistent with close encounters to two 500-lb bombs. This should put an end to a very strange episode where people accused soldiers of murdering a man by beating him instead of blowing him up:

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi lived for 52 minutes after a U.S. warplane bombed his hideout northeast of Baghdad, and he died of extensive internal injuries consistent with those caused by a bomb blast, the U.S. military said Monday.

Col. Steve Jones, command surgeon for Multinational Forces, said an autopsy concluded that the terrorist leader died from serious injuries to his lungs. An FBI test positively identified al-Zarqawi's remains. ...

"Blast waves from the two bombs caused tearing, bruising of the lungs and bleeding," he said. "There was no evidence of firearm injuries."

The al Qaeda in Iraq leader also suffered head and facial wounds, bleeding in his ears and a fracture of his lower right leg.

Now that we have that information, perhaps someone can explain what the fuss was all about. Zarqawi never operated within the rules of war, and also did not surrender. When faced with such an enemy in the field, soldiers kill them rather than attempt an arrest. Had they discovered that Zarqawi had survived the explosion and could still present a danger, they would either shoot him or attempt to capture him, depending on their orders. If the latter was the case, the methods used to restrain Zarqawi would appear rough and violent -- and since this isn't a law-enforcement exercise, such tactics in handling an enemy would not be out of place.

As it stands, though, the entire story has now been discredited. Now we must ask the AP about their witness and their decision to publish the uncorroborated story. Based on the descriptions of the site and its remarkable isolation, the AP should have treated "Mohammed's" story with considerable skepticism. Without having any sort of corroboration, the editors need to weigh the informative value of the story against the damage done to the soldiers involved and the military as a whole by promulgating what amounted to gossip and conspiracy theorizing. Since the entire point of war is to kill one's enemy -- and no one doubted that Zarqawi qualified as such -- the publishing of this story under the circumstances is indefensible.

The AP owes its readers an apology and a retraction. Will we get either? Doubtful. We must maintain the level of skepticism that the AP itself failed to keep in this instance. Unlike with the US military, we have a long history of transgressions with the AP on its reporting for our assumptions.

Tories Closing In On Total Victory?

Canadian politics have transformed since the revelations of Adscam showed the rot in the Liberal governance that had been in place for more than a decade. Once considered a mere shadow of a party, the Tories roared back from oblivion to cpature a minority government earlier this year, in what appeared to be a "test drive" for Canadians. Since their election, the Conservatives have built an impressive following, polling into the 40s nationally and poising themselves for a majority government in the next elections.

The Liberals have found themselves in a free-fall, unable to find new leadership that can attract those offended by the corruption of Adscam and by the fear-based electoral tactics they used against the Tories and Stephen Harper. Until now, however, the Grits could count on Ontario as their power base. That seems to be changing as well, according to a new Ipsos poll:

According to a new Ipsos Reid survey of 770 Ontarians, conducted on behalf of Global News and CFRB, the John Tory led Progressive Conservatives (40%, +3 points from a February Ipsos Reid survey) have gained a slight edge on the current ruling Dalton McGuinty led Liberal Party (37%, unchanged).

Howard Hampton and the NDP trail further back of the pack with 17% support (-1 point), and Frank de Jong and the Green Party continue to garner a modest percentage of total votes (5%, -2 points).

The Tories lead in all but two areas of Ontario: Northern and Central. Only in Northern Ontario does the difference become significant, and the Tories match that by significant leads in Eastern and South-Western Ontario. The Ipsos results do not show other kinds of demographic information, but clearly the two parties have reached a deadlock in what used to be a lock for Liberals.

Canada appears to have turned its back on the Liberals, and the Liberals appear to have nothing with which to gain their attention once more.

Lipscomb Continues The History Lesson

Thomas Lipscomb continued to give John Kerry the rematch he demanded on the Swift Boat debate, this time by addressing one of Kerry's rebuttals about the first Purple Heart medal. Lipscomb revisits the skimmer mission that resulted in his eventually winning the medal after first having it denied by his commanding officer and later caused Kerry to call an admiral a liar:

According to Kerry's accounts in both Michael Kranish's Boston Globe reporting, the Brinkley account of TOUR OF DUTY, and the Zernike Times piece, Kerry, an officer stationed at Coastal Division 14 at Cam Ranh Bay, still in training before being assigned a Swift boat, who had never been in combat before, "volunteered for a special mission on what the Navy called a skimmer but he knew as a Boston Whaler." Coastal Division 14 operations officer Bill Schachte, who says he was glad to have Kerry volunteer, agrees so far. ...

Schachte says he designed the missions for two officers and one enlisted man to run the boat. He commanded forward with an M-60 7.62 machine gun, the other officer would carry an M-16 with a starlight scope scanning the shoreline or an M-14 with an infrared scope if it was cloudy. He wanted two officers because as an intelligence-generated mission he wanted to make sure two men on the boat had been cued in at the 4PM operations meeting on what to look for in the area to be explored. Enlisted men did not attend that meeting.

Schachte's regular call sign on the radio was "Bacardi Charlie," but when he ran the occasional skimmer missions Schachte took on a distinctive new call sign "BATMAN" and the supporting Swift boat, whoever was in command, was "ROBIN."

Schachte says he personally led seven out of the eight skimmer missions he ran at Cam Ranh, and the one he didn't lead was not led by what Hibbard terms "a 'rookie' who knew nothing about the concept or tactics involved to command the skimmer." Schachte points out that if he had risked the lives of two enlisted men with a green officer on a difficult night mission like this he should have been reprimanded. Kerry, after all, was an "officer in training" at Coastal Division 14. Kerry had never had a command and had not yet been released to a first command of his own. His job was to go on missions with veterans and learn.

Admiral William Schachte has always insisted that he went out on the skimmer with Kerry on that engagement, and that Kerry's description of the event greatly exaggerated what happened. The mission, according to the admiral, turned out to be a bust. The only weapons discharging were American -- specifically Schachte's M-60 and Kerry's M-16, and an M-79 grenade launcher. The mission had counted on secrecy, and all of the gunfire had blown their cover, so Schachte ordered the boats to fall back to the protection of the swift boat, captained by Mike Voss.

Voss, not coincidentally, has contradicted Kerry's assertion that Schachte lied about being aboard the skimmer that night. Since this mission was conducted by CosDiv 14, Schachte had to have ordered it himself, and would have known who went out on the water. Schachte ordered eight such missions in that area, and he went out on all but one of them himself; the only skimmer mission at CosDiv 14 that he did not personally command was one with Lt. Tedd Peck, over whose Swift Boat Kerry would take command on January 30, 1969.

If something happened that matched Kerry's story more than Schachte's, one would have expected the men to have contemporaneously made a report detailing the attack of the enemy on their position. However, as Lipscomb points out, that's hardly what happened:

Poor Schachte, who had had a boring evening ending in a blown mission - somehow in the same time and place in that parallel universe to Kerry's "frightening" magical mystery tour - got debriefed by the Coastal Division 14 commander Hibbard, filed no after action report since there was no enemy action, told Hibbard Kerry wanted a Purple Heart, and hit the sack, mildly disgusted.

Kerry got back in the same time and same place, and filed no after action report. Neither did Mike Voss, despite an action as described by Kerry that certainly merited one and would have guaranteed him an automatic purple heart with no problems with either Hibbard or Schachte had he filed one. In fact, according to Hibbard, it would have been the only after action report filed on one of Schachte's skimmer missions which weren't as effective as he and Schachte had hoped. Schachte disagrees and is convinced there must have been "one or two." ...

No reasonable explanation has yet been offered for the grant of Kerry's first purple heart. Tedd Peck dissolves into laughter recalling a dispirited Schachte heading into the officers' club for a drink the day after the mission muttering that Kerry was threatening "to write his Congressman if he didn't get his purple heart," knowing the bales of quadruplicate paperwork that would ensue.

If nothing else, this clearly demonstrates that Kerry has badly miscalculated in his attempt to restart the entire Swift Boat controversy. He knows that he cannot avoid it if he wants to run again for the presidency, but he seems to think that he can simply assert that he has convincing evidence to support his stories and that everyone will trust him enough not to ask to see it. If that is his strategy -- and the article in the New York Times leaves one with no other impression, since he produced no evidence for the story -- then once again he will demonstrate why his initial campaign failed so badly. In the end, it isn't the Swift Boat veterans that defeated Kerry, but Kerry himself, and he looks well on his way to doing it again.

Quick Note Of Thanks

I have heard from a number of people about my back problems, both in comments and e-mails over the last twenty-four hours. I cannot express my appreciation for all of your kind thoughts and prayers, and excellent advice as well. Some of you have shared some personal insights into painkillers and their long-term effects, and that level of concern has been very touching indeed. I will definitely keep all of that in mind while I work with my doctor to get a plan for recovery together in the next few days.

Assuming I can remain alert, I will be blogging on and off, since I do not appear capable of doing much of anything else. Of course, I may also take some time to watch more of my Firefly episodes, or something equally important, so we shall see!

Also, the First Mate will return home today. Fortunately, our son will be able to drive her home, and we should have plenty of support around the house.

CQ's Day Off On Drugs

Due to a back injury that has gotten progressively worse, I've taken the day off from blogging, with the exception of the one interesting story on the Canadian imams. I just got back from Urgent Care, and they've upgraded me from Vicodin to Percocet. I'm told by those who know that I will shortly discover an entire new world of sleep, so unless I'm as impervious to Percocet as I apparently am to Vicodin, I'll be unable to do much more.

However, I don't want to leave you with no place to go, so ....

Ed Driscoll podcasts an interview with Hugh Hewitt about his book, Painting The Map Red. Be sure to tune in; with Ed and Hugh on the podcast, it should be very entertaining.

Blue Crab Boulevard has an e-mail from his son memorializing a lost comrade, killed by an IED in Iraq on Friday.

I have not kept up with the Haditha backtracking by Time and other media outlets. I'm inclined to wait until I read the investigation reports to comment any further, but Hot Air, Power Line, and Sweetness and Light have continued to cover the story. Count on Michelle to stay on top of it as well.

Finally, Brant at SWLiP keeps his eye on the Miami Herald, which apparently needs better supervision. Surprise!

Canadian Imam: We Failed Our Youth

Canadian imams spoke out for patience and trust in the Canadian justice system and told their congregants that they themselves failed their children. Other Muslims protested the Canadian efforts to round up suspected terrorists in their community:

Imams across the GTA urged families and communities to take more responsibility for shaping the minds of young Muslims, following the arrest of 17 young men and boys on terrorism-related charges last Friday.

In Mississauga, North York and Scarborough, they spoke to thousands gathered for Friday afternoon prayers, some addressing concerns about backlash, others urging the community to have faith in the Canadian justice system to provide a fair trial.

"There is nothing wrong in saying we failed our youth," said Imam Munir El-Kassen at the Toronto and Region Islamic Congregation in North York. "We did not fail them intentionally, but our community was in a formative stage and our youth searching to fill the vacuum within received wrong advice and training.

"We should be more careful in controlling the youth in the public domain — not everybody should be allowed to talk or lead the youth. They are the most vulnerable."

Imam Husain Patel, at the Islamic Foundation of Toronto in Scarborough — where several of those accused prayed in the past — echoed that sentiment.

Expect to see this debate continue for the next few months, but the introspection seems significant.