Operation Blessed July

Another document released by the FMSO from the captured files of the Iraqi Intelligence Services shows that Uday Hussein, in 1999, ordered a series of bombings and assassinations in London, Iran, and in the autonomous areas of Iraq. Document ISGZ-2004-018948 shows a response from a Saddam Fedayeen operative to Uday himself outlining the plan, known as Operation Blessed July:

In the name of God the most merciful, the most compassionate Respectful Mr. in charge of Fedayeen Saddam

My respects and regards, Sir:

Referral to your Excellency’s orders on the days of 20-25/05/1999, to start planning from now on to perform special operations (assassinations/ bombings) for the centers and the traitor symbols in the fields of (London/ Iran/ Self ruled areas) and for coordination with the Intelligence service to secure deliveries, accommodations, and target guidance. Also, I would like to indicate here (according to the first directed operational plan) the explanations of all the orders and directives that have been issued to us by you during the first and the second meetings with your Excellency which lay the groundwork towards our achieving the goal .

1- Code name of the special operations (Tamooz Mubarak) [Blessed July].
2- The duties will be divided into two branches which are:

A- Bombings
B- Assassinations ...

5- Execution steps

A- Select (50) fedayeen martyrs according to required specifications.
B- Admit them in a seminar at the Intelligence School to prepare them for the required duties.
C- After passing the tests they will be selected for the targets as follows:

First: The first ten will work in the European field (London).
Second: The second ten will be working in the Iranian field.
Third: The third ten will be working in the Self ruled area.

D- After passing the final test the fedayeens will be sent as undercover passengers, each one according to his work site, for the purpose of preparations and to acquire from and coordinate with the Intelligence Apparatus and Mr.’Aiath

6- After completion of what was indicated in (5) above the major and general steps should be prepared for execution and are to be supervised by the respectful Mr. Supervisor [Commander] to determine his remarks.

7- Revisions of the plan, according to the [Supervisor’s] remarks, coordination, and description of the plans will be presented to Intelligence Apparatus Director as follows. ...

9- The study (execution plan) submitted to the respectful Mr. Commander to determine his final comments.

10- Reforming the plan after noticing any revisions or additions that need to be re-written.

11- The final plans, with timing, and the necessary fundamentals for execution, should be written in two copies. One copy for the higher authorities and the other copy to be kept with the working team until the orders are issued.

12- General subjects

A- The ex - order in the Jordanian field is cancelled.
B- The traitors must be followed (movements, residences, activities) at all fields at this time.
C- Discussion of the work possibilities at the Lebanese field.
D- Reminders of the usage of the death capsules (Penephedine) when members are captured at the European fields.
E- Any limitations that will arise… [Incomplete]

[At the bottom left is a hand-written note] The morning is a blessed verse, by the name of merciful God, their appointment is in the morning, and indeed the morning is near.

This clearly shows that the Iraqis intended to use its commandos as terrorists, primarily to attack former regime officials who defected to the West and ex-patriates working towards the overthrow of Saddam's dictatorship. Saddam had a long history of assassination attempts against his political foes; former PM Ayad Allawi almost lost a leg to Saddam's assassins in 1980.

Enough evidence shows that Saddam had plenty of connections to Islamist terrorism. Now we know that Saddam had every intention of using his fanatical commandos to commit terrorist acts abroad, under the direct control of his son Uday.

UPDATE: Thomas Joscelyn wrote about this at the Weekly Standard last March:

What targets did the martyrs plan on bombing? Did the Fedayeen Saddam carry out any of these operations? If so, when and where?

The document does not say. But, interestingly, the "Blessed July" operation appears to have been conceived within a broader mandate for future attacks. The translated document refers to "your Excellency's orders" (probably a reference to Uday) in May 1999 "to start planning from now on to perform special operations (assassinations/bombings) for the centers and the traitor symbols in the fields of (London/Iran/Self ruled areas)." ...

What were Saddam's henchmen doing prior to the war, exactly?

We will never know if we stop asking, and if the US does not continue to release these documents.

The Saddam-Osama Connection

One of the documents released by the FMSO project contains the records of the Iraqi regime's early connections to Osama bin Laden, starting in 1994 and continuing at least through 1997. It comes in the middle of document ISGZ-2004-009247, a review of Iraqi Intelligence Service contacts in the region and summaries of the combined efforts that they produced.

The review of their work with Saddam comes in section 2, discussing "The Reform And Advice Committee":

2. The Reform and Advice Committee:

Headed by the Saudi Usamah Bin Ladin [UBL], who is a member of a wealthy Saudi family with his roots going back to Hadhramut [TC: An area now part of Yemen]. This family has a strong ties with the ruling family in Saudi. He is one of the leaders of the Afghan-Arabs, who volunteered for jihad in Afghanistan. After the expulsion of the Russians, he moved to live in Sudan in 1992 subsequent to the Islamists arrival to power in Sudan.

[A]s a result of his antagonistic positions against the ruling Saudi family in opposition to the foreign presence in Saudi Arabia, the Saudi authorities issued a decree to withdrawing his Saudi Citizenship. We approached the committee by doing the following:

A. During the visit of the Sudanese Dr. Ibrahim Al-Sunusi to Iraq and his meeting with Mr. `Uday Saddam Hussein, on December 13th 1994, with the presence of the respectable, Mr. Director of the Intelligence Services, he [Dr. Al-Sunusi] pointed out that the opposing Usamah Bin Ladin, residing in Sudan, who expressed reservations and fear that he may be depicted by his enemies as an agent for Iraq; is ready to meet with us in Sudan (The Honorable Presidency was informed of the results of the meeting in our letter 782 on December 17th 1994).

B. An approval to meet with opposer Usama Bin Ladin by the Intelligence Services was given by the Honorable Presidency in its letter 138, dated January 11th 1995 (attachment 6). He [UBL] was met by the previous general director of M ’I M 4 [QCC: possible the previous General Director of Intelligence] in Sudan, with the presence of the Sudanese, Ibrahim Al-Sannusi, on February 19th 1995. A discussion ensued with him about his organization, he [UBL] requested the broadcasting of the speeches of Sheikh Sulayman Al-`Udah (who has an influence within Saudi Arabia and outside, due to his religious and influential personality), to designate a program for them through the radio broadcast directed inside Iraq, and to perform joint operations against the foreign forces in the land of Hijaz. (The Honorable Presidency was informed of the details of the meeting in our letter 370 on March 4th 1995, attachment 7)

C. The approval was received from the Leader, Mr. President, may God keep him, to designate a program for them {QCC: UBL and the Sheikh] through the directed radio broadcast. We were left to develop the relationship and the cooperation between the two sides to find out what other avenues of cooperation and agreement would open up. The Sudanese were informed of the Honorable Presidency’s approval of the above through the representative of the Respectable Director of Intelligence Services our Ambassador in Khartoum.

D. Due to the recent situation in Sudan, and being accused of supporting and embracing terrorism, an agreement with the opposer Saudi Usamah Bin Laden was reached, to depart Sudan to another region; whereas, he left Khartoum in July of 1996. The information indicates that he is currently in Afghanistan.

The relationship with him is ongoing through the Sudanese side. Currently, we are working to revitalize this relationship through a new channel in light of his present location. [emphasis mine -- CE]

This shows that the connections to the Saddam regime went much higher than previously thought. Uday himself made the arrangements with the Sudanese government in December 1994. Osama met directly with the General Director of the IIS. Even after he left the Sudan, the Sudanese continued to act as a conduit between Osama and Iraq, at the behest of Saddam Hussein -- and the IIS states that they were actively working to connect to Osama again after he landed in Afghanistan.

During this period of 1996, al-Qaeda bombed the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. In 1998, Osama issued his fatwa against the US. The embassy attacks in Africa followed, and then the bombing of the USS Cole -- and finally, 9/11.

One has to wonder how successful the IIS was in its project to "revitalize" their relationship.

UPDATE: This document provides the prologue to the Feith memo. Remember how many people discounted that intelligence assessment?

UPDATE II: Laurie Mylroie had this translated herself from the original Arabic-only release in March.

Sanctions For North Korea

The UN Security Council voted unanimously to impose sanctions on North Korea in response to its missile tests, forbidding the sale of any material with use for its rocket program. The Russians and Chinese agreed to the sanctions if references to Chapter VII were removed, preventing escalation to military action:

The U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution Saturday condemning North Korea's recent missile tests and demanding that the reclusive communist nation suspend its ballistic missile program.

The agreement was reached after a last-minute compromise between Japan, the United States and Britain, who wanted a tough statement, and Russia and China, who favored weaker language.

North Korea vowed to continue missile launches "as part of its effort to bolster deterrent for self-defense in the future," said Pak Gil Yon, North Korea's U.N. ambassador.

Does this have teeth? If followed by all UN member states as required, it means that North Korea cannot replace parts or purchase any raw materials required to build its missiles. That puts a huge dent in their legitimate exports of missiles, one of the few sources of hard currency they have (other than their counterfeiting operations). For this reason, Pyongyang has long warned that they would consider such sanctions as an act of war. At the moment, they've satisfied themselves with an immediate rejection of the resolution and a pledge to continue their missile tests.

How will Kim react? He has miscalculated his diplomatic strength, quite obviously, and he will need to reconsider his relationship with China. Specifically, he has to wonder what Japan and the US said to get China to betray him at the UNSC, not just refusing to veto the proposal but actually voting for its adoption. If it has anything to do with a change of status in Japan's military capabilities, then Kim will find that he has seriously overestimated his worth to the Chinese.

In the short run, these sanctions -- if kept firmly in place -- will hurt the starving North Koreans. With their main export stripped from them, they will sink even further into despair and poverty. In the long run, it may force the Chinese to put enough pressure on Kim to step down or disappear altogether before China gets overrun by economic refugees of Kim's incompetent management.

A Strange Sense Of Urgency

In December 1998, President Bill Clinton ordered missile strikes on specific targets in Iraq after Saddam Hussein reneged on a promise to cooperate with UNSCOM inspections. The missiles targeted sites known or thought to have connections to Saddam's hidden efforts to continue his WMD development programs, including chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. These strikes, the second in as many months, put an end to UN inspections until the US threatened an invasion almost exactly four years later.

Clinton told the press on December 18th that the Pentagon had selected the targets carefully, especially the presidential sites. After the invasion toppled Saddam in 2003, however, conventional wisdom has it that Saddam had shelved all his WMD programs, and therefore these strikes must not have hit any R&D assets, but rather just constituted a headache for the dictator. However, at the same time that Clinton held his press conference, Saddam issued orders that seem to indicate a high-level panic about the effects of the strikes (document ISGP-2003-00300134-X):

Republic of Iraq Administrative office of the Presidency In the name of God, Most Gracious Most Merciful

Number:M.Kh. 1/4/5373
Date:18/12/1998
Top Secret and Immediate ORDER

The President had ordered,

To form committees from the Health Ministry, Military Industrialization Commission, the Atomic Energy Organization, and the IIS, whose duties will be:

To inspect all sites bombarded by the enemy. To assure that no contamination or radioactivity are present (TN: in the areas that were hit), in particular and with utmost urgency the presidential sites. To collect all debris present, and to coordinate with Dr. Muna Al -Jubori, School of Science instructor at the University of Baghdad.

(Signed)
Ahmed Hussein Khudayr
The Chief of the Administrative Office of the Presidency
18/12/1998

Copy to:
The Presidency of the Republic, IIS, Office of the IIS Director, with regards and for the same purpose. These committees will have permission to visit those sites.

The Health Ministry/Office of the Minister, The Military Industrialization Commission, Office of the MIC Director, Atomic Energy Agency, Office of the Agency Director,for the same purpose, with regards.

Also copy to Dr.Muna Al-Jubori , Science instructor at the University of Baghdad, for the same purpose, with regards.

Two possible explanations exist for this memo. One could be that Saddam was afraid we had hit him with nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons in this strike. It seems a bit farfetched, however, since we had no tactical need to do so; if we wanted to really do damage, we simply could have sent a wave of bombers across Baghdad and hit a lot more targets with conventional weapons. He also had to know that any use of those kinds of weapons by the US would have resulted in a firestorm of criticism and could have caused the fall of the Clinton administration, already hanging by a thread at that point.

The only other explanation was that the missiles really did hit WMD facilities and that our intelligence had selected good targets for the limited missile strikes. The emphasis on the urgency of checking the presidential sites seems to confirm this. Saddam had attempted to exclude a number of facilities on the premise that they were his personal palaces and not subject to UNSCOM inspections. That, in fact, was what caused Saddam to bar inspectors in late 1998, and what prompted the missile attacks.

Someone very high up worried about nuclear and at least chemical contamination at these presidential sites. That anxiety seems to have come from the knowledge of what those sites actually held.

UPDATE: This isn't the only reference to chemical operations in 1998, either. Document ISGP-2003-00300159-X has a summary of several documents regarding Iraqi Air Force capabilities and training from February 1998, and chemicals come up frequently. Here's a good representative sample:

Page 3: A hand written report about a visit on Ali Air Base, dated February 3rd 1998. This report is signed by: Brigadier Haytham Natehk Saleem Imperative Air Force Chemical Detachment.

1. The locations for the base units: ...

• Chemical warehouses:

1. The assigned for incoming is good but needs to be organized and maintained.
2. The supply percentage for the protective masks; is higher than the set percentage of 65%, comparing to the number of individuals in the base.
3. The records are available but needs to be maintained, and regularly recorded.

2. The chemical detachment:

• Training side:

1. Training memorandum: A special memorandum has been designed for the chemical detachment; which needs to be classified according to the memorandum of the imperative Air Force Chemical Detachment.
2. Training approaches: Training approaches has been designed for the chemical detachment, and non-chemical units in base.
3. Training area: Well organized.

For a military that had no chemical weapons, they had a lot of activity going on in these "Chemical Detachments".

Saddam's Subsidies To Terrorists

The newly-released translations of files captured in the invasion of Iraq reveal more about connections between Saddam Hussein and terrorism. The one file reviewed here yesterday that produced Saddam's "Ode To My Moustache Hairs", ISGP-2003-00014647, also contains more substantive information about his role in promoting terrrorism. On page 4 of the file, Iraq planned the announcement of direct payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers:

Republic of Iraq The Presidency The Press Secretary

Number: SS/4/58
Date: 3/4/2002

Mr. the Esteemed Chief of the Presidential Bureau
Re: Order

AT the meeting that took place on Monday 3/4/2002 with Mr. Faruq Qaddumi, the Foreign Minister of Palestine, the President ordered that $25,000 are to be given to the family of any person who takes part in a suicide mission in Palestine.

H.E. also ordered that the Intifada martyrs are to be included in all salaries and benefits granted to the Umm-al-Ma`arik martyrs (TC: Umm-al-Ma`arik is the First Gulf War), as we view them as one and the same.

Regards,
(Signature)
`Ali `Abdallah Salman
Press Secretary

Saddam's subsidy to suicide bombings has been reported in detail, and the fact that this went through his press secretary shows that he wanted to get the word out. Saddam wanted to provide incentives for terrorist recruitment in the Palestinian areas, and so decided to offer a strange sort of death insurance for suicidal jihadis. Not only would they get seventy-two virgins for their own martyrdom, their families would get the equivalent of ten years' revenue for a family of four. The money for this enterprise came from the West, in the helpful Oil-For-Food program that put billions of dollars in hard currency into the pockets of Saddam Hussein and his sons.

However, the file also contains another memo, one that Saddam wanted hidden, that also shows his connections to terrorists in Afghanistan. On page 7, Saddam's office shows that Iraq bankrolled an Islamic group and its leader, and that the Iraqi Intelligence Service had its leadership as their proxies:

Republic of Iraq The Presidency The Press Secretary

Date: Wednesday, March 6th, 2001
Mr. H.E. the Secretary

Re: Telegram

Please find enclosed a telegram congratulating H.E. the President on `Id al-Adha from Mr. Sayyid Ahmad al-Gilani, Chief of the National Islamic Front of Afghanistan. We inquired from the Intelligence Service about Mr. al-Gilani and his National Islamic Front, and we received the following in response:

Mr. al-Gilani was born in 1928, bears a Saudi Arabian passport, and is the leader of the National Islamic Front and one of the leaders of the Jihad factions in Afghanistan. He is a member of the Iraqi al-Gilani family. He immigrated with his father in the 1940s. He has religious influence among several Afghani tribes. Politically moderate, he has relations with Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Britain, and the US. He supports the king.

He has cooperated with the Intelligence Service since 1980, and had received aid from the Intelligence Service at the rate of half a million dollars per month. The aid stopped at the beginning of the first Gulf War. His son, Hamid, cooperates with the Intelligence Service and is the Vice President of the Islamic Front.

Opinion:

We do not support publicizing the telegram at the current time.

Please review and order as you see fit.
Regards,
(Signature)
`Ali `Abdallah Salman
Press Secretary

Far from disdaining contacts with Islamist groups, Saddam cultivated them, paying al-Gilani a fortune in order to keep up Iraqi influence in Afghanistan. This memo comes before the events of 9/11 and the fall of the Taliban. Now a member of the Afghan political environment, they helped pull down the Russian-supported government and install the Taliban in the first place.

These files show how dangerous Saddam was in the region, and how he exploited connections to terrorism in order to stir up as much trouble as possible.

UPDATE: Er, Iraqi influence in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Just noticed the mistake, but I'm sure CQ commenters have already noted it ...

UPDATE II: CQ reader Donald M offers more on Gilani and cautions that the Gilani family had more complexity than this:

Pir Gilani, titular head of the NIFA was considered at the time of the Soviet War one of the most western-leaning of the major "muj" groups in the war. His family were fairly prosperous business leaders in pre-war Afghanistan. He had strong ties to the King, Zahir Shah. He had some "cachet" in that his bloodlines supposedly ran back to the Prophet. I knew his group at the time. They were "disdained" by the more radical groups who were in fact, Islamists. One of his sons had the nickname, "Gucci Gilani" because he favored Western, and expensive, accouterment. His top General was Rahim Wardak, part of the Royal Afghan Army (before the Soviet invasion), trained partially in the U.S. Rahim retired to Columbia, Md, not long after the Soviets left Afghanistan. Rahim was not welcome in Afghanistan when the Taliban took over. I don't know what's happened to that group or family (i've been out of this stuff for 16 years) but I would hesitate before branding this family or group, Islamists. This document reads to me, possibly, that the "Service" in question could actually be the ISI, whom the U.S used, unfortunately, as the conduit for cash and supplies during the war to those groups fighting the Soviets If that were true, it would be a "whole other can of worms" showing an almost intimacy with Iraq and the ISI. The role of the USG/ISI connection during the Soviet war is worthy of a book entitled.. "the tail wags the dog".. Similar to the failures, due to complacency and incompetence, of the U.S relationship with Iran's SAVAK in the '70s. But that's another story. The Gilani family could have and could be playing several roles at once. Quite common in that volatile "vale of tears'. Certainly though, at the time (80's) they were, by no means, considered by anyone in that AO to be "Islamists". Those of us that were there, at the time, knew who the Islamists were and our warnings at the time were ignored.

So noted! It also looks like the US got caught up with a Saddam asset.

Sadr Itching To Join Hezbollah

Moqtada al-Sadr, otherwise known as the man who brought a knife to a gunfight -- twice -- now wants to put his military genius to work on behalf of Hezbollah. Sadr threatened that his Mahdi Army would not sit on the sidelines while the Zionists attacked Islamists in Lebanon:

The radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr said Friday that Iraqis would not “sit by with folded hands” while Israel struck at Lebanon, signaling a possible increase in attacks from his mercurial militia, the Mahdi Army.

In a written statement, Mr. Sadr also said that he considered the United States culpable in the conflict unfolding in Lebanon, since America was the largest foreign ally of Israel. ...

It is no surprise that Mr. Sadr should rise to Lebanon’s defense. Since 2004, he has transformed his organization into one similar to Hezbollah, the militant Shiite faction there. From its ragtag beginnings, Mr. Sadr’s organization now counts members in the Parliament and important ministers, in addition to thousands of impoverished young men ready at a moment’s notice to take to the streets with Kalashnikovs.

Both the Mahdi Army and Hezbollah have strong ties to Iran, and all three subscribe to a fundamentalist Shiite theology. Some military officials in Iraq have said that Shiite militiamen here may have gotten bomb-making technology from Iran through Hezbollah.

Wong correctly points out the similarities between Sadr and Hezbollah, including the Iranian connections to both. However, unlike Hezbollah in Lebanon, Sadr does not have the political backing of the Shi'a in Iraq. The vast majority of Shi'ites take their cues from Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who has attempted on numerous occasions to get Sadr out of the military business -- at which Sadr has shown almost no talent whatsoever. Sadr's position in politics has strengthened as he backed away from violence, as the Americans and the new Iraqi government want to channel all dissent through the political process.

If Sadr decides to go postal over Lebanon, he may want to emulate Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah and commit an act of war on behalf of a country that he does not run. Unfortunately for Sadr, the Iraqi security forces are in better shape than Lebanon's, and the Americans are still deployed. Sadr ran into American buzz saws at least twice, both times in which he suffered humiliating defeats, including at a mosque Sadr was forced to surrender to Iraqi troops.

Sadr can certainly add to Iraqi misery if he so chooses. However, with the Iraqis strengthening themselves and the Coalition concentrating their attention on Baghdad as other provinces remain quiet, Sadr may find himself back in the same old gunfight, holding the same old knife.

Why The Sheriff Won't Patrol The Border

Sheriff's deputies in Hidalgo County, Texas, will not patrol the border, and for apparently good reason -- they're outgunned. Responding to a 911 call about a raid and a kidnapping, the deputies soon found themselves pinned down at the Rio Grande by automatic weapons fire:

Hidalgo County Sheriff Lupe Trevino said 200 to 300 shots were fired from automatic weapons Wednesday night, but no one was injured on the U.S. side, and police didn't fire back.

"This type of incident is a very good example of why I will not allow my deputies to patrol the river banks or the levees anywhere close to the river," he said. "We do have drug trafficking gangs, human trafficking gangs, that will not hesitate to fire at us."

Trevino said the shooting appeared to have started in Tamaulipas, at a riverside ranch owned by a family from Donna. He said two brothers said they were with their father at the ranch when vehicles full of armed men drove into the ranch and opened fire on the house, killing a ranch hand and taking their father hostage. ...

The brothers said they hid for several hours in their cornfield before swimming across the river, which, at that point, is only 30 to 40 yards wide. They called their mother from a cell phone, and she called 911.

The mother said someone might have been killed, and police and Border Patrol initially went to the river bank to search for a body. Once they were there, the gunfire began.

The Austin American-Statesman did not report on the fate of the kidnapped rancher, nor did they speculate on motive. Kidnappings for ransom has become a growth industry in Mexico, however, and the raid may have intended on capturing a hostage with some value.

Of course, had we built a proper wall on the border and staffed it with enough agents to secure it, these raids would not occur. The Congress has the responsibility to allocate funds to secure our borders properly, which is one of the few tasks the Constitution explicitly gives the federal government. Every day that our borders go without adequate protection reflects on the vacillation of Capitol Hill and the abdication of their primary task of keeping the nation safe. (h/t: CQ reader Gregg G)

So Much For The DCCC Advertisement

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee finally withdrew the advertisement they released last week after a hailstorm of criticism that wound up including at least two of the candidates the DCCC intended to help. DCCC chair Rahm Emanuel had defended the use of flag-draped military coffins as a political argument, but the argument failed to overcome the criticism:

Democrats pulled an Internet ad that showed flag-draped coffins Friday after Republicans and at least two Democrats demanded it be taken down on grounds the image was insensitive and not fit for a political commercial.

The ad by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee called for a "new direction" and displayed a staccato of images, including war scenes, pollution and breached levees as well as a photograph of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay doctored to look like a police mug shot. ...

Democrats had featured the video ad for nearly two weeks on the DCCC Web site where it had gone largely unnoticed until Republicans began objecting to it this week. On Thursday, more than a dozen Republicans, many with military backgrounds, called on DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., to apologize. Democratic Reps. John Spratt of South Carolina and Chet Edwards of Texas asked Emanuel to pull or alter the ad.

As I wrote last week, I did not find the use of the imagery to be out of bounds for political debate. I thought the Democrats had shot themselves in the foot with a mond-numbingly incoherent advertisement, and the critics did the DCCC a favor by shaming them into deleting it. The DCCC talked about moving onto another subject, but they aren't fooling anyone -- it got chased off the air.

The DCCC has at least improved the product. In their new advertisement, they actually discuss policy; they scold the Republicans for not supporting an increase in the minimum-wage floor. Maybe this could signal a trend for the midterms, where parties and candidates have to form a coherent message on the issues rather than just put together slide shows with scary pictures. Perhaps we may see an end to "Daisy"-style political attacks. Will we finally have political debate on substance rather than style?

Naaaaaah.

Israel Issues Ultimatum To Syria

Perhaps sensing a leadership vacuum in Damascus based on the odd report yesterday that Bashar Assad did not participate in a Ba'ath Party leadership conference, Israel has issued an ultimatum to Syria demanding the return of its soldiers and the end to Hezbollah activity along the border. If Syria does not comply within 72 hours, an Arabic newspaper reported, Israel will launch a major attack against Syria:

The London-based Arabic language newspaper Al-Hayat reported Saturday that “Washington has information according to which Israel gave Damascus 72 hours to stop Hizbullah’s activity along the Lebanon-Israel border and bring about the release the two kidnapped IDF soldiers or it would launch an offensive with disastrous consequences.”

The report said “a senior Pentagon source warned that should the Arab world and international community fail in the efforts to convince Syria to pressure Hizbullah into releasing the soldiers and halt the current escalation Israel may attack targets in the country.”

Al-Hayat quoted the source as saying that “the US cannot rule out the possibility of an Israeli strike in Syria,” this despite the fact that the Bush administration has asked Israel to “refrain from any military activity that may result in civilian casualties."

Last night the Syrians declared their solidarity with Hezbollah and warned Israel that it would not allow Hezbollah to fail in the latest war. That statement of alliance has obviously prompted Israel to call their bluff, and the silence of Bashar Assad will now get more attention. It is more than passingly strange that a nation would openly ally itself with another nation or group engaged in war on another nation without that statement coming from the head of state. It is inconceivable that such a policy announcement would occur in a dictatorship without the dictator himself being involved.

The Ba'athists in Syria may have been serious, but it seems more likely that they wanted to bluff Israel and the global community with what appears to be a rather empty threat. The Syrian military could not match up against the Israelis when they controlled Lebanon, and without Saddam Hussein as a backstop, they don't have a prayer now. Unlike Hezbollah, they actually have territory to lose, and they no longer control the strategic Golan Heights.

Syria may believe that the mutual defense pact they have with Iran will cause enough nations to rein in Israel before the war escalates into a regional conflict. However, they may find their bluff insufficient. First, most of the West believes that this has already become a regional conflict, and that Syria and Iran have deep involvement in Hamas and Hezbollah. All Israel's ultimatum accomplishes is to add significant risk to Syria directly for their proxy war. Second, the Iranians will find it quite difficult to march to the aid of Syria with 135,000 American troops blocking their way, and the US Navy in the Persian Gulf.

Israel has decided to raise the stakes on Syria. Will Syria blink?

Addendum: We should point out that the Syrians and the Iranians have incredibly poor timing. Why did they bother to start this conflict now? The US has had months of tension over the status of our troops in Iraq. In a year or so, we would have significantly drawn down the force there, making coordination between Iran and Syria easier. Now the Syrians have placed themselves in a vise between the Israelis on one side, the Americans on another, with NATO ally Turkey sitting on top of them. I'd say that the Ba'athists in Damascus have the same military genius as the Ba'athists did in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was in power.

UPDATE: Israel denies the report (h/t: Michael van der Galien at TMV):

Responding to a report in a pan-Arab daily newspaper that Israel presented Damascus with an ultimatum, an Israel Defense Forces officer said Saturday that targeting Syria is currently not on Israel's agenda.

"We're not a gang that shoots in every direction," the officer said. "It won't be right to bring Syria into the campaign."

The IDF officer emphasized that the Golan Heights frontier has been quiet since 1974, a factor which Israeli views as a vital security asset. The officer said that the Syrian air force as well as additional units are on high alert, a fact which hasn't escaped Israel's attention.

Israel may wait for Syria to make the first move. They did so with Hezbollah and with Hamas, which has allowed them more diplomatic manuevering room.

UPDATE II: Does this save Hillary from doing a remake of "Billy, Don't Be A Hero"? The Anchoress thinks so. It all depends on the meaning of "cross", anyway.

Nasrallah Bugging Out?

The Jerusalem Post reports that Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah and his merry band of stalwart defenders of Lebanon have decided to get the hell out of Beirut after the Israelis flattened their offices there. The move follows Nasrallah's call for "open war", and an Israeli response by hitting the Lebanese city of Triploi, north of Beirut:

Hizbullah leaders and operatives were leaving Beirut on Saturday following a massive IAF strike on an 11-story building that served as the organization's command center, initial intelligence indicated.

Channel 2 reported that the move appeared to be made under heavy security.

Earlier Saturday, IAF jets attacked targets in the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli, some 90 kilometers north of Beirut, marking the deepest Israel has struck inside Lebanon since the onset of Operation Just Rewards.

The jets also hit bridges and gas stations in eastern and southern Lebanon, and dropped tens of thousands of fliers over Lebanon trying to convey the message that Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah has taken control of their country and is bringing them disaster.

Hezbollah had a moment of celebration when they attacked and severely damaged an Israeli gunship. First reports indicated that they hit the ship with a UAV -- a drone -- packed with explosives. However, an IDF investigation showed that the strike came from an Iranian-made missile, either a Chinese-style Silkworm or a derivative:

"We can confirm that it was hit by an Iranian-made missile launched by Hizbullah. We see this as very profound fingerprint of Iranian involvement in Hizbullah," Nehushtan said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Another Hizbullah missile also hit and sank a nearby civilian merchant ship at around the same time, Nehushtan said. He said that ship apparently was Egyptian, but he had no other information about it.

Iranian military advisors have been rumored to be providing significant assistance to Hezbollah in its war on Israel, and this seems to confirm their involvement. They picked a good target; the ship was the most modern in the Israeli navy and had been commission ten years ago. The terrorists proved themselves only moderately accurate shots with the new Iranian missiles, however. Their second attempt sunk an Egyptian merchant vessel, a development that will not endear Hezbollah to the Egyptians.

The Lebanese have had to pay a heavy price for Hezbollah's unilateral act of war against Israel. The Daily Star reports that the nation's infrastructure has taken heavy damage as Israel attempts to cut off command, control, and lines of communication in a classic war strategy:

Shortly before The Daily Star went to press, two main bridges at the southern entrance of the capital, Hadi Nasrallah and Sultan Ibrahim, close to the heavily guarded Iranian Embassy compound, were hit.

Earlier attacks had set fire to two fuel depots at the Jiyye plant and state-run Electricity du Liban said it opted to stop energy production at the facility in order to ensure the safety of its employees and equipment.

The company also said high-voltage electricity lines in Tyre were targeted, damaging power plants in Zahrani, Zouk and Deir Ammar and causing a complete blackout in the capital. EDL said it was trying "to repair the damage within its abilities and will gradually try to regenerate power."

However, electricity rationing began as fear of a prolonged crisis gripped the country. Air raids also hit several mobile-phone relays across the country.

Israeli warplanes blasted the main Beirut-Damascus highway overnight, tightening an air, sea and land blockade of Lebanon.

The attacks on the mobile-phone assets might be the smartest part of the attack. Land lines have too much exposure for terrorists, who rely on cheap, disposable cell phones to avoid traces by their enemies. Their ability to organize for attacks will decline as more of the relays get destroyed, forcing them to either start using land lines -- which may not be available -- or satellite phones, which would give away their positions almost immediately. Satellite phones do not come cheap, which means they cannot simply cycle through them like the cell phones.

So far, Hezbollah and now Syria have spoken about "open war", but Israel is the one waging it with the most precision and to the greatest effect. Unfortunately, the only ones paying for it are those Israelis living in northern Israel and the Lebanese people, many of whom blame Hezbollah for the war and want to see nothing more than an end to their existence as an armed force. It will take years for Lebanon to recover from this war, and a country that had the promise of establishing itself as a liberal democracy may find itself unable to stand on its own again -- inviting strongmen of the region to make Lebanon a vassal state once more.

So let's hope Nasrallah bugs out of Lebanon at the earliest possible moment, taking his murderous band of thugs and cowards with him.

Syrian Power Structure Bypassing Assad?

Syria made its official entry into the war breaking out between Israel and Hezbollah, pledging to come to the aid of Hezbollah and Lebanon if necessary to ensure Israel's defeat. However, the statement did not come from Bashar Assad, the ostensible leader of Syria, but from a meeting of the Ba'athist party's power brokers:

Syria will support Hizbollah and Lebanon against Israel's attacks on the country, the ruling Baath Party said on Friday, defying the Jewish state and its chief ally Washington.

"The Syrian people are ready to extend full support to the Lebanese people and their heroic resistance to remain steadfast and confront the barbaric Israeli aggression and its crimes," said a communiqu¿ from the party's national command issued after a meeting.

It said Israel and the United States "are trying to wipe out Arab resistance in every land under occupation" and that President Bashar al-Assad was aware of the seriousness of the situation in the region.

The national command is the highest echelon of the Baath Party, which has been in power since 1963. The party considers the issue of Arab rights and regaining land occupied by Israel central to its legitimacy.

Assad, who is shaped by his late father's lifetime of struggle with Israel, was not at the meeting.

The Ba'ath Party left the head of state out of the loop while it crafted this statement? One has to wonder what task so occupied Assad that the war breaking out on his border got shifted to a lower priority.

In the meantime, Reuters reports that Syria feels that this crisis will make it a player in Middle East politics again. The world has its attention fixed on Syria and Iran, thanks to its connections to Hezbollah. Syria might find all of the attention flattering now, but if it decides to intervene on behalf of their Hezbollah proxies, the attention they receive will be a whole lot more explosive. IAF jets buzzed Assad's house earlier; next time, they'll leave a 500-lb calling card.

By that time, however, it may not matter. This news makes it appear that Assad may have gotten shut out of the decision-making process. The Ba'ath Party may not trust Assad in a shooting war -- and that may indicate that Baby Assad never did have his hands on the levers of power.

Me And My Moustache

More translated documents have been posted from the captured files of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, and one in particular contains a revealing look at the dictator himself. A speech handwritten by Saddam Hussein, apparently for the dedication of the Mother Of All Battles Mosque in May 2002, paints the picture of a man who wants to almost deify himself in the eyes of his people. For the occasion, he penned a paean to ... his moustache. No, I'm not kidding; here it is in its entirety (ellipsis in the original):

Arabs, including you, across their long history, have made their mustaches a symbol of their commitment and a mark of their willingness to bear the responsibility of their sex; as the uniqueness of the mustache was a duty of men alone, in all that glorifies family, people, and nation…

God has blessed us, and in us, he has blessed our mustaches, as well as any mustache jealous for his nation, his homeland, and his people, in the many and various duels that have become such that many of them seem a fantasy, rather than real actions against Iraq, which emerged proud and hale, with God’s will. The enemy has failed, as was God’s will also, to twist the courage of the people of Iraq, and the mustaches of Iraq’s good men,
including my mustache, the leader in hard times of strife, as in the times of building and virtue, and glory… from my mustache come these hairs.

Today, as I bequeath these hairs of my mustache to you, at the Umm-al-Ma`arik (TC: the Mother of All Battles) Mosque, I want you to remember the values that I have bequeathed to you. My history is part of your virtuous deeds, and your greatest of labors. I bequeath them to you to follow their example, and to retain the meanings that they hold, after putting your faith in the one almighty God, the able, the eternal, whenever a foreigner tries to force his way against your protection and values, or deviates from the path of honor, dignity, faith, and glory; the path of the people, and of the nation. Protect the hairs of this mustache with your protection of Iraq. Aid it with honor, and with the dignity of your nation and faith. God is Great… God is Great…God is Great.

This should prove that these documents are authentic. No one could make this up. This comes from document ISGP-2003-00014647, page 48 and 49.

Please note that I am placing all of the posts regarding these document translations into a new category, Saddam's Documents. I'll be reviewing more as the weekend progresses.

Talk About A Bad Draw!

Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame have run into a bit of bad luck in their lawsuit against Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, and ten random Republicans. CQ reader Denis K took a peek at the complaint and noticed something that I had missed earlier -- the judge assigned to the case. Wilson and Plame drew Judge John D. Bates -- and a quick glance at his rulings will no doubt have the Left fuming.

For instance, Judge Bates ruled in January 2005 that Michael Newdow would suffer no harm if the President said a prayer at his inauguration. Newdow, most known for using his (non-custodial) child as a means to attack the Pledge of Allegiance, lost his bid to enact a prior restraint on the President's speech at his own inauguration simply because Newdow planned to attend.

If that doesn't get the Democratic Underground in a fury, they may instead recall their anger when Judge Bates told Congress that they had no standing to sue for access to the records of Dick Cheney's energy task force. Relying on "the restricted role of the Article III courts in our constitutional system of government," Bates denied the request of the GAO, spurred on by Democrats who disliked the energy plan pushed by the White House. The judge ruled that the separation of powers and executive privilege meant that Cheney could consult with advisors to formulate policy without producing records of the meeting to Congress.

It gets even better, or worse, depending on one's point of view. Judge Bates received an appointment earlier this year to the FISA Court, the secret panel that reviews warrant requests for national-security investigations. He replaced Judge James Robertson, who resigned in protest against the Bush administration's bypass of the FISA Court on the NSA terrorist surveillance program. How sympathetic will Judge Bates be to a lawsuit from someone who leaked misinformation after getting sent on an assignment by his wife?

And, hell, if that doesn't do it for Wilson supporters, his work as one of Kenneth Starr's staff during his independent-counsel investigation of Bill Clinton should force them into despair.

How long will it take before the Left starts screaming "CONSPIRACY"? Faster than the Wilsons can file a disqualification motion with the court.

The Unlikeliest Spy Against The Islamists

CQ reader jiHymas refers us to a fascinating account about the insider who nailed the Toronto 17, the Islamist terror cell that had attempted to purchase three tons of ammonium nitrate to conduct attacks on Canada's infrastructure. Meet Mubin Shaikh, a Muslim who campaigned for allowing sharia courts in Canada's Muslim communities and who supports the jihads in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet this Canadian drew the line on attacks on his fellow citizens:

This is the story of the 18th man, the civilian mole and devout Muslim paid by CSIS and the RCMP to infiltrate Mr. Ahmad's circle and thwart an alleged plot to blow up those targets. Over a series of discussions with The Globe and Mail, Mr. Shaikh detailed his motives for bringing down the alleged terrorist cell. Above all, violence in Canada in the name of Islam cannot be tolerated, said Mr. Shaikh, who says he has learned to juggle his fierce commitment to both Islam and the secular values of Canadian society.

On one hand, he is an official at his west-end mosque, supports the jihads in Afghanistan and Iraq and was one of the most public supporters of the failed bid to introduce sharia law in Ontario, occasionally commenting on the debate on television.

On the other, he is also a onetime member of the York South-Weston Liberal Riding Association, whose family keeps a sticker of the Canadian flag on their mailbox.

Mr. Shaikh embodies the word conflicted, but he did his country a great service. One can imagine how powerful his testimony will be when he takes the stand in the trials to come. His long beard and his k'urta will enhance his credibility as he explains how a devout Muslim and believer in jihad came to the Canadian security services to volunteer to keep his country safe.

It's difficult, however, to be completely sanguine about Shaikh. His insistence on shari'a and at least philosophical support for foreign insurgents in Iraq mark him as someone who would normally earn consideration as a radical Islamist, and his activism also supports that judgment. His Polish-born wife, a convert to Islam, wears the burqa in their public appearances. I suspect many of his fellow Muslims feel conflicted about him as well. How can a Muslim who believes so strongly in jihad elsewhere deny it in Canada?

I have to admit that I don't know exactly how to feel about Shaikh, although I have to admire his actions in defending Canada. It also shows that even deeply conservative Muslims can act in defense of innocent life and for liberty and freedom -- a lesson we should all keep in mind, including our fellow Muslims in the West.

Israel Destroys Hezbollah HQ, But Nasrallah Escapes

Israel stepped up its attacks on Hezbollah targets throughout Lebanon this afternoon, destroying their headquarters in Beirut and again attacking Lebanon's airport. The IAF also bombed Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah's house, but the Hezbollah chief apparently escaped harm in both attacks:

Hizbullah threatened to strike Haifa with improved Katyusha rockets on Friday evening after IAF warplanes destroyed the building housing the headquarters of the Hizbullah terror organization in south Beirut and organization head Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah's private home.

In an urgent flash, the organization's al-Manar TV station said the building housing Hizbullah's leadership was destroyed. It did not elaborate, nor say whether there were any casualties.

The report on the destruction of Nasrallah's home was announced by official Hizbullah media outlets.

From televised reports, it appears that Nasrallah had gone to ground and was not at either location when Israel struck. The IAF continued its attacks on southern Beirut, where Hezbollah has political strength and command-and-control centers. For its part, Hezbollah continued raining missiles throughout northern Israel; the Jerusalem Post link has a graphic that shows the areas hit by the Katyushas.

if Nasrallah did survive these attacks -- and it would have been rather foolish for him to have gone to his offices or to his house -- we can expect a press conference or some sort of live statement soon. It will be important for his organization to see him in control, else the discipline down the organizational line may disappear. In any case, the destruction of their facilities shows that the Israelis have pretty good intel and even better aim -- and Nasrallah had better hope that his movements don't expose him to IDF action.

UPDATE: Take a look at this argument by Daniel Freedman at It Shines For All:

What's interesting here is that Israel clearly had knowledge for quite some time of Nasrallah's house. If Israel would have tried to kill the terrorist leader before today, thereby throwing Hezbollah's chain of command into chaos, it might have set back Hezbollah's terrorist activities. But if Israel had done that, say a week ago, the international outrage at the "unprovoked attack" and "destablizing the region" would have been huge. A reminder why caterwauling about preemption should be ignored.

Had they assassinated Nasrallah, we would have heard more than just the outcry that Freedman describes -- but they may have saved a number of lives. Not only is Daniel correct about preemption, but it also points out the folly of denying that one is at war when the enemies continue to plot and gather their strength. Hezbollah and Hamas recognize no other status than war regarding Israel, and Israel has finally accepted it and acted accordingly.

Super-Size Fasting

Michelle Malkin has decided to join in Cindy Sheehan's "rolling fast". How's it working out? Morgan Spurlock could make a documentary. Michelle is a riot in this edition of The Vent. Enjoy -- and be sure to have your ice-cream floats handy.

The Vatican Rag (Updated)

The Vatican finally issued a statement on the conflict in Lebanon, and Catholics around the world -- including yours truly -- will wish that the Holy See had remained quiet. Despite the attack on Israel by Hezbollah, a member of the Lebanese government, the Vatican blames Israel for defending itself militarily:

The Vatican on Friday strongly deplored Israel's strikes on Lebanon, saying they were "an attack" on a sovereign and free nation.

Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Angelo Sodano said Pope Benedict and his aides were very worried that the developments in the Middle East risked degenerating into "a conflict with international repercussions."

"In particular, the Holy See deplores right now the attack on Lebanon, a free and sovereign nation, and assures its closeness to these people who already have suffered so much to defend their independence," he told Vatican Radio. ...

Sodano reserved his harshest words for Israel. "The right of defence on the part of a state does not exempt it from its responsibility to respect international law, particularly regarding the safeguarding of civilian populations," he said.

Forgive me, Father Sodano, but that argument has no bearing on reality. I do not necessarilly think that attacking Lebanon makes the best strategy, but Israel has plenty of justification for it. The attack on Israel also came against a "free and sovereign nation". Hezbollah's armed forces exist with the complicity of the Lebanese government, and they launched their attacks from Lebanon's sovereign territory. That constitutes an act of war, and Israel has the right to respond militarily to destroy the threat to their own sovereignty.

In fact, Israel thus far has attempted to make their attacks as surgical as possible, both to protect non-combatants and to focus their might on Hezbollah rather than the Lebanese people as a whole. Hezbollah, in contrast, just shoots rockets and missiles into civilian population centers with no precision or attempt to minimize civilian casualties. Typically, the Vatican takes no note of any of this.

This statement plays out along an argument that the Islamists hoped they would see from Europe as a whole: disproportionate response. The Vatican has the same fallacious notion that a nation attacked in an act of war should only respond in proportion to the original attack. Unfortunately for the dreamers at the Vatican, nations do not fight wars in that manner unless they want to lose them. When one nation attacks another, the path to victory comes with an application of overwhelming force, the kind of attack that strips the antagonist of any ability to wage war. Otherwise, what results is an unednding tit-for-tat volley that favors the the smaller forces; it's the perfect recipe for asymmetrical warfare. Instead of limiting the damage, it guarantees that low-level war will continue indefinitely, killing and maiming people for decades.

Perhaps the Vatican should keep all of this in mind before sending Father Sedano out to blame the victim for responding appropriately to an act of war. Better yet, perhaps Fr. Sedano should get reassigned to a different post -- maybe rendering aid to the people of northern Israel wounded from the missile attacks.

UPDATE: In answer to LiberalGoodman's comment about 'following the Mother Church' and a supposed inconsistency between supporting Church positions on abortion and gay marriage, let me explain a few things about the Roman Catholic Church. First of all, the Catechism -- the tenets of the faith -- explicitly forbids abortion under any circumstances. Paragraph 2270 puts it quite plainly:

Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life. ... Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

The catechism does not forbid war, contrary to popular belief, especially in self-defense. The catechism spells out the qualifications of a "just war", one undertaken within the tenets of Christianity, as St. Thomas Aquinas first postulated almost a millenium ago. Paragraph 2309 has the requisites:

1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

3. there must be serious prospects of success;

4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Obviously , the Church is no fan of war -- but in this case, Sodano didn't even bother to note that Israel was not the aggressor in this exchange, nor did Sodano make any kind of case that this war didn't meet those requisites.

One final point has to be made on papal infallibility, which LG did not mention but appears to reference in his assertions. Papal infallibility only occurs when the Pope speaks ex cathedra on matters of doctrine. The last time this happened was in 1950, when Pius XII promulgated the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary.

Catholics, contrary to popular belief, are not required to agree with every opinion of the Pope -- but we do have to support the catechism and the bedrock teachings of the Church, or we cease to be in communion with the Eucharist. Thst's the part that LG fails to comprehend, as his comment shows very clearly.

Note: Welcome to readers of The Anchoress!

Did Pakistani Intelligence Plan India Bombings?

Pakistan's intelligence service, the ISI, has long been rumored to have deep connections to Islamist radicals, including al-Qaeda and almost certainly helped prop up the Taliban during their years in power. Now the Hindustan Times reports that the ISI had some operational connection to the Mumbai bombings of 7/11, potentially broadening the scope of the conflict between Pakistan and India:

Forty-eight hours after bombs ripped through Mumbai, the needle pointed to Pakistan. Intelligence agencies on Thursday confirmed that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was the “mastermind” of the blasts that killed about 200 people.

The Mumbai Police, meanwhile, identified the trio who planned and executed 11/7: Rahil, Zahibuddin Ansari and Faiyaz, linked to the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (LeT) and the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI). Of them, Rahil had reportedly made an abortive bid to trigger a blast at Byculla railway station on March 11 — the eve of the anniversary of the 1993 Bombay blasts.

The agencies, which briefed National Security Adviser MK Narayanan and Cabinet Secretary BK Chaturvedi, said the blueprint for Tuesday’s blasts was made by the ISI while the “plan” was executed by “local Indian operatives”.

A senior intelligence officer said the synchronised explosions had the “hallmark” of an ISI operation. Militants operating in Kashmir were not capable of such meticulous planning and could only carry out fidayeen attacks or plant bombs in crowded places like markets.

“A lot of planning went into the blasts. This is typical of an ISI operation, as was revealed during the 1993 Bombay blasts,” said an officer.

It also appeared typical of an al-Qaeda operation, at least on the surface. AQ frequently targets transportation systems at high-volume periods. They also prefer to target financial centers, and when possible to combine the two. Synchronization also is one of the AQ's MOs. The Indians have captured a number of people from the cells that organized the attack, however, and the intel they have apparently points more towards ISI than AQ.

This could lead to a chicken-egg argument. Did the Mumbai attacks come from AQ or the ISI? Did the ISI teach these tactics to al-Qaeda -- or do they still assist AQ in operational planning of such attacks? Does Pervez Musharraf have control over his own intel service, or does the ISI have a rogue element that supports international Islamist terrorism?

Clearly these attacks received heavy assistance from outside the country. If Pakistan's spies conducted this operation, then Pakistan has committed an act of war against India -- and that will get a lot more serious than an Israeli incursion into Lebanon. Both nations have nuclear weapons, although both at the moment have rational leaders who will not want to test the MAD strategy all the way to its conclusion. If Musharraf wants to avoid touching off a punishing ground war, he had better get control of his ISI in a big hurry.

If, on the other hand, AQ masterminded the plot, it does not let Musharraf off the hook. He needs to get serious about flushing Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri from their caves in Waziristan before they get him and a lot of Pakistanis killed.

NYT: Give Hezbollah What They Want

A curious column in the New York Times prescribes a hefty dose of everything that Hezbollah wants as the path to peace on Israel's northern border. Michael Young, the editor of Lebanon's Daily Star, gives a first-class analysis of the political blunder that Sheikh Nasrallah has committed in his attack on Israel, but then advises the Israelis to ensure that it pays off:

Once the Israelis end their offensive, Hezbollah will regroup and continue to hold Lebanon hostage through its militia, arguably the most effective force in the country. Hamas leaders in Damascus will continue derailing any negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. And Syria will continue to eat away at Lebanese independence, reversing the gains of last year when hundreds of thousands of Lebanese marched against Syrian hegemony.

It would be far smarter for Israel, and America, to profit from Hezbollah’s having perhaps overplayed its hand. The popular mood here is one of extreme anger that the group has provoked a conflict Lebanon cannot win. The summer tourism season, a rare source of revenue for a country on the financial ropes, has been ruined. Even Hezbollah’s core supporters, the Shiite Muslims in the south, cannot be happy at seeing their towns and villages turned again into a killing field. ...

The five permanent Security Council members, perhaps at this weekend’s Group of 8 meeting, should consider a larger initiative based on the resolution that would include: a proposal for the gradual collection of Hezbollah’s weapons; written guarantees by Israel that it will respect Lebanese sovereignty and pull its forces out of the contested Lebanese land in the Shebaa Farms; and the release of prisoners on both sides. Such a deal could find support among Lebanon’s anti-Syrian politicians, would substantially narrow Hezbollah’s ability to justify retaining its arms, and also send a signal to Syria and particularly Iran that the region is not theirs for the taking.

Young wants Israel to cease all attacks until the UN Security Council can issue this declaration. Why should it do so? Apparently, so Israel can give Hezbollah exactly what it wants. The Israelis have to return Shebaa Farms, stop attacking Hezbollah while the terrorists rain missiles down on Israelis, and agree to the prisoner swap for which Hezbollah kidnapped the two soldiers and killed eight others in the first place.

And what does Israel get in return? A proposal to collect arms from Hezbollah, and a narrowing of the justifications for Hezbollah's continuing arms in defiance of an already-extant Security Council resolution (1559). Supposedly, this capitualtion will communicate to Iran and Syria that Lebanon will not countenance further meddling.

This has to be the least serious man appearing in American op-ed pages since ... well, Ismail Haniyeh.

Israel should ignore this advice, if one can call a demand for appeasement advice. The only reason that Hezbollah faces political pressure at home is because of the overwhelming Israeli response to the terrorists' provocation. If Israel actually acted on Young's advice, Nasrallah would be hailed as a victor, and the influence of Syria and Iran would grow exponentially. Israel certainly will not sit idly while Hezbollah holds its soldiers or while they shoot missiles into Israel. Hezbollah declared war on Israel, and a failure to meet that with a military response is a de facto surrender -- and the Iranians and Syrians know it.

Young's column so lacks seriousness that only the New York Times would publish it in any other department other than Humor.

Hezbollah Gamble Coming Up Short

Anthony Shadid analyzes the Hezbollah attack on Israel and its capture of two IDF soldiers, and concludes that it just shot itself in the foot. Their unilateral decision to engage Israel militarily has probably done as much damage to Hezbollah in Lebanese politics as the assassination of Rafik Hariri did to the Syrian occupation:

The radical Shiite movement Hezbollah and its leader, Hasan Nasrallah, hold an effective veto in Lebanese politics, and the group's military prowess has heartened its supporters at home and abroad in the Arab world. But that same force of arms has begun to endanger Hezbollah's long-term standing in a country where critics accuse it of dragging Lebanon into an unwinnable conflict the government neither chose nor wants to fight.

"To a certain Arab audience and Arab elite, Nasrallah is a champion, but the price is high," said Walid Jumblatt, a member of parliament and leader of Lebanon's Druze community. "We are paying a high price." ...

"To declare war and to make military action must be a decision made by the state and not by a party," said Nabil de Freige, a parliament member. He belongs to the bloc headed by Saad Hariri, whose father, Rafiq, a former prime minister and wealthy businessman, was assassinated in 2005, setting off a sequence of events that forced the Syrian withdrawal. "It's a very simple equation: You have to be a state."

After a cabinet meeting Thursday, the government said it had a right and duty to extend its control over all Lebanese territory. Interior Minister Ahmed Fatfat said the statement marked a step toward the government reasserting itself.

Other government officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, went further, calling it a first move in possibly sending the Lebanese army to the border, a U.N.-endorsed proposal that Hezbollah has rejected.

The fury of the Israeli response has apparently stunned everyone involved, including Hezbollah. They expected that they could initiate a prisoner exchange in the manner allowed by Ehud Olmert's predecessors: kidnapping and negotiation. They did not count on Israel calling them out on their coordination with Hamas' attempt to do the same in Gaza, nor did they expect Israel to treat this as a two-front war rather than two unrelated events. This forced Hezbollah to stumble badly, firing off their rockets and missiles at northern Israel -- which was the only military card they have to play. Now that the missiles have fired, Israel has escalated the war by bombing known Hezbollah assets in Beirut itself, as well as their lines of communication at Lebanese airports.

As long as Israel keeps its sights on Hezbollah and refrains from attacking general Lebanese infrastructure, Hezbollah will find itself on the outside of Lebanese politics very shortly. The threat to send Lebanon's army into the south would mean the forcible disarmament of Hezbollah, and the terrorists know it. Hezbollah has lost the ability to resupply itself, and with their attacks on Israel continuing, will find themselves running low on materiel with which to hold off the Lebanese regular army.

Nasrallah and his patrons in Teheran have made a spectacular blunder in their analysis of the Israeli position. They took the Gaza disengagement as a sign of weakness and lack of resolve. Hamas has especially trumpeted that position ever since Israel withdrew. However, the Gaza disengagement allowed Israel to get the handful of their citizens out of harm's way and stripped the Palestinians of their claim to occupied status in that area. It allowed Israel to treat any attack from Gaza as an act of war and, with the settlers gone, to trigger an overwhelming response.

Israel's disengagement didn't presage surrender: it was a preparation for all-out war. Islamists severly misunderstood the move, and now they're paying the price.

Tapscott To Testify On Pork Database

Mark Tapscott, who has worked tirelessly against pork-barrel spending at his own blog, the Heritage Foundation, and now as editorial page editor at The Examiner, will testify in the Senate on July 18th on the impact of a proposed federal spending databse on journalism. The subcommittee on Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security ... needs a name change ... but also will hear testimony on Tom Coburn's bill creating an Internet database of all federal spending, searchable and open to all:

Sen. Tom Coburn will convene a hearing July 18 of the Senate's Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information and International Security to "highlight the lack of transparency in federal spending decisions, as well as the merits of legislation to create a website disclosing the recipients of all federal funding."

There will be two panels, with the first consisting of senators John McCain, R-AZ, and Barack Obama, D-IL, who are with Coburn co-sponsors of the Oklahoma senator's proposal to create a publicly accessible, searchable database of all federal spending, subject only to common-sense exemptions such as national security.

The second panel will include Gary Bass, founder and executive director of OMB Watch, a liberal-oriented citizens watchdog group, Eric Brenner, Director, Maryland Governor's Grants Office, Office of the Governor, and yours truly, in my capacity as editorial page editor of The Washington Examiner and proprietor of Tapscott's Copy Desk blog.

I've been asked to address what I believe will be the impact on journalism of having the proposed database available to the public. The basic thrust of my testimony will be to explain why I believe the existence of a comprehensive public database of federal spending will have a major impact on journalism, just as did the public availability of campaign finance databases.

I find it interesting that the second panel focuses on journalism, rather than the ameliorative effect that sunlight will have on spending proposals, especially earmarks. Toadstools and corruption grow in the dark, as we have noted many times on this blog. I don't believe that Dr. Coburn prescribed the database to cure any ills of journalism, after all, but to kill off the disease that afflicts politicians when they hold too much power with too little oversight. Journalism plays an important role in that effort, but as we have seen, they also tend to cover the stories they want and ignore the rest.

The real value in this database will come not just from exposing line-item spending to the mainstream media, but from exposing it to all of the taxpayers equally. I predict that 10,000 blogs will be born just to focus on the spending habits of their own representatives. Constituents can use their computers to do their own research on the types of spending that their Congressmen and Senators sponsor. How many Bridges to Nowhere will survive that kind of scrutiny? How many politicians will earmark money for federal highways that bring heavy traffic to property that they themselves own if they know that anyone can look it up at any time and make the connections?

Fortunately for us. Mark can speak on behalf of both the MSM and the blogosphere on July 18th, and I am certain he will take that opportunity. This database puts the power back where it belongs: in the hands of the people.

When You Lose The Wahhabis ...

The terrorist braintrust at Hezbollah, and whoever else gives them counsel, apparently screwed up so badly that even other Arabs put the blame on them instead of the yahouds. The Jerusalem Post notes that the most conservative Islamic nation in the region publicly scolded Hezbollah for its "uncalculated adventures":

In a significant move, Saudi Arabia, the Arab world's political heavyweight and economic powerhouse, accused Hizbullah guerrillas - without naming them - of "uncalculated adventures" that could precipitate a new Middle East crisis.

A Saudi official quoted by the state Saudi Press Agency said the Lebanese Hizbullah's brazen capture of two Israeli soldiers was not legitimate.

The kingdom "clearly announces that there has to be a differentiation between legitimate resistance (to Israel) and uncalculated adventures."

The Saudi official said Hizbullah's actions could lead to "an extremely serious situation which could subject all Arab nations and its achievements to destruction."

"The kingdom sees that it is time for those elements to alone shoulder the full responsibility for this irresponsible behavior and that the burden of ending the crisis falls on them alone."

Translation: no money from us until you stop rocking the boat.

One has to wonder whether Riyadh would have bothered to make such a statement had we not shown our willingness to stick out a long fight, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. Certainly the Saudis have to worry about a nuclear Israel deciding to finally stage the all-out war against Islamist aggression that has long been coming, but the last three years shows that the US would probably not hesitate to join them. Having just watched us dispatch the strongest military in the region (outside of Israel) in three weeks, that contingency has to make the other Arab nations do a little clench in the nether regions.

Even more worrisome, Europe has not made its usual noises about Israeli disproportionalism, or at least they have not made them with any real enthusiasm. The Arabs could count on EU nations to leap to the defense of the Palestinians and the Arab nations. However, American action as well as a slew of Islamist terror attacks in Europe and Asia have taken the wind out of those sails -- and the election of Hamas terrorists to power in the Palestinian Authority convinced them that the Palestinians have a death wish.

In the face of Israeli fury, the Arab nations with their outclassed defenses will likely avoid provoking Israel any further. Hezbollah has found out how lonely it is to march ahead of the pack.

Taking A Stroll Through The Garden Of Half-Truths

I've had a chance to review the lawsuit filed on behalf of Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson, and it has an amusing take on reality that I heartily recommend to all interested parties. Quite frankly, the defense will have a delightful time if this ever gets to court. This is one of those moments when one wonders what color the sky is in another's world.

We can start on page 6 of the PDF file, where the plaintiffs lay out the facts of the case. Paragraph 18b starts us off down the primrose path (emphases mine):

On May 6, 2003, the New York Times published a column by Nicholas Kristof which disputed the accuracy of the "sixteen words" in the State of the Union address. The column reported that, following a request from the Vice President's office for an investigation of allegations that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger, an unnamed former ambassador [now known to be Plaintiff Joseph C. Wilson IV] was sent on a trip to Niger in 2002 to investigate the allegations. According to the column, the ambassador reported back to the CIA and State Department in early 2002 that the allegations were unequivocally wrong and based on forged documents.

Note the qualifying phrase, According to the column. The complaint never mentions two salient facts: (1) Joe Wilson was Kristof's source, and (2) Wilson reported nothing of the kind. According to Wilson's own testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the Prime Minister of Niger told him the exact opposite:

[Wilson's] intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997-1999) or Foreign Minister (1996-1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,(REDACTED) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq."

So we have a key omission already in the complaint -- that the Kristof information came directly from Wilson, and that it was a flat-out lie. That's a great start to a legal filing! The false information Wilson leaked is what set off the entire chain of events, leading to the discovery that Plame personally lobbied for the selection of her husband for this trip, who then mysteriously failed to sign the standard no-disclosure agreements.

In fact, that brings us to paragraph 18f:

On or about June 11, 2003, Libby spoke with a senior officer of the CIA to ask about the origin and circumstances of Wilson's trip and was advised by the CIA officer that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and was believed [erroneously] to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.

Erroneously? Once again, we return to the SSCI report, which makes it clear that Plame had not only suggested her husband for the trip, she campaigned for it and then facilitated the briefing session:

Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador's wife says, "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." This was just one day before CPD sent a cable DELETED requesting concurrence with CPD's idea to send the former ambassador to Niger and requesting any additional information from the foreign government service on their uranium reports. The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that when CPD decided it would like to send the former ambassador to Niger, she approached her husband on behalf of the CIA and told him "there's this crazy report" on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq.

The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region ...

On February 19, 2002, CPD hosted a meeting with the former ambassador, intelligence analysts from both the CIA and INR, and several individuals from the DO's Africa and CPD divisions. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the merits of the former ambassador traveling to Niger. An INR analyst's notes indicate that the meeting was "apparently convened by [the former ambassador's] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue." The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that she only attended the meeting to introduce her husband and left after about three minutes.

Paragraph 18f turns out to hold a whopper of a lie. Less egregious but still eyebrow-raising are the contentions in paragraphs 18i and 18k, where two more columns get printed using unnamed sources, one by the Washington Post and the other by the New Republic. Once again, neither paragraph mentions that Wilson himself was the source and was disseminating false information about his report.

18n gets around to discussing Wilson's own op-ed in the New York Times, where he misled readers about the reason he got assigned the trip -- never disclosing his CIA connections -- and once again spreading false information. The complaint does the same thing:

... In his Op-Ed article and interviews in print and on television, Wilson asserted, among other things, that he had taken a trip to Niger at the request of the CIA in February 2002 to investigate allegations that Iraq had sought or obtained uranium yellowcake from Niger, and that he doubted that Iraq had obtained uranium from Niger recently, for a number of reasons. ...

The "sixteen words" did not say that Iraq had actually obtained uranium from Niger; it said that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa, and according to Wilson's report to the CIA and his testimony to the SSCI -- under oath-- that's exactly what he found. Once again, his attorneys don't bother to include those facts in the complaint. In 18q, they double down, stating that George Tenet's characterization of the "sixteen words" was a mistake shows that Wilson's criticism of them was "legitimate and correct" -- when the SSCI shows that Wilson's report substantiated it!

The defense attorneys should have a field day with Wilson on the stand.

Addendum: I note that Hugh Hewitt regular Erwin Chemerinsky has signed onto the plaintiffs' legal team. Perhaps Dick Cheney can hire John Eastman.

Disabiliblogging: The Clouds Part

We got some great news from the U of M on the First Mate's recovery this afternoon. She seems to be recovering her health across the board, which we suspected by watching her stamina and coloring improve greatly since her last release from the hospital. She has less need for the oxygen -- in fact, she may not need it at all, but we have to wait for another clinic visit to determine that. But the real news came from the lab reports.

As you know, the FM has suffered from CMV and BK viral infections; the former can be deadly, and the latter killed her transplanted kidney. Today we heard that her viral load on CMV as dropped to 100, just above a "negative" result. It means that the antivirals have done their work. We also found out that the BK viral load results are negative, which means we can start working to get her back on the transplant list. Her hemolytic anemia appears to be resolving itself, which means the bone marrow has shaken off the affects of the campath. Her hemoglobin levels have risen in three straight labs, the first time that has happened without a blood transfusion since last summer.

I'm still on disability leave but slowly healing from my back surgery. Yesterday I started a series of medical torture procedures, otherwise known as physical therapy. I still get some pain and numbness in my leg and I can't sit in a straight-backed chair for more than an hour, but I'm slowly working on it. My biggest headache -- literally -- comes from my new no-line ... er ... bifocals.

Okay, okay ... bifocals.

From previous experience in the vision-insurance industry (don't ask), I know that the transition to bifocals takes a while to make. It's actually easier on my neck, but the glasses require me to look straight ahead and turn my head to see clearly in any other direction than straight. I'll get used to it ... because I have to ... because I'm middle-aged. Feh.

Get A Call From Zed, Jan, Sam, And Damon

For CQ readers who love their daily dose of Day By Day, Chris Muir's excellent cartoon, he now has a clever new way to deliver his trenchant commentary directly to you. You can follow the exploits of the blogosphere's favorite foursome on your cell phone, starting immediately:

SmashPhone, a mobile phone comic strip network, today announced it’s bringing Amy DeZeller’s Dating Amy and Chris Muir’s Day by Day comic strips to mobile phones everywhere. Viewers can access the SmashPhone Comic Strip Network through Verizon, Cingular, Sprint, T-Mobile and many other carriers. The comics are served by SmashPhone for free (although phone company data charges may apply).

“I’m excited to be included by SmashPhone,” says Dating Amy author Amy DeZellar. “I think it's the first time a book has been promoted this way.” DeZellar is the author of the hilarious blog-turned-memoir Dating Amy that tracks DeZellar’s experiences dating fifty men over a two year period. Dating Amy, the book, is published by Warner Book’s 5-Spot imprint that’s targeted toward “chicks with brains” and is available in bookstores everywhere. Dating Amy, the cartoon, is a limited edition created by author Amy DeZellar and artist Kate Lint.

Chris Muir’s Day by Day comic strip is based on each day’s political events. How's that for topical? This shoot-from-the-hip toon follows four characters and their reactions to news and thoughts of the day. Day by Day garnered 12,000 loyal daily readers by encouraging websites to embed the daily comic strip freely. “Comic strips have to be on mobile,” says Muir. “It’s adapt or die! All the market growth is on phones, especially with kids and comic strips.” Muir said he chose SmashPhone because they can reach more phones than anyone else (over 1.2B phones).

Now we can dial up some fun!

Attention, Perjury Fans!

Valerie Wilson. née Valerie Plame, has filed a lawsuit against Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and a cast of thousands for conspiring to ruin her career. The former CIA analyst who arranged for her husband to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase uranium, and who subsequently leaked misleading information about his findings, wants monetary damage for her career losses:

The CIA officer whose identity was leaked to reporters sued Vice President Dick Cheney, his former top aide and presidential adviser Karl Rove on Thursday, accusing them and other White House officials of conspiring to destroy her career.

In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Valerie Plame and her husband, Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador, accused Cheney, Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby of revealing Plame's CIA identity in seeking revenge against Wilson for criticizing the Bush administration's motives in Iraq. ...

The lawsuit accuses Cheney, Libby, Rove and 10 unnamed administration officials or political operatives of putting the Wilsons and their children's lives at risk by exposing Plame.

"This lawsuit concerns the intentional and malicious exposure by senior officials of the federal government of ... (Plame), whose job it was to gather intelligence to make the nation safer and who risked her life for her country," the Wilsons' lawyers said in the lawsuit.

For those who think that the Wilsons still have any credibility left, please see my omnibus post on the various efforts by Joe Wilson to obfuscate the truth until put under oath by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Undoubtedly, this lawsuit will founder on the same shoals -- and it will give us a splendid opportunity to ask Plame under threat of perjury the following questions:

1. How did Joe Wilson get this assignment?
2. Why didn't the CIA have him sign the standard agreement to keep his findings confidential?
3. Whjy didn't the CIA correct the record when Wilson leaked and then wrote himself false information about his findings?

Let's put Plame on the stand and really get to the heart of what she hoped to accomplish by promoting her husband for this task. I'd bet the lawsuit gets dropped in a New York minute -- and if not, the record of Wilson's prevarications should easily sink it.

Bush Agrees To FISA Oversight On NSA Program

Senator Arlen Specter says that the White House will support a bill that allows the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to rule on the constitutionality of the Terrorist Surveillance Program. The bill makes the submission to the FISA judges voluntary, and Bush agreed to approve the legislation and submit the program as long as it remains voluntary:

The White House has conditionally agreed to a court review of its controversial eavesdropping program, Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter said Thursday.

Specter said President Bush has agreed to sign legislation that would authorize the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to review the constitutionality of the National Security Agency's most high-profile monitoring operations. ...

Specter said the legislation, which has not yet been made public, was the result of "tortuous" negotiations with the White House since June.

"If the bill is not changed, the president will submit the Terrorist Surveillance Program to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court," Specter said. "That is the president's commitment."

I'm sure that quite a few people will find themselves very disappointed in this compromise; I'm not sure I agree. For those of us who argued that any authorization to wage war obviously includes the authority to gather intel on enemy communications, it also follows that the executive can still consult with Congress on how best to do that. The deal Specter announced does not detract from that power, but allows both the White House and the Congress to get a determination on that particular argument. It also allows both to challenge the FISA ruling and get a clear answer from the Supreme Court.

The bill itself does not strip power from the executive, now or in the future. The submission remains voluntary; in fact, as Senator Pat "Leaky" Leahy points out, the White House could submit the program for a FISA ruling now. However, the legislation now also allows the NSA to argue that the court has no jurisdiction over purely international communications that get routed through American equipment. It also allows FISA warrants to remain active for seven days rather than three, reducing the need to get more warrants on live leads.

It appears to me that the Bush administration gave up little in this exchange except their insistence on avoiding compromise. By the time FISA rules on the program and the appeals get through the Supreme Court, Bush will have retired to Crawford. He may lose a little face and have to endure a little gloating from those who can't see the forest for the trees, but in the end he will still have his programs and still hold the executive power to run them.

UPDATE: Michael van der Galien has a nice roundup at TMV on the reaction. Glenn Greenwald figured it out right away, although he and I obviously have differing opinions on the result.

Haifa Hit As Hezbollah Wants Iranian Escalation

The Israeli-Lebanon conflict appears to have escalated greatly in the last few hours. Rockets hit Haifa from Lebanon earlier for the first time, and Hezbollah now wants to involve Iran in the war they initiated:

Two rockets have struck the Israeli city of Haifa, hours after a threat by the militant Lebanese group Hezbollah.

Hezbollah denied firing any rockets at the northern port city. There were no reports of injuries or damage.

Haifa, Israel's third largest city, is more than 30km (18 miles) from the Lebanese border and was thought to be out of Hezbollah's range.

This represents a major escalation by Hezbollah, although one completely expected after the Israeli bombing of Beirut's airport, Lebanese air force bases, and Hezbollah's Al-Manar television station. However, Hezbollah has done something rather unexpected in attempting to move the captured Israeli soldiers to Iran:

Israel has information that Hizbullah guerrillas who captured two Israeli soldiers are trying to transfer them to Iran, Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said.

Regev did not disclose the source of his information.

The IDF released the names of the two soldiers on Thursday. According to the IDF Spokesperson, the two reserve are Ehud Goldwasser, 31, from Nahariya, and Eldad Regev, 26, from Kiryat Motzkin.

Of course, this would explain the efforts against Lebanese military and civilian airfields. The Israelis want to ensure that Goldwasser and Regev do not wind up in Teheran. If they do, however, Iran would have two choices: turn the soldiers over to the International Red Cross/Red Crescent immediately, or assume the role of combatant in the conflict. Unless Iran turned over the soldiers to a neutral party, they will have committed an act of war. Unlike the Carter administration in 1979, the Israelis would not likely allow 444 days to pass before getting them back or responding in kind.

One has to wonder about the timing of these terrorist attacks on Israel. Either Syria or Iran, or both, have decided to start provoking Israel into some kind of response. Perhaps all they wanted was to force Israel to release Palestinian prisoners, and recalled that kidnappings have successfully done so with past Israeli administrations. In that case, they made a major miscalculation, and they may have a war for which they are unprepared. That would tend to indicate Bashar Assad's incompetent handiwork.

On the other hand, perhap the entire idea was to start a regional war. The flashpoints being in Gaza and Israel's northern border, the conspiracy would have intended to paint this as Israeli aggression -- and given Europe's normal response to fighting in the region, that would have been a pretty good prediction. What purpose would a regional war serve? It might play into the hands of a regime needing an excuse to test out a missile program on Tel Aviv, and perhaps a new warhead, too -- and that would point to Ahmadinejad and the mad mullahcracy.

This could get ugly fast -- and if it plays out like every other war against Israel in the last sixty years, it could clean up a lot of dictatorships.

UPDATE: In another thread, CQ reader Skip points out one pertinent fact about the attack on the airports: they not only keep Hezbollah from sending the POWs out of Lebanon, but also keeps them from bringing in more rockets to replace those they're firing at Israel. If the Israelis keep their sights on the runways and not on the planes or terminals, then that makes sense.

Tribunals Out, Courts-Martial In: McCain

John McCain says the Bush administration has given up on military tribunals for captured terrorists and agreed to courts-martial instead, reversing course with Congress. The change would match the language of the Geneva Conventions for treatment of POWs, signalling a shift in detainee status as well:

Citing recent meetings with Stephen Hadley, the president's national security adviser, and other top administration officials, McCain said the White House would not insist upon legislation authorizing military commissions established by the Pentagon.

"At that time, I was under the impression that that was the administration's position," McCain said. "I hope that hadn't changed."

Such a promise would contradict testimony heard earlier this week from administration officials, who told lawmakers that Congress should not turn to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice because it would grant terrorists too many freedoms and would be unpractical on the battlefield. In their testimony, officials representing the Defense and Justice Department advocated that Congress pass legislation authorizing the military commissions. ...

"We will have more wars and there will be Americans who will be taken captive. If we somehow carve out exceptions to treaties to which we are signatories, then it will make it very easy for enemies to do the same to American prisoners," he said.

Can we please dispense with the fallacy that the Geneva Convention has ever protected American POWs? We signed onto the original Geneva Convention in 1882 (after its establishment in 1864). While I'm not aware of gross violations against Americans in World War I, the Germans (1865) and Japanese (1886) committed them regularly during World War II. The Chinese (1906) and North Koreans treated American POWs abysmally in the Korean War. McCain himself is a testament to how the Vietnamese (1957) treated POWs in the Vietnam War. Saddam's Iraq (1956) abused American POWs in the Gulf War, and we have the case of Jessica Lynch and her unit comrades to remind us how he treated them in the three weeks he commanded the Iraqi forces in 2003.

Name me a war where our enemies abided by the GC.

That isn't an argument that we should not abide by the GC, of course; we signed the document, and we should honor our commitment. However, let's quit pretending that this will gain us anything in the way our enemies treat our men and women, once captured. Perhaps someone can explain that supposed benefit to the families of Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Tucker.

If we want to use courts-martial instead of tribunals, fine; that's a decision that Congress and the White House have to make. Let's not pretend that this will make a bit of difference to any American soldier captured by our enemies.

What Does The Lebanese Air Force And Hezbollah TV Have In Common?

They're both off the air:

Israeli warplanes blasted runways at the two main army air bases in eastern and northern Lebanon near Syria's border on Thursday, police said, attacks that could draw the Lebanese army into Israel's war with Hizbullah guerrillas.

Israeli jets dropped two bombs on the runway at the Rayak air base in the eastern Beka'a Valley, damaging it, police said. There were no reports of casualties or damage to aircraft. ....

Planes later attacked the Qoleiat air base near the Syrian border in the north with four missiles, police said.

The strikes on the country's two air bases virtually neutralize Lebanon's air force.

The Jerusalem Post also shows a picture of an explosion at Al-Manar, the Hezbollah television channel, in an attempt to cut off all possible means of communication, especially propaganda broadcasts.

The eradication of Lebanon's air force again calls into question the Israeli strategy. It has its benefits; by casting this as a state-on-state war, the Geneva Convention comes into effect and Hezbollah has to abide by the rules in its treatment of the Israeli soldiers. Whether the terrorists-cum-politicians actually do so will be anyone's guess. As some have pointed out, sustained surgical strikes on Hezbollah assets may help drive them out of Lebanon, giving the government in Beirut some assistance in releasing themselves from Syria's grip.

Except that isn't what Israel is doing. By kneecapping the Lebanese air force and targeting the civilian airport in Beirut, the Israelis intend on having an actual war with Lebanon, not just Hezbollah. After this war concludes, Lebanon will not have an air defense against either Israel or Syria. It seems that the likely outcome of this war will be an Israeli victory, and a weakened Lebanon that will fall back into Syrian control.

It seems like a mistake to me. Hopefully, I'm wrong, but I fail to see how destroying a nascent liberal democracy on its northern border makes Israel any more secure.

Anti-Missile Test 'Phenomenal'

The Army had a "phenomenal" success in the latest test of the American anti-ballistic missile defense system. Jason Gibbs reports for the Las Cruces Sun-News that a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile intercepted and destroyed a warhead and its contents:

Hundreds of miles above southern New Mexico, it was a picture-perfect impact between two missiles. ...

The pre-dawn art show was the result of the third of five tests planned at White Sands Missile Range to determine the effectiveness of THAAD — Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missile. And military officials said the test went better than they could have hoped.

"This was phenomenal," said U.S. Army Col. Charles Driessnack, the project manager for the Missile Defense Agency's THAAD program. "It performed as expected."

The test demonstrated the THAAD's ability to "completely destroy that warhead so that no chemical or nuclear residue would contaminate areas" below the explosion, Driessnack said. ...

The target — a Hera missile that closely mimics the characteristics of the more infamous SCUD missiles — was launched shortly after 5:17 a.m. Wednesday. It took to the skies from a location on the far northern reaches of the bombing range's territory, about 100 miles north of the Organ Mountains, 25 miles north of Highway 380.

It carried a canister of inert material to simulate chemical or biological elements that could be mounted on an enemy missile, Driessnack said. The target missile rose roughly 200 miles above the Earth before beginning the final stage descent toward land.

The THAAD program has had a series of successes, and this one shows that the technology has caught up with the theory. Naysayers have constantly criticized the effort by pointing out that the system at this stage can't knock down 1,000 ICBMs with 100% accuracy, but this shows that the anti-missile system can take out inbounds on a one-for-one basis, and doesn't require a shotgun approach. If that holds, then the only restriction on scope is how many THAAD missiles we fund.

We spent the 1990s believing that we no longer needed such a system, or that developing an anti-missile shield would somehow prove destabilizing. So after handicapping ourselves by ten years, we see that the proliferation of rockets in the hands of nutcases like Kim Jong-Il and the Iranian mullahcracy provided its own destabilization and almost left us with our pants down.

The true threat never came from a Russia or China with a rational, if antagonistic, political system and a thousand or more ICBMs. It came from rogue nations with irrational actors like North Korea and Iran. People laughed when Ronald Reagan said he would share the missile-shield technology with his Cold War antagonists, but this is the reason why it made sense. MAD provides no deterrent to nutcases who either don't care about killing millions of their own people or believe that th 12th Imam will come with their glorious death. Once we knock their few missiles down and prove them toothless, those regimes will crumble.

People also laughed when George Bush claimed this week that our missile defense systems could knock down the Taepodong-2. I think he knew a bit more than the media and critics considered at the time. None of them appear to have reported on this success, either, at least up to now. (hat tip: CQ reader Larry T)

Iraq Takes Over In Muthanna

The Iraqi government has taken over security responsibilities for the province of Muthanna, the first transition for the eventual handover of all security to the Iraqis. CENTCOM posts the announcement from Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and General George Casey:

Iraq witnessed a historic event today with the transfer of security responsibility in Muthanna Province from the Multi-National Force - Iraq (MNF-I) to the Provincial Governor and civilian-controlled Iraqi Security Forces. The handover represents a milestone in the successful development of Iraq’s capability to govern and protect itself as a sovereign and democratic nation. Muthanna is the first of Iraq’s 18 provinces to be designated for such a transition.

As Prime Minister Maliki announced on June 19, 2006, the joint decision between the Iraqi government and MNF-I to hand over security responsibility is the result of Muthanna’s demonstrated abilities to take the lead in managing its own security and governance duties at the provincial level. The transition decision also reflects a joint assessment of the overall threat situation in Muthanna, the capabilities of the ISF there and the provincial leadership’s ability to coordinate security. Transition teams are in place to smooth the transfer process and multi-national forces will stand ready to provide assistance if needed.

With this first transition of security responsibility, Muthanna demonstrates the progress Iraq is making toward self-governance. Several other provinces are close to meeting the criteria necessary to assume security independence. The Iraqi government and the Multi-National Force will continue to transfer security responsibilities in other provinces in Iraq as conditions are achieved.

Australian, Japanese, and the United Kingdom forces have assisted Muthanna authorities as models of international cooperation, providing economic and humanitarian assistance as well as security and stability. As Iraq develops and its needs continue to evolve, so too will the nature of international assistance to Iraq in Muthanna and elsewhere.

The United States will provide $10 million in order to enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Muthanna as they take a bold and courageous step forward in the country’s movement toward an independent and secure nation. This event represents significant progress by the Government of Iraq to achieve a constitutional, democratic, and pluralistic Iraq which guarantees the rights of all citizens.

Progress continues for Iraq, its government, and its security forces. The people of Muthanna will now have their own citizens enforcing the law and protecting them, under the auspices of a freely-elected representative government, and controlled by an independent judiciary. They can make their own way in the world, and will shortly be joined by several other Iraqi provinces.

We keep moving forward towards the day when Iraq can stand on its own, secure, safe, and democratic. That is what victory looks like.

Is Lebanon The Right Target?

No one can blame Israel for the years of frustration in dealing with Hezbollah terrorists in southern Lebanon. They have conducted border raids, shot missiles, and otherwise tried to provoke Israel into a response. This week, they took advantage of the Gaza engagement to attack Israel again -- or perhaps staged the attack in coordination with Hamas -- and Israel has finally responded in force. While Hezbollah fires more rockets into Northern Israel, Olmert has all but declared war on Lebanon:

Israel intensified its attacks against Lebanon on Thursday, blasting Beirut's international airport and the southern part of the country in its heaviest air campaign against its neighbor in 24 years. Nearly three dozen civilians were killed, officials said.

The strikes on the airport, which damaged three runways, came hours before Israel imposed an air and naval blockade on Lebanon to cut off supply routes to militants. ...

In a stark warning, the Israeli army chief said Thursday that Israel's air force is prepared to strike anywhere in Lebanon, including the capital of Beirut, if the Lebanese government fails to rein in Hezbollah guerrillas.

"We are not at war, but we are in a very high volume crisis, and we have an intention to put an end to the situation here along the northern border," Brig. Gen. Dan Halutz said in Jerusalem.

Two Israeli citizens have died and 70 more have been wounded in the rocket attacks, and Israel has gone to its second-highest alert level. Reports yesterday had the IDF mobilizing even more units and calling up some reserves. Meanwhile, Ehud Olmert has accused the Lebanese government of supporting the attacks on Israel and has stated that Israel will not limit itself to southern Lebanon for military responses. The attack on the Beirut airport makes that rather clear.

However, one has to wonder whether Israel has chosen the correct enemy. Lebanon just recently freed itself (mostly) from Syrian occupation through a people-power revolution. Syria occupied Lebanon for almost 30 years prior to that, and they put Hezbollah into place as their proxy, not Lebanon's. Granted, Israel had a point when they noted that Hezbollah politicians have ministers in the Cabinet, but unlike Hamas in the Palestinian Authority, they do not have political control of the government.

A free and democratic Lebanon could be an ally to Israel, or at least not an enemy. They could eventually have a relationship similar to that of Jordan; not exactly friends, but not at all enemies. Why toss that away in a misdirected rage?

The author of Israeli misery in the North and in Gaza is not Lebanon, but Syria. Lebanon hasn't the resources to expel Hezbollah from its south, in large part because of the resources that Syria and Iran provide to the terrorists. The Lebanese government may not have done enough to disarm the Islamist terrorists, but it's Syria and Iran who armed them in the first place. Hezbollah takes their orders from Damascus and Teheran, not Beirut.

In this case, I believe the Israelis have made a strategic error. They need to use their resources to attack the root of the problem, or at least one of the two roots. Syria and Bashar Assad have much more influence over Hezbollah than Beirut, and taking the war to Damascus will have more possibility of deterring further attacks and raids than inflaming the Lebanese, who just started to get back on their feet in the aftermath of the Syrian withdrawal. They risk creating another enemy instead of eliminating the one that really matters.

Hopefully, Olmert and his military advisors will realize the folly of attacking a nearly-prone Lebanese democracy, and focus on the Ba'athist dictatorship that has the most responsibility for Hamas and Hezbollah.

Trying New Fix For Typekey

CQ reader Jim,MtnViwCA sent me a fix for the Typekey process on comments. Let me know if this improves the comment performance, or if it makes it worse. If it's the former, he gets the credit, but I'll take the blame if not!

NYT: China "Honest Broker"

Tomorrow's New York Times reports that China and Russia will offer a proposal for a Security Council resolution that stops short of making economic sanctions a requirement for UN member states. Warren Hoge and Joseph Kahn also manage to squeeze in a little bias at the end of their report that paints China as an "honest broker" for peace.

First, though, the resolution comes with a Chinese pledge to veto Japan's proposal if this new effort fails to win support:

China and Russia introduced a draft resolution on North Korea in the Security Council on Wednesday and asked the Council’s members to consider it in place of a Japanese-sponsored resolution, to which they both have objected, that would have allowed for military enforcement and sanctions.

In offering the new measure, Wang Guangya, the Chinese ambassador, said he had instructions from his government to veto the Japanese resolution if it were put to a vote.

Japan and its resolution’s co-sponsors, Britain, France and the United States, have been putting off a vote this week at the request of China, which said action by the Council would interfere with a Chinese diplomatic mission now in North Korea. ...

The new Chinese-Russian draft resolution covers many of the same demands on North Korea that the Japanese-drafted measure does, but it significantly does so without resorting to Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, which would allow for military enforcement, and without proposing sanctions against North Korea for noncompliance.

John Bolton welcomed the development, as it showed that Russia and China have finally accepted that a presidential statement would not be acceptable to the rest of the UNSC. However, the failure to include Chapter VII means that North Korea will face no immediate military sanction for firing seven missiles in the direction of Japan, and one possibly aimed at Hawaiian waters. By removing the reference to Chapter VII, it also undermines the argument for sanctions. If firing missiles over another nation's airspace doesn't constitute a threat to the peace, then what exactly qualifies? If sanctions were to be applied, it would then require another new resolution that actually calls on Chapter VII to implement it.

Beijing and Moscow do not want to rein in their unruly client, at least not at the moment. Both of them want to be rid of the responsibility for the six-nation talks, but after complaining about the so-called unilateralism of George Bush regarding Iraq (which nonetheless resulted in a coalition that included dozens of nations), they cannot complain about being kept in the loop now. The two nations want to use the UN to push us into bilateral talks with Kim Jong-Il out of frustration with the process at Turtle Bay.

Meanwhile, the Times just continues to misreport the reasons why multilateral talks have broken down. Hoge and Kahn actually manage to mention Pyongyang's money laundering, but just like their editorial board, cannot bring themselves to connect it to the counterfeiting that generated the money laundering:

China, which has engaged in intensive talks with North Korea in recent days, said sanctions imposed on North Korea last fall by the United States Treasury Department must be lifted before North Korea would resume discussions about its weapons programs. “We hope the U.S. can take measures to help the six-nation talks resume by compromising on the sanctions,” said Liu Jianchao, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman. “We don’t want to see this impasse drag on forever.”

The Treasury Department in October seized the American assets of eight North Korean companies it accused of helping proliferate weapons and imposed sanctions on Banco Delta Asia of Macao, accused of helping to launder North Korean money.

Mr. Hill, speaking to reporters on Wednesday afternoon, reiterated the Bush administration’s position that financial sanctions would not be eased until North Korea stopped its nuclear weapons and long-range missile programs and ended efforts to counterfeit American currency.

Hoge and Kahn do not explain that the Macau bank laundered the proceeds of the counterfeiting industry that Pyongyang uses to undermine the dollar and to gain itself some badly-needed hard currency. They also fail to mention that the North Koreans use terrorist groups and organized crime rings as distribution channels for their phony $100 bills, known to the Secret Service as "supernotes". The NYT's editorial board also failed to mention this in two editorials published within days of each other, blaming the Bush administration for not lifting the banking sanctions.

The two authors never question why China wants us to allow North Korea to continue profiting from its counterfeit ring. However, they do tell readers that China is an "honest broker" trying to bring two recalcitrant sides to the table:

Bush administration officials clearly hoped that the tests, which appeared to come as a surprise to China, would prompt it to take a much tougher approach to North Korea, its Communist ally and neighbor. So far, however, China appears to be sticking to its role as honest broker, hoping to maintain close relations with both parties and pushing them toward direct talks.

Honest broker, eh? North Korea is a client state of China. They're not interested in being an honest broker, nor have they done much brokering at all. They've mostly used Kim as their puppet for leverage to split America from Japan and South Korea. Their plan backfired when Kim shot the missiles off towards Japan, first in 1998 and especially now. China doesn't give a horse's patoot whether Kim gets nukes, but they sure as hell don't want Japan to have them -- or Taiwan, either.

The Times wouldn't know an honest broker if it came into their offices with a nametag. Apparently they can't bring themselves to recognize honest reporting or editorializing, either.

Comments And Trackbacks And E-Mail, Oh My!

I have received a few e-mails from readers that say the Typepad validation process has stopped working on the comments. I tried it at 6:50 PM CT and successfully posted a comment, so it may just be an intermittent problem. Keep trying -- it should be working shortly.

This is as good a time as any to remind the CQ community of the policies on comments and trackbacks. Commenters here are valued guests, and as long as they can abide by the rather simple rules, then we will have no issues. I will delete posts that attempt to hijack a thread by changing the subject. I have a pretty wide definition of "subject" and usually allow almost any tangential debate to continue. When it strays, I will delete the comment and replace it with a reminder to follow the policy. If a commenter has to be reminded repeatedly to stay on topic, then they may find themselves banned.

I have had to ban less than twenty commenters here at CQ, and I hope not to have to ban anyone else ever again. However, if policy violations keep occurring, I will not shy from that action forever. People who abuse my hospitality by issuing personal insults at me will not get warned, and I will not explain myself in any subsequent e-mails. People who issue personal insults at other commenters may suffer the same fate. We value debate here, not ad-hominem invective. Threats of physical violence towards me or anyone else will result in an immediate ban, and might result in a complaint to the FBI. That has happened here in the past, but I intend on making sure it doesn't in the future.

Trackbacks are most welcome here, and it's taken quite a lot of effort to keep them working. Proper etiquette holds that a blog who pings another site should link to the post in question. I do like to follow the debate, and where that etiquette isn't followed, I will delete the trackback.

I get a lot of e-mail, and it is flat-out impossible to respond to it all. I read almost all of it, except for the spam and the people who can't restrain themselves from insulting me in the subject header. If you're sending me several e-mails a day, you've probably been relegated to the spam bin. If you're sending me 4MB video files, you've definitely been added to my block list at the server. If you're disagreeing with me, i'm probably reading every word, especially if done with class and dignity. Please remember to tell me if you do NOT want your e-mail or your identity to appear on my blog; I assume that all e-mail sent to my blog address is publishable and attributable.

Finally, bear in mind that I do this as a hobby, and that corrections cannot always get made quickly, and that I do check them out before posting them. That's one of the reasons I have comments open.

Most of all, let me express my appreciation for the entire CQ community and the excellent debate that you provide here on our blog. It's wonderful, and let's all pitch in to help keep it that way.

Misdirected Outrage At A Democratic Mistake

A lot of people have found themselves offended by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's latest advertisement. The DCCC uses a brief shot of flag-draped coffins of dead American servicemen to argue that the country has "taken a turn for the worse." Some object to this as crass exploitation, calling it "disgusting", among other epithets.

The DCCC certainly invites criticism with its use of that imagery, but we should be careful with our moral outrage. The Democrats have every right to campaign on a belief that the Iraq War has failed, all evidence to the contrary. Part of that argument involves the loss of American life, and like it or not, that is certainly a rational basis on which to argue the war's value. My objection to this does not come so much from their use of the imagery, but from their inability to provide a coherent argument about how to proceed with a war against terrorists by running away from the biggest operational network of Islamists. They have tried to conjure up a coherent war policy since Afghanistan, and have yet to accomplish it.

What's more remarkable about the advertisment, in my opinion, is how bereft of content it is. They don't even use the imagery to make a coherent argument against their opponents, let alone in favor of themselves. We see an oil refinery with smoke coming out of its stacks, and then high gas prices. What does the DCCC mean to say in that sequence? They object to high gas prices, but then object to refineries that produce the gas? If we got rid of the refineries, would gas prices go down? If that's their argument, then we know they flunk economics for their midterms.

That sequence gets dropped between war sequences, bouncing the viewer between issues, and then we see hurricances and the Superdome. FEMA response is a valid criticism as well, but the Republicans are not God and they don't cause bad weather, despite what The Day After Tomorrow portrays. (I note that the commercial says almost nothing about the extremely low number of tornadoes this year.)

The commercial then takes us on a series of happy pictures interspersed with pictures of Rahm Emmanuel, Nancy Pelosi, and Steny Hoyer -- but says nothing about them. The DCCC just wants you to think that their mere presence makes women and children very, very happy. In fact, the DCCC advertisement has nothing at all about Democratic policy goals or voting records. The only voice the viewer hears is that of Bill Clinton, who actually gets the most face time of any other Democrat in the commercial -- because apparently nothing that Pelosi, Emmanuel, or Hoyer has to say will motivate people to vote Democratic.

As an advertisement, it's pathetic. It says nothing except We Hate Bush Even More Than We Did Two Years Ago. It also communicates that they haven't had an original thought since Bill Clinton's last election in 1996.

We need to toughen up as a nation, however, and complaining about this four-second sequence in a dippy commercial doesn't help. American servicemen have come home in flag-draped coffins, and that is a public policy issue that we should debate. We argue that the Democrats are so afraid of casualties that they lack the tenacity to win this war, but if we can't watch these images without getting our own panties in a twist, I don't know that we're communicating a stronger position. It's the same problem with the networks sanitizing 9/11 by not showing the people who had to jump to their deaths in order to avoid being burned alive, or the images of the deaths of Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Tucker; it's part of the war that we must face and over which we must prevail.

UPDATE: Hot Air appears to agree with me on this issue, and notes the bad photoshopping done on Tom DeLay. Perhaps the DCCC will explain why Texas Democrats sued to keep DeLay on the ballot in Texas if they think he's so bad.

Egypt Blames Syria For Escalating Violence

Egyptian ruler Hosni Mubarak blames Syria and Bashar Assad for scotching a deal last week that could have resolved the crisis in Gaza. Egypt had worked out a deal with Israel and Hamas to trade prisoners for abducted soldier Gilad Shalit, but "outside pressure" caused Hamas to renege at the last moment:

Syrian Vice President Farouk al-Sharaa denied his country had a role in either the Hamas or Hezbollah abductions. .. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak implicitly accused Damascus of wrecking his attempts to mediate a deal for the release of Cpt. Cpl. Gilad Shalit, snatched by Hamas-linked militants on June 25.

Hamas was subjected to "counter-pressures by other parties, which I don't want to name but which cut the road in front of the Egyptian mediation and led to the failure of the deal after it was about to be concluded," Mubarak told Cairo's Al-Ahram Al-Massai newspaper.

No one with any understanding of the sponsorship of Hamas and Hezbollah takes the Syrian demurral. Both Hamas and Hezbollah take order from Syria and Iran, and both have headquarters in Damascus. The Israelis and the Egyptians have both said that the Palestinian chapter of Hamas has never controlled the Shalit abduction, but that the terrorists responsible took orders from Khaled Mashaal. Mashaal himself has taken responsibility for the operation by setting forth the demands under which Shalit would be released. Mashaal is no more than Bashar Assad's sock puppet, and neither Hamas nor Hezbollah would dare take action against Israel without coordination from the Assad regime.

Egypt isn't fooled. They have pressured Assad from the beginning to put an end to the operation, but he has refused to do so. Syrian government officials have stated that Israel may wind up retaliating against them, and unless Hamas and Hezbollah return the abducted soldiers, that may happen soon. The IDF has already started hitting Hezbollah sites in southern Lebanon and pushing troops back across the border in an effort to retrieve the soldiers taken today.

Olmert may decide that he has had enough of the proxy war waged against Israel by Assad and his creaking regime. A quick strike at the Syrian air force would leave Assad at the mercy of the Israelis, and having 135,000 US troops in Iraq would probably convince the Iranians to sit this one out, as long as we don't join in ourselves. The time may never be better to take the war on terror into one of the two hearts of the enemy -- Damascus.

Chickens Come Home To Roost In Gaza

One of the most-sought Hamas leaders suffered major injuries in a bomb strike by the IDF in Gaza today. Mohammed Deif, who had coordinated suicide attacks in Israel by Hamas, will likely be a paraplegic if he survives the attack at all:

A Hamas militant leader who has topped Israel's most-wanted list for a decade was badly wounded and underwent four hours of spinal surgery Wednesday after an Israeli F-16 warplane dropped a quarter-ton bomb that killed nine members of one family, security officials said.

The top fugitive, Mohammed Deif, could end up paralyzed, Palestinian security officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss his condition. Wednesday's blast marked the army's fourth attempt to kill Deif, held responsible for suicide bombings in Israel. In a 2002 missile strike, he lost an eye. ...

Israel's air force targeted the two-story house of Nabil Abu Salmiyeh, a Hamas activist and university lecturer, after getting intelligence information that the leaders of Hamas' military wing, responsible for the abduction of the soldier, were meeting there. Palestinian security officials said seven or eight top Hamas officials were present.

The blast wounded 37 people, three critically, said Health Minister Bassem Naim. Hospital officials said Raed Saad, a top Hamas operative, was among the wounded, but details of his condition weren't released.

Israel is not playing around this time. The attack on Salmiyeh's house shows that the gloves have come off, probably for good. Israel wants to use this mission to eradicate as much of the terrorist leadership as it can find. In this case, they came close to killing at least two high-level Hamas members, and neither may survive the attack.

Israel will likely get criticized for bombing the house of a Palestinian professor, but that shows that Israel takes this seriously as a war and not just a reconnaisance in force. Whereever the enemy meets to plan military and terrorist actions automatically becomes a fair target in wartime. Salmiyeh and his family died because he put them all at risk by making their home a Hamas headquarters.

Terrorists force us to choose between victory or capitulation by exploiting our natural revulsion at the death of non-combatants. In fact, that impulse led to the Geneva Conventions in the first place -- to protect civilians from military action. That is why those conventions should not apply to terrorists who deliberately target noncombatants and then hide among them to avoid retribution. Civilians who willingly hide such terrorists in the manner as Salmiyeh bring the war onto themselves willingly.

USA Today And Its Freedom Of Disinformation Act

USA Today publishes an explosive story today alleging that the Bush administration wants to roll back the Freedom of Information Act. The new program will grant $1 million to the St. Mary's University law school to analyze various state laws on information access:

The federal government will pay a Texas law school $1 million to do research aimed at rolling back the amount of sensitive data available to the press and public through freedom-of-information requests.

Beginning this month, St. Mary's University School of Law in San Antonio will analyze recent state laws that place previously available information, such as site plans of power plants, beyond the reach of public inquiries.

Jeffrey Addicott, a professor at the law school, said he will use that research to produce a national "model statute" that state legislatures and Congress could adopt to ensure that potentially dangerous information "stays out of the hands of the bad guys."

"There's the public's right to know, but how much?" said Addicott, a former legal adviser in the Army's Special Forces.

Sounds ominous, right? Civil libertarians will soon sound off about the coming of Big Brother and the oppression of the federal government. However, as Daniel Freedman notes at It Shines For All, the USA Today fundamentally misrepresents the reason for the federal grant. Daniel goes to USA Today's source to expose the twist the newspaper put on the program:

So the administration is trying to roll back civil liberties? That would be a good story, except when I met the head of the center, Jeff Addicott, recently in New York I remembered that he told me that the aim of the project is the opposite. And he confirmed this in a recent phone conversation following the publication of the USA Today story.

Addicott told me that the project is "looking at what has already been done and seeing whether it breaches civil liberties." In other words, the "intent is the exact opposite of what the report claims."

In other words, the program allows St. Mary's to review state FOIA laws to ensure that they respect civil liberties fairly and consistently, while also providing a consistent level of protection for information that should not get released at all. USA Today takes that effort and blows it up into an attack on civil liberties.

Typical.

Iranian Nuclear Crisis To Go To Security Council

The main powers of the UN Security Council have decided that the standoff over Iran's nuclear program should proceed to the UNSC for a resolution. Speaking for all five permanent members of the UNSC as well as the EU, the French Foreign Minister told the press that the Iranians had not taken negotiations seriously:

World powers agreed Wednesday to send Iran back to the United Nation's Security Council for possible punishment, saying the clerical regime has given no sign it means to negotiate seriously over its disputed nuclear program.

The United States and other permanent members of the powerful U.N. body said Iran has had long enough to say whether it will meet the world's terms to open bargaining that would give Tehran economic and energy incentives in exchange for giving up suspicious activities.

"The Iranians have given no indication at all that they are ready to engage seriously on the substance of our proposals," French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said on behalf the United States, France, Britain, Russia and China, the five permanent Security Council members, plus Germany and the European Union.

Everyone already understood that the Iranians had done nothing but stall for time ever since they received the last proposal from the EU-3 for a resolution to the issue. The Iranians said that it would take over two months to review the incentive package, a time frame rejected by the US and the EU. Patience finally ran out today, the deadline announced by the US earlier this month, when Iran still had no substantive response to the offer.

Will the UNSC do anything about the situation? China and Russia have acted as obstacles to any resolution in the past, but today they joined the rest of the powers in the announcement. We can still expect them to resist the application of sanctions on Iran, but at least the stall has failed. The US and the EU have done what they can to placate Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the mullahcracy, and their silence shows that their intent has been to stall long enough to attempt to split what consensus exists at the UN.

Iran failed at that mission. Instead, their obstinacy has provided a moment of rare unity, and Iran may find that Russia and China will not provide the kind of political cover on which they rely.

Hezbollah: Israel Must Swap Prisoners For Soldiers

Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah in Lebanon, appeared at a press conference today to insist that Israel had to negotiate for the release of its prisoners, a plan that Nasrallah says Hezbollah planned over the past year. The terrorist leader appeared to blame the IDF for being ill-prepared for the attack, which allowed Hezbollah to capture the two soldiers:

In a press conference on Wednesday afternoon, Hizbullah's spiritual leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, lauded the Hizbullah for the attack in which seven IDF soldiers were killed and two others kidnapped and warned Israel that the Hizbullah would only release the captives in exchange for security prisoners.

"Our operation succeeded, we have results and honor," the sheikh declared. "We kept our promise to kidnap soldiers [to secure] the release of prisoners, and therefore are calling the attack 'Operation Promise Fulfilled'."

The sheikh warned Israel not to attempt a rescue operation. "If Israel wants to retrieve [the soldiers] through military action, it's deluding itself," he said. "If the goal of this military operation is to free them, it won't work," Nasrallah cautioned.

The Hizbullah leader indicated that his group "might" release details on the kidnapped soldiers. "Maybe we'll release details in later announcements," he said, explaining that the attack was the "only way" to assure that Hizbullah security prisoners in Israel were freed. "It was the natural choice," he declared, adding that Wednesday's attack was "not a surprise to anyone."

"For more than a year, I've been saying that we want to kidnap soldiers in order to exchange prisoners," Nasrallah said. "Every time I said so, Israel went into high alert along the border. We decided to kidnap soldiers in order to end the matter of prisoners," he stated.

Later in the conference, he called Ehud Olmert "green" at his position and described the leader of the IDF forces as inexperienced. He also said that Hezbollah didn't want to drag the region into war, an odd position for a group that had just attacked a sovereign nation. He warned that Israel would find Lebanon a different place than during their occupation a few years ago if they tried a military response.

Perhaps Nasrallah will find Israel a different country as well. The Israelis will not want to capture territory in Lebanon as they did in 1982 when Hezbollah continually attacked from Lebanese territory. The Israelis appear to have completely lost patience with the terrorists and their puppet masters in Damascus and Beirut. The latter is more unfortunate than the former, as the Lebanese had started to pick themselves up from their long bondage to Syria, and Hezbollah is a remnant of that oppression.

If Hezbollah and Syria wanted peace, then Bashar Assad's proxies in Hamas and Hezbollah would not conduct acts of war. Crossing international borders and attacking defensive forces constitutes an act of war, and the nations from where those attacks are staged have the responsibility for the casus belli, as well as nations that provide command and communication support for the attacks. That means both Lebanon and Syria have responsibility for these acts of war, and Israel has the right to respond in kind.

Attacking Lebanon, other than the specific Hezbollah bases, will do no real good. Beirut would have gotten rid of the Hezbollah terrorists already if it could. Israel needs to attack the source of both problems, at least diplomatically if not militarily -- Syria. Boy Assad has paid little price so far for his proxy war against Israel, and it's time he started feeling some sting for his efforts. The US already is fed up with Syrian support for the insurgencies in Iraq, and these further provocations in the region will not cease until Syria finds out how expensive they can be.

Israel should not swap a single prisoner with Hezbollah; if nothing else convinced them of the folly of this policy, this attack should do it. They should swap Damascus for the disbanding and retreat of Hezbollah and Hamas. That's the real solution to the problem.

UPDATE: Euphoric Reality says that word around the campfire is that Israel will declare war tonight. If so, then let's hope it's against Syria instead of Lebanon. Also, world leaders condemn Hezbollah's attack, but not enough to keep from demanding that Israel not respond to it:

World reaction was swift after Hizbullah kidnapped two IDF soldiers and targeted northern towns with Katyushas and mortars. Israel responded by shelling Hizbullah targets in Lebanon and sending in ground troops to search for the missing soldiers.

The European Union called for the immediate release of the kidnapped soldiers, and urged all sides to respect the Blue Line border between Israel and Lebanon.

The US State Department, for once, pins the tail on the right donkey:

The US blamed Syria and Iran for the kidnapping and the ensuing violence. "We condemn in the strongest terms Hizbullah's unprovoked attack on Israel and the kidnapping of the two Israeli soldiers," National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said.

Finally!

Pelosi Losing Grip On Caucus?

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has dreams of becoming the first woman to wield the Speaker's gavel if the Democrats can take control of the House in the mid-term elections. However, according to Roll Call, the Democratic caucus has increasingly lost interest in her, with participation in caucus meetings dropping below 25%:

With attendance typically struggling to crack the 50-Member mark, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) is cracking the whip, demanding that her fellow Democrats attend three “crucial” Caucus meetings between now and the August recess — an order supplemented by a fellow leader’s hint that failure to cooperate could be detrimental to Members’ futures.

In a “Dear Colleague” letter sent early Tuesday afternoon, Pelosi told Members that attendance will be taken at the weekly hour-long sessions this morning and each of the next two Wednesdays, with Democrats using the sessions to discuss their “New Direction” agenda. “These crucial meetings will begin at 9:00 a.m. and end promptly at 10:00 a.m.,” Pelosi wrote. “The meetings are mandatory and I have asked [Caucus Chairman James Clyburn (S.C.)] to take attendance.”

Take attendance? What is this, high school? Perhaps Pelosi fails to understand that people follow leaders only to the extent that the leaders motivate them to do so. Asking for a roll call at the meetings might convince a few more stragglers to join, but a failure to get three-quarters of a caucus to attend meetings points towards a problem with leadership, not the rank and file.

Roll Call has some specific criticisms from their sources, who complain that the meetings serve little purpose. Policy decisions rarely get made by the caucus as a whole, and as a result, the meetings turn out to be little more than an opportunity for pointless speech-making. The Democrats apparently don't want a democratic approach to policy, preferring that the "leadership" make those decisions themselves and serving the rest of the caucus with the dictates from above.

The disaffection appears serious enough that Pelosi and her lieutenants have threatened to discard seniority as the deciding factor in committee assignments, and chair selections if they take control in November. Rahm Emmanuel has already started tracking campaign finance assistance and election support by member, and Clyburn's attendance records could also play a part in these decisions. It's hard to see how that will be terribly motivational, especially considering Pelosi's decision to disqualify Jane Harman from the House Intelligence Committee chair in place of Alcee Hastings; it seems that party purity has already replaced seniority.

In fact, it's hard to take any of this seriously. Rather than act like a neurotic middle-school Vice Principal, Pelosi could encourage caucus attendance by actually allowing the caucus to have some say in policy decisions. Instead, she and Clyburn want to force members to show up for their lecture series. Keep this top-down approach to leadership in mind when voting in the mid-term elections; it's exactly the same kind of treatment that the Democrats want in governing the US.

Old Wine In New Bottles

Singapore, which has one of the strictest and regulated cultures among nations nominally considered "free", has declined to force bloggers to register with the government's media watchdog agency. Referring to blogging as "old wine in new bottles," Singapore determined that bloggers do little other than post their own thoughts to web pages, amd that represents no threat to public order:

Singapore’s National Internet Advisory Committee has abandoned an idea to make it compulsory for bloggers to register with the media watchdog.

The popularity of blogs or online journals prompted the committee to consider requiring their authors to register with Singapore’s Media Development Authority (MDA).

Political and religious parties, Internet service providers, and online newspapers already come under this rule.

The NIAC decided that bloggers who posted material "against the public and society interest" could get prosecuted under other laws, and that registration with the MDA amounted to a redundancy. The definition of that activity gets rather broad in Singapore. Freedom House notes that Singapore earns a "Not Free" status for press freedom for its heavy-handed management of the media:

Media freedom in Singapore is constrained to such a degree that the vast majority of journalists practice self-censorship rather than risk being charged with defamation or breaking the country's criminal laws on permissible speech. The constitution provides the right to freedom of speech and expression in Article 14 but permits restrictions on these rights. Legal constraints include strict censorship laws, including the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, which allows authorities to restrict the circulation of any foreign periodical for publishing news that interferes in domestic politics, and the Internal Security Act (ISA). ...

The vast majority of print and broadcast media outlets, as well as Internet service providers and cable television services, are either owned or controlled by the state or by companies with close ties to the ruling party. ... Internet use is widespread but the Internet is under the supervision of the Singapore Broadcast Authority, which controls access to Web sites and censors some information, and political and religious Web sites are required to register with the government's Media Development Authority.

In addition, Singapore requires native publications to acquire government licenses annually to operate legally. Given all of that, it hardly comes as a surprise that the local media tempers its criticism of the very government that can put them out of business. Also, Singapore has allowed media convergence to bring almost all of the major domestic news sources under the ownership of a few people with strong ties to the ruling party, eliminating competition and the temptation to publish exposés that it brings.

Blogggers in Singapore may rest a bit easier with this ruling, but they shouldn't. In this case, the bloggers should insist that they get the same treatment that the media receives -- or better yet, that the media should get the same treatment that the bloggers receive and demand freedom of the press in Singapore. Since they cannot do that with safety, the rest of us should demand it for them.

We may be old wine in new bottles, but when we want, we can be stronger than vinegar. (via It Shines For All)

NYT Focuses On Gazans, But Not Sderot Or Ashkelon

Today's New York Times takes the time to report on the misery of the Gazans during the IDF incursion, painting a sympathetic picture of families displaced by the fighting. Steve Erlanger manages to portray the Palestinians in Gaza as victims of the Israelis while never mentioning the broader context of the conflict:

Khairi Edbary and his family of eight normally share a tiny concrete house with his brother and his family of eight, with a raw dividing wall of concrete blocks providing a touch of privacy. These days, however, the house is almost empty. The Edbarys live on the eastern edge of the broken runway of what was once the Gaza airport, which has now been taken over by Israeli troops.

Like many of the people here, mostly poor farmers, the Edbarys have heeded the Israeli call to evacuate their homes to escape the fighting and are sleeping in United Nations schools in nearby Rafah. ...

In the last week, the agency has opened two schools in Rafah to house the displaced people of Shuka and southern Gaza. There are about 1,000 people in 136 families at the two schools, sleeping on thin mattresses in empty classrooms, said Jamal Hamad, an agency spokesman, “but the numbers are increasing every day.”

Initially, people like Fayez Sawarka, 40, stayed at home. But the Israeli incursion into the airport and its neighborhood, with tanks and armored bulldozers and artillery, destroyed some of the narrow roads and made it difficult if not impossible for farmers to get to their fields or to bring in food.

The second half of Erlanger's story revolved around the deepening humanitarian crisis that the Gaza incursion has created. However, Erlanger never bothers to mention the cause of the crisis, which was an act of war committed by terrorists with direct associations with the ruling party in the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinians brought this response on themselves, and they now have to live with it or get rid of the leaders who provoked it.

The Times reveals its bias in its singular focus on the misery of the Gazans. The UN's chief on site makes the only mention of Palestinian attacks on Israelis, and that only briefly, I do not recall the Times running a series of articles on the misery of Israelis in Sderot, who for months have had Kassam rockets raining down on their heads from Gaza launch sites. The Times, to my knowledge, never published an in-depth sympathy piece on the fear and despair caused by Palestinian terrorist attacks on falafel stands or commuter bus bombings in Israel.

No one doubts that the Palestinians in Gaza live in misery. Sympathy for them only extends to their historical selection of the worst leadership they could possibly find. The Palestinians in Gaza have had billions of dollars in Western investment and aid, and they have destroyed it with their terrorist attacks and acts of war. They are the authors of their own misery. If the Times wants to highlight their humanitarian crisis, it would do so more honestly if their reporters pointed out that central fact.

Hezbollah Finds Out Israelis Can Fight On Two Fronts

The terror group Hezbollah tried taking advantage of Israel's focus on Gaza and the fate of its kidnapped soldier, Gilad Shalit, by staging its own cross-border raid and abducting two more IDF soldiers. Israel made it clear that the Gaza operation would not prevent it from responding in the north, as Ehud Olmert warned Lebanon that it had committed an act of war against Israel:

Seventeen days after IDF soldier Gilad Shalit was kidnapped in Gaza, a second front was opened on Israel's northern border Wednesday morning as Hizbullah, under cover of a barrage of Katyusha rockets and mortar shells, kidnapped two more army troops.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared the attack as an "act of war" and not terror. During a press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi Wednesday afternoon, he called it an unprovoked assault by a sovereign nation and held Lebanon, where Hizbullah has a minister in the government, fully responsible. ...

The Defense Ministry confirmed early Wednesday afternoon that two IDF soldiers had been kidnapped by Hizbullah. IDF ground troops had been sent into Lebanon to search for the two. IAF jets, helicopters and UAVs were also flying above Lebanon searching for the soldiers. Several jets were flying patterns above Beirut, Channel 10 reported. Simultaneously, Navy gunboats and artillery along the border were shelling Hizbullah targets in Lebanon.

The army has destroyed 17 targets as well as Hizbullah outposts and three bridges since the beginning of the operation.

As Ismail Haniyeh noted himself in yesterday's Washington Post, Israel has the world's 13th largest army, and one of its most modern. Hezbollah and Lebanon found out that the IDF has no problem fighting a two-front war, especially since the one front in Gaza does not need to occupy too many of its troops.

This comes as no surprise. I warned at the beginning of the Gaza incursion that Israel's neighbors might take advantage of the situation by provoking a response on their borders. I expected that to come from Syria, but instead Syria continues its proxy war against Israel through the use of its client terrorist groups in other people's countries. Boy Assad still doesn't have the stones to go up against the IDF on his own, it appears.

The newly-liberated government in Beirut needed to take some concrete action to disarm Hezbollah months ago. As long as they allowed the Syrians to control southern Lebanon through their proxy terrorists, they have no real authority. Undoubtedly it will be difficult to eject Hezbollah, but it was also difficult to get rid of the Syrians. It's disappointing that Beirut allowed Hezbollah to position themselves to stage this attack, and unfortunate that the Israelis have to respond -- but they must, unless they want to put themselves in the same position as Beirut. And when they do, the Israelis may well fulfill their pledge to "turn Lebanon back 20 years by striking its vital infrastructure," a tragic consequence for half-hearted measures.

Olmert needs to take this fight where it really belongs: Syria. Syria supports both Hamas and Hezbollah (as does Iran), and until they address Damascus in a manner with some finality, Israel will keep facing off against the same terrorists over and over again. If we want to defeat the terrorists, we have to defeat the states that sponsor and fund them.

See also Michael van der Galien at The Moderate Voice.

Novak: I Got Plame's Name From Who's Who

(Well, okay -- one last post. -- CE)

Robert Novak has finally spoken out on his involvement in the investigation on the Valerie Plame leak case. In tomorrow's column, Novak explains that Plame's name came from a reference book, and that he used his contacts in the administration merely for passive confirmation. The Drudge Report saw the text, and printed excerpts (via Stop the ACLU):

BOB NOVAK, My Leak Case Testimony: ‘I learned Valerie Plame’s name from Joe Wilson’s entry in ‘Who’s Who in America’… MORE Published reports that I took the Fifth Amendment, made a plea bargain with the prosecutors or was a prosecutorial target were all untrue… MORE… My primary source has not come forward to identify himself… Bill Harlow, the CIA public information officer who was my CIA source for the column confirming Mrs. Wilson’s identity. I learned Valerie Plame’s name from Joe Wilson’s entry in ‘Who’s Who in America’… I answered questions using the names of Rove, Harlow and my primary source… I considered his wife’s role in initiating Wilson’s mission, later confirmed by the Senate Intelligence Committee, to be a previously undisclosed part of an important news story. I reported it on that basis.

Howard Kurtz also saw Novak's report, and has his own analysis in tomorrow's Washington Post:

In a column to be published today, Novak said he told Fitzgerald in early 2004 that White House senior adviser Karl Rove and then-CIA spokesman Bill Harlow had confirmed for him, at his request, information about CIA operative Valerie Plame. Novak said he also told Fitzgerald about another senior administration official who originally provided him with the information about Plame, and whose identity he says he cannot reveal even now. ...

Critics say that Novak helped the administration retaliate against Wilson, who had become a prominent critic of Bush's conduct in the run-up to the Iraq war, by revealing that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Novak said yesterday he does not feel that he was used.

"The primary source was not a political operative," he said, and he mentioned Plame's role in the middle of a conversation about other subjects. "I don't believe it was part of a plan to discredit anybody."

Oddly, Kurtz never mentions the Who's Who research, although the excerpts reported by Drudge make it clear that Novak found her name on his own. Neither does CNN, for that matter. The excerpt apparently has been taken down by Drudge, and Novak's full column has not yet hit the website. Did Drudge get the story wrong? I guess we'll find out tomorrow. Either he did, or Kurtz and CNN didn't bother to include that detail.

Even without it, Novak claims that the CIA provided confirmation of Plame's name and employment before he published the story -- and just to be clear, neither Kurtz nor CNN actually describes how Novak got Plame's name, just how he confirmed it. If Plame's status was a secret, then Bill Harlow shouldn't have confirmed anything for Novak. Just getting that part of the story out pretty much deflates the entire notion of a vendetta at the White House. It also begs the question of how this constitutes an illegal leak when the CIA's own spokesman gave out the information. The fact that Patrick Fitzgerald never indicted Bill Harlow seems a pretty clear indication that the original reason for conducting the probe was nothing more than a trumped-up political attack on George Bush and Dick Cheney.

Yawn.

UPDATE: Novak's column is out, and it confirms that Drudge had it right and that Kurtz and CNN apparently decided that part of Novak's story -- which destroys the notion of a political vendetta aimed at neutralizing Plame at the CIA -- wasn't newsworthy enough. Novak states that a so-far-unnamed source, someone outside of White House politics, mentioned that Joe Wilson got his assignment through his wife at the CIA to explain what Wilson was doing in Niger in the first place. Then:

Following my interview with the primary source, I sought out the second administration official and the CIA spokesman for confirmation. I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in "Who's Who in America."

I considered his wife's role in initiating Wilson's mission, later confirmed by the Senate Intelligence Committee, to be a previously undisclosed part of an important news story. I reported it on that basis.

No one gave Novak Plame's name. Who's Who had it as part of Joe Wilson's listing. If her identity was such a secret, then one can reasonably assume that (a) Joe Wilson wouldn't have listed her under her professional name, but as Valerie Wilson; (b) CIA spokesman Bill Harlow wouldn't have confirmed her identity to Novak when Novak inquired about it; and (c) Joe Wilson wouldn't have leaked details of the mission to the Washington Post and New York Times, and would have refrained from writing his own op-eds at the Times under his own name.

Again, this should put an end to this silliness. The people responsible for outing Valerie Plame are Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame herself, and her cohorts at the CIA who tried running a little disinformation campaign against George Bush in order to control foreign policy themselves.

UPDATE II: The Real Ugly American notes this paragraph with some amazement:

For nearly the entire time of his investigation, Fitzgerald knew -- independent of me -- the identity of the sources I used in my column of July 14, 2003. A federal investigation was triggered when I reported that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, was employed by the CIA and helped initiate his 2002 mission to Niger. That Fitzgerald did not indict any of these sources may indicate his conclusion that none of them violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

So he knew these sources the entire time, but never bothered to seek an indictment on the ostensible purpose of the investigation? Fitzgerald will have to answer for that. If true, then he should have concluded his investigation as soon as he determined that no laws had been broken in the leak. It appears from Novak's comment that Fitzgerald went on a two-year hunt for an indictment rather than an honest criminal investigation. This is what happens with special investigators; they never know when to stop.

Taking Some Time Out To Focus .... Literally

Just got back from an eye exam -- and I can't see worth a darn for now. Will post more and read e-mail later.

(Man I hope I typed this correctly!)

UPDATE, 10:00 PM: I got my eyes dilated this afternoon, and I'm just now getting to the point where I can read my e-mail if I use the largest text size display. It tuns out that I have a condition known as retinoschisis, in my case a pretty benign issue. On the edge of my retina (in both eyes, as it turns out), I have a bubble between a couple of the retinal layers. I've probably had it for decades, but it only got discovered at my last eye exam because of improving technology. According to the site, it's a disease mostly found in boys and young men. It's nowhere near as bad in my case as the information there makes out, and the retinal surgeon who consulted today told me I will likely have no complications from it -- but I need to make sure it gets checked regularly to ensure it doesn't expand.

If you don't already know an optometrist with the capability of taking retinal photographs, which is how this got discovered in my case, I would suggest checking around until you do. This relatively new tool can find conditions before they start causing real problems.

I'll have to hang it up for the night -- I still can't read text easily -- but I should be back on line tomorrow.

UPDATE II: I should clarify this. I believe what I have is typical retinoschesis. Another form, called reticular retinoschesis, can cause plenty of problems; it's this type that usually is found in boys and young men. According to the prognosis I got from the retinal specialist, I have the former and not the latter.

A Bush Comeback

Gallup reports that approval ratings for George Bush have staged a strong rally over the last nine weeks. In early May, Bush had only a 31% approval rating and a 65% disapproval rating. Now, however, his approval rating has reached 40% for the first time since February:

President George W. Bush's job approval rating has edged up slightly higher in Gallup's latest poll, and is now at 40% for the first since early February. The July 6-9 poll finds 40% of Americans approving and 55% disapproving of the job Bush is doing as president. After averaging 42% approval in January and early February, Bush's ratings began to decline in mid-February, ultimately dropping to his administration's low point of 31% in early May. Since that time, Bush's approval ratings have shown a slow, gradual improvement.

It sounds like a grudging admission from Gallup. Gaining nine points in as many weeks while knocking ten points off of his disapproval levels in the same period amounts to almost a 20-point swing. Moreover, the gain did not come strictly from his base. Although Bush gained ten points among Republicans during the two month span, he gained twelve points among independents, going from 26% to 38%. He even gained with Democrats, picking up six points from a laughable 4% to 10% now.

Bear in mind that Gallup polled all adults, not registered voters or likely voters, the latter of which gives the best predictive measurement of voter intent. The method used by Gallup usually returns lower ratings for Republicans -- and it still has Bush at 40%. Rasmussen, which has generated the most reliable numbers, has Bush holding steady at 43%/56% over the past three days, and up from a monthly rating of 40% in the months of April and May.

Why do we see this rather significant change? The debate about precipitous withdrawal has to be the overriding factor. The economy has changed little all year from its robust growth, and no major legislative victories have been achieved by the administration in the past two months. Immigration continues to roil the base. However, the attempt by the Democrats to force a cut-and-run strategy on the mission in Iraq appears to have reminded people of the stakes involved in the war, and the alternatives to Bush and the GOP in terms of leadership.

It looks like Bush has significant political momentum -- just in time for the midterms -- and the Democrats have handed it to him ... again.

IIPDATE: Fixed the bad bold tag ... I hope. I still can't see worth a darn, here. Thanks to the many people who e-mailed me to let me know.

Israel Plans Expansion Of Gaza Incursion

After Khaled Mashaal refused to release Gilad Shalit, the IDF soldier kidnapped in a Hamas border raid that touched off a military escalation in Gaza, the Israelis have ordered a "massive" expansion of the Gaza operation:

IDF troops were gearing up Tuesday afternoon for a planned massive incursion into the Gaza Strip.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert gave the IDF a green light to re-enter Gaza in an effort to stop Kassam rocket attacks. Military sources said that the new incursion would involve naval, infantry, and air forces, which would operate in the Gaza Strip.

Ehud Olmert refused to trade Palestinian prisoners for Shalit, saying that such a capitulation would have serious long-term repercussions for the state of Israel. That reinforces the change in policy apparently made by Olmert over the last few weeks. Israel has made several such swaps before, trading hundreds of Palestinian terrorists for a handful of Israeli soldiers. That policy apparently led Mashaal to believe that grabbing Shalit would gain him and Hamas a much-needed victory by securing the release of a large number of prisoners from Israeli jails.

Instead, Olmert made his disdain for Mashaal clear:

"Khaled Mashaal is a terrorist with blood on his hands. He's not a legitimate partner for anything. He's not a partner and he won't be a partner. I will not negotiate with Hamas," the Israeli leader said. ...

On Monday, Hamas political leader Khaled Mashaal demanded a prisoner swap, but Olmert said that would be a "major mistake." ... "They will never be able to win from me any minor concession," Mashaal insisted in his first public appearance since the June 25 capture of the 19-year-old Israeli soldier, Cpl. Gilad Shalit.

At least we can get past the fiction that Hamas in the Palestinian Authority considers itself an independent political movement. We can see clearly that Mashaal controls Hamas in the entire region, including Gaza and the West Bank. His terrorists hold Shalit, and Mashaal has no intention of releasing him without some capitulation from Israel.

So far, Olmert has rightly denied him that satisfaction. Instead, the Israelis -- who believe Shalit remains in Gaza -- will continue escalating their incursion until they either find Shalit alive and rescue him, or until Hamas figures out that they have lost and return him to Israel after their act of war that resulted in his abduction. Either way, events have shown Ismail Haniyeh as an empty suit, a mere mouthpiece for Mashaal and the terrorists sheltered by Syria. And if Shalit does not return alive to Israel, Syria willl have to answer for their part in Hamas' act of war.

Geneva Convention For All Detainees: Pentagon

The Finanical Times reports that the Department of Defense has issued a major policy change, explicitly applying the Geneva Convention to GWOT detainees for the first time. After the Supreme Court ruling in Hamdan, many expected the Bush administration to fight the court's interpretation of Article 3 in Congress, but apparently Bush has decided to concede the point:

The White House confirmed on Tuesday that the Pentagon had decided, in a major policy shift, that all detainees held in US military custody around the world are entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions.

The FT has learned that Gordon England, deputy defence secretary, sent a memo to senior defence officials and military officers last Friday, telling them that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions – which prohibits inhumane treatment of prisoners and requires certain basic legal rights at trial – would apply to all detainees held in US military custody. ...

While Mr Bush declined to apply the Geneva conventions to Taliban and al-Qaeda captives, he ordered in 2002 that “detainees be treated humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva”. But his critics argued that the wording of his order provided large loopholes that could be exploited to abuse prisoners.

While the Pentagon order applies to all detainees held by the US military, it does not apply to prisoners held outside the military detention system, such as Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks who is being held in a secret Central Intelligence Agency prison. But the Pentagon move could increase pressure on the administration to re-examine CIA detention policies and practices.

The controversy resulted from a disagreement on how (and whether) to apply Article 3 of the GC to the war on terror. The conventions require reciprocity, and technically do not come into force when one of the antagonists are not signatories to the document, or when they fail to adhere to the GC on their own. Article 3 reads in full (emphases mine):

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

The Court relied on this to reach its decision in Hamdan. However, one has to wonder whether they read Article 2:

Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

While Afghanistan, even under Taliban rule, remained a signatory to the GC (and never had much opportunity to abide by it in terms of treatment of prisoners), AQ does not qualify under any circumstances. For those terrorists captured outside of the Afghanistan phase of the war, this means that the ruling of Hamdan should not apply. The FT's reference to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed serves as a case in point. The US has no obligation under the Geneva Convention to offer him any kind of guarantees regarding his detention.

The Bush administration has really not given up much in this agreement, other than having the obvious climb-down over their technically correct but politically untenable application of the GC. It gives Bush slightly less flexibility in handling the Gitmo detainees, but only in the short run. We probably have all the actionable intelligence we will get from these detainees by this time. Congress appears ready to create a framework for military tribunals for those held at that facility in order to expedite a resolution to their status. The Gitmo situation wouldn't have lasted too much longer in any circumstance, and the nature of the war will not likely involve battlefields like Afghanistan in the future.

The real effect of this decision will be felt in international relations. Our allies will have themselves a victory in US policy that they can trumpet to their voters, and Bush will have less turbulence at home among the more squeamish of his political base in Congress. The only practical result in the field may come with less captures and more casualties for our enemies, as we will not put our soldiers at unnecessary risk for the minimal gain of capturing these terrorists if they give us no opportunity for giving us intel on ongoing operations.

Bombs Across India

It looks like al-Qaeda or an Islamofascist offshoot has decided to add another nation to its blood enemies. Instead of attacking Western targets, terrorists set off a wave of bombings across India today, attacking civilian transportation in several cities and killing scores of people:

Suspected Islamist militants killed seven people, six of them tourists, on Tuesday in a series of grenade attacks in Srinagar, police said, the most concerted targeting of civilians in months.

In the bloodiest strike, a grenade was thrown inside a bus in Srinagar, near the city's famous mountain-ringed Dal Lake, killing the six holidaymakers and wounding seven. Four other people were also hurt. ...

At least 40 people were killed in seven blasts on the suburban rail network in India's financial capital Mumbai on Tuesday, television channel CNN-IBN said, quoting police.

India's Home Secretary said that no terrorist group had taken responsibility for the strikes, but that India knew who committed them and that "we are going to get them". This has all the earmarks of an AQ operation. They attacked the transportation system, concentrating their biggest efforts in Mumbai, India's financial center. The terrorists targeted their attacks to maximize civilian deaths. Similarities between these attacks and the London subway bombings are apparent and apposite.

What motivated AQ to go after India? It's hardly the first country one associates with the West, and many Muslims live within the majority-Hindu nation. However, India's outreach to Pakistan to resolve the conflict in the Kashmir threatens to end one of the major provocations that incites Muslims to jihad in the region. It also tends to prop up Pervez Musharraf, a man they have tried twice to assassinate. India's troubles with religious sectarianism (especially with Muslims) go back centuries, of course, and the historical irritants would have been enough for them in any event.

But mostly AQ and other Islamist terrorists have targeted tourists, and India is in the middle of its tourist season. The Srinagar attack left six tourists dead. AQ wants to destroy India's economy, fragile enough as it is, by keeping tourists away from the country.

It looks like India will have a 7/11 to match Madrid's 3/11 and our 9/11.

Note: Mumbai is the Indian name for the city we call Bombay.

UPDATE: Amit Varma's blog will give the up-close perspective that the blogosphere provides. Keep checking for updates. (via Instapundit)

UPDATE II: Reuters now reports that the death toll has reached 135, as of noon CT:

City Police Commissioner A.N. Roy told Reuters 135 people were killed while Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh, the state's top elected official, said 300 people were injured in the blasts, which took place in the space of around 10 minutes.

"We are not sure if it is RDX or not," Roy said, referring to the possible use of high-powered plastic explosives.

It seems that India's emergency response has not proven sufficient for the task, according to this report. Expect the numbers to rise accordingly, and keep India in your prayers.

GOP Heading For Schism? How About The Democrats?

EJ Dionne looks past the midterms to the next presidential cycle, and sees trouble ahead for the GOP. In his latest column, Dionne predicts that Republicans will find themselves foundering on the future direction of the party, a debate that Dionne says the GOP has mostly avoided since 1994:

As it looks beyond the elections of 2006, a Republican Party known for ideological solidarity is on the cusp of a far more searching philosophical battle than are the Democrats, historically accustomed to bruising fights over the finer points of political theory.

The coming Republican brawl reflects the fact that President Bush will leave office with no obvious heir, and Bushism as a political philosophy has yet to establish itself in the way that Reaganism did.

Moreover, the four top candidates in most polls for the GOP's 2008 presidential nomination -- Sen. John McCain, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and former House speaker Newt Gingrich -- all promise very different styles of leadership.

I don't know if I agree with Dionne's assessment of the front-runners. This list, especially the inclusion of Newt Gingrich, appears to fill a rhetorical need rather than a prediction of the 2008 race. George Allen consistently polls higher than Gingrich or Romney, but of course it's still early enough that all of us can pick and choose our contenders.

In this case, though, Dionne seems to think that the GOP will be the only party doing soul-searching in 2008. The only conflict he sees on the horizon for the Democrats is whether they can agree that Hillary Clinton is electable to the White House. This flies in the face of the schism we see playing out in Connecticut this month, with the anti-war movement attempting to define Joe Lieberman as an extremist, despite his voting record that places him almost dead-center in his Senate caucus. Even the party leader in the Senate has a more conservative voting record than Lieberman, and yet the longtime Senator has become persona non grata to the activists in his party.

If Dionne thinks this argument will go away in an unprecedented show of unity, then he hasn't paid attention. The anti-war Left has already fractured the party, with John Kerry and John Murtha giving the Democrats repeated fits by feeding the popular image of Democrats as the Defeatist Party. Hillary herself has already been targeted by some of the same people that went after Lieberman, and they're busy pushing Russ Feingold as a dark-horse candidate for the nomination. Even if Iraq becomes a non-issue by 2008, the Left will not forgive those who supported the effort in any near-term election cycles.

In comparison, the GOP has their conflict under better control. The flashpoints for Republican schism occurred this year, with the immigration-reform effort and the lack of budget discipline raising the ire of the conservatives in the party. We will see a wide spectrum of choices in the 2008 primary, as we have the unusual situation of both parties operating with no incumbency advantage for the first time since 1928. That plays against both parties equally in terms of debate and division.

The Republicans have had to learn big-tent tactics in order to maintain legislative majorities on their agenda, and while we haven't pefected it, we at least have mostly headed in the right direction. The Democrats appear to be going through some sort of ideological purification process that will guarantee them a continuing hold on the minority position for as long as it lasts. If anyone expects the Left to suddenly lighten up when the White House is in play, they will find themselves in for a rude surprise.

We Know The Truth -- And That's The Problem

Hamas PM Ismail Haniyeh writes at the end of a long and deception-filled screed in today's Washington Post that "[i]f Americans only knew the truth," we would stop supporting Israel in the struggle between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Even the briefest skim over Haniyeh's column reveals that we will not get the truth from Hamas, as Haniyeh manages to hit all of the Hamas talking points while oddly neglecting to mention their part in escalating the conflict into open war in Gaza.

Let's take this one piece at a time. He claims that the Palestinians are "besieged" by their occupiers:

As Americans commemorated their annual celebration of independence from colonial occupation, rejoicing in their democratic institutions, we Palestinians were yet again besieged by our occupiers, who destroy our roads and buildings, our power stations and water plants, and who attack our very means of civil administration. Our homes and government offices are shelled, our parliamentarians taken prisoner and threatened with prosecution.

The Israelis pulled out of Gaza completely, however, several months ago. They packed up the IDF, forced thousands of settlers out of their homes, and sent everyone back into Israel. The Palestinians held Gaza for themselves. What did they do with it? They used it as a launching pad for Kassam rockets into Israel almost since the day the IDF left. Now Haniyeh wants us to hearken back to our colonial roots to understand ... what? That an act of war, repeatedly taken, results in a military response?

The current Gaza invasion is only the latest effort to destroy the results of fair and free elections held early this year. It is the explosive follow-up to a five-month campaign of economic and diplomatic warfare directed by the United States and Israel. The stated intention of that strategy was to force the average Palestinian to "reconsider" her vote when faced with deepening hardship; its failure was predictable, and the new overt military aggression and collective punishment are its logical fulfillment. The "kidnapped" Israeli Cpl. Gilad Shalit is only a pretext for a job scheduled months ago.

The economic sanctions did not have the intent of forcing Palestinians to "reconsider" their vote. We made it plain that we would not send our money to Islamofascist terrorists groups, especially one that used the election to tear up all previous agreements between Israel and the PA. I don't know why Haniyeh put scare quotes around "kidnapped"; is he arguing that Gilad Shalit asked to be shot and captured by Hamas terrorists after they invaded Israel? And once again, Haniyeh complains about a military response to an act of war, somewhat akin to a child whining to his mother that his older sibling hit him back.

In addition to removing our democratically elected government, Israel wants to sow dissent among Palestinians by claiming that there is a serious leadership rivalry among us. I am compelled to dispel this notion definitively. The Palestinian leadership is firmly embedded in the concept of Islamic shura , or mutual consultation; suffice it to say that while we may have differing opinions, we are united in mutual respect and focused on the goal of serving our people.

Oh ... so all of that shooting in the streets of Gaza and the West Bank between Fatah and Hamas amounted to "mutual respect"? Is that why Hamas and Fatah prisoners in Israel had to come up with the NCD to get the two factions to quit killing each other? If Haniyeh expects Americans to believe this drivel, he has to do better than this.

As I inspect the ruins of our infrastructure -- the largess of donor nations and international efforts all turned to rubble once more by F-16s and American-made missiles -- my thoughts again turn to the minds of Americans. What do they think of this?

They think, doubtless, of the hostage soldier, taken in battle -- yet thousands of Palestinians, including hundreds of women and children, remain in Israeli jails for resisting the illegal, ongoing occupation that is condemned by international law. They think of the pluck and "toughness" of Israel, "standing up" to "terrorists." Yet a nuclear Israel possesses the 13th-largest military force on the planet, one that is used to rule an area about the size of New Jersey and whose adversaries there have no conventional armed forces.

Syria has no conventional armed forces? Iran has no conventional armed forces? Haniyeh expects us to conveniently forget the two wars launched on Israel by their Arab neighbors. These forced Isreal to capture Gaza and the West Bank as buffers in 1967, after the Palestinians allowed the Arabs to use their lands as conduits for the attacks. If Hamas is stupid enough to engage the 13th largest military force in the world by continually firing rockets from Gaza, then they will meet the IDF up close and personal.

And, by the way, people who deliberately blow up civilians eating at falafel stands are terrorists, and so are the groups that endorse it.

I hope that Americans will give careful and well-informed thought to root causes and historical realities, in which case I think they will question why a supposedly "legitimate" state such as Israel has had to conduct decades of war against a subject refugee population without ever achieving its goals.

Once again, we see that Hamas still refuses to recognize Israel as legitimate; hence the scare quotes. Also, part of the problem is that Israel has not conducted a war against the Palestinians, despite decades of provocation. They did occupy the territory for four decades, and that is a legitimate complaint. However, we saw what happened when they pulled out of Gaza -- Islamic Jihad used it as a rocket pad for months while the Palestinian Authority did nothing to stop it, and Hamas conducted a border raid that left two soldiers dead and one kidnapped. The Palestinians have conducted a war against Israel; Israel just finally put itself in a position to fight a war in return.

But there is a remedy, and while it is not easy it is consistent with our long-held beliefs. Palestinian priorities include recognition of the core dispute over the land of historical Palestine and the rights of all its people; resolution of the refugee issue from 1948; reclaiming all lands occupied in 1967; and stopping Israeli attacks, assassinations and military expansion. Contrary to popular depictions of the crisis in the American media, the dispute is not only about Gaza and the West Bank; it is a wider national conflict that can be resolved only by addressing the full dimensions of Palestinian national rights in an integrated manner. This means statehood for the West Bank and Gaza, a capital in Arab East Jerusalem, and resolving the 1948 Palestinian refugee issue fairly, on the basis of international legitimacy and established law. Meaningful negotiations with a non-expansionist, law-abiding Israel can proceed only after this tremendous labor has begun.

"Historical Palestine" and "the refugee issue from 1948" means that Hamas will not settle for the West Bank and Gaza. They want all of Israel as well, and expect the Israelis to leave or to live under Hamas/Fatah rule. And note that Haniyeh won't even agree to negotiations with Israel -- or what's left of it -- until after they have capitulated on all of these points.

Was Israel defending itself when it killed eight family members on a Gaza beach last month or three members of the Hajjaj family on Saturday, among them 6-year-old Rawan? I refuse to believe that such inhumanity sits well with the American public.

That's the consequences of war, Ismail. What he leaves out is that the Gaza Beach incident -- which did not come from an Israeli shell but a mine -- was part of an exchange of rocket fire that the terrorists in Gaza initiated. The shelling targeted an Islamic Jihad launching site. The details of the Hajjaj deaths are less clear, but in any case did not come from deliberately targeting the family. Hamas and Haniyeh, we should recall, endorsed as self-defense the deliberate targeting of civilians at a falafel stand, resulting in the deaths of 21 unarmed men, women, and children, and injuries to many more. How humane was that, Ismail, and why did you endorse that attack and condemn this one?

Finally, Haniyeh presents us with an offer for hudna, perhaps not realizing that Americans have become more familiar with the concept since 9/11:

If Israel is prepared to negotiate seriously and fairly, and resolve the core 1948 issues, rather than the secondary ones from 1967, a fair and permanent peace is possible. Based on a hudna (comprehensive cessation of hostilities for an agreed time), the Holy Land still has an opportunity to be a peaceful and stable economic powerhouse for all the Semitic people of the region.

The hudna goes back to Mohammed, who used the device to gather his strength while weakening his enemy. Haniyeh knows full well what a hudna means, even if he thinks his audience does not. It's the final prevarication in a column full of lies and half-truths, hyperbole and hypocrisy. We leave Haniyeh's column more convinced than ever that Hamas has no intention of negotiating for Palestinian statehood along the framework of previous agreements, but intends to wage terrorism against Israel until it concedes.

A Day For Anniversaries

Most CQ readers know how influential Hugh Hewitt has been not to conservative bloggers in general, but specifically to me and to my success in conservative opinion journalism. He has been a tremendous mentor and a good friend to me and to my compatriots in blogging here in Minnesota. Founding the new Townhall for Salem Communications is just the latest proof of Hugh as a visionary. Yesterday, I had the honor of an invitation to appear on his show on the same segment as Claudia Rosett and wish him a happy 6th anniversary for his radio show -- and 24th wedding anniversary to the Fetching Mrs. Hewitt.

It's my honor and privilege to thank him again for all he has done for me personally, as well as blogging and conservatism in general.

Addendum: He's not the only one with an anniversary. Best wishes to a great friend and a lovely couple, King Banaian and Mrs Scholar, on eighteen years of marriage.

Addendum II: It's not an anniversary, but Alexandra van Maltzan's All Things Beautiful has undergone a rebirth. Check it out when you can!

Le Parti, C'est Moi, or It's My Party And I Can Cry If I Want To

I've made a point of defending Joe Lieberman's efforts to stand against the folly of the netroots in Connecticut, but he went a little far out on the limb today. When he filed papers to allow him to run as an independent, Lieberman made a rather silly mistake by creating his own political party in doing so:

Lieberman also filed papers with the secretary of the state's office Monday to create a new party called Connecticut for Lieberman.

Marion Steinfels, Lieberman's campaign spokeswoman, said the 25 people who signed on to help Lieberman form the Connecticut for Lieberman party will oversee the petition drive. ...

Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz said Lieberman will be able to secure a higher position on the November ballot by creating a new party rather than petitioning his way on as an individual. Bysiewicz said Lieberman would be fifth on the ballot under the new party, compared with eighth or ninth as an individual.

He must collect 7,500 signatures by 4 p.m. Aug. 9, the day after the primary.

Quite frankly, this is one of the dumbest political decisions I have seen in quite a while. What does Lieberman gain in this move? Four spaces up the ballot in a race where everyone already knows who he is. I mean, if Lieberman has to worry about ballot placement in order to get votes, then he's practically conceding the race already.

More importantly, what does Lieberman lose? His independent run, which had the cachet of a man standing for his principles, suddenly looks a lot like a vanity project. He claims that he remains true to his Democratic affiliation, but suddenly he will have to register as a Lieberman Party member if he wants to run in November against Ned Lamont. In one fell swoop, he has underscored every criticism leveled at him by the netroots of selfishness and egotism. After all, who was the last candidate to run for national office for a party named after himself? Even Ross Perot created the Reform Party, not the Perot Party.

Lieberman will take a well-deserved shellacking over this decision. I'm sure he will find the 7500 voters necessary to sign the petitions, but even if he wins, he will spend a lot of time living this down.

UPDATE: Some readers think that I am criticizing Lieberman for running as an independent. That's not the case; I have actually been rather neutral on that point. However, what I intended with this post was to point out how silly it is to create a phony party for his independent run, and to name it after himself, just to gain a couple of spaces on the ballot. He wants people to believe that he is the true Democrat in the race, but he will have to register as something else if he runs in the Connecticut For Lieberman Party. It's unnecesary, and it gives the Lamont netroots ample ammunition for satire and ridicule.

Know Our Enemies

Rusty at My Pet Jawa has the latest in al-Qaeda PR -- a video of the two American soldiers captured and murdered by terrorist thugs in Iraq. Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Tucker fell victim to a sophisticated ambush by AQ operatives, and the Mujahedin Shura Council/AQI organization released the extremely graphic video that starts with Osama bin Laden's picture and shifts to a long overview of their desecrated bodies. The terrorists decaptitated one, and both show obvious signs of torture and mutilation.

CQ readers should conisder whether to follow the link. In truth, I hesitated to do so earlier when I saw the post at Hot Air. In the end, I decided to watch the video as well as see the photographs, because I believe that we need to see who our enemies are in this war. We have shaded our eyes after 9/11 and even before that, allowing network news executives attempt to induce a collective amnesia by refusing to show the heartbreaking aftermath of the attack: people jumping out of windows 100 stories up because they had to choose between burning or falling to death.

This is what terrorists do. They try to suck all of our will to resist them by creating horrible images for us, taunting us with their cruelty and sadism. While we blather about whether Gitmo detainees might be bummed out with their three hots and a cot, Islamofascists butcher people for the fun of it. They do so because they want us to believe that we cannot beat them -- that they are so evil that we cannot hope to compete with them.

That's why I chose to view the video on Rusty' site. We need to show that this butchery does not frighten us but steels our resolve to put a permanent end to such evil. The US has to prove that it will not retreat in the face of savagery, but will beat it with professionalism and unstoppable resolve. If we do not, we will make the same mistake that Bill Clinton did in Somalia and Ronald Reagan did in Beirut.

We mourn the loss of Kristian and Thomas. We also feel rage at the soulless bastards who not only committed these acts but videotaped it as a point of pride. And we know that they can never beat us, because if they could, they wouldn't have to rely on these tactics to get us to quit. We don't run from cowards.

UPDATE: Hot Air has another video, much less gruesome but almost as angering. Now we have Islamists laughing and celebrating the deaths of innocent Londoners -- in Manchester.

The Hillary-Gregory Connection To The Pardons

Yesterday I wrote about the obvious quid pro quo between Bill Clinton's presidential pardon of Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory and the loans given to Hillary Clinton's brother, Anthony Rodham, starting two months later. Clinton pardoned the Gregorys in March 2000 for bank fraud convictions going back to 1982. Without that pardon, United Shows (owned by the Gregorys) could not procure state contracts for handling carnivals. In May 2000, United Shows started issuing a series of loans to Rodham that eventually totalled $107,000, loans for which they never demanded payment and which Rodham never paid on his own. It was not until United Shows went into receivership that the loans came to light, and the receiver filed claims against Rodham for repayment of the $107,000, plus another $46,000 in interest.

United and the Gregorys never intended to demand repayment of the loans, which is why they never tried to collect on them. They dressed up on obvious payoff in return for their pardon, which Rodham championed with his sister and brother-in-law. If United had never gone into bankruptcy, the arrangement would never have come to light.

Now CQ has learned from a reader, Jim T, that Rodham was not the only recipient of the Gregorys' largesse. In fact, a search at Open Secrets shows that the Gregorys had sent $10,000 to Hillary's Senate campaign, about half of which came before the pardon. The entire Gregory clan appears to have participated in this enterprise. Edgar, Vonna Jo, Donald, Faith, and Jacqueline all contributed $1000 on 7/7/1999, eight months before Bill issued his pardon. All five donated the exact same amount -- thereby hitting the maximum amount by law -- on 10/5/2000.

Interestingly, the Gregorys all donated $1,000 to Bill Clinton's re-election bid in 1996, too. However, they haven't donated a penny since October 2000. Apparently, they got what they wanted out of the Clintons. It also appears that the Clintons and the Rodhams got what they wanted out of the Gregorys as well.

Judge: Jefferson Raid Completely Legal

The FBI raid on William Jefferson's Congressional offices did not violate the law, a federal judge has ruled, and denied an effort by Congress to force the FBI to return materials that they had subpoenaed earlier. Judge Thomas Hogan rejected arguments that such efforts constituted an offense against the balance of power and accused Congress of trying to turn Capitol Hill into a "sanctuary":

Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan said members of Congress are not above the law. He rejected requests from lawmakers and Democratic Rep. William Jefferson to return material seized by the FBI in a May 20-21 search of Jefferson's office.

In a 28-page opinion, Hogan dismissed arguments that the first-ever raid on a congressman's office violated the Constitution's protections against intimidation of elected officials.

Jefferson's theory of legislative privilege "would have the effect of converting every congressional office into a taxpayer-subsidized sanctuary for crime," the judge said.

Hogan acknowledged the "unprecedented" nature of the case but said "a Member of Congress is generally bound to the operation of the criminal laws as are ordinary persons."

Bravp, Judge Hogan! Western concepts of law and privilege have continuously evolved to make lawmakers more accountable for their actions, not less, and Hogan has added to almost a millenium of jurisprudence on this point. The efforts by Dennis Hastert and Nancy Pelosi to claim a legislative privilege against subpoenas and (especially) search warrants had no basis in law or political thought from the beginning. Now they both can have this harsh judgment sit on their records as public servants who thought somehow that they had a waiver from subpoenas and search warrants.

Hogan added some choice words for those seeking to carve out such an immunity for themselves:

"The power to determine the scope of one's own privilege is not available to any other person, including members of the co-equal branches of government: federal judges ... or the President of the United States," the judge said.

That's gonna leave a mark.

So what now? The materials seized by the FBI had been held in limbo by a presidential order until either the DoJ and Congress could reach an accommodation, or Hogan ruled on the lawsuit. Now that Hogan has shot it down and in such vivid terms, Congress could appeal -- but that does not mean that the President needs to extend his order keeping the material from investigators. The White House should now allow acccess to the confiscated records to the FBI so that they can perform their jobs and so that the investigation of Jefferson can proceed apace.

Will Congress appeal Hogan's decision? I would doubt it under normal conditions, but then again, I still find it difficult to believe that they were dumb enough to go in front of a federal judge and argue that the body which issues all sorts of subpoenas to officials in the executive branch every session should somehow have an immunity to subpoenas and search warrants duly sworn out and approved by -- federal judges! Hastert, Pelosi, James Sensenbrenner, and all of the rest who vented their outrage at having to comply with federal warrants probably will not learn either the legal or political lessons that Hogan's decision communicates.

And if they're that stupid, then God bless, them, let's hear what the 4th District Court Of Appeals has to say about it.

UPDATE: The opinion has even more tough language for Congress. Page 23 of the opinion:

If there is any threat to the separation of powers here, it is not from the execution of a search warrant by one co-equal branch of government upon another, after the independent approval of the third separate, and co-equal branch. Rather, the principle of the separation of powers is threatened by the position that the Legislative Branch enjoys the unilateral and unreviewable power to invoke an absolute privilege, thus making it immune from the ordinary criminal process of a validly issued search warrant. This theory would allow Members of Congress to frustrate investigations into non-legislative criminal activities for which the Speech or Debate Clause clearly provides no protection from prosecution.

That's going to leave a mark, too.

UPDATE: The judge emphasized the search warrant over the subpoena, and I adjusted my point above to emphasize that -- but let's not forget it all started with the subpoena that Jefferson ignored.

Gray Lady's Editors Continue Spinning For North Korea

The editorial board at the New York Times has published yet another editorial in which they strip the context from the diplomatic stalemate between North Korea and the rest of the six-party talks. At least they have begun to concede that the UN has nothing to offer in a confrontation between rational nations and a nutcase dictatorship:

The United Nations Security Council certainly should register international condemnation of last week's North Korean missile launches. But if any serious progress is going to be made on this and the related North Korean nuclear issue, it will not be through Security Council resolutions or sanctions.

There are only three countries with any real leverage — the United States, China and South Korea — and none are doing all they could to nudge North Korea onto a less provocative course. Until they do, Security Council resolutions will remain a largely symbolic sideshow.

So far, that isn't a bad analysis. However, we know where the allegation of foot-dragging against the US will lead, and the Gray Lady does not disappoint. It criticizes the Bush administration for not pursuing direct, bilateral talks with North Korea, the exact reaction that Kim Jong-Il desired from his missile tests:

The Bush administration should drop its reflexive opposition to direct talks. But before scheduling a meeting, Washington should call on North Korea to reinstate its moratorium on long-range missile tests and keep it in place for at least one year while talks on a permanent ban proceed.

Those direct talks should also include discussions on North Korea's nuclear weapons programs. Nearly a year ago, North Korea agreed in principle to give these up as part of an agreement with the United States, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea. Crucial details were never worked out because North Korea left the talks over unrelated banking sanctions the Bush administration announced last fall. Washington has refused to conduct direct negotiations on the banking sanctions.

For the second time in a week, the Times refuses to explain exactly what caused us to impose these "unrelated banking sanctions". They came from North Korea's insistence on conducting economic war on the United States by flooding the world market with US currency counterfeits that may have already totalled a billion dollars. As I explained after the editorial board's last dishonest entry on this subject, the Kim regime uses that money not only to gain much-needed (but fake) hard currency, but also to help fund terrorism and organized crime:

In fact, supernote distribution channels involve terrorists and criminals in Pyongyang's complex strategy to get hard currency and attack the dollar's value. The US has indicted the IRA's Sean Garland for distributing the supernotes. North Korea also used organized crime "families" to pass the counterfeits inside the US; a Chinese gang linked to North Korea got stung by the FBI in an operation called Royal Charm. The climax came at a fake wedding, where instead of limos to carry the guests to the reception, vans took them to prison instead.

Pyongyang also used a front company called Zokwang, a trading company, to launder their counterfeits through Banco Delta Asia in Macau. When the US found out about it, we blacklisted it and had the assets for Zokwang frozen. The bank itself has barely remained in business, with its legitimate international business all but gone. Zokwang disappeared from Macau, but reportedly still operates from China. After watching its money-laundering operation frozen, Kim broke off cooperation from the six-party talks. He wants to have those assets unfrozen and the bank allowed to operate once more through legitimate international channels, and refuses to re-engage until that happens.

In other words, Kim wants the proceeds from his counterfeiting ring back, as well as his money-laundering operation so that he can continue to dump millions more of these fake $100 supernotes into the world economy. He wants his Macau connection back on line so that he can continue to damage the US economically through counterfeiting operations.

North Korea will not return to the six-party talks unless we release their funds at the Macau bank -- funds that they printed themselves in their own counterfeiting ring -- and agree to allow them to continue the operation. The Times apparently endorses Kim's counterfeiting operation, since they blame George Bush for stopping the money laundering and the profit that Kim received from his efforts. That's why they deliberately skip over informing their readers for the second time of the entire context of the stalemate.

The Times has descended into a fundamentally dishonest media publication. They continually misinform their readers and show no compunction about doing so on multiple occasions just to undermine a President they don't like. This editorial and the one that preceded it are utterly indefensible.

Can Someone Put Adults In Charge Of Security?

Let's play a game, like Cops and Robbers but somewhat less complicated. (I never could memorize the Miranda rights declaration when I was a kid, and all my friends got released on technicalities.) We'll call this game Airport Security, where if you screw it up, a few hundred people can die a terrifying death. In this game, you're the security professional, and this is what you see:

[A] man with a Middle Eastern name and a ticket for a Delta Airlines flight to Atlanta shook his head when screeners asked if he had a laptop computer in his baggage, but an X-ray machine operator detected a laptop.

A search of the man's baggage revealed a clock with a 9-volt battery taped to it and a copy of the Quran, the report said. A screener examined the man's shoes and determined that the "entire soles of both shoes were gutted out."

No explosive material was detected ...[You're] unable to check the passenger's criminal background because of computer problems.

Now, what do you do? Keep the man from boarding his flight? Call the FBI to ensure that this man has no history of terrorism or does not appear on any watch lists? Not if you work for the TSA or the Houston police department, according to the Chronicle:

Houston police and the federal Transportation Security Administration disagree over who is responsible for allowing a man with what appeared to be bomb components board an aircraft at Hobby Airport last week. ...

A police officer was summoned and questioned the man, examined his identification, shoes and the clock, then cleared him for travel, according to the report.

A TSA screener disagreed with the officer, saying "the shoes had been tampered with and there were all the components of (a bomb) except the explosive itself," the report says.

The officer retorted, "I thought y'all were trained in this stuff," TSA officials reported.

We thought that both the TSA and the Houston police department had received enough training to stop someone this suspicious from boarding an airplane. The FBI says that they have cleared the traveler and that the incident wound up posing no danger to the flight, but either that turned out to be luck or the traveler was an American plant designed to test the system. Either way, the system failed in Houston.

Whenever anyone answers falsely at a security checkpoint, it should raise a red flag in a security officer's mind. If they see a significant modification of consumer electronics that makes no sense for its operation, that should raise another red flag. In this case, the Arabic surname and the Qu'ran are secondary issues; anyone who presents the first two issues should be held until they can get clearance through the FBI as to whether the passenger poses a threat. Arguing that a slow computer response alleviates them from this responsibility just means that the people involved do not have the appropriate understanding of their mission.

TSA and the Houston PD had better clean up its act. Any hole in any security procedure anywhere in the US puts the rest of us at risk. They should start by hiring adults who understand and take responsibility for their actions and their decisions

Hoekstra Scolds White House On Transparency

Pete Hoekstra, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, confirmed yesterday that his committee got briefed on a "significant" intelligence program only after a whistleblower revealed its outlines to Congress. The New York Times reports on Hoekstra's revelations:

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said Sunday that the Bush administration briefed the panel on a "significant" intelligence program only after a government whistle-blower alerted him to its existence and he pressed President Bush for details.

The chairman, Representative Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, wrote in a May 18 letter to Mr. Bush, first disclosed publicly on Saturday by The New York Times, that the administration's failure to notify his committee of this program and others could be a "violation of law."

Mr. Hoekstra expanded on his concerns in a television appearance on Sunday, saying that when the administration withholds information from Congress, "I take it very, very seriously." ...

"We can't be briefed on every little thing that they are doing," Mr. Hoekstra said in an interview on "Fox News Sunday." "But in this case, there was at least one major — what I consider significant — activity that we had not been briefed on that we have now been briefed on. And I want to set the standard there, that it is not optional for this president or any president or people in the executive community not to keep the intelligence committees fully informed of what they are doing."

In this case, Hoekstra could not be more correct. If the White House and the intel community had a major ongoing effort in the war on terror, they have to keep Congress notified -- if for no other reason than their own protection. One of the positive defenses that the Bush administration had for the NSA surveillance and SWIFT financial tracking programs is that Congressional leadership had been briefed on the efforts. After all, Congress represents the people's branch of the government; strictly speaking, the states elect the executive. Our representatives have to have the information necessary to keep the executive in check, even when that only means a small subset of Congress.

Whoever revealed this program did so properly, in accordance with the law. When people working within classified programs suspect that the operation does not comply with the law or with policy, they have other options than running to the press. In fact, Lichtblau undermines his previous efforts by noting this incident. It shows that whistleblowers can work directly with Congress to ensure proper oversight of the executive branch. When people opt to leak to the Lichtblaus and Risens of the world, it clearly has other motivations than simply legal compliance; those leaks come from political power plays and need to be stopped. The legally approved system clearly works, and we do not need our secrets splashed across the New York Times.

What next? Hoekstra may want to hold closed hearings with DNI John Negroponte to find out what else he doesn't know, and do so under oath to establish a perjury disincentive. Congress needs to establish that it must play a role and take some responsibility for the war on terror. If the White House breaks free of the siege mentality that all these leaks have caused, it will see the benefits of such an approach.

Tom Maguire has more analysis at Just One Minute.

The Butcher Of Beslan Bites It

The man who proudly proclaimed his responsibility for an atrocity that saw hundreds of Russian children murdered assumed room temperature earlier today. Chechen "warlord" (terrorist) Shamil Besayev died in a battle between his forces and the Russians in nearby Ingushetia:

FSB chief Nikolai Patrushev said on Monday that Basayev, who claimed responsibility for the 2004 Beslan school attack in which 331 people, half of them children, were killed, was planning an attack to coincide with Russia hosting the G8 summit of world leaders this weekend.

CNN's Matthew Chance said the killing was a massive victory for the security services and a huge blow for the rebel leadership.

Basayev, together with other Chechen fighters, was killed in Ingushetia, a region neighboring Chechnya, where rebels are battling for independence.

The CNN report includes a pretty good review of Basayev's career as a terrorist. He also claimed responsibility for a seizure of a Moscow theater with hundreds of hostages that wound up being caught on videotape and rebroadcast later as a gripping documentary. In that attack, a number of Chechen terrorists strapped explosives onto themselves, including some women. The Russians pumped a powerful anaesthetic into the auditorium, incapacitating everyone, but did not apply the antidote quickly enough. Over a hundred hostages, along with all of the terrorists, perished.

His death in Ingushetia belies his supposedly nationalist outlook. Basayev would never have been satisfied with a strictly Chechen resolution in the Caucasus. He wanted an Islamist takeover of the entire region. Basayev no more represented nationalism than David Koresh represented an effort for religious freedom. Basayev wanted to set the entire region on fire, which this map shows would have directly threatened Georgia and Azerbaijan, the latter of which already has enough of these troubles as it is. He had the capacity for a lot more death and destruction had he continued to live.

Now he has perished at the hands of the Russians, and the familes of those murdered children of Beslan can rest a little easier now. He managed to escape the justice he richly deserved, and died on the battlefield, a fate that gives his low character more cachet than it should. At least he's dead.

Japan Considers Pre-Emption

North Korea may have awoken the Japanese military impulse, this time in self-defense, with its missile launches. The Chief Cabinet Secretary announced that Tokyo would rethink the common interpretation of its constitution that restricts Japanese military action to self-defense in terms of a pre-emptive strike on any missiles Pyongyang stages in the future:

Japan said Monday it was considering whether a pre-emptive strike on the North's missile bases would violate its constitution, signaling a hardening stance ahead of a possible U.N. Security Council vote on Tokyo's proposal for sanctions against the regime.

Japan was badly rattled by North Korea's missile tests last week, and several government officials openly discussed whether the country ought to take steps to better defend itself, including setting up the legal framework to allow Tokyo to launch a pre-emptive strike against Northern missile sites.

"If we accept that there is no other option to prevent an attack ... there is the view that attacking the launch base of the guided missiles is within the constitutional right of self-defense. We need to deepen discussion," Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe said.

Japan's constitution bars the use of military force in settling international disputes and prohibits Japan from maintaining a military for warfare. Tokyo has interpreted that to mean it can have armed troops to protect itself, allowing the existence of its 240,000-strong Self-Defense Forces.

The AP notes that Japan does not have the type of weapons which would allow it to carry out a pre-emptive strike on missiles or launch sites -- at least not yet. Abe's announcement sends a signal that Japan may consider expanding its defensive military force to meet the new threat that North Korea insists on wielding in the region, and perhaps engage in an arms race with Pyongyang that Kim Jong-Il simply cannot afford.

More signals can be gleaned from this release as well. The UN Security Council will continue meeting to determine whether to impose sanctions on Kim's regime. Japan knows that China and Russia want to stall as long as possible before allowing sanctions of any kind to be imposed on its client state. However, China fears a remilitarized Japan. The Chinese have expanded their blue-water navy to attempt to control the western Pacific and to crowd the Americans out. If Japan determines that they need a massive naval expansion to deter Pyongyang, the Chinese will have to outpace two of the world's most productive Western economies -- and they will find that very difficult to do.

Abe wants to put pressure on Beijing with this announcement, not Pyongyang. Kim is too irrational to care about Tokyo; he has his eyes fixed on Washington. Hu Jintao operates on a more rational basis, however, and he will have a choice between propping up the North Korean nutcase or losing trillions of dollars to an arms race on which he had not counted. Japan wants Jintao to understand just how expensive Kim Jong-Il will become in the next few months and years unless Beijing puts a leash on their boy. (via It Shines For All, which has its own New York Sun link.)

UPDATE: Brant at SWLiP says the sake's on him.

Saddam's Lawyers Boycott Closing Arguments

Closing arguments began today in the trial of Saddam Hussein and six other regime officials, where the defendants face 148 counts of murder and other assorted crimes for the Dujail wipeout. Only one defendant and attorney attended the session, as the rest boycotted over supposed security concerns, including Saddam himself:

The defense began closing arguments in the trial of Saddam Hussein on Monday, but most of the lawyers boycotted the court because of the slaying last month of an attorney for the former Iraqi leader. ...

The lawyers for Saddam and three of his top co-defendants were not present, and one of them told The Associated Press that they were boycotting the court until better security was put in place and other demands were met.

"Everyone is afraid," Najib al-Nueimi said from Qatar. "We will not attend until our conditions are met."

He said that besides better security, the defense wanted the trial adjourned to allow them time to prepare their final arguments, saying al-Obeidi's death and security fears had distracted them from the case.

The lawyers have some reason for concern, obviously, but it seems a little late to request further adjournments and delays. They have already completed the evidence phases; the attorneys have only to deliver closing arguments and summations, a process that should follow naturally enough from the evidence phases. Besides, the attorneys did not get assigned to defend one of the most repugnant dictators of the last half-century against their will. They jumped at the chance, and should have understood the risks involved.

Iraqis have waited long enough to see justice prevail over their former oppressors. Judge Abdel Rahman has done a marvelous job in keeping the circus to a dull roar and ensuring that the focus stays on the real victims of Dujail and Iraq as a whole. Despite this publicity stunt and attempt to hold the court hostage, it looks like Abdel Rahman will order the trial to proceed with or without closing arguments from the defendants and their legal team. That's the right call. The days when Saddam could hijack justice and manipulate the organs of the Iraqi government to his will died in a spider hole in December 2003, even if Saddam himself did not.

Understanding The Palestinian Death Wish

Barry Rubin attempts to explain to Westerners the reasons why our efforts to deal with the Palestinians on a rational basis have no hope of success. The West offers incentives that have no traction in the Palestinian culture, Rubin tells us, and until we learn that we will never discover that the Palestinians fight because they cannot accept reality:

The things many in the West think motivates Palestinians - getting a state, ending the occupation - are of no interest in their own right. Indeed, the only way to maintain the pretense is a combination of amnesia and abandoning of the kind of rational analysis used to view any other political situation in the world. ...

HERE ARE the basic points for understanding Palestinian politics:

There are hardly any moderate Palestinians in public life and even those few generally keep their mouths shut, or echo the militant majority. With few exceptions - countable on your fingers - a Palestinian moderate in practice can usually be defined as someone who apologizes for terrorism in good English. The mantra of "helping the moderates" cannot work under these conditions.

Fatah and PLO strategy rests on the belief that defeat is staved off as long as you keep fighting. Their only true victory is to continue the struggle. Of course, the cost of this is not only violence, suffering and disruption, but also a failure to achieve anything material.

This is why the "cycle of violence" concept is useless. Palestinians don't attack Israel because Israel attacks them, but because that is their sole program.

This makes more sense when one reviews the long history of Western engagement in attempting to reach a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. When Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat 95% of the territory he demanded for a Palestinian state, Western leaders thought that Bill Clinton achieved a major breakthrough. Clinton could not be faulted for thinking so; a string of American presidents had pressed Israel into returning the West Bank and Gaza in exchange for peace, and Clinton had finally succeeded in making it happen.

Of course, Arafat turned it down. Why? Because the deal gave him what he demanded, but not what he wanted. His answer to the Israeli offer came in the form of two intifadas, while Europe continued to castigate the Israelis for their continuing oppression of the Palestinians who terrorized them.

Last year, Ariel Sharon decided to give back Gaza unilaterally. The disengagement gave the Palestinians their own territory to govern, and it solved a tough military problem for the IDF in protecting the few thousand settlers among over a million Palestinians. One would have expected the Palestinians to celebrate and establish their own governance of the territory, especially since the Israelis gave back all of it. What happened? They complained that the Israelis left without negotiating for Gaza's return, and then paid them back by using Gaza as a launching pad for hundreds of rocket strikes. In the meantime, the Palestinians did nothing to maintain civil control of Gaza.

They do not want peace. They want Israel. Nothing short of that will satisfy the Palestinians, and all of the talk in the world will do not one whit of good until they understand that we will not allow them to destroy Israel, and of course neither will the Israelis.

This, as Rubin explains, is why the Palestinians do not care about economic development or rational self-government. Hamas, Fatah, and Islamic Jihad emulate the Middle Eastern kleptocracies to the extent that they continue to keep their people poor and radicalized, ready to martyr themselves rather than live peacefully in prosperity. The Palestinians themselves support these leaders because they give them what they want -- a purpose in life and especially in death: the destruction of Israel and death to the Jews.

The West needs to shut down the negotiating process and allow Israel to defend itself. No one in the Palestinian political structure has any interest in peaceful co-existence with Israel. If they did suddenly endorse it, the Palestinians would realize how badly they have been led for decades and would probably rise up and kill them, and still would take another generation to figure out that their misery comes from their own bad decisions. Our interference in that process only delays the eventual epiphany.

This Race Brought To You By Texas Democrats

Thanks to an ill-considered lawsuit by Texas Democrats, Tom DeLay may wind up running for office to regain the seat he just resigned in Congress:

A source close to the ex-Congressman tells TIME that DeLay is planning an aggressive campaign to retake the House seat he quit in June if an appeals court lets stand a ruling by a federal judge last week that his name must stay on November's ballot—even though he has moved to Virginia.

"If it isn't overturned, Katy bar the door!" says a G.O.P. official. "Guess he'll have to fire up the engines on the campaign and let 'er rip."

The Democrats sued to keep DeLay's name on the Texas ballot after his resignation, reversing the stance they took with Frank Lautenberg after Robert Torricelli had to resign for ethics violations. Back then, in 2002, the Democrats sued to get Torricelli's name off the ballot, claiming that refusing to allow Lautenberg to replace the Torch on the ballot stripped New Jersey voters of a real choice in the election. Their argument of the reverse in Texas puts them in the cynical position of claiming that democracy has less value in Texas than the Garden State -- or just revealing themselves as hypocrites.

It may cost them this time. No one expected DeLay to contest for the seat again; the Democrats just assumed that he would fade away, allowing them to take the seat cheaply. However, the Hammer has rarely faded away on any issue or challenge, and the crass opportunistic tactic that the Democrats used in Texas seems to have fired him up for battle once more. Instead of facing an unknown Republican in the race, Nick Lampson will have to take on one of Texas' most successful politicians, coming off of a vindicating win at the Supreme Court for his redistricting efforts.

If the Democrats lose this seat, they have no one to blame but themselves. They had an opportunity to have a rookie go up against a former Congressman in a race that may have allowed them a high-profile gain. Now they have reinvigorated DeLay into action, and even worse, drafted him themselves back into the race. After all, it will be difficult to argue that he represents a "culture of corruption" when they sued to ensure that he ran again. If DeLay truly is that bad, why did they go to court to force Texans to consider him for the job?

Presidential Pardons And Presidential Connections

Another of Bill Clinton's presidential pardons has been shown to have financial connections to the Clinton family. The Washington Times reports that Anthony Rodham, Hillary Clinton's brother, got six-figure "loans" on which he never made payments from a company whose owners got pardoned for bank fraud:

Anthony D. Rodham, one of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's two brothers, got the loans from United Shows of America Inc. after its owners obtained the presidential pardon in March 2000 over the objections of the Justice Department.

Michael E. Collins, trustee for United Shows, filed papers in Alexandria bankruptcy court seeking the return of $107,000 plus $46,034 in interest from Mr. Rodham, 51, for the loans he received from the carnival company, which went bankrupt in 2002.

Mr. Rodham "received the benefit of the loans without making any repayment," reads a related document filed last year in bankruptcy court in Nashville, Tenn. ...

According to bankruptcy court records, Tony Rodham began to receive the loan checks on May 10, 2000. The final loan of $2,500 was made on Feb. 12, 2002, about six months before United Shows filed for bankruptcy protection.

The timeline seems especially damning in this case. Bill Clinton issues a pardon for the Gregorys in March 2000. Two months later, Anthony Rodham begins collecting checks from the company owned by the Gregorys. Over the next 20 months, Rodham gets 16 checks, all marked as loans as cover for the disbursements on United Show's books, until it totals $107,000. Rodham never makes a payment on these loans, and six months later, United Shows files for bankruptcy, leaving its creditors high and dry -- but not Rodham.

We have often excoriated public officials of both parties for receiving money from lobbyists and contributors concurrently with pushing legislation on their behalf. This is much worse than that. The President overruled his Department of Justice and provided presidential pardons for two people who robbed banks and their depositors through fraud, and two months later the same two people started sending money to the President's brother-in-law, laundered through their company as "loans" without ever seeking repayment.

By any definition, that is a quid pro quo payoff. Clinton had no pressing reason to issue the pardon except to make it easier for the Gregorys to win government contracts. The DoJ did not want them pardoned, and the pair were already out of prison. One can ask for no clearer indication that the Clinton administration had a fire sale on presidential pardons, and made sure that the money stayed in the family.

Hillary Clinton needs to answer for this. It involves her brother and her husband, and the family business in presidential pardons can be expected to have a grand re-opening if Hillary wins the presidential election in 2008. George Bush cannot allow this obvious corruption to go uninvestigated, and if the facts bear it out, Bill Clinton and Anthony Rodham should face prosecution for corruption.

Will Comedy Central Let South Park Out Of The Closet?

Ever since South Park aired its "Trapped In The Closet" episode last November, the masters at Comedy Central and its parent company Viacom have kept the Scientology-bashing entry off the air. The episode created even more controversy when Isaac Hayes, the voice of Chef, quit the show in protest over the entry months after it originally appeared on Comedy Central. Now, however, the Viacom subsidiary may be forced to change its policy after the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences intervened in an unexpected manner:

One of the Emmy nominees for best animated program is the episode of “South Park” that’s said to have angered Tom Cruise and Isaac Hayes.

The episode called “Trapped in the Closet” implies that Cruise is gay and makes fun of Scientology.

Cruise’s fellow Scientologist Isaac Hayes reportedly quit because he was upset with the episode. And when it came time to rerun it, Cruise allegedly called Comedy Central and demanded that it be pulled. It was, even though Cruise’s people denied he asked for it.

I missed this story when it broke last Thursday, mostly because no one covered it in the media. Given the inroads Scientology has made in Hollywood, the fact that "Trapped" got nominated at all seems rather shocking. It faces off against episodes of The Simpsons and Family Guy as well as a couple of Cartoon Network shows. I doubt that it will win, given Hollywood politics in general and the antics in the show itself -- but then again, it managed to win a nomination despite all of that.

Comedy Central now has a major decision on its hands. It doesn't want to put "Trapped" back in the rotation -- but how can it justify keeping it off the air when it received an Emmy nomination? ATAS voters will want to watch the episode in order to make their selection, and Emmy watchers will want another look at it as well. Comedy Central can expect to get renewed attention and added viewers with this recognition -- and a lot of questions if they continue to embargo the nominated episode from further viewing.

Keep your eyes peeled for the upcoming schedule. I predict that "Trapped" might finally make it out of the closet.

ADDENDUM: In my opinion, Comedy Central will restore "Trapped" in the rotation. For a commercial network, they've shown remarkable courage in their programming overall. I've had my criticisms, but considering the political climate in today's entertainment community, the fact that they even air South Park is commendable.

Can The US Get Sanctions On Pyongyang?

Nicholas Burns, the Undersecretary of State, told Meet The Press that the US has enough support on the Security Council to get sanctions applied to North Korea as long as China doesn't issue a veto. However, Lindsay Graham warned that the US would start consider modifying its relationship to Beijing if the Chinese don't start applying its leverage to rein in Kim Jong-Il:

The Bush administration on Sunday said it had the votes in the U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions against North Korea's nuclear missile program and urged China to use its influence to get Pyongyang back to the negotiating table.

"We think we've got the votes to pass that," Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said on NBC's "Meet the Press" television program. ...

Burns said the United States did not have any assurances from China it would not use its veto of U.N. sanctions.

"I don't think we've heard the last word from China. I'm not sure the Chinese have figured out exactly what they're going to do. It may depend on what the Chinese hear in Pyongyang from the North Korean leadership," he said.

One U.S. lawmaker warned China that it could face cooler ties with the United States if it does not take a tougher stance on North Korea.

"The Chinese are the key to this," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican. "If they don't really come to the table harder with North Korea, they're going to be hanging by a thread in terms of international diplomatic policy."

Burns also expressed impatience with Beijing. Noting that the Chinese have finally sent a high-level delegation to Pyongyang to address the crisis, he told Fox News (in an interview which will air later today) that "it's time" for China to start putting a little muscle into the efforts to get Kim to de-escalate and start nuclear disarmament. The Bush administration has not expressed this level of frustration with China before, preferring to remain on friendly terms while China takes slow steps towards modernization and even market-based economic policies.

If Kim disappeared, we could probably afford to take the long view with China, which has the capacity to transform itself into a threat many orders of magnitude larger than anything Kim could achieve. Unfortunately, the North Korean nutcase keeps pushing the region from one crisis to another, all the while impoverishing his people to the extent that even China seems like a cornucopia by comparison. We cannot wait for China to figure out that state-controlled economies and single-party autocracies eventually fail in order to transform it into an ally of liberty and democracy. We need them to apply leverage now to avoid a war on the Korean peninsula.

How best to do that? Burns has the right idea, and Graham's support helps. We need to communicate our displeasure at the foot-dragging that Beijing has done so far, but in subtle diplomatic messages as Burns did today. If we can avoid public confrontation, Beijing will get the message. If they do not respond quickly (although it looks like they may already have), then we can again apply pressure both in Congress and through the State Department. Congress can start a review of China's trade status while the State Department continues talks with Japan on escalating their military reach. The Chinese will get the message rather quickly.

Oddly, Reuters never mentions the Russians. Apparently Burns has no worries about a Russian veto at the UNSC. It sounds like he has already taken care of that possibility.

Er, What Resumé? (Updated)

Leave it to Newsweek to burnish the reputation of a single-term politician with no legislative record whatsoever to report that the presidential candidate has a "retooled resumé". John Edwards has hit the presidential campaign trail again, making him perhaps the only politician in US history to have twice as many runs at the presidency as terms in any electoral office:

It's Friday night in Iowa and an old politician is trying some new tricks. John Edwards is back—back, with the familiar deep drawl, dark tan and honeyed hair. Gone, though, are the old catchphrases—"two Americas" and "hope is on the way." In their place: a long meditation on America's moral obligation to confront the plight of its poor. "Thirty-seven million of our people, worried about feeding and clothing their children," he said to his audience. "Aren't we better than that?" It's not the stuff of great sound bites, but it's part of Edwards's new political plan: a presidential campaign with fighting poverty as a central plank. It's a risky strategy in today's Democratic Party—Edwards may be the most viable national candidate since Bobby Kennedy to tie his destiny to a fight for the destitute. "Yeah, I heard all that stuff: 'Who cares?' or 'It's a dead end'," Edwards tells NEWSWEEK. "Well, it's what I want to do."

Rebel outsider is an odd role for the Democratic Party's most recent vice presidential candidate to play. Yet Edwards's 2008 presidential campaign—still hypothetical but proceeding at high speed—is all about breaking with the established script. He's largely opted out of the buzz primary—leaving candidates like former Virginia governor Mark Warner and Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh to convince Beltway insiders and media types that they're the best alternatives to front runner Hillary Clinton. Instead, he's using the name recognition he built up in '04 and hitting the campaign trail early and often—quietly raising $6.5 million in 105 appearances for Democrats running in 2006.

"Rebel outsider" is a ridiculous role for John Edwards. The single-term Senator got the Vice Presidential nod largely on the basis of his looks and the utter lack of any legislative record in the Senate. Even calling him a single-term Senator overstates his record; he spent the entire last third of his term running for President and later VP, hardly attending sessions of Congress at all. Edwards won the hearts of Democratic kingmakers because he looked young, spoke well, and made John Kerry's record of a Senate dilettante look good by comparison. Now he wants to run again for the Presidency when his own state would have sent him home from the Senate had he run for re-election, and offers the same tired platitudes about poverty as he did the first time around.

Let's talk about poverty. Where did John Edwards get his numbers? The US Census Bureau has a ready table on poverty and near-poverty, and the number 37 million has no relation to those below the poverty line. (See update -- I'm wrong on this point.) If his basis is worry, well, that tells us nothing; what parent doesn't worry about putting food on the table and clothes on the children, except for rich personal-injury attorneys? That threshold is meaningless.

The real numbers tell a more interesting story. The percentage of people in poverty and near-poverty (125% of the poverty line) has actually decreased over the last 15 years. Even in real numbers, the highest number of people in near-poverty or worse came in 1992 (19.7%), 1993 (20%), and 1994 (19.3%), topping 50 million in each year. Interestingly, the percentage of people actually below the poverty line has remained almost constant over that entire period. Here are all percentages:

In fact, from what we see in this progression, economic expansion is the greatest tool in the war on poverty. We saw the same numbers in the 1980s (check the link), where poverty and especially near-poverty rose and fell depending on the growth in GDP and the overall health of the economy. In the 1990s, this trend got a boost from welfare reform, which hit in the mid-1990s along with an economic expansion.

If John Edwards wants to solve poverty, he can begin by cutting government spending, reducing bureaucratic overhead on private enterprise (starting with Sarbanes-Oxley), and introducing more free-market approaches, rather than the tired, failed top-down government programs that the Democrats have espoused since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society promised to end poverty in America. First, however, John Edwards might want to actually have something on his retooled resumé other than ambulance chaser and empty suit.

UPDATE, 7/11/06: No, I'm wrong and Edwards is right about the 37 million. Thanks to Commander Bob for the correction, even if it was a bit rude. The first column shows everyone below 125% of the poverty line; the second shows the gap between 100% and 125%. The difference is 37 million. My mistake, and I apologize for it.

However, the number of people in poverty still peaked thirteen years ago, even on a full-number number basis. Those who claim that more people are poor now either can't read or has worse math skills than I did on Sunday.

Tom Maguire Destroys The Times And The Post

I had looked forward to blogging about two stories this morning on a letter sent to the White House by House Intelligence Committee Chairman by the New York Times and the Washington Post. In the letter, Peter Hoekstra complains that the Bush administration has not kept his committee briefed on national-security strategies and operations in the manner prescribed by law, and he wants a better accounting from the intel community.

Interestingly enough, this came up at the same time that General Michael Hayden's nomination for CIA Director came to the Senate, along with the nomination of Stephen Kappes for DDO. In fact, the Times never mentioned one of the themes of Hoekstra's letter and his frustration with the intel community more than the White House. Now, I had a full head of steam on talking about this, but the always-excellent Tom Maguire beat me to it -- and it's hard to top his analysis and research in this omnibus post:

The NY Times yesterday featured a Lichtblau-Shane story centered around a once-confidential letter to President Bush from Peter Hoekstra, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Here is the Times lead, but stay with me, since they buried a great tidbit:

In a sharply worded letter to President Bush in May, an important Congressional ally charged that the administration might have violated the law by failing to inform Congress of some secret intelligence programs and risked losing Republican support on national security matters.

The letter from Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, did not specify the intelligence activities that he believed had been hidden from Congress.

But Mr. Hoekstra, who was briefed on and supported the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program and the Treasury Department's tracking of international banking transactions, clearly was referring to programs that have not been publicly revealed.

Yeah, yeah. But the Times also offers a .pdf of the letter itself, which includes this (my typing, and emphasis added) on the topic of Bush's decision to bring back Steve Kappes as Deputy Director of the CIA:

I understand that Mr. Kappes is a capable, well-qualified, and well-liked former Directorate of Operations (DO) case officer. I am heartened by the professional qualities he would bring to the job, but concerned by what could be the political problems that he could bring back to the agency. There has been much public and private speculation about the politicization of the Agency. I am convinced that this politicization was underway well before Porter Goss became the Director. In fact, I have long been convinced that a strong and well-positioned group within the Agency intentionally undermined the Administration and its policies. This argument is supported by the Ambassador Wilson/Valerie Plame events, as well as by the string of unauthorized disclosures from an organization that prides itself with being able to keep secrets. I have come to the belief that, despite his service to the DO, Mr. Kappes may have been a part of this group. I must take note when my Democratic colleagues - those who so vehemently denounced and now publicly attacked the strong choice of Porter Goss as Director - now publicly support Mr. Kappes’s return.

Tom picks up on something that I missed on my reading of these two articles and the letter. My analysis ran to the simpler notion that the Times buried the criticism of Kappes because of his association with the long-known faction within the CIA that has consistently resisted direction from the elected officials of this country, a problem regardless of which party holds power. Our system is based on civilian control of the government in all its facets through elections, and that means that the people we elect make policy. I also thought that maybe the Times didn't want to make its source and one-time columnist, Joe Wilson, look bad by showing the contempt that the HIC has for him.

However, Tom sees something entirely different in the Times' gloss-over. He sees (and I wish I'd caught this) Hoekstra accusing Kappes of being one of the leakers at the CIA, presumably to the Times. Why wouldn't the Times include this as part of their report? Perhaps because they want to protect their source.

Read all of Tom's post, and note how the Washington Post manages to slip the word "domestic" into the report where it doesn't belong and isn't appropriate.