He's Not Ronery

That hot North Korean studmonkey, Kim Jong-Il, tied the knot with his secretary, according to a South Korean wire service. Kim's previous wife died two years ago, and Kim Ok has apparently filled the gap in the dictator's private life:

North Korean leader Kim Jong-il has taken his former secretary as his new wife, South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported on Sunday, citing sources familiar with the country.

His wife Ko Yong-hi, the mother of two of Kim's three sons, died of breast cancer in August 2004, the agency said.

"I heard Kim has been living together with a woman named Kim Ok, who was his secretary, since Ko Yong-hi died two years ago," Yonhap quoted a South Korean government source as saying.

I have to believe it's all an American plot to calm the tensions on the Korean peninsula. The DoD probably thought Kim's fascination with missiles had some deeply Freudian overtones and played Yenta in Pyongyang.

Maybe now that he has a more constructive outlet for his, er, passions, he could skip the whole "burning the whole region into cinders" thing. You think?

A 'Continuum Of Civilianality'?

Alan Dershowitz has made a career out of his contrarian rhetoric. Usually a firebrand liberal, he caused a huge controversy -- and enjoyed it -- when he suggested after 9/11 that torture may have some necessity in the fight against Islamofascist terrorists. He continued challenging conventional wisdom today in a Los Angeles Times column that called into question the status of civilians in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories:

THE NEWS IS filled these days with reports of civilian casualties, comparative civilian body counts and criticism of Israel, along with Hezbollah, for causing the deaths, injuries and "collective punishment" of civilians. But just who is a "civilian" in the age of terrorism, when militants don't wear uniforms, don't belong to regular armies and easily blend into civilian populations?

We need a new vocabulary to reflect the realities of modern warfare. A new phrase should be introduced into the reporting and analysis of current events in the Middle East: "the continuum of civilianality." Though cumbersome, this concept aptly captures the reality and nuance of warfare today and provides a more fair way to describe those who are killed, wounded and punished.

There is a vast difference — both moral and legal — between a 2-year-old who is killed by an enemy rocket and a 30-year-old civilian who has allowed his house to be used to store Katyusha rockets. Both are technically civilians, but the former is far more innocent than the latter. There is also a difference between a civilian who merely favors or even votes for a terrorist group and one who provides financial or other material support for terrorism.

Finally, there is a difference between civilians who are held hostage against their will by terrorists who use them as involuntary human shields, and civilians who voluntarily place themselves in harm's way in order to protect terrorists from enemy fire.

I suspect that Professor Dershowitz will have some problems with his usual philosophical and political allies with this argument, although he certainly makes a good point. Most wars do not have bright delineation between civilians and combatants. In Eastern Europe, partisans abounded throughout the areas dominated by the Nazis, some of whom did a lot of damage to German military personnel. Their standard response was to conduct reprisals to the civilians they claimed supported the partisans, usually on a 10-1 basis for German casualties. The nadir of this policy came in the Czechoslovakian village of Lidice after the assassination of Reinhold "Hangman" Heydrich, the original author of the Final Solution and a brutal SS leader. The Nazis killed all of the men in the village, sent most of the women into labor camps, dispersed the children, and razed the town to the dust.

However, Dershowitz is not discussing reprisals against unarmed civilians, which are rightly war crimes. He wants a distinction made between civilians killed in the course of battles as to their involvement with the engagement, especially in terms of terrorist attacks. That sounds good in theory, and one could easily apply the same concept in Iraq -- where many of those killed during battles harbored insurgents, if not actively assisted them in targeting Americans or other Iraqis. One could also apply the same thought process in Afghanistan, and pretty much any place where terrorists stage attacks that get military responses.

In practice, however, it becomes much more difficult to do. One cannot interrogate dead people, and the bombs tend to destroy most of the evidence along with the civilians. Witnesses, such as neighbors and family, tend to see their loved ones as complete victims. It would be hard to imagine a Lebanese woman telling CNN that her dead husband often helped Hezbollah move arms or ammunition and therefore his death was justified.

Dershowitz obviously understands this. What he wants is the media to recognize the "continuum of civilianality" when reporting on war in general, and the Israeli conflicts specifically. I would find it helpful if the media remembered that the reason Israel attacks residential areas is because Hezbollah hides its operations in those areas to keep Israel from attacking them. That doesn't reflect on the status of the civilians in the area; it puts the blame on the casualties on the correct party -- the ones who base their attacks and hide their command and control positions among civilians.

His point about the complicity of civilians in these attacks should be well taken, although I doubt they will get much support. The better policy would be to focus on which party of the war attempts to minimize civilian casualties, and which sidem deliberately targets them for their own political purposes. The media should report more on which side wears uniforms and acts distinctly from civilian populations, and which side wears mufti and deliberately uses civilian populations as shields against counterattacks. That way when civilian deaths get discussed, we can have some moral clarity on which side gets the blame for it.

Heritage Blog Arrival

I've begun posting at the Heritage Foundation Policy Blog, and have two new posts there on budgetary issues. The first post reviews a paper written by Brian Riedl and Baker Spring, showing that four years after the war, Congress still appropriates for the war as if they didn't know it existed. We need to stop funding war efforts through emergency appropriations, which as we saw this session, create too many opportunities for pork-barrel mischief.

The second paper I highlighted at Heritage rethinks the entire process of attacking unnecessary spending. Brian Riedl and Michelle Muccio have an inspired idea about how to gain political clout through the bundling of spending reductions, gathering enough programs to jettison so that the sum of the expenditures excites enough passion to overwhelm the natural constituencies of the programs themselves. It sounds impossible, but Riedl and Muccio show how the BRAC process did just that -- and saved the Department of Defense billions of dollars.

We're coming up to the summer recess for Congress, and afterwards the budget will be front and center. We're going to spend Congress' vacation showing them how to do their jobs, and hopefully we can save Americans a significant amount of money. Stay tuned -- and if you want to keep track of my posts at Heritage, bookmark this link. I'll have the blog listed on the right sidebar shortly.

Palestinians Reduce Number Of Israeli Fronts?

This development seems pretty strange, considering the opportunity for mischief the Palestinians have at the moment, but the major terrorist groups have announced a cease-fire in the territories:

Palestinian factions agreed to a cessation of Qassam rocket launching at Israel from Gaza. The decision was reached following a Hamas initiative and in anticipated to come into play at midnight Saturday.

That having been said, a number of militant groups already announced that they will not honor such an agreement.

So far, Fox News has reported this on their radio feed and Ynet on the wires, but no other agency has broadcast any more details. If this turns out to be true, it's a major slap in the face to Hezbollah and to their Syrian patrons. It might signal a split among Hamas factions in the territories and the terrorist leadership in Damascus, which would absolutely want Israel to fight a two-front war, if not more.

We'll keep an eye on this as it develops.

UPDATE: The agreement came out of meetings sponsored by Mahmoud Abbas and Ismail Haniyeh, and the AP reports that it included several groups, including Islamic Jihad. However, the memo did not get down to the terorists in the field:

The agreement was reached in Gaza City following meetings sponsored by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh aimed at finding a way out of the crisis in Gaza, the officials said. Several Palestinian militant groups attended, including Haniyeh's Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which have been blamed for many of the rocket attacks on southern Israel, the officials said on condition of anonymously because the agreement was reached at a closed meeting.

But two guerrilla groups said no agreement had been reached.

Abu Kosai, a spokesman for the Al Aqsa Brigades, said: "This report is baseless. We are going to continue launching our rockets toward the Zionist communities as long as the aggression continues. As long as the aggression exists, it's our right to respond."

He also said, "We made contacts with all our brothers who are working in the military field who knew nothing about this report and this agreement."

Abu Ahmed, a spokesman for Islamic Jihad, said: "This is a completely false report. Resistance will continue because the aggression exists and rockets are one of the tools we use in this resistance."

Sounds like another swing at the Palestinian Triangle Offense^TM.

Lend-Lease Reappears In 2006

America has started to expedite the shipment of munitions to Israel, according to the New York Times, in order to maintain Israeli stocks as they continue to pound Hezbollah positions in Lebanon:

The Bush administration is rushing a delivery of precision-guided bombs to Israel, which requested the expedited shipment last week after beginning its air campaign against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, American officials said Friday.

The decision to quickly ship the weapons to Israel was made with relatively little debate within the Bush administration, the officials said. Its disclosure threatens to anger Arab governments and others because of the appearance that the United States is actively aiding the Israeli bombing campaign in a way that could be compared to Iran’s efforts to arm and resupply Hezbollah.

The munitions that the United States is sending to Israel are part of a multimillion-dollar arms sale package approved last year that Israel is able to draw on as needed, the officials said. But Israel’s request for expedited delivery of the satellite and laser-guided bombs was described as unusual by some military officers, and as an indication that Israel still had a long list of targets in Lebanon to strike.

No surprises in this story; the US has provided the same munitions to Israel for decades, and the request to speed delivery makes sense in the current, active situation. Israel has shot off a lot of munitions in the last ten days, and wartime requires rapid resupply. The entire world knows that we are Israel's biggest supplier; we are still known as the arsenal of democracy, after all.

The Times says that this news will get a cold reception in Arab capitals, and that much is probably true, but those governments know of our relationship with Israel already. I doubt that the expedited delivery schedule will either surprise them or cause much more dismay. That sounds more like spin from David S Cloud and Helene Cooper, an attempt to embarrass the Bush administration for following a decades-old military policy with Israel. If we sell them the bombs, missiles, and shells in the first place, why wouldn't we agree to speed up delivery when Israel finds itself at war? And why, exactly, would Arab governments find this surprising?

Some bloggers have picked up on this particular allegation in order to scold the Times from reporting on this story. I disagree in this particular instance, although they certainly have a point on other reporting that the Times has done in the past. In this case, the reporters revealed no covert tactics or secret alliances that would not survive exposure. This reflects foreign policy, and it belongs in the public sphere. It actually reports next to nothing of substance, and if anything, just underscores the Bush administration's solid support of Israel. The White House understands that our war on terrorism includes groups like Hezbollah, and the damage that Israel does now makes our fight easier.

Their report of Condoleezza Rice's statement also strengthens the perception of Bush's support of Israel. Earlier reports had Rice traveling to the Middle East to work out a cease-fire, but the Times makes clear that she will not pressure Israel to stop:

“I have no interest in diplomacy for the sake of returning Lebanon and Israel to the status quo ante,” Ms. Rice said Friday. “I could have gotten on a plane and rushed over and started shuttling around, and it wouldn’t have been clear what I was shuttling to do.”

A return to status quo ante cannot be allowed to occur. If the region is to have peace, groups like Hezbollah and Hamas must be dismantled, by force if necessary, especially when they conduct attacks as they have both done this past month. The US, in these actions, make clear that we want changes on the ground before we consider 'reining in' the Israelis.

Northern Alliance Radio Today

Once again, the Northern Alliance Radio Network returns to the airwaves at AM 1280 The Patriot. The first half of the show features Chad and Brian from Fraters Libertas and John from Power Line at 11 am CT. Mitch joins me at 1 pm CT; King is traveling in Mongolia and will not be with us. We'll be talking about all of the events in the past week, including my vist with Karl Rove, which will cover information not included in my post from yesterday (as Hugh Hewitt surmised).

Be sure to tune in, or catch the Internet stream at the station's web site or through Townhall's link. Call us and join the conversation at 651-289-4488!

Bolton Redux

The surprise reversal of Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) on John Bolton's performance at the UN prompted the White House to resubmit his nomination to the Senate for confirmation. With all of the trouble occurring in the Middle East and the ongoing failure of the UN to seriously reform itself, one would normally expect the Democrats to avoid the obvious political trap of obstructionism and allow the Senate to quietly confirm Bolton. However, Joe Biden has never let common sense dictate his actions, and he appears poised to snatch defeat from the jaws of apathy:

Senate Republicans on Friday set a date for a confirmation hearing on John R. Bolton, who is serving as United States ambassador to the United Nations on a presidential appointment, as the White House renewed its effort to secure Senate approval of Mr. Bolton’s appointment.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee announced that it would hold a hearing Thursday, and top Senate Republicans said they would move quickly to confirm Mr. Bolton. ...

A spokesman for Senator Richard G. Lugar, the Indiana Republican and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said the Senate would probably vote on Mr. Bolton in September, after its summer recess.

Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said Thursday that the Senate should not vote on Mr. Bolton unless the White House turns over documents that the Democrats sought last year.

Biden wants to run for President again in 2008, and must think that blind obstructionism will grant him enough notoriety to boost his chances against Hillary Clinton. However, Biden shows that he has remained stuck in 2005. Opposing Bolton before he actually took the job had some intellectual basis; one could argue that he would prove himself incompetent and therefore should not receive confirmation.

Unfortunately for Biden, Bolton has performed masterfully in his tenure as US ambassador to the UN. He has demanded reform, spoken plainly about the lack of real progress in this regard, and yet has not alienated any nation through impolitic speech. He has worked hard to coordinate with the various democracies to pressure Kofi Annan into true reform. Lately, of course, his has been a voice of common sense regarding Israel, Lebanon, and Hezbollah. While Annan calls for cease-fires as magic solutions, it fell to Bolton to remind the world that terrorists do not recognize or honor cease fires, and that all Hezbollah and Lebanon had to do to end the military responses to their act of war was to return the two abducted soldiers and stop firing missiles at Israeli civilians.

Bolton has shown none of the supposedly abusive behavior of which Senate Democrats accused him. Biden wants to reopen that entire debate by demanding paperwork that does not relate to Bolton's appointment once again, this time after Bolton has already proven his worth in the position. Biden would rather have no US voice in the UN at this critical juncture than to recognize that his caucus had Bolton completely wrong the last time around.

What kind of Senator would want that result? What kind of Presidential candidate would campaign on the basis of supporting the UN but blocking the administration's representative to it during this time of crisis? Biden once again shows that he lacks the capacity for his current position, let alone the Presidency, both in intellect and in honesty.

Don't expect too many of his caucus to attempt to force a filibuster to block Bolton. This time around, they will only expose themselves as obstructionists, dangerous obstructionists in a time of war. Bolton has already shown them up once, and the Democrats would be well advised to avoid it a second time.

Israelis Capture Maroun al-Ras

Israel conducted its first major incursion into Lebanon today, investing the town of Maroun al-Ras with 2,000 troops and tanks. The military operation coordinated ground forces, air, and naval assets and rapidly achieved its objective:

Israeli tanks and hundreds of troops moved in and out of Lebanon on Saturday, taking over a village, entering a U.N. observation post and engaging Hezbollah militants by land, sea and air as part of the country's limited ground campaign.

The soldiers — backed by artillery and tank fire — took control of the large village of Maroun al-Ras, military officials said on condition of anonymity.

That included a group of Israeli tanks, bulldozers and personnel carriers that knocked down a border fence and entered the area Saturday afternoon. The equipment and about 25 soldiers raced past a U.N. outpost and headed into the village, where other Israeli soldiers already had control.

Some of the 2,000 troops returned to Israel, but the village remains in Israeli hands. The advance took the Israelis into direct combat with Hezbollah, which was unable to stop the advance. The Israelis took out more communication links, including three television station tramsmitters and telephone infrastructure. They also invested a UNIFIL outpost, and given the effectiveness of that force, it must have taken the Israelis almost no time at all to get them under control.

So far, though, Israel has not started a wideranging invasion. This appears to be something of a raid on steroids, and the Israelis will not likely keep Maroun al-Ras for too long. Olmert does not want to start administering an occupation of southern Lebanon, but to weaken Hezbollah enough to collapse their leadership and make them incapable of staging attacks on Israel for a long time.

Some, like the AP, believe that Israel's goal is to beat up Hezbollah enough to where the Lebanese Army can sweep the militias out of the area and take control of southern Lebanon for themselves. That sounds good, but it's unrealistics. According to Sheikh Nasrallah, Hezbollah runs the government in Beirut, and Lebanese PM Fuad Saniora appears to agree. He threatened to send the army into southern Lebanon to fight alongside of Hezbollah against the Israelis, so the likelihood of a disarmament program shrinks each day.

If Israel wants Hezbollah destroyed, it will have to destroy Hezbollah by themselves. The capture of Maroun al-Ras shows that the Israelis are not going to settle for any solution that leaves Hezbollah armed on their borders, and the reaction of the Lebanese government indicates that they will do nothing to meet that basic security requirement for peace. In other words, this is going to go on for quite a while.

Karl Rove, Checking Implants (Update: Caption Contest!)

Remember the scene from Blade Runner where Decker interrogates suspects to determine whether they're replicants? Well, it turns out that an implant check largely follows the same kind of procedures:

KR: When you see a New York Times editoral, how does it make you feel?

KR: It's working!

Come on ... secretly you knew that this really happens, didn't you?

Addendum: We kid, Karl, we kid. We kid because the implant told me to do so.

UPDATE: Oh, let's have more fun at my expense. Let's make this a Caption Contest. Be sure to put your entries in the comments section -- no e-mail entries, please! -- and I'll pick a winner by Sunday night.

Nasrallah Runs Lebanon

Rick Moran of Right Wing Nuthouse sent me a link to an intriguing article in Lebanon's Daily Star, in which Sheikh Nasrallah explains quite clearly how Hezbollah now runs the Lebanese government. Nasrallah gave an interview in which he told A-Jazeera that he has assigned some tasks to government officials regarding international negotiations, and how the Lebanese government has entered into an agreement with Nasrallah to allow Hezbollah to operate at will against the Israelis.

Nasrallah mentioned five points for his program (emphases mine):

First, Nasrallah insisted on an exchange of prisoners, beginning with the longest-held Lebanese detainee, Samir Qantar. However, according to contacts with Israel, the Jewish state would never agree to release Qantar because he killed Israeli civilians.

Second, Nasrallah said he did not care about Arab criticism of Hizbullah. Commenting on the issue, Nasrallah said, "We forgot them as if they [Arab states] do not exist," and advised the Arabs to "leave us alone." Some observers said the latter comment had a "harsh and negative" tone.

Third, by agreeing to conduct negotiations through the government (specifically Speaker Nabih Berri), ,b>Nasrallah consolidated an agreement made between Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, Berri and Hizbullah last week. Nasrallah also said the government was relaying proposals from the international community and that the resistance was commenting on them. ...

Fourth, Nasrallah said his party would "hold some accountable and forgive others," in response to MP Saad Hariri's accusations that "adventurers who banked on the situation in Lebanon will be held accountable." The ministerial sources saw in this statement an "open threat without clear consequences."

Fifth, Nasrallah's most remarkable stand, in addition to ruling out the possibility of civil war, was his keenness on preserving his alliance with Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun.

Most remarkably, Hezbollah now openly states that it has co-opted the Lebanese government, and that they now do his bidding. That places responsibility for the act of war against Israel back on the Lebanese government, and that means that Israel now can consider the entire nation of Lebanon at war with them -- if Ehud Olmert wants to do so. The international reaction has treated Fuad Saniora as a hostage to Hezbollah's terrorist wing, but this makes him look much more like an accomplice, along with Michel Aoun.

This also explains the official Lebanese statement proclaiming that the same military that could not disarm Hezbollah over the last year would now join the terrorists in the field against the Israelis. It appears that the executive branch of the Lebanese government has either lied about its inability to address the Hezbollah militia forces, or is fooling itself in squaring off with the finest native army in the Middle East. Given this, Saniora's protestations for the last ten days certainly appear to have been empty words indeed. While he pleaded that he lacked the power to disarm the terrorists, he secretly concluded an alliance with them.

Nasrallah's other points bear mentioning as well. He demands the release of Samir Qantar, a Lebanese national held since 1979 by Israel. However, that appears unlikely at best, since Israel convicted him of three murders in Nahariya, including a policeman and a four-year-old girl. Qantar's family says that the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers was "the best news in the world", because they expect Israel to trade him for the two soldiers. Olmert does not appear in any mood to give Qantar's family any good news at all, and this demand will only mean an extension of military action.

So why has Nasrallah decided on the impossible? He put himself in the position of having to deliver Qantar. In 2004, the Germans arranged a swap of 400 Palestinian and 23 Lebanese prisoners for the bodies of three Israeli soldiers killed in 2000 and a live Israeli businessman. Nasrallah did not get Qantar in that trade, though; the Israelis refused to release someone who had killed a policeman and a little girl, epsecially for an act of calculated murder. Nasrallah promised at the time that he would get Qantar released, and the abduction of the two IDF soldiers this month intended on providing the pressure on Israel to help him validate his promise.

Nasrallah's reputation depends on delivering Qantar, whom Hezbollah built up into a folk hero (for killing a toddler, which tells people enough about the Islamist state of mind). If Nasrallah cannot spring him, then he will have created a lot of damage and destruction for nothing, and once again will have fallen short of his grandiose declarations.

Another Nasrallah point deals with internal criticism from Lebanese politicians, notably Saad Hariri, the son of the slain Rafik Hariri whose assassination wound up pushing Syria out of Lebanon. Nasrallah boldly states that Hezbollah would "hold some accountable", which even the Daily Star interpreted as a threat of further assassinations. One would think that the Hariri family had sacrificed enough for a free and independent Lebanon, but Hezbollah has other plans. If Nasrallah actually acts on that threat, it might be enough to see the rest of Lebanon rise up against the Islamists and start a new civil war to rid the nation of the Hezbollah blight. Nasrallah must be counting on Syrian intervention, but unfortunately for Hezbollah, it looks like Israel will get their first, and in bigger numbers.

Nasrallah also rejects Arab criticism of his actions, claiming that their objections has made Nasrallah "forg[e]t them as if they do not exist". He had better remember them quickly, because if he continues on the path he has chosen, he may need to relocate in one hell of a hurry.

Be sure to read Rick's commentary on this as well.

Capitol Hill Blues

For the last several years, a trashy political version of the Weekly World News has made a number of salacious and lurid claims about key political figures, mostly George Bush. Capitol Hill Blue originated stories about Bush being addicted to drugs, falling off the wagon, and so on. The allegation that he had referred to the Constitution as "just a G******d piece of paper" came from one of their articles, as did the explosive, supposedly first-person account of Bush being briefed that the Niger claim was bogus before his State of the Union speech. (Interestingly, the Senate's Intelligence Committee later confirmed that the Niger story was true, but that didn't stop CHB.)

What made these stories compelling was that they used sources who put their names on the record. CHB identified two of them: Terry Wilkinson, a former CIA advisor, and George Harleigh, a professor at Southern Illinois University who worked in both the Nixon and Reagan administrations. That sourcing created enough credibility with some on the Left that they bought these stories hook, line, and sinker, and propagated them throughout the blogosphere.

However, it looks like neither one ever actually existed. Eric at Classical Values has an amazing post showing a tremendous effort on his part to identify Harleigh without success at either SIU or within either administration. He also has cached pages from CHB where a Stailn-like process of erasing both sources from these stories has taken place. CHB has no answer despite repeated attempts by Eric to get an explanation for all of these activities.

It looks like CHB has gone into complete meltdown, and along with it the credibility of those who used this material to bash the Bush administration. Read all of Eric's post.

Addendum: This seems a lot more important to me than whether a prominent left-wing blogger engaged in sock puppetry. I understand the initial interest, but can we please keep a little perspective? Mike Hiltzik worked for the LA Times and was paid to act in an ethical manner. If Glenn Greenwald did do some sock-puppetry (and it seems at least possible that housemates may have posted at least some of the comments), then mention it and move on. No one pays attention to commenters that rail on about someone else's resume, anyway.

I Hate Online Gambling Sites

One of my favorite aspects of Captain's Quarters is the trackbacks. I love the fact that the site can display all of the bloggers who have linked back to CQ in order to continue the debate. Readers can make quick jumps to read all of the arguments (and if they're using Firefox or the beta release of IE 7.0, they can open them up in tabs). I often browse through my trackbacks to see how others view my argument, and it makes me a better blogger.

What I don't like about trackbacks -- what I absolutely hate about them -- is the trackback spam I have to weed out. Movable Type 3.2 does almost all of the hard work for me by using a complicated algorithm to identify potential junk trackbacks. It catches valid ones a little too often, but I approve those and they eventually appear on the posts, but I can delete bogus pings in one shot this way.

All of this trackback spam comes from commercial sites that want to advertise without paying the website owner. In my book, that makes them unethical parasites -- and, oddly enough, most of it comes from on-line gambling sites. These are people who want customers to trust them to pay out winnings honestly, and attract them by cheating on their advertising. Why would anyone trust a gambling site that cheats in any aspect of its business? If they're scummy bastards in cheating website owners like myself out of advertising revenue, why would anyone expect them to be honest with payouts for winnings?

And what about giving them credit card information? These people steal advertising space on blogs. It wouldn't surprise me if they committed credit-card fraud and identity theft as well. Surely no one thinks that thieves get too particular about their victims or scams.

I've had to rename my scripts this evening and rebuild the files in order to end a deluge of this crap this evening. Hopefully, that will keep things running smooth for the next month or so. In the meantime, stay away from these online gambling sites for your own protection.

Rant mode OFF. [grrrr]

UPDATE, 10:22 PM CT: I can see from the server logs that Hosting Matters is getting hit by a huge number of spambots. They shouldn't affect CQ's status because of the script change I made earlier.

A Change Of Implant

I spent an hour this afternoon in the company of one of the most interesting men in American politics: Karl Rove. He came to Minnesota to attend fundraisers for Michele Bachmann and Mark Kennedy and to meet with state Republican Party leaders to consult on the ongoing efforts. The White House called earlier this week to arrange a meeting with bloggers, and several of us managed to squeeze this unique opportunity into our busy schedules: Michael from Minnesota Democrats Exposed, Andy from Residual Forces, and Gary from Kennedy vs The Machine.

Rove had just come from the Bachmann luncheon, where they raised $50,000 for her campaign. The Kennedy event comes later tonight. He mentioned how impressed he was with Michele and her family. She and her husband have managed professional careers and five children -- yet made time to provide a home for 23 foster children. He felt that both campaigns were doing well, and laughed when we brought up the Minnesota Poll regarding Kennedy's supposed 19-point deficit with Amy Klobuchar. No one at the party HQ took that seriously at all, and while Rove hasn't seen any polling, he knows that Kennedy can't be 19 points back in a state where all but one of the constitutional officers are Republican.

This was an interesting chat. We had met once before, on our trip to Washington DC almost exactly a year ago, and he still recalled our conversation. The conversation remained mostly fixed on elections and campaigning -- obviously his forté -- but he remembered teasing me about all of the blogging I had done on Canadian politics. Rove told me that he had the chance to spend some time with Stephen Harper and was pleasantly surprised about how geniune the Canadian PM was. He and I agreed that Harper's transparency played against him for too long; Liberals tried for years to make his openness into some sort of false front that masked a "hidden agenda". Canadians now have found out how wrong that assessment was.

Mostly, though, Rove talked about campaigns and the necessity of grassroots efforts in modern political campaigns. His experience in Texas showed him the critical nature of grassroots. In 1977 when he first arrived, Democrats controlled both houses of the legislature by wide margins and held every statewide office. Rove and the Republicans put good candidates together with a wide network of volunteers, phone banks, and measurable objectives -- and they transformed Texas in less than twenty years. Now the GOP holds all the statewide offices and both houses of the Legislature.

During the first Bush presidential campaign, they used the same model. He spoke about his experiences in West Virginia, where they had not seen any kind of grassroots campaign before. The last time the state had a national party HQ was in 1972, and the last presidential-ticket visit came in 1956, when Richard Nixon did a airport appearance. Rove helped the GOP open 28 offices throughout the state, and it resulted in a 22-point turnaround from 1996, when Bob Dole lost the state by 16 points to Bill Clinton. Bush took it by 6 over Al Gore.

Rove also talked about the "two great myths of American politics": single-issue voters and "the base", as defined by critics. Rove thinks that those who claim to be single-issue voters actually show much more nuance when the choices cease to be hypothetical. As far as "the base" goes, Rove laughed it off as a straw man for critics of the GOP. Of late, many pundits have claimed that Rove wants to win elections by pandering to a narrow political slice of the spectrum. He counters this by noting that Bush received many more votes in 2004 than he did in 2000, even by percentage. People win elections, Rove said, by broadening their appeal, not by narrowing it.

We did spend some time talking about this election cycle. He's optimistic about holding both chambers of Congress this year. The Senate is almost a foregone conclusion to remain in GOP control just because of the numbers involved. The Democrats have more at risk than the Republicans, and they would have to run the table to force a change. He's even pretty confident of being able to hold the House. Incumbents win almost all of the time, and when they don't it's usually because the party takes the votes for granted and fail to organize well.

He's also looked at the numbers for the really tough Congressional races this fall, identifying 18 at risk. Of those 18, Bush won in 16 of the districts by an average of 59-41, and in the other two, he lost by an average of 52-48. Unless something radically changes in the next 100 days, he sees the Republicans at least holding their own this November. Fundraising has gone very well. Republicans have raised over $208M. Four years ago, the GOP only had $198M by the end of July.

I asked Rove about election themes for the party; would the GOP focus on the war, on the economy, or on other issues like gay marriage? He seemed a bit dismissive of the idea of themes for midterm elections. The party might highlight their legislative agenda, and the war would certainly impact most races, but individual candidates would really make the decision on which themes work best for themselves. He did think that the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict would serve to remind people that we still are at war with terrorists. Hezbollah is the kind of terrorist organization that we want to eliminate, and their acquisition of longer range rockets and now missiles should remind voters that national security still remains a priority. However, Rove also felt that this particular conflict would not be anyone's campaign theme, but important background that voters would keep in mind themselves.

I also asked him whether he intended on staying in electoral politics after 2006. He gave me a wry grin and made a joke, but declined to answer the question. In my opinion, he loves political organization too much to give it up -- and that's good news for Republicans everywhere.

Note: I did get my brain implant upgraded to v2.0, in case you were wondering.

UPDATE: That brain implant got my blogs mixed up. Gary's at KVM, and Andy's at Residual Forces! I've made the corrections, and I have no idea why I got them turned around.

UPDATE: Karl raised $50,000, not $15,000, at the Bachmann event.

The Coming Invasion

Israel has moved several divisions to its northern border and a full-scale ground invasion appears imminent. The order has not yet been given, but it looks inevitable at this point:

The IDF was gearing up for a large-scale ground incursion into Lebanon on Friday. Thousands of reservists were being mobilized to the North throughout Friday to beef up forces stationed in the area in preparation for a possible operation.

In total, three to four ground divisions will be operating along the Lebanese front.

Defense Minister Amir Peretz said on Friday that the defense establishment was evaluating the size of the force needed to conduct a large-scale operation in Lebanon.

"We have no intention of being dragged into something that Hizbullah wants to drag us into," Peretz said. "Nevertheless, we will operate in every place that we find it necessary."

On Friday afternoon, the IAF dropped leaflets over southern Lebanon all the way up to the Litani River calling on residents to move northward to avoid being caught in clashes between IDF forces and Hizbullah cells. The move could signify a step in preparation for the ground incursion.

A ground invasion would likely trigger one or more of a variety of responses, none of them good in the short term. The Lebanese government has warned that it will meet an Israeli invasion with the Lebanese Army, apparently in alliance with the Hezbollah terrorists the IDF wishes to crush. That will create circumstances that would almost require the Israelis to start hitting a broader range of targets in Lebanon. Thus far, they have (mostly) restrained from targeting the regular Lebanese army, although they did bomb Lebanon's air bases in the opening salvos. Beirut may figure it has nothing much more to lose at this point, but a miscalculation on this point could cost them their ability to conduct internal security for a long time to come.

Syria has at least one division poised on the border, and some predict an Israeli invasion could trigger one from Syria as well. A look at the map shows that reasoning to be quite valid. Syria at one point had friends all around and its pick of resupply routes, but no longer. Turkey, a member of NATO and a putative US ally, lies to the north, along with a lot of ethnic Kurds that do not much like the Assad regime. Jordan, another US ally, lies to the south, along with Israel. To the east used to be an Iraq led by their Ba'athist cousins, but now has an American military contingent of 135,000 battle-hardened troops. Their only outlet comes through Lebanon to the Mediterranean, and if Israel takes control, the Syrians are bottled up, and they know it. (Not quite -- see update below.)

If Syria comes into the battle, don't expect the Iranians to do much about it, at least not explicitly. Ahmadinejad will talk tough, but his military can barely defend Iran, let alone launch offensive operations against Israel. If Teheran sends missiles up. Israel can respond in kind and with a bomb drop in short order over American-controlled Iraq. Instead, Teheran will push the temperature up by getting their proxies in Lebanon, Iraq, Gaza, and the West Bank to start attacking indiscriminately to distract Israel and the US from the widening war in Lebanon.

Will it be worth it? Certainly not in the short run, but perhaps it will in the long run. This war will almost certainly happen at some point, absent multiple coups in Syria and Iran, and it might be better to have it now, rather than when Iran has nukes. Everyone knows that Damascus and Teheran sponsors global Islamofascist terror, and we can't stop it unless we stop them both. It still would be preferable to get the nations of the world to agree to isolate both nations and bring terrorism to an end peacefully -- but the Europeans still believe in appeasement, and Russia and China want to play superpower games instead.

By tomorrow morning, we should know whether Assad was bluffing or not. We know the Israelis aren't any longer.

UPDATE: Of course, I forgot about the ports of Latakia and Tartus, the latter of which was coincidentally the last holdout for the Crusaders, when it went by Tortossa. However, the Mediterranean would not be a friendly area at all for the Syrians, as the Israel's navy and that of Turkey would likely blockade Syria rather easily.

Maybe He Should Just Get A Blog

ABC News reports that Islamist web sites have announced that Osama bin Laden will have a new message out in the next few hours or days. Apparently, Osama bin Watchin' CNN:

A new Osama bin Laden message from al Qaeda's as-Sahab Institute for Media Production is to be released soon, according to IntelCenter, which monitors extremist websites. Sites have begun to advertise a new message.

In his message, bin Laden will reportedly address events in Gaza and Lebanon. This message has been expected and is consistent with new efforts in 2006 by al Qaeda's senior leadership to be responsive in their messages to current developments.

This impulse comes from a deep-seated need to prove to his followers that Osama bin Breathin'. Whenever Osama goes off the air for more than a few weeks, rumors start to fly that the al-Qaeda chieftain has kicked the bucket. In order to combat the rumors, every few weeks Osama has shown up to pull a Fiorello LaGuardia and read the newspapers aloud, followed with the usual exhortation to kill all the infidels, death to the West, jihadda jihadda jihadda.

Really, couldn't the man just get himself a blog?

Is America Ready To Win The Economic War In Viet Nam?

Being a native to and growing up in the Los Angeles area, the plight of the Vietnamese has always had some resonance with me. I can recall when thousands of “boat people” made their harrowing escape from their native country, survived barely-seaworthy craft, and endured modern pirates intent on stealing what little they had in order to finally arrive in the United States. Still sick with guilt over our abandonment of our allies in the south, we took them in, and many of them migrated to Orange County, close to where I lived at the time. I went to school with one young girl who took a French class despite her fluency in the language -- in order to learn English, a move that still impresses me to this day.

The Vietnamese settled in an area of Garden Grove and Westminster known as Little Saigon, and for a while it existed mainly as a slum, as the new immigrants started with almost no resources at all. Many decried their presence as an economic drag and expected urban blight in the middle of what had been a pleasant suburb. However, the Vietnamese showed the same cleverness that our classmate exhibited, and within a few years, the immigrant population built an impressive community in Little Saigon. The Vietnamese who came to America showed a love of freedom, both political and economic, and their entrepreneurial instincts eventually generated an economic dynamo for Orange County.

Now those left behind have begun to show the same instincts as the tough-minded survivors who fled their country in the mid-1970s. Viet Nam has begun a transformation to a market-based economy, one that we could help accelerate with trade normalization. Dana R. Dillon and Daniella Markheim make the case for American support for full WTO status for Viet Nam, as well as the Permanent Normal Trading Relations status that will allow American investment to benefit both countries:

As a member of the WTO, the United States is generally obligated to provide reciprocal, unconditioned most-favored-nation (MFN) treatment to all other WTO members. The U.S., then, must either vote to extend PNTR to Vietnam or must invoke the non-application provision of Article XIII of the WTO Agreement. The non-application provision allows for member countries to exclude other members from MFN benefits at the risk of reciprocal treatment. If the U.S. opts to invoke non-application, Vietnam would have the right to deny the U.S. equal treatment under the WTO agreement. The U.S. would be left on the sidelines to watch other countries reap the benefits of the hard work done to execute a strong agreement for Vietnam’s accession. Vietnam is one of the fastest growing economies in Southeast Asia, and the U.S. is Vietnam’s largest investor, as well as a major trading partner. The cost of exclusion would be significant to both countries.

Last month, the New York Times reported on American efforts to expand trade with the more relaxed government of Viet Nam. Dennis Hastert traveled to meet trade officials, who want the United States to act as a counter to Chinese influence. They want economic independence from Beijing, and the Vietnamese see the United States as a natural trade partner for that goal.

The time appears right for us to open free trade with Viet Nam. Recent economic reforms have pushed per-capita income up 400% over the past six years. While government monopolies still control large industry and infrastructure, small and medium sized business have erupted since the adoption of free-market reforms. Entrepreneurs have started fast-food chains based on the McDonald’s franchise model.

We have recognized China as the potentially most troublesome opponent in the coming century, both economically and militarily. The US needs strong relationships in Asia to counter Chinese hegemony in the region. PNTR makes sense for both Viet Nam and the United States.

Dillon and Markheim have much more on this topic; be sure to read their entire analysis.

UPDATE: Fixed a missing word, thanks to CQ reader Jim F.

UPDATE II: Bruce Kesler disagrees:

How can I ask you to think about the Vietnamese people when U.S. interests are absorbed by the crises in the Middle East, the nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea, or in big power diplomacy with Russia and China?

Simple answer: If our principles and efforts in those crises mean anything, some consistency is required, particularly where they can do some tangible, near-term good, and if our pledges to Iraqis or Israelis mean anything, they must be demonstrated to the people of our prior war.

The United States holds the key to Vietnam’s much desired entry into the World Trade Organization, and must first insist on concrete and verifiable compliance by Vietnam in meeting its so far hollow human rights pledges.

Instead, across political party lines, U.S. commercial interests are more committed to their potential profits foregoing this leverage regardless of the human price, and with strong Bush administration support have lobbied so far successfully for Congress to approve Permanent Normal Trade Relations for Vietnam to enter the WTO. President Bush is planned to visit Vietnam next November, and aside from the theory this would leverage relations with China, would welcome a peaceful coexistence demonstration with this former enemy.

Bruce, as usual, backs his argument with plenty of specifics. What are your thoughts -- does engagement help improve human-rights concerns, or do they hinder them?

Bill Clinton Has Lieberman's Back

No one should experience any shock over Bill Clinton's efforts to bolster the Democratic Leadership Council, the centrist caucus in the party, nor his campaigning for one of its founders. Yesterday's announcement that Bill Clinton would publicly support Joe Lieberman should have been a foregone conclusion:

Former President Bill Clinton is slated to campaign on behalf of the three-term incumbent Monday in Waterbury, Lieberman's campaign spokeswoman said today. ...

Clinton and Lieberman have known each other since Clinton worked on Lieberman's first campaign for state Senate in 1970, when Clinton attended Yale University in New Haven ...

Clinton, in a recent speech at the Aspen Institute conference, defended Lieberman and his staunch support for the war in Iraq. He questioned why antiwar Democrats are seeking to oust a fellow Democrat, saying that instead of seeking to retire Republicans they were pursuing "the nuttiest strategy I ever heard in my life."

Bill Clinton has tried to steer a moderate course for Democrats for the past fifteen years, and this effort to rescue Lieberman from the netroots fits into his philosophy. Clinton won office on the strength of that strategy, and he wants to keep the Democrats from veering so far to the left that they will guarantee themselves a minority position for the next generation. They won't have George Bush to run against after this election cycle, and that will leave them with a mighty thin constituency until they learn big-tent tactics and strategy.

It's no surprise that Clinton has offered Lieberman his support. However, it does highlight the craven attitude of Al Gore, whom Lieberman supported to the detriment of his last presidential campaign, in his silence on behalf of his former running mate.

UPDATE: The New York Sun's excellent blog, It Shines For All, reminds us that not all Clintons appear united on supporting Lieberman:

[Hillary will] oppose the reelection of her long-time friend, Senator Lieberman, if he fails to win an August 8 Democratic primary against an anti-war opponent. She dropped him faster than her husband dropped his friend Lani Guinier. Mrs. Clinton could easily have sidestepped this question, as have Senator Schumer and the Senate majority leader, Harold Reid. Or she could have stood by Mr. Lieberman, who stuck his own neck out for her, most notably by campaigning vigorously for her among Jewish New Yorkers to help get her elected to the Senate in 2000.

Can we say "triangulation"? I knew we could!

First Arrests In Mumbai Bombings

Indian authorities have made the first arrests in the series of bombings in Mumbai that killed almost 200 people on July 11th. Described as lower-level operatives, the security forces hope that their new suspects will lead them to the masterminds of the plot:

Police in India have arrested three men in connection with a series of bombings that killed more than 180 people in the city of Mumbai (Bombay) last week. The police have detained more than 300 suspects but these are the first arrests in the case.

Two of the men were detained on Thursday in the northern state of Bihar and the third later in Mumbai. ...

The BBC's Zubair Ahmed in Mumbai says it is not clear how significant the arrests are. The three accused are suspected to have played minor roles in the blasts, but a senior police officer told the BBC that the arrests might lead them to the brains behind the operation.

These arrests put a different light on the plot, considered the most sophisticated and precise terrorist plot ever conducted in India. Originally, authorities thought that a well-known group with Pakistani ties had responsiblity for the attacks. Instead of Lashkar-e-Toiba, however, the men arrested belong to Students Islamic Movement of India, or SIMI. SIMI has ties to some of the most notorious Islamist terror groups in the world, including Hamas, and its leaders have sworn fealty to al-Qaeda in the past.

Interestingly, SIMI has not escaped American attention, either. The group's founder, Mohammad Ahmadullah Siddiqi, currently teaches at Western Illinois University at Macomb. Siddiqi has renounced the group's turn towards violence and stressed that he founded it strictly as an educational group to promote the study of Islam. Not everyone in Illinois feels the same, apparently. According to Jihad Watch, it has also received funding through the Chicago-based Committee of Indian Muslims.

If SIMI has a part in these blasts, it would have to had extensive assistance from another group. The current status of SIMI leadership is too degraded to have provided the precision and coordination seen in this attack. Given the range of SIMI's associations, that could point to a number of scenarios, including Pakistan's ISI or al-Qaeda itself.

Hamas Politicians Powerless In Gaza

According to a New York Times report this morning, the political wing of Hamas lost control of their terrorist wing after pursuing politics, and now no one except Khaled Mashaal in Damascus can control the Hamas bombthrowers. This paints a different picture than the common perception, and shows that political engagement with either Hamas or Fatah likely will produce no results at all:

Despite its links to the Palestinian government, Palestinian and Israeli analysts say, the Qassam Brigades does not take orders from the governing leaders of Hamas. This is why, according to many accounts, the Hamas-led government itself was surprised by the Qassam Brigades’ attack against the Israeli military post in June.

“They lost their position as leaders of Hamas when they joined the government,” said Abu Muhammad, a Qassam Brigades field commander in Jabaliya. “New leaders were named in the movement, and they are more senior than the government leaders, even Haniya,” he said, referring to the Palestinian prime minister, Ismail Haniya.

Giora Eiland, a former director of Israel’s national security council and a retired major general who led an investigation into the June 25 raid, agreed. “Recently there was the illusion that Hamas, while not a perfect partner, was at least a group that could implement decisions,” he said. “But it has become apparent that the political leadership of Hamas is much less influential than Khaled Meshal and leaders of the military wing.” Mr. Meshal is the chairman of Hamas’s political bureau and lives in exile in Damascus, Syria.

The Qassam Brigades is the Palestinians’ largest and best organized militant group but it is not the only militia operating in the area under Palestinian control. At least six other armed groups field soldiers to fight Israel or, when there are no Israelis to fight — as was the case for nine months after Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza last year — to fight among themselves.

The current crisis seems to have pushed the militias to join ranks. Several of the militia members said the groups organized a “joint operations room” when Israel began threatening to invade Gaza two or three weeks ago. By all accounts the operations room is more virtual than real, but spokesmen for three of the groups insisted that senior political and military leaders of the seven militias now communicated regularly to plan actions.

The union of competing terrorist groups in Gaza during the Israeli incursion should surprise no one, and certainly won't shock the Israelis. The groups act in concert much of the time in any case, especially Fatah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad. The latter escapes mention in the Times article for some reason, despite its impact on Gaza and the war; they fired many of the rockets after Israel left Gaza months ago. The terrorists may not have had a "joint operations room" before now, but their leadership consulted and cooperated with each other as long as Israel remained in the field.

The Times makes that point as well. These groups find unity of purpose whenever Israel enters Gaza. However, none of them have the capability to put their weapons down to settle differences between themselves when Israel returns home. Instead, the terrorists revert to form and begin killing each other. Small wonder, then, that the Israelis cannot negotiate with the Palestinians -- they're incapable of negotiating internally, let alone externally.

However, the greater point is that the commonly-accepted Palestinian political leadership turns out to be a string of empty suits, at least as far as their influence over the fighting. Craig Smith makes it clear that Ismail Haniyeh and his fellow politicians lost credibility with the al-Qassam crowd the moment they stood for election. The terrorists have stopped responding to their leadership and instead follow Khaled Mashaal and the traditional no-negotiation terrorist leadership in Damascus.

The Israelis warned of this when Hamas raided Israel and abducted Gilad Shalit. Although they continue to hold Haniyeh responsible as the elected representative of the Palestinians, they know that Haniyeh has little real power to exercise in Gaza, as does Mahmoud Abbas for somewhat different reasons. Negotiating with Haniyeh is less than pointless -- it's self-defeating. The more Haniyeh actually negotiates, the less these terrorists will follow him, and Haniyeh knows this as well.

Israel has to do something about Mashaal and the Damascus branch of Hamas. Either they have to somehow find a way to engage Mashaal, which is so impossible as to be laughable, or they have to take him and his organization out. Under the circumstances on the ground, the Israelis will never get peace through negotiation, and global efforts to reach a stable peace based on co-existence are doomed to fail. The Israelis have to target the true terrorist leadership of Hamas or they will have to conduct ethnic cleansing in Gaza and the West Bank that no one will accept.

Mashaal is the key. If the world wants peace in the Middle East, it has to start by pressuring Damascus to end its association with Hamas and Hezbollah.

Italy Arrests Four AQ-Linked Terrorists

The Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant reports that Italy has arrested four Algerian terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda. Italian security forces arrested the men in the Veneto region, but conducted numerous house searches in northern Italy as part of a larger investigation:

ROME - De speciale antiterreureenheid van de Italiaanse politie heeft vrijdagochtend in de regio Veneto vier Algerijnse terreurverdachten opgepakt. Op tal van plaatsen zijn huiszoekingen verricht. De politie-actie strekte zich ook uit over de regio's Lombardia en Emilia-Romagna.

De vier zouden deel uitmaken van een Italiaanse cel van de Salafistische Groep voor Prediking en Strijd (GSPC), die in verband wordt gebracht met Al Qa’ida. Ze worden verdacht van het financieren van terreur, het rekruteren van strijders en het regelen van valse identiteitspapieren en werkvergunningen.

Get all that? Neither did I, but that's why I read Michael van der Galien's post at Liberty and Justice. The story has not hit the English-language wires yet, but Michael's got the scoop -- in English, unlike here.

Israel Sets Up Humanitarian Aid Corridor To Lebanon

Israel approved the creation of a corridor between Lebanon and Cyprus for international organizations to deliver humanitarian aid to the Lebanese. This bolsters the efforts already under way by the UN and others to evacuate and give medical assistance to civilians under fire in the war:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Amir Peretz and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni approved late Thursday the establishment of a "humanitarian corridor" between Lebanon and Cyprus in order to relieve the humanitarian crisis that was claimed to be present in Lebanon.

Israel has been under great international pressure, especially by the United States and France, to provide for the relief of the Lebanese citizens' hardships following the massive campaign that has created a lot of damage in Lebanon.

UN sources stated that the fighting in Lebanon had created half a million refugees, who were forced to leave their homes to evade IDF strikes.

The Israelis would have been better served by establishing this from the start. While the scope of their attack has sound military reasons, the potential for civilian casualties and refugees should have been clear when the Israelis started their campaign. Perhaps they felt that Hezbollah would simply fold up and pull back, but after the first bombs fell in Beirut, the need for relief was obvious.

Still, within less than two weeks Israel has made the necessary arrangements for aid even while its own citizens fall victim to terrorist shelling throughout the north. The Israelis have understandably been occupied with their own relief needs, and the deaths and injuries to their own families and friends. Australia recognized that in their contributions to aid relief for the region. Of their donation of A$2 million, A$500,000 goes specifically to the Israeli victims of Hezbollah rocket attacks, a kind gesture that underscores the fact that Israelis have been victimized by this war, too.

Banished Islamofascist Begs For Britain's Protection

O, the irony! Omar Bakri fled the UK after spending years preaching hate from his London mosque, and got out just ahead of a British deportation order. The Home Secretary banned him from ever returning to Britain after Bakri left -- for Lebanon. Now that the Hezbollah lunatics he supports started a war they cannot handle, Bakri now demands that Britain allow him to return -- on humanitarian grounds!

In the somewhat purple prose of the British tabloid, The Sun:

EXILED preacher of hate Omar Bakri has begged the Royal Navy to rescue him from war-torn Beirut.

The Muslim cleric who fled Britain last year, tried to board a ship full of women and children yesterday but was turned away.

He also wrote to the British embassy asking to be allowed back on “humanitarian grounds”.

In an email to officials, dole scrounger Bakri pleaded: “The current situation in Beirut left me without any choice but to appeal to you to grant me a visit visa to see my children for one month.”

Bakri left his family behind when he took off for Lebanon, and apparently they have not made much of an attempt to join him. They must have strong ties to Britain; Bakri himself spent twenty years in the UK after fleeing Syria in the wake of a coup attempt there. That is one of the reasons why Bakri begged Britain to allow him back; he's still a wanted man in Syria and cannot exit Lebanon through Damascus. Apparently the Assads like him even less than the British.

When he did leave Britain, he made it clear that he would never willingly return to the nest of infidels he had left behind. Just four months ago, he told reporters: “When I left England I bought a one-way ticket out. I never want to see the place again.” Now, apparently, he wants to make that a round trip.

Britain has thus far refused, and an evacuation crew kicked him off a ship in Beirut when he attempted to stow away. Why should they allow him to return? He preached hate and war, praised al-Qaeda, and railed endlessly about the evils of the West and Zionists. Now he finds himself in the middle of the war he actively demanded and pursued, and all of a sudden he wants the Western infidels to rescue him from it.

What a tool. (via Hot Air)

Hamas: Uh, Dudes, We're Not With Hezbollah

The Jerusalem Post reports tonight that Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas have agreed in principle to meet in an attempt to resolve the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit and allow the Palestinians to disconnect their issues from the Hezbollah fighting. That apparently comes from Hamas as well, which has determined that association with the Iranian-backed terrorist group may be bad for their leaders' health:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is "actively" planning for a long-delayed meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, sources close to EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said Thursday.

The sources said that Solana was told of the preparations during his meeting with Olmert and senior members of his staff in Jerusalem on Wednesday.

According to the sources, Egypt has stepped up efforts to forge an agreement for the release of Cpl. Gilad Shalit, which would be followed some time later by an Israeli release of Palestinian prisoners as a "good will gesture" to Abbas. ...

The source said that Hamas in Gaza believed that releasing Shalit would distinguish Hamas from Hizbullah, and that Palestinian leaders in Gaza realized it "is dangerous for the Palestinians to be seen in the same bag as Hizbullah." He said that if Hamas showed that it understood that what was happening in the north was not good for them and released Shalit, it could win them some credit with the international community, primarily with Europe.

Both Hamas and Hezbollah have put themselves into bad positions by underestimating Israeli resolve in fighting back against terrorist actions. Hamas may have thought they had seen the extent of Israeli action, but the fighting in Lebanon shows that Israel has taken this more seriously than they have in decades. If Hezbollah had not invaded Israel and kidnapped two more soldiers, Gaza could have been much worse off if Israel decided to take the gloves off there as well.

Apparently, Hamas does not want to follow in Hezbollah's footsteps. The Hamas gamble has not paid off, and now it has created even more misery and destruction for the Palestinians. Khaled Mashaal may want the kidnappers to stand firm, but the actual political leadership knows that the global community gets less sympathetic to the plight of terrorists bu the minute in the current environment. They want some kind of negotiated solution that will get their assembly delegates out of Israeli jails and begin working on a unity government with Abbas once more.

Olmert holds the trump cards in this hand. Hamas has no more leverage, except for Shalit, and holding him becomes more of a liability with each passing day. Not only have they lost all the international aid the Palestinians received before their election, now they have seen Gaza set back twenty years in development. They have managed to put the Palestinians in a much poorer position than ever. If the Palestinians ever get tired of fighting, they will make Hamas pay for all of that damage.

A New Venture At The Heritage Foundation

CQ readers know that I have a passion about spending and budgetary issues, especially regarding pork barrel projects and entitlement spending. I have worked hard to put myself in a position where I could have some influence on those processes and hopefully educate people about the waste and potential for fraud in the federal budget.

Now I have an even better platform from which to pursue these goals. The Heritage Foundation has asked me to partner with them to blog on spending-related matters. I cannot tell you how gratified I am to be working with the experts at the premiere conservative think tank. I have appeared at a handful of Heritage Foundation events, and they have always treated me like a member of the team -- and now I can contribute as such.

My work will appear on Heritage's blog, and it will draw heavily on the experts at Heritage itself. And why not? With the lineup of researchers and writers at their disposal, I'd be crazy not to do so -- and you'd be crazy to miss it. More than any other aspect of the deal, I look forward to learning as much as possible from their terrific line-up.

I will continue writing for myself at CQ, of course, and want to make clear that while I may address similar topics here -- and will certainly link to my work at Heritage -- the work that appears on this blog will have no relation to the work I do for the Heritage Foundation. My blogging at Heritage represents the team effort, and my blogging at CQ represents the unvarnished Ed.

I know CQ readers will find this as exciting as I do -- and I hope to see you all at the Heritage Foundation!

MST3K Fans, Take Heart -- Mike Nelson Returns!

For those fans of Mystery Science Theater 3000 who have had a gaping hole in their lives ever since it went off the air, good news has come our way. Mike Nelson, the creative genius behind MST3K and a good friend of the Northern Alliance -- and a really nice guy -- has launched a new project that promises to fill that gap, and more.

Mike has launched the beta version of Rifftrax, a clever way to have an MST3K experience on demand. Mike will create podcasts that match up with our favorite films (meaning our favorite cheesefests), designed to be played along with a DVD that the viewer rents or buys. The site will eventually have downloads of many films, but right now Rifftrax users can download Mike's commentary for Roadhouse, a Patrick Swayze laugher that somehow included Ben Gazzara and Sam Elliot. (It also has Kelly Lynch, which seems about right for this classic cheeseball.)

Give it a try, and also don't forget to vote for your choice as Rifftrax's second feature. I chose Showgirls, which desperately needs the Mike Nelson touch. Leave your feedback on how it works, and keep checking back for more commentaries! (via Fraters Libertas)

Nasrallah Speaks

He's baa-aaaack:

Hizbullah leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, spoke for the first Thursday since the beginning of the week, saying Hizbullah's entire infrastructure and leadership hierarchy were still intact and functional.

"I can confirm without exaggerating or using psychological warfare, that we have not been harmed," he said, referring to the strike.

Al-Jazeera, which aired only excerpts of the interview, said it was taped earlier Thursday. The interviewer said the interview took place amid tight security precautions but did not say where. ...

"Hizbullah has so far stood fast, absorbed the strike and has retaken the initiative and made the surprises that it had promised, and there are more surprises," he said, warning that a Hizbullah defeat would be "a defeat for the entire Islamic nation."

Well, better luck next time, guys.

Israeli Journalists Leave IFJ

Accusing the International Federation of Journalists of "cowardice", the Israel Association of Journalists suspended its membership in the IFJ after it defended Hezbollah's Al-Manar television channel as a "free press" and condemned the IDF attack on their facilities. The IFJ said that the Israeli bombing of their broadcast facilities showed a "policy of using violence to silence the media":

The Israel Association of Journalists decided on Thursday to suspend its membership in the International Federation of Journalists to protest the association's condemnation of Israel's attacks on Hizbullah's Al-Manar television network.

In a strongly worded letter, the Israeli journalists accused IFJ general secretary Aidan White of "cowardice" for not retracting the organization's condemnation of Israel and said White deserved a "badge of shame" for calling the Hizbullah propaganda tool "free press."

"Al Manar gets its budget from the same people firing upon us," said the Israeli representative on the IFJ executive, Israel Radio broadcaster Yaron Enosh. "They are not journalists, they are terrorists and I won't be a member of the same organization as terrorists." ...

When Israel asked for a retraction of the condemnation, White issued a new press release three days later that condemned Israel for other incidents and again made no mention of Hizbullah attacks on journalists in Israel. Hizbullah kidnapped a group of journalists on Thursday night and later released them.

Al-Manar qualifies as a free press in the same manner as Hezbollah qualifies as a free-market political party. The television channel exists to broadcast terrorist propaganda. Even the EU recognizes it: they banned Al-Manar from European satellites six years ago. It has the same independent quality as Leni Riefenstahl did during the 1936 Olympics.

The IDF selected Al-Manar as a target for simple tactical reasons. The first task for a modern military offensive is to remove the command and control capabilities of the enemy. Hezbollah owned and ran Al-Manar, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to imagine how it could be used to assist in enemy movements, let alone propaganda dissemination.

As Enosh notes, White never mentioned the Hezbollah kidnapping of four journalists, later released. He also never mentioned the thousands of rockets and missiles raining down on Israeli towns and cities, which put journalists as well as others at risk. White also never mentions the fact that Hezbollah hardly supports an open and free press even apart from Al-Manar -- or perhaps White didn't pay too much attention to the entire Prophet Cartoons controversy.

Israel's journalists do not need membership in a journalistic society that cannot distinguish between an open society at war and the terrorists that have attacked it. Nor does such a group seem particularly credible when they cannot distinguish between real journalists and propaganda artists. Does the IFJ have Baghdad Bob as an advisor?

UPDATE: Bruce Kesler notes the seven North American journalist federations that belong to the IFJ. They should demand the retraction of White's assertions, as well as an apology to the Israeli journalists.

Neutrality Is No Defense

The Swiss have learned that their traditional neutrality, which has kept them safe from centuries of European wars, will not have the same deterrent value in a war against Islamofascist terrorism. Their federal police have reversed previous assessments of the risk to the nation from terrorism and declared Switzerland a "jihadi field of operation":

For centuries, this Alpine nation has successfully relied on a strict policy of political neutrality to insulate it from the wars, invasions and revolutions that have raged outside its borders. These days, a new threat has emerged: one from within.

As they have elsewhere in Europe, Islamic radicals are making inroads in Switzerland. Last month, Swiss officials announced the arrests of a dozen suspects who allegedly conspired to shoot down an Israeli airliner flying from Geneva to Tel Aviv. In a related case, a North African man has been charged with organizing a plot from Swiss soil to blow up the Spanish supreme court in Madrid.

For years, even after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, Swiss officials assumed that their country was one of the last places Islamic radicals would look to attack. Long considered a slice of neutral territory in a world full of conflicts, Switzerland trades on its status as home to the International Committee of the Red Cross and other diplomatic institutions.

As the global jihad movement becomes more decentralized and fragmented, however, Swiss security officials are warning that their country could become a target.

In an intelligence report completed in May, the Swiss Federal Police reversed previous assessments that the domestic risk of terrorism was nearly nonexistent. The report concluded that Switzerland had become "a jihadi field of operation" and predicted that terrorist attacks were "an increasing possibility."

For years, the Swiss concentrated their anti-terrorism efforts on their legendary, secretive banking system, assuming that terrorists would exploit their tough laws on privacy to move funds to operational cells elsewhere. However, the plot against Israel's airline involved Swiss residents, not just travelers passing through the country. That raises concerns about homegrown jihadis, an issue when 5% of the nation's population is Muslim.

Switzerland claims that it has less of a problem with assimilating its Muslim minority than its neighbors France and Germany. However, that minority can still act in concert, even somewhat unwittingly, with foreign terrorists to create mayhem. One plot uncovered in Spain had connected a bombing conspiracy to a Muslim fanatic in Zurich who had received asylum from the unwitting Swiss. He not only funneled money to the Spanish jihadis, he also had significant involvement in the plot against the Israeli airliner.

The Swiss recently revealed that their "neutrality" in World War II actually was nothing more than a cover for collaboration with the Nazis as a price for avoiding German occupation. They have another opportunity to confront evil rather than cling to a so-called neutrality that will eventually have to resemble dhimmitude. So far, it looks like the Swiss have made the correct choice.

Gillerman: 'It Will Take As Long As It Will Take'

Israel's ambassador to the UN gave no indication that Israel plans any cessation of its mission in southern Lebanon, at least not until Hezbollah has been incapacitated. In the wake of a UN Security Council session in which Kofi Annan lashed out at both Israel and Hezbollah, Gillerman made clear his disappointment that Annan could not bring himself to mention Iranian and Syrian support for the terrorist group:

Israeli troops met fierce resistance from Hezbollah guerrillas Thursday as they crossed into Lebanon to seek tunnels and weapons for a second straight day, and Israel hinted at a full-scale invasion. Meanwhile, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan told the Security Council that "hostilities must stop" between Israel and Hezbollah. ...

Annan also condemned Israel's "excessive use of force" against Lebanon.

"There are serious obstacles to reaching a cease-fire or even to diminishing the violence quickly," Annan said.

Reporting from the UN session remains sketchy, but I watched most of Annan's speech as well as the reaction to it from Gillerman and John Bolton. Annan again called for a cease-fire, demanding the return of the Israeli soldiers and the end of all hostilities. He also insisted on establishing a larger multinational forces, using "regional actors", without explaining why Israel would feel safer by replacing Hezbollah with forces from Syria, Saudia Arabia, Iran, and other "regional actors".

John Bolton once again questioned the call for a cease fire, wondering how one gets a cease fire from a group of terrorists. He called Annan's judgment into question by implication, and stated that proposals based on assumptions of a trustworthy cease fire were "simplistic" and not serious.

Gillerman, however, was irate and it showed in the press conference. After being asked why Israel was not responding to Fuad Saniora's "begging" of Israel to cease its attacks, Gillerman rounded on the reporter for his double standard. Gillerman's response:

The United Nations .. recognized the fact that Israel withdrew from the whole of Lebanon. This is something that the United Nations has declared time and time again. Israel was attacked by Lebanon in an act of war, and did what any democracy would do. And that is, try to retrieve its boys, its soldiers, and also stop the shelling of its towns and villages. Why do you only address the Israeli bombings in Lebanon and not the shelling of our cities? Why don't you talk about the fact that those ruthless, indiscriminate animals yesterday targeted the holiest city, one of the holiest places to Christianity? Nazareth!

Gillerman told the reporters that Israel has no intention of leaving Hezbollah the ability to continue operating in the "cesspool" that the terrorists created. At least Israel recognizes the need to eliminate Hezbollah's operational capability as a condition of any long-term solution. Before diplomacy can take effect, Gillerman said, the terrorists have to be neutralized -- and that operation, he assured the reporters, "will take as long as it will take."

Note: Anyone hear from Sheikh Nasrallah yet? It's been almost 18 hours since the bombing of the bunker, and the Hezbollah leadership has been very, very quiet.

Voinovich Has Another Mood Swing

Senator George Voinovich single-handedly derailed the confirmation of John Bolton to the post of UN ambassador, at one point crying on the floor of the Senate about the effect of Bolton's brand of diplomacy on his grandchildren. Grampa must have finally discovered that Bolton has no intentions of blowing up the world, and now very belatedly casts his support for Bolton's nomination:

My observations are that while Bolton is not perfect, he has demonstrated his ability, especially in recent months, to work with others and follow the president's lead by working multilaterally. In recent weeks I have watched him react to the challenges involving North Korea, Iran and now the Middle East, speaking on behalf of the United States.

I believe Bolton has been tempered and focused on speaking for the administration. He has referred regularly to "my instructions" from Washington, while also displaying his own clear and strong grasp of the issues and the way forward within the Security Council. He has stood many times side by side with his colleagues from Japan, Britain, Canada and other countries, showing a commitment to cooperation within the United Nations. ...

Ambassador Bolton's appointment expires this fall when the Senate officially recesses. Should the president choose to renominate him, I cannot imagine a worse message to send to the terrorists -- and to other nations deciding whether to engage in this effort -- than to drag out a possible renomination process or even replace the person our president has entrusted to lead our nation at the United Nations at a time when we are working on these historic objectives.

For me or my colleagues in the Senate to now question a possible renomination would jeopardize our influence in the United Nations and encourage those who oppose the United States to make Bolton the issue, thereby undermining our policies and agenda.

Should the president send his renomination to the Senate, I will vote to confirm him, and I call on my Democratic colleagues to keep in mind the current situation in the Middle East and the rest of the world should the Senate have an opportunity to vote. I do not believe the United States, at this dangerous time, can afford to have a U.N. ambassador who does not have Congress's full support.

The situation was no less dangerous in 2005, and yet George sobbed about the appointment of a man who might get hard-nosed about UN reform. Now he wants Bush to reopen the debate because of the danger of having Bolton at Turtle Bay without the "full support" of Congress. What changed? Bolton and world events proved Voinovich to have been spectacularly wrong, and now he wants a do-over to help everyone forget about his role in kneecapping Bolton's confirmation.

And George can forget about Congress giving Bolton its "full support", especially not in an election year. They will latch onto it now as they did then as a proxy punching bag for Bush's foreign policy. The best time to have called for a confirmation vote was between election cycles, and George gave political cover for those who wanted to hold a non-lifetime appointment hostage to petty electoral concerns.

Bush should renominate Bolton now anyway, regardless of Voinovich's mood swings. Congress can make themselves look like idiots again by defending the United Nations and excoriating those who demand reform of the corrupt and incompetent bureaucracy at Turtle Bay, the kind that continues to produce embarrassments like chronic child rape and persistent prostitution. Then they can go home and explain to their constituents why they batter the one man who has proven himself a worthy successor to Jeanne Kirkpatrick in standing up to the kleptocrats and the dictators.

Lieberman Slides Into Second

Joe-Mentum apears to have failed the former Democratic VP candidate in his upcoming primary. Ned Lamont has cruised into the lead despite worries over his single-issue campaign according to a new Quinnipiac poll, 51-47:

Anti-war Connecticut U.S. Senate candidate Ned Lamont has surged to a razor-thin 51 - 47 percent lead over incumbent Sen. Joseph Lieberman among likely Democratic primary voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

This compares to a 55 - 40 percent lead for Sen. Lieberman among likely Democratic primary voters in a June 8 poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University. ...

"Lamont has turned what looked like a blowout into a very close Democratic primary race," said Quinnipiac University Poll Director Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D.

"Lamont is up, while Lieberman's Democratic support is dropping. More Democrats have a favorable opinion of Lamont, who was largely unknown last month, and see him as an acceptable alternative to Lieberman. But Lieberman's strength among Republicans and independents gives him the lead in a three-way matchup in November."

Schwartz isn't kidding about the three-way matchup, and it's easy to see why Lieberman felt justified in opening an independent bid as a back-up plan. In a three-way race against Lamont and Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger, Lieberman gets 51% of the vote. Lamont only gets 27%, a 24-point gap. Schlesinger gets the die-hard GOP votes at 9%, which speaks volumes about both the candidate and the party in Connecticut.

With that kind of support from the general electorate, Lieberman can (and likely will) argue that his independent bid is justified by popular sentiment. And while Lamont has made himself a darling of the hard Left in Connecticut, it doesn't translate into a November win. The Republicans supporting Lieberman would run to Schlesinger's side if Lieberman dropped out of the race, and some moderate Democrats might follow, depending on Schlesinger's campaign.

A Lieberman primary victory would be the best outcome for the Democrats; it would keep the state's party from fracturing in the general election. It doesn't look good for that result at the moment. Lamont may well top Lieberman in the first round, but an eventual Lieberman victory looks all but assured. That means that the national party leaders will have to be very careful in how they support Lamont, if they decide to do so at all. If they antagonize Lieberman enough, he may give Democrats a few more headaches in the next session of Congress. (via The Moderate Voice and Taegan Goddard)

UPDATE: I erred in saying that Lieberman would get 68% in the three-way race; he gets 68% in a two way race against Alan Schlesinger. Interestingly, Lieberman has a 55% overall approval rating in his state, but it drops down to 47% among Democrats. It's 70% among Republicans, even though Lieberman votes almost dead center of the Senate Democratic caucus. That's probably the war effect.

Here's something the poll report didn't mention -- Ned Lamont and Alan Schlesinger in a two-way race, without Lieberman. Lamont leads 45-22, with 24% undecided. That's a gain for Lamont from two months ago, all of which has come from the Undecided ranks.

Harper Anklebiters Prefer Power Over Truth

Stephen Harper has steered a new course for Canada in both domestic and foreign policy after the debacle of Liberal rule, but that has some opponents unhappy about the loss of Canadian neutrality in the face of evil. After the Canadian PM declared support for Israel's right to defend itself against acts of war, two Canadian politicians bemoaned the loss of "honest broker" status that created:

"We all want to encourage not just a ceasefire, but a resolution. And a resolution will only be achieved when everyone gets to the table and everyone admits that recognition of each other," Mr. Harper said, in a pointed reference to the refusal of Hezbollah and Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist.

"But I have to say this. I read in some papers somewhere that someone involved in this said, 'Well, Hezbollah will protect, Hezbollah will take care of us,' " the Prime Minister said.

"Hezbollah's objective is violence. Hezbollah believes that through violence it can create, it can bring about the destruction of Israel. Violence will not bring about the destruction of Israel ... and inevitably the result of the violence will be the deaths primarily of innocent people."

Mr. Harper brushed off suggestions his tough new language on the Middle East has compromised Canada's ability to be seen as a neutral, honest broker in the search for Middle East peace, a criticism repeated yesterday by NDP leader Jack Layton, who said Canada should be pushing for an immediate ceasefire and the presence of an international peacekeeping force in Lebanon. ...

"[UN Secretary-General] Kofi Annan and the UN have proposed exactly that strategy, and it's got to be something that Canada embraces enthusiastically, right off the start, not with this hesitation that we're seeing from George Bush and Mr. Harper," Mr. Layton said.

Interim federal Liberal leader and former foreign affairs minister Bill Graham echoed Mr. Layton's statements, saying Canada is in danger of losing its role as a mediator and peacemaker in the Middle East.

Mr. Graham told a Vancouver news conference that Mr. Harper has moved Canada away from its traditional non-aligned stance, and said while he supports Israel's right to defend itself from attack, he believes Canada needs to keep some distance so it can be part of a diplomatic solution to the Middle East conflict.

This demonstrates the kind of fecklessness that Canadians rejected in their national elections earlier this year. Layton and Graham would rather keep their mouths shut about the act of war committed by Hezbollah in order to remain "honest". Honest? Would Canada simply call the UN if Russia or China raided Canadian territory, killed eight members of the Canadian army, and abducted two more? Would it roll over and agree to give the Yukon up and release all prisoners of Russian or Chinese heritage to get their soldiers back?

If Layton and Graham endorse that course, then let them say so. "Honesty" demands it. As for Harper, however, he understands that sovereignty must be defended, or it ceases to exist. Hezbollah invaded Israel and killed and abducted its soldiers. That isn't a crime, it's an act of war, and it should go without saying that Israel has the right to defend itself and to ensure that an aggressor has no more capability to conduct those kind of operations in the future.

A truly honest broker for peace would recognize that. Apparently, Layton and Graham have a notion of honesty which includes hiding one's principles for the sake of grasping power. That may be one of the reasons why the NDP and the Liberals find themselves without it.

Clinton Wears Out His Welcome

Remember the fanfare when Bill Clinton decided to house his offices in Harlem after the end of his presidency? The community turned out in droves to welcome the man that some called "the first black President," declaring that his decision to lease offices in the area would spark an economic resurgence. His decision and the $354,000 lease created headlines for weeks.

Today, that decision has created different headlines. His formerly enthusiastic neighbors now blame him for the increasing gentrification of Harlem, raising rents and displacing the disadvantaged:

Harlem residents gathered outside President Clinton's office yesterday to protest against the former president as a symbol of Harlem's gentrification and the displacement of its residents.

The Harlem Tenants Council hosted the protest at 125th Street between Lenox and Park avenues that was attended by about 40 mostly elderly, African-American residents of the area. A HTC co-founder, Nellie Bailey, said the primary goal of the protest was to draw attention to what she calls a "housing crisis in Harlem," due in part to displacement because of price increases by landlords and evictions.

"We're hoping to have a dialogue with a president of enormous influence," Ms. Bailey said, "so he can understand the concerns of Harlem tenants," including the lack of a comprehensive, beneficial housing policy and legal services. A Clinton Foundation spokesman, Jay Carson, declined to comment on the protest.

Economic resurgence has its problems, and gentrification qualifies as one of the biggest. As property values increase, landlords have to get better rent and lease terms to keep up with bigger mortgages and tax bills. Property values tend to increase when high-profile tenants start taking up available lease space, such as Bill Clinton did in 2001.

It's unfair of Harlem residents to target Clinton for their woes, or at least him alone. New York has a number of factors that play into the sharp increase in housing costs, most of which have to do with their high tax rates and top-down rent control. The latter comes from a market that has too much demand and too little supply in the first place. Eventually that market effect would have driven people to Harlem for better prices; Clinton just made it trendy to do so.

It's a bit more than ironic that Clinton would get the blame, after the reams of fawning press he garnered for his move to Harlem and the interminable PR of how much the African-American community loved him. Apparently, Harlem residents would love Bill Clinton to go to the Upper West Side for a while.

Saudi Fatwa Against Hezbollah

The Arab rejection of Hezbollah and the war they started continues to grow, and the outrage appears to have reached the Wahhabi in the streets. An influential Wahhabi sheikh has issued a fatwa that forbids Wahhabis from supporting Hezbollah in any way -- including the offering of prayers:

One of Saudi Arabia's leading Wahhabi sheiks, Abdullah bin Jabreen has issued a strongly worded religious edict, or fatwa, declaring it unlawful to support, join or pray for Hezbollah, the Shiite militias lobbing missiles into northern Israel.

The day after Hezbollah abducted two Israeli soldiers on July 12, Sheik Hamid al-Ali issued an informal statement titled "The Sharia position on what is going on." In it, the Kuwaiti based cleric condemned the imperial ambitions of Iran regarding Hezbollah's cross border raid.

The surprising move demonstrates that Sunni Muslim fundamentalists in the Middle East are deeply divided over whether Moslems should support Hezbollah, Iran's Shiite proxies in the war raging in Lebanon.

When members of the Arab League condemned Hezbollah, it produced some well-earned cynicism by commentators in the West. Despite the singularity of any Arab nation criticizing Muslims in battle against the Israelis, most figured that the statements did little more than appease Western allies. This latest development seems to demonstrate that the enmity reaches into the so-called Arab street, and the League's criticism reflected a reality for Arabs in general.

Ali's fatwa reveals a deep distrust and anger against the radical Shi'ites of Iran and their support of organizations that kill other Muslims, specifically in Iraq. Hezbollah being an agent of the non-Arab Iranians, the Sunnis have split on their support or opposition for the terrorists in southern Lebanon. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt hold rallies in their support while the Wahhabi Sunnis in Saudi Arabia issue fatwas against them. The conflict shows that the damage done in Iraq has reverberated through the Islamic world, and that the Iranian-backed militias there have isolated Teheran even further from the Arabic peoples.

Their proxies did not count on this when they launched the war on Israel. Sheikh Nasrallah, if still alive, must be rather disillusioned with his fellow Muslims, a good chunk of whom want him cast out, and none of whom have lifted a finger to assist him. (via K-Lo at The Corner)

They Won't Just Go Away If Israel Capitulates

No one doubts that Fuad Saniora, Lebanon's Prime Minister, finds himself in a tough spot, and anyone who doesn't sympathize with his plight and that of Lebanon has a hard heart. Saniora and his fellow citizens have been victimized and held hostage by Hezbollah for three decades, and they do not have the wherewithal to free themselves, thanks to Syrian and Iranian support for the terrorist group. Now they find themselves once more to be the battleground for a proxy war, and their friends and families are caught in the crossfire, just as Hezbollah intends in order to pressure the Israelis to stop fighting back. All the Lebanese want is their freedom from Iran, Syria, and Israel, and to be left in peace.

Saniora has my sympathy, but he still sounds like a victim of the Stockholm Syndrome. His solution today reverts back to the "give them what they want and then they'll go away" strategy:

Hizbullah has created a "state within a state" in Lebanon and must be disarmed, Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora said in an interview published Thursday in an Italian daily.

Saniora told Milan-based newspaper Corriere della Sera that the Shi'ite group has been doing the bidding of Syria and Iran, and that it can only be disarmed with the help of the international community and once a cease-fire has been achieved in the current Middle East fighting. ...

"The important thing now is to restore full Lebanese sovereignty in the south, dismantling any armed militia parallel to the national army," he said. "The Syrians are inside our home and we are still too weak to defend ourselves. The terrible memories of the civil war are still too alive and no one is ready to take up arms."

The prime minister was quoted as saying that to disarm the militia it is also necessary for Israel to help delegitimize it by releasing Lebanese prisoners and withdrawing from the Chebaa Farms, a disputed territory that Lebanon claims and Hizbullah uses as a pretext to keep attacking Israeli forces.

Uh. no. Hezbollah attacked Israel and kidnapped two of its soldiers for those very purposes. Saniora proposes that Israel essentially capitulate on all of the pretexts for Hezbollah's action, and that this capitulation will somehow "delegitimize" the terrorists. Unfortunately for Saniora, that won't work, and I suspect he knows that. Hezbollah wants much more than Shebaa Farms, which the UN recognizes as part of Israel in any case; they want the destruction of Israel.

Instead of delegitimizing Hezbollah, it will once again invigorate the organization. Once hundreds of criminals held in Israeli prisons get released for the two IDF soldiers abducted by Hezbollah, the terrorists will find new pretexts on which to attack Israel. Does Saniora expect us to believe that Iran and Syria poured millions of dollars and tons of weapons into southern Lebanon just to free Shebaa Farms? It's ludicrous on its face.

Saniora correctly states that the central government has no power to disarm Hezbollah. After all, their army and police cannot enter Hezbollah ground in its own capital, a splendid demonstration of the power that terrorists have in Lebanon. However, the call for "the world" to come into Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah amounts to little more than wishful thinking. Israel would love to see that happen -- all they want is to get Hezbollah out of Lebanon, too -- but Ehud Olmert will have little trust in the "world's" ability to get the job done. The UN has had a multinational force on the border for years, and not only have they done nothing to enforce UN Security Council resolution 1559, they have allowed Hezbollah terrorists to plant their flags next to the UN's at some of their bases.

The world has no inclination to fight Hezbollah, and the Lebanese do not have the necessary power to beat them. Unfortunately, that leaves the Israelis, who seem to be getting the job done. Perhaps we should allow them to complete the mission.

UPDATE: Fixed two errors in the third paragraph from the end, thanks to CQ reader Jim F.

UPDATE II: As M. Simon and others point out in the comments, Shebaa Farms is Syrian, not Lebanese or Israeli, as far as the UN is concerned. However, that still means that Israel cleared out of Lebanon completely six years ago, and the UN acknowledged it then and today. Thanks to all of you who sent confirmation of the status of Shebaa Farms.

Check The Temperature In Hades

George Bush will finally make an appearance at the NAACP national convention Thursday evening, after five years of snubs by the White House:

After six years in office, President Bush has agreed to address the NAACP at its annual national convention in Washington, the White House announced yesterday. ...

With the appearance, Bush will avoid becoming the first president since Warren G. Harding to snub the predominantly black organization throughout his term.

The president's change of heart followed a change in the NAACP's leadership. Bruce Gordon, the new president, is a former telecommunications executive who is more moderate than his predecessors.

"Yes, they have political disagreements," Snow said, but "Bruce Gordon . . . and the president have good relations."

So why now? The civil-rights organization has been anything but civil to Bush. He addressed the national convention before being elected to the presidency, but the NAACP repaid him by equating him with the dragging death of James Byrd in Texas in the 2000 campaign. The Washington Post fails to mention that episode in its review, but it does note some others. Julian Bond, who has gotten increasingly shrill over the years, claimed that Bush represented the "Taliban" wing of the GOP. The group did so much politicking against Bush in 2004 that it risked its tax-exempt status.

Bush wants to help the party get closer to African-Americans, however, and that makes the NAACP event a must, even if the audience will be hostile -- which hardly seems in doubt. Bush says he wants to defend his record of creating opportunity for African-Americans, but he's probably aiming to just survive the night in good humor. It fits with Bush's personality that he would at some point want to face the challenge head-on.

The change in management has to have helped. Bruce Gordon probably talked him into making the appearance, and I suspect that Ken Mehlman pushed it as well. He got a lot of flack during his outreach to African-Americans at the White House embargo on the NAACP. This will alleviate that particular criticism.

Will it change any minds or make Bush's numbers increase? Almost assuredly not. In the end, I think that Bush didn't want to leave office as the only president since Harding not to address the group at its national conventions. It's good for both Bush and the NAACP to get together, regardless of the outcome.

Comedy Central Grows A Pair

Ten days ago, I wrote about the conundrum faced by Comedy Central. The Emmy nominations came out that week, and the South Park episode "Trapped In The Closet" got picked for Best Animated Show. Unfortunately, Comedy Central had pulled the episode from the rotation after Isaac Hayes quit the show, complaining about the insensitivity of SP creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker towards his Scientology faith. Rumor has it that Tom Cruise, who gets mercilessly lampooned in the episode, pressured Comedy Central parent Viacom to pull "Trapped", allegedly threatening to stop promoting Mission Impossible 3.

I wondered whether Comedy Central would return "Trapped" to the rotation after receiving the honor from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. Tonight, "Trapped" made its triumphant return to Comedy Central's rotation. I'm watching it now, and it will be on again at 11 pm CT. If you haven't yet seen the episode, be sure to tune in this evening.

Will Israel Rescue Joe Lieberman?

The ongoing battle in Connecticut's primary has taken a back seat to the war erupting between Israel and Hezbollah. However, the conflict may have its own impact on the Ned Lamont - Joe Lieberman race, as the AP reports, while the New York Times notes that Lamont has struggled to find more issues than just the war to attract voters:

Pro-Israel groups, afraid of losing one of their staunchest supporters in Congress, are pouring money into beleaguered Sen. Joe Lieberman's campaign as he tries to fend off a tougher-than-expected primary challenge. ...

Pro-Israel political action committees have donated to the Connecticut senator's campaign and have urged their national membership to give generously now and later, if Lieberman is forced to run as an unaffiliated candidate.

"Joe Lieberman, without exception, no conditions ... is the No. 1 pro-Israel advocate and leader in Congress," said Mark Vogel, chairman of the National Action Committee, a pro-Israel political action committee. "There is nobody who does more on behalf of Israel than Joe Lieberman. That is why he is incredibly important to the pro-Israel community."

With Israel under fire, Lieberman's presence might be seen as critical to the pro-Israeli voting bloc. That may re-energize Lieberman's campaign, which has operating on the defensive ever since Lieberman announced that he would run as an independent if he lost the primary to Lamont. The war gives him another justification for doing so; he could certainly argue that as an Orthodox Jew, he intends on maintaining a strong voice for Israel in Congress.

At any rate, it certainly will motivate contributors who appreciate his strong support of Israel during any circumstances. It may also motivate others who oppose Israel to complain about a "Jewish conspiracy" in Connecticut. We can certainly look forward to some fireworks if the election plays out along the analysis by Susan Haigh.

Lamont, meanwhile, has a different kind of problem -- he's looking to break out of the single-issue mold:

Ned Lamont has become a political sensation in Connecticut by being a multimillionaire who wants the troops out of Iraq. But he would love, love to get people talking about other things than his wealth or the war.

Mr. Lamont breezed past Iraq the other night at a fund-raiser in Stamford for his campaign against Senator Joseph I. Lieberman. Instead he delved into Israel, jobs, Terri Schiavo, and his beef with Don Imus, the radio talk show host, who recently called Mr. Lamont a “bug-eyed pencil neck geek.”

“Imus is incredibly popular here in Fairfield County, so I have to deal with that,” Mr. Lamont said in an interview afterward. “People need to know the real me, not just the war and the money, if I’m going to pull this off.”

He doesn't have much more time to make the case. The primary election is less than three weeks from now, and if Lamont hasn't made an impact on any other issues, he will have to do it immediately. One problem for Lamont is that Lieberman's Senate record puts him in the center of his party caucus. The Minority Leader, Harry Reid, has a more conservative record than Lieberman, as does Joe Biden, although barely.

In order to woo voters, he either has to show himself as radically more liberal than Lieberman -- perhaps in the Barbara Boxer realm -- or cast himself as a Lieberman opposed to the war. The latter option pigeonholes him as a single-issue candidate, however. The former has its challenges, too -- since Barbara Boxer is presently campaigning for Joe Lieberman.

I think Lieberman will win the primary, although it may be closer than he would like. I thought that before Hezbollah attacked Israel, but with that event now erupting, I think it plays to Lieberman's benefit, both in the American affection for Israel and the desire to rely on the proven in times of crisis. I also think we won't have seen the last of Ned Lamont.

Israeli Shock And Awe

Israel took a page from the American playbook this evening, dropping 23 tons of explosives on a bunker in southern Beirut where the IDF believes top Hezbollah leadership to be hiding. Preliminary bomb-damage assessment seems optimistic:

IAF fighter jets dropped over 20 tons in bombs late Wednesday night on a Hizbullah bunker, possibly the hiding place of the group's leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, in the Burj al-Arjana refugee camp in southeast Beirut. It was still unclear who was in the bunker at the time and what their fate was, but IDF sources said the bunker was totally destroyed and that all that was left was a crater.

The IDF obtained intelligence information late Wednesday night that Hizbullah leaders possibly including Nasrallah had taken refuge inside the bunker. A wave of aircraft immediately took to the air and dropped 23 tons of explosives on the bunker.

IDF sources would not confirm that Nasrallah was in the bunker at the time, but said that high-ranking Hizbullah leaders were inside, and that it appeared that the attack was successful.

Fox News just reported that Hezbollah's Al-Manar television has just gone on air to deny that the IDF killed any of the terrorist group's leaders. However, at this moment, no Hezbollah leader has made any statement directly to the media, including Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah. If any were inside the bunker, they likely have made their last statement; the BDA shows nothing left but a big crater.

Hopefully they had better luck targeting Nasrallah than we did targeting Saddam in the opening days of the war. Cutting off the head and the shoulders of Hezbollah might cripple the organization enough to disrupt all of its communications, especially its political ties to Syria and Iran. I'll update this as information becomes available.

UPDATE: Al-Manar says the site was a mosque, under construction:

Hezbollah later denied that a leadership bunker was hit, saying the strike targeted a mosque that was under construction and no one was killed.

The group issued a statement saying "no Hezbollah leaders or elements were killed in the strike."

"The strike hit a building that was under construction for a mosque," said the statement, issued on the group's Al-Manar TV and faxed to The Associated Press.

But as of yet, none of the Hezbollah leaders have appeared on television ...

UPDATE II: One of the reasons given for the lack of confirmation at this point explains a lot about the war itself:

Hizbullah has a headquarters compound in Bourj al-Barajneh that is off limits to the Lebanese police and army, so security officials could not confirm the strike.

Got that? The Lebanese police and army are not allowed to enter onto its own land. That's not much of an excuse for a state, especially given that the land is in the capital city of Lebanon.

How Deeply Are Iran And Syria Involved In Lebanon?

According to two news reports over the last twenty-four hours, Iran and Syria have provided their Hezbollah proxies a lot more than just cheerleading. Ynet News reported last night that the IDF had intercepted missile shipments coming from Syria, and the New York Sun's Ira Stoll says that "hundreds" of Iranian troops have joined Hezbollah's missile brigades. First the Syrians:

Although Hizbullah has suffered a harsh blow from Israeli air force strikes which took out a good percentage of their available weapons, Syria was continuing to smuggle arms into Lebanon to rearm the group, IDF Operations Branch Head Major General Gadi Eisenkot said during a press briefing Tuesday.

Thus far, the IAF managed to intercept a number of trucks transporting rockets from Syria to Hizbullah, including trucks laden with the 220mm-diameter rockets with warheads like the one that hit the Haifa train depot Monday, claiming eight lives. Maj.-Gen. Eisenkot said he would be very surprised if official elements in Syria were unaware of these transports.

“These are rockets that belong to the Syrian army. You can’t find them in the Damascus market, and the Syrian government is responsible for this smuggling,” Eisenkot said, but stressed, “We are not operating against Syria or the Lebanese army.”

The Iranians have something more personal in mind for assistance:

Hundreds of Iranian Revolutionary Guard personnel are on the ground in Lebanon fighting Israel, security sources say. "I have no doubt whatsoever that they are there and operating some of the equipment," an Arab diplomatic source told The New York Sun yesterday.

Another foreign source, based in Washington, said the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps contingent in Lebanon is based in Beirut and in the Bekaa Valley. He said the troops usually number a few dozen, but that the size of the force increased in connection with the hostilities that have broken out between Israel and Iran's proxy, Hezbollah, over the past week.

The sources said the Iranians had directly operated a radar-guided C–802 missile that Iran acquired from Communist China and that hit an Israeli navy missile boat off the coast of Lebanon on Friday, killing four Israeli seamen.

If true, it would certainly give Israel all the pretext it needs to engage Syria and/or Iran in the war. However, Ehud Olmert has proven himself quite the cool character. He intends on waiting out both Syria and Iran. Unless they give a very specific provocation, he will concentrate on Hezbollah; humiliating their proxy to the entire Arab world will be enough of a victory for the moment. Olmert knows that if either country makes the first attack on Israel, it gives him carte blanche in terms of his response -- and ours as well.

Unless the IDF captures Iranians or Syrians in uniform, expect Olmert to continue his mental battle with the dimwits in Damascus and Teheran. So far, he's winning handily.

India Bans Blogs

In the wake of the recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai and elsewhere, India has decided to tighten Internet controls in an unprecedented squelching of free speech in the world's largest democracy. Indian officials have directed telecoms to start blocking certain web sites, including blog portals and individual blogs that they deem potentially offensive -- including two of CQ's friends:

India's Internet regulators have started blocking several Web sites in a move that borrows a page from China, where government censors heavily restrict the flow of online information.

India's Department of Telecommunications sent an order late last week to Internet-service providers to block several Web sites, according to a department spokesman. The spokesman, Rajesh Malhotra, declined to disclose the contents of the letter or discuss the order, saying it was a "confidential exchange of information between the department and the operators."

Several telecom operators confirmed there were more than 15 sites they were directed to block. Close to a third of the sites were home to blogs, the personalized Web logs that have become popular in India, just as they have in other parts of the world. Among the Web sites blocked are parts of Blogger and GeoCities. Included on a list seen by The Wall Street Journal are sites that showcase views of an Islamic holy man, conservative Hindus, and Dalits, the low caste in India pejoratively referred to as untouchables.

Among the sites blocked are two on CQ's own blogroll, My Pet Jawa and Pirate's Cove. I'm not sure what made them ban William Teach's Pirate's Cove, other than the enthusiastic support for the war on terror that he espouses. It's easy to see why they banned My Pet Jawa, though. Rusty at MPJ has followed terrorist abductions and displayed the gruesome ends of those crimes on his blog -- and it certainly has an effect on any human being that sees these posts. Rusty tells the truth, and apparently that has Indian authorities afraid.

I hope New Delhi reconsiders this move. The argument "If X happens then the terrorists have won" has long since passed into cliché status, but in this case it has merit. Terrorists want their dhimmis to live in fear and to sit quietly while Islamists force them into submission. India only makes that easier for them to accomplish. After all, following in China's footsteps for information accessibility should give no one any pride.

Perhaps CQ will be banned next for this criticism. I certainly hope not, but better banned in Mumbai than submission to Zawahiri.

UPDATE: Looks like Macker's World got banned, too. When will the madness stop?

Baby Speaks!

Bashar Assad finally spoke his first words on the israeli-Hezbollah conflict after spending the last nine days missing in action. Assad, whose party started issuing foreign-policy statements in his absence last week at the outset of the hostilities, demanded a UN-brokered cease fire:

Syrian President Bashar Assad spoke out on Wednesday for the first time since the outbreak of the war in the North and said a cease-fire was necessary in order to stop the Israeli attacks on Lebanon. The president made the statement in a telephone conversation with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

CNN Turk reported that Assad called on Erdogan to put pressure on Israel to stop its offensive in Lebanon. According to the report, Erdogan answered him that Turkey was trying to bring about a cease-fire and would continue to do so.

Meanwhile, a UN envoy who visited Israel and Lebanon this week and met with Spain's foreign minister Wednesday called for a quick decision on whether to deploy a new international force to stop the escalating Mideast fighting.

"We're in a hurry. It has to happen fast," said Terje Roed-Larsen, adviser on Lebanon-Syria issues to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. "There is serious work to be done in order to reach conclusions, which will be presented to the parties. The parties then have to agree with the presence of the force, what kind of force before it can go in."

The absence of Baby Assad in the high-powered diplomatic moves has been puzzling, to say the least. First the Ba'ath Party council starts issuing statements of support for Hezbollah without any input from the putative head of state, and then a division of the Syrian Army gets mobilized and heads to the border without so much as a sighting of the eye doctor. Nine days later, Assad finally finds his tongue -- and all he can do is parrot calls for a cease-fire.

It looks like Syria has lost its nerve. In those first hours, the Ba'athists attempted to scare the world into thinking that it would jump back into Lebanon. They certainly expected Israel to strike against their mobilized division, and perhaps even hoped Ehud Olmert would take the opportunity to do so. The Arab League's refusal to endorse Hezbollah's war must have taken Damascus aback, and when Israel failed to attack them, it made their words appear very hollow. Even Iran had taken care to specify that they would come to Syria's aid "if attacked".

I think they counted on an Arab effort against Israel, and wanted an Israeli attack to foment a pan-Islam coalition of nations to attack Israel. Olmert turned out to be craftier than the Ba'athists, and this call for a cease fire proves that they know they lost the bet.

Did Assad oppose this provocation? It seems passingly strange that he has not spoken publicly at all since the war began. Now his sudden reappearance to demand a cease-fire gives some suspicion that he may not have been in charge when Hezbollah decided to take action. Did Assad become the victim of an aborted coup?

Bush Casts First Veto On Embryonic Stem-Cell Funding

George Bush waited 2,006 days to cast the first veto of his presidency, and it comes on an issue for which he has threatened a veto for at least 2006 days. As Congress considered a bill authorizing federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, Bush warned that he would not allow it to become law, and he made good on that promise this afternoon:

President Bush today used the first veto of his presidency to stop legislation that would have lifted restrictions on federally funded human embryonic stem cell research.

"This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," Bush, speaking at the White House, said after he followed through on his promise to veto the bill. "It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect. So I vetoed it." ...

The Senate voted 63 to 37 yesterday to approve the bill, passed by the House last year, that would expand spending for research on stem cell lines derived from frozen embryos that are stored at fertility clinics and slated for destruction.

Such research is controversial because it holds the promise of finding cures for major diseases, such as Parkinson's, but requires destroying human embryos to extract the cells.

Bush addressed the issue in the White House's East Room surrounded by two dozen families -- including one from Alexandria, another from Ellicott City -- who adopted frozen embryos not wanted by other couples and used the embryos to have children.

This crossed one of the bright lines of Bush's stated policy. However one wants to define this issue, destroying human embryos to fashion treatments amounts to trading one life for another. As Bush said in his veto, these are not spare parts but human life. These embryos contain human DNA and they have grown into multicelluar states, showing life, and life that is undeniably human. I wrote this two years ago:

I believe that life begins within minutes of conception, and that belief is based on science, not faith, although they intersect. Eggs and sperm carry 23 chromosomes, half of the genetic blueprint for human life. Even if other primates have the same chromosome count, the DNA encoding on human eggs and sperm is uniquely human. When the sperm fertilizes the egg, the separate DNA strands combine into 23 pairs of chromosomes and a unique blueprint for a unique human being. Once the cell divides on its own -- usually within a half-hour -- that being is alive, unique, and separate from, though dependent on, its mother.

Some have argued this point for decades. Phil Donahue, years ago, once said on television that a human being in the womb passes through stages where it becomes a fish, then a dog, and so on; this argument arises amongst the ignorant often. Science teaches us that this is folk-tale nonsense. Vertebrates in the womb all pass through similar stages of development, but we are encoded at conception as human, and human we remain from the moment of conception until our death. Our DNA and genetic composition is a fact, not a belief, and cell division demonstrates life, as any biologist will tell you. Facts. Not beliefs.

What to do with this life then becomes a question more of values than of faith. Do we sacrifice innocent human life for the sake of convenience or economics? Throughout the history of Western civilization, we have answered that with a resounding NO. We enact laws, construct family structures, and develop moral and social structures in order to protect and to nurture it. When we have devalued innocent life, Holocausts have resulted, such as the Nazi atrocities (even apart from the Final Solution) of forced abortions and euthanasia of the so-called undesirable elements, such as the sickly, the less intelligent, the handicapped, and the simply different.

Congress wanted to treat human life as a commodity instead of protecting it in all its forms. Bush made the right call in vetoing federal funding for these programs.

Undoubtedly, we will hear plenty from critics that Bush has endangered the health of Americans through his veto, a conclusion bordering on the absurd. Putting aside the fact that we shouldn't grind up humans to save other humans, this veto doesn't ban any kind of research at all. It just makes human embryonic stem-cell (hESC) research ineligible for federal funding. It's not a ban, and in fact that research has never been banned within the US.

The lack of federal funding should make little difference, if the science is sound for hESC. It's not, or at least it isn't commercially viable, which is why researchers want the federal government to pay for it. Pharmaceuticals won't underwrite it because adult stem cells and umbilical-cord stem cells have had much more success. They have produced actual medical treatments, where hESCs have had little real success. California planned on spending $2 billion on ESC, and we have yet to hear of any breakthroughs from that research.
(I wrote about this in September 2004 for the New York Sun.) The lack of private investment in this procedure tells volumes about its value.

Congress may try an override on this veto, but I doubt it will find the necessary votes. The bill only got 63 votes in the Senate on passage, four short of an override. Congress finally found Bush's limits after five and half years in office, and he's not budging.

UPDATE: Congress failed to override the veto, only garnering 235 votes -- 51 fewer than needed.

Gallup Shows Rice Among Presidential Frontrunners

A new Gallup poll measures the viability of potential presidential candidates in 2008, and it contains a number of surprises. Gallup did not ask respondents to endorse one particular candidate but instead to indicate their acceptability or unacceptability as a potential party nominee. One name comes as a minor surprise for the Republicans:

A recent Gallup Panel poll asked Republicans and Democrats whether they would find each of several possible contenders for their party's 2008 presidential nomination to be "acceptable" nominees. Unlike other nomination ballot questions that measure respondents' first choice from among a list of possible candidates, this question paints a broader picture of the level of potential support and opposition for each candidate.

Hillary Clinton is the clear front-runner among Democrats when voters are asked to choose which one candidate they would prefer for the Democratic nomination for president, but the current poll finds Democrats are about equally likely to rate Clinton, John Edwards, and Al Gore as acceptable nominees. Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain typically vie for the lead in Republican preference polls, but a greater percentage of Republicans say they would find Giuliani acceptable than say this about McCain (73% to 55%). Four in 10 Republicans say they would not find McCain to be an acceptable GOP presidential nominee. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is also widely considered by Republicans to be an acceptable nominee.

Gallup's June 26-29 poll tested Democrats' (and Democrat-leaning independents') reactions to 13 potential candidates and Republicans' (and Republican leaning independents') reactions to 12 potential candidates. While none of the politicians evaluated in the poll have officially announced their candidacies for president, many have laid the groundwork for a run by visiting early primary and caucus states like Iowa or New Hampshire or by setting up political action committees to raise money for themselves and other candidates. Others have been talked about as potential candidates, even though some (like Rice and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush) have stated they do not intend to run.

A number of people would like to see Condi run in 2008, even though she has stated rather categorically that she has no interest in the position. One might expect her lack of experience in electoral politics would present a stumbling block to the GOP, but Gallup indicates that she has a higher acceptability rating than John McCain, who the press has anointed the Republican front-runner. Her unacceptability rating is much lower than McCain's who had one of the highest such ratings at 41%.

Dick Cheney rated 61% to take the prize in unacceptability, but others show large hurdles in gaining traction among Republican voters. Jeb Bush, George Pataki, and Newt Gingrich all have majority-unacceptable ratings, and the latter has made clear that he's seriously considering a run at the nomination. Of the 13 candidates listed, Giuliani and Rice have the lowest negative ratings, 25% and 29% respectively. George Allen, one of the conservative favorites, has an acceptable/unacceptable rating of 36/35, but has 29% undecided. Only Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee have more unknown votes.

As for the Democrats, the poll has some surprises as well. Hillary polls higher than one would expect, and her unacceptability rating comes in lower, at a mere 29%. That appears to indicate that party sentiment against her run is not as strong as some have reported. John Edwards actually tops the poll, despite having only served one term in the Senate, half of which he spent running for President and then Vice-President. Howard Dean, Tom Daschle, and Dennis Kucinich all have negative majorities, to no one's great surprise. Russ Feingold, one of the darlings of the hard Left, only garners 29% positive to 41% negative, showing a serious problem early in his bid.

John Kerry, in one of the big surprises, stil has 59% positive vs 40% negative. Even after his poor 2004 campaign and the $15 million he never spent, Democrats still see him as an acceptable candidate. Some people never learn.

Republicans seem more ready for a Giuliani campaign than one would have guessed, given Rudy's position on abortion and gun rights. None of these candidates from either party have gone through the crucible of a national campaign, except obviously Kerry and Edwards; expect these numbers to shift accordingly.

Oh, and one big non-surprise: Gallup never polled regarding Joe Lieberman's chances.

McKinney Stumbles Into Runoff

Cynthia McKinney got a slap in the face from her constituents yesterday, failing to garner the 50% needed to avoid a primary runoff after political neophyte Hank Johnson fought his way to a virtual tie with the incumbent in yesterday's primaries. McKinney vowed to win the runoff on August 8th, but the majority of the vote in the three-way race appears to oppose her return to Congress:

U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney is headed to a runoff against a relatively unknown challenger in a Democratic primary she was expected to win with ease.

The controversial 4th District incumbent, accused of striking a Capitol Hill police officer last March, narrowly led former DeKalb County Commissioner Hank Johnson. ...

Recognizing his daughter’s polarizing effect, former state representative Billy McKinney on Tuesday night discounted Johnson’s showing in the primary.

“There’s a love and hate of Cynthia McKinney,” he said. “Mickey Mouse would get a certain amount of votes.”

Anne Dishman of Decatur, who said she voted for Johnson, reflected voter discontent with McKinney. “I don’t know a lot about him [Johnson],” Dishman said as she left her polling place at Holy Trinity Parish. “It’s most important that Cynthia is not voted back in her office.”

Bill McKinney, one should recall, blamed his daughter's loss in 2002 on the "J-E-W-S", as he told reporters. Now apparently it's Disney's fault. The McKinney family certainly has a history of being Goofy, and almost as entertaining as a Disney cartoon, but for all the wrong reasons.

McKinney has her work cut out for her. Often seen as arrogant and reckless, she won no friends with her assault on a Capitol Hill police officer earlier this year. That same arrogance came through when she refused to debate her primary opponents, and having lost her seat once already in 2002, McKinney skates on thin ice anyway. She has three weeks to repair the damage to her image -- but with her track record, she probably won't recognize the need to do so.

Hank Johnson will probably win this primary, and he can certainly win it if McKinney continues to refuse to debate him. McKinney's constituents showed in this primary that they have had enough of her antics. She won about 47% of the vote to Johnson's 45%, but the votes for John Coyne will likely go to Johnson. After all, if those people wanted McKinney back in Congress, they wouldn't have voted for Coyne in the primary. Any time an incumbent cannot manage a majority in their own primary, they have run into serious problems, whether they have the capacity to comprehend it or not.

I predict Johnson beats McKinney, 52-48, on August 8th. Let Billy prepare his anti-Semitic rants now.

A Golden Opportunity

Rather than look at the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict as a major disaster and a failure, Charles Krauthammer sees it -- correctly -- as a golden opportunity. In the Washington Post this morning, Krauthammer puts the conflict in its proper perspective, and shows why the US should not rush Israel into a cease-fire without having achieved its military objectives first:

Every important party in the region and in the world, except the radical Islamists in Tehran and their clients in Damascus, wants Hezbollah disarmed and removed from south Lebanon so that it is no longer able to destabilize the peace of both Lebanon and the broader Middle East. ...

Everyone agrees it must be done. But who to do it? No one. The Lebanese are too weak. The Europeans don't invade anyone. After its bitter experience of 20 years ago, the United States has a Lebanon allergy. And Israel could not act out of the blue because it would immediately have been branded the aggressor and forced to retreat.

Hence the golden, unprecedented opportunity. Hezbollah makes a fatal mistake. It crosses the U.N.-delineated international frontier to attack Israel, kill soldiers and take hostages. This aggression is so naked that even Russia joins in the Group of Eight summit communique blaming Hezbollah for the violence and calling for the restoration of Lebanese sovereignty in the south.

But only one country has the capacity to do the job. That is Israel, now recognized by the world as forced into this fight by Hezbollah's aggression.

Once again, we arrive back at the source of this opportunity: the disastrous miscalculation of Hezbollah and its sponsors. They believed that their action would either force Israel to capitulate and return hundreds of Palestinian prisoners or rally Arab nations into action against Israel. Neither resulted, and Hezbollah's terrorists have now gotten themselves stuck while their patrons sit on their hands.

We will have no better time or opportunity to deal Hezbollah a crushing defeat, and we need to remember that we are at war with precisely the same enemy. Hezbollah is one of the primary proxies for Iran and Syria in their attempt to spread terror and destruction against the West. Lebanon has proven themselves unable, although not necessarily unwilling, to disarm Hezbollah and force them away from the border, an inability that led to this act of war. If Israel does not contain and cripple Hezbollah, they will return to provoke another war at a later time.

America needs to see this as a unique opportunity to strike a blow against the two largest state supporters of terrorism. Israel doesn't even want our assistance in cleaning out the Hezbollah threat; they just want us to leave them alone so that they can complete the mission. Israel could even take on Syria without our explicit assistance, if Damascus gets as stupid as Hezbollah. Why should we step in to protect the same enemies that have sworn to destroy us?

We do not need another twenty years of UNIFIL solutions and Hezbollah provocations. We need to destroy Hezbollah and Hamas before they start tipping their missiles with chemical, biological, or nuclear warheads. If we do not seize this opportunity, we will regret it when we have to fight them ourselves later.

UPDATE: Zev Chafets writes on a similar theme from Tel Aviv in today's New York Times:

The Israeli government in 1991 was ordered by President George H. W. Bush to stay out of the fighting. Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, a man of limited communications skills, complied without explaining his decision to the Israeli public. When Israelis realized they were unprotected, people panicked. Schools shut down, businesses closed and just about everyone fled to safety.

This reaction led Israel’s enemies to a simple conclusion: whatever the Israeli Army could accomplish on the battlefield could be neutralized by hitting the squeamish home front. Hezbollah (and the Palestinians and Syria) began laying in stocks of missiles. ...

What Mr. Olmert didn’t know when he gave the order [to attack] — what the Israeli public itself didn’t know — was that the rockets wouldn’t cause panic. Fear, yes. Caution, too, and some complaining (this is Israel, after all). But, amazingly, most people in even the most vulnerable areas have behaved with something like the sanguine good nature of the British during the Blitz.

What’s different this time? Leadership, in Jerusalem and in Washington.

For Israelis, fighting back made all the difference. We’ve taken Hezbollah’s best shot and we’re still standing.

We need that wartime leadership to continue. If Hezbollah's best doesn't cause Israelis to flinch, then it shouldn't cause us to flinch, either. Chafets summarizes by noting the poetic justice of having Bush fils restore the Israeli self-confidence that Bush pere discarded. Let's not revert back to 1991 all over again.

Is This War Bush's Fault?

One of the stranger memes to arise in the last week is the notion that the Hezbollah-Israeli conflict is somehow the fault of George Bush. Howard Kurtz covers this in today's Media Notes, along with links to plenty of people willing to cast blame at the White House. The Post also has a separate report asserting that conservatives have erupted in anger against Bush's foreign policy, asserting that Bush has not taken the fight to America's enemies, or at least not enthusiastically enough, and that this has led Iran and Syria to test our responses via their Hezbollah proxies.

Both of these points have no merit.

How can one argue that George Bush has any responsibility for the outbreak of fighting between Hezbollah and Israel -- or Hamas and Israel, for that matter -- when the fighting between the groups has gone on continuously for decades? Hezbollah and Hamas have long made it clear that they want Israel destroyed and the Jews pushed into the Mediterranean. George Bush didn't convince them of that goal, and he certainly didn't give them any indication that he would support the terrorists if they started kidnapping IDF soldiers.

In fact, if one looks at the Arab reaction to both provocations, one can see the value in Bush's aggressive stance against Islamist terrorists and Saddam Hussein. Egypt backed Israel in the Gilad Shalit kidnapping, even publicly blaming Syria for their support of Hamas. The entire Arab League blamed Hezbollah for their attack on Israel and called on them to return the two IDF soldiers they abducted. Bush also blocked the resupply lines for Hezbollah by removing Saddam Hussein and using Iraq as a roadblock between Iran and Syria.

Hezbollah proved too stupid to realize that, but that's hardly Bush's fault.

Conservatives may have stronger ground on North Korea and Iran, but it's hardly the meltdown that Michael Abramowitz paints:

Conservative intellectuals and commentators who once lauded Bush for what they saw as a willingness to aggressively confront threats and advance U.S. interests said in interviews that they perceive timidity and confusion about long-standing problems including Iran and North Korea, as well as urgent new ones such as the latest crisis between Israel and Hezbollah.

"It is Topic A of every single conversation," said Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank that has had strong influence in staffing the administration and shaping its ideas. "I don't have a friend in the administration, on Capitol Hill or any part of the conservative foreign policy establishment who is not beside themselves with fury at the administration."

Conservatives complain that the United States is hunkered down in Iraq without enough troops or a strategy to crush the insurgency. They see autocrats in Egypt and Russia cracking down on dissenters with scant comment from Washington, North Korea firing missiles without consequence, and Iran playing for time to develop nuclear weapons while the Bush administration engages in fruitless diplomacy with European allies. They believe that a perception that the administration is weak and without options is emboldening Syria and Iran and the Hezbollah radicals they help sponsor in Lebanon.

Most of this comes from a short attention span. This effort will take decades, not months, and Bush knows it. One cannot hope to transform all tyrannies into democracies overnight. It takes time to build up the momentum, and it will ebb and flow as world events unfold. The crisis in North Korea has been years in coming, and Bush started off with a lousy hand, as the Jimmy Carter-imposed Agreed Framework allowed Pyongyang to do as it pleased for eight years. Unless we want to start another ground war in Asia, we cannot simply bomb the Kim regime into non-existence. The Kim regime is committing slow suicide as it is, and the Bush policy of multilateral engagement is the correct one to contain Kim and to contain the damage from the ultimate collapse that will inevitably come.

On Iran, Bush allowed the Europeans to take the lead for a number of good reasons. Primarily, the White House wanted to focus on consolidating the Iraqi victory, and the mere presence of Americans on Iraq's Western border made it clear that we had a big stake in the outcome. It also made sense to have the EU-3 handle the negotiations, since neither Iran or the US wanted diplomatic relations with each other. Europe, which had convinced itself of the folly of American unilateralism, wanted the chance to strike a deal with Iran, and since they had more at risk with a nuclear Teheran, it made sense to allow them to do so. After all, we do not run the world.

Now we know that the EU failed, and the EU knows that it failed. We still have the big military in place in the region, and the Iranians know that we will not stand idly by while Iran threatens our position. If they had not realized it by now, they certainly understand it in our refusal to rein in Israel in Lebanon. We cannot simply start attacking Iran simply because their leader makes nutty statements about the Holocaust and has abrogated a treaty on non-proliferation. We need to build up as much of a consensus as possible to take action -- just as we did with Iraq -- and then strike if necessary.

I believe in a strong defense and pre-emption when necessary. I don't see the necessity at the moment, and in fact I see Israel's action as putting off that day for a while longer. If Israel crushes Iran's proxy and chases the Islamists out of Lebanon, Iran will find itself isolated even further -- and then they will want to cut a deal that makes sense.

Conservatives need to learn some patience and prioritization. Not everything gets solved in a week, not even for the world's most powerful nation.

Addendum: I disagree with Newt Gingrich's World War III nomenclature. If anything qualified as WWIII, it would be the Cold War, a truly global struggle between two superpowers that touched nearly every nation on the planet. The GWOT still has more of the tinge of the conflict with the Barbary Pirates in the early 19th century. It has the capability of becoming a regional war in southwest Asia, but I think the WWIII tag is rather hyperbolic.

Addendum II: I also don't believe that conservatives have become anywhere near as disaffected over foreign policy as Abramowitz indicates through his strictly anecdotal analysis. Rasmussen shows the President gaining strength in the approval ratings even as these issues become acute. As Joe Gandelman noted yesterday, that gain isn't coming from moderate and liberal converts to Bushism -- it's the conservative base returning to Bush's side.

Hezbollah Ready To Crumble?

The Australian claims that Hezbollah has been sent reeling both by the Israeli military response and the lack of support from the Arab world, and that the terrorist group may agree to pull away from the Israeli border in exchange for a cease-fire. The terrorists have found out that their deterrent no longer works on an Israel fed up with constant border provocations:

One week after the humiliation it suffered in a Hezbollah cross-border raid in which eight soldiers were killed and two captured, Israel senses one of its major military and political victories is within reach.

The stunning campaign it has waged against Hezbollah has reportedly brought the militia to a point where it is willing to discuss Israel's major demand - that it pull back several kilometres from the Israeli border, perhaps to the Litani River.

Reports from Beirut yesterday said that Hezbollah officials had declared readiness to discuss the pullback proposal as well as a ceasefire with Israel but were not willing to discuss Israel's demand that it disarm. ...

The huge missile arsenal Tehran sent to Hezbollah - 13,000 missiles, according to Israel - was intended primarily as a deterrent against Israel should it contemplate an airstrike against its nuclear facilities.

To respond heavily to a Hezbollah provocation could bring down a rain of missiles on Israel's cities. Surprisingly, it was an Israeli leader without a significant military background, Ehud Olmert, who decided to take on Hezbollah and pay the price.

We should clarify the notion that Olmert lacks a "significant military background", a meme that has arisen over the last couple of weeks. While Olmert never served in a command position in the Israeli Army, he certainly served -- as required by Israeli law of all young men. Charles at LGF has covered this in the past, but it bears repeating: Olmert has military experience. He served in a combat brigade in 1963, got seriously injured, and endured "prolonged military treatment". He returned to the IDF in 1971 as a combat journalist. In 1979, he re-entered the IDF and passed officer training, after which he volunteered for duty in Lebanon, but apparently did not get selected for the mission.

He knows enough to outfight Hezbollah. As The Australian notes, Hezbollah held the threat of rocket attacks over Israel for the last six years, and they built up quite an arsenal. The New York Times reports today that the US and Israel had a "blind spot" and that the extent of Hezbollah's inventory took both by surprise:

The power and sophistication of the missile and rocket arsenal that Hezbollah has used in recent days has caught the United States and Israel off guard, and officials in both countries are just now learning the extent to which the militant group has succeeded in getting weapons from Iran and Syria.

While the Bush administration has stated that cracking down on weapons proliferation is one of its top priorities, the arming of Hezbollah shows the blind spots of American and other Western intelligence services in assessing the threat, officials from across those governments said.

American and Israeli officials said the successful attack last Friday on an Israeli naval vessel was the strongest evidence to date of direct support by Iran to Hezbollah. The attack was carried out with a sophisticated antiship cruise missile, the C-802, an Iranian-made variant of the Chinese Silkworm, an American intelligence official said. ...

But neither Jerusalem nor Washington had any idea that Hezbollah had such a missile in its arsenal, the officials said, adding that the Israeli ship had not even activated its missile defense system because intelligence assessments had not identified a threat from such a radar-guided cruise missile.

Perhaps the scope surprised Israel and the US, but not the assistance itself. Israel has long known that Iran and Syria had been arming Hezbollah, and that the new Lebanese government has no power to stop it. The range of the rockets -- with Hezbollah saying they can reach Tel Aviv -- has also taken Israel aback. However, the real surprise continues to be that Israel has been willing to sustain that kind of damage, and Hezbollah has nothing else in its arsenal to keep Israel from responding militarily to their act of war.

The second surprise has been the utter lack of restraint placed on Israel by the world community. Even the Arab League, a rubber stamp for Islamist terrorism if one ever existed, blamed Hezbollah and not Israel for the conflict. Iran had to take notice of this political embarrassment, the first of its kind. Arabs have turned against Iran and Syria, preferring peaceful coexistence than a new pan-Islam caliphate run by the mullahcracy in Teheran. Arab nations have not marched to Hezbollah's rescue, not even their patrons in Syria, who know damn well that the Israelis would tear them apart as soon as they cross the border.

And let's not forget the pathetic multinational force that the UN placed in Lebanon to supposedly enforce the peace and UNSC resolutions. Not only have they failed spectacularly to do either, but they've also stood by while Syria and Iran have transferred all these weapons to a group that should have been disarmed. UNIFIL has done nothing but act as a shield for Hezbollah, a useless UN appendage that provided a deterrent to Israeli action but none to the terrorists causing the problems. Now they find themselves in the middle of a firestorm that they were supposed to prevent, and no one, not even Kofi Annan, has even given them a second thought.

Hezbollah sees all of this and has to wonder where their grand plan went wrong. They fail to recognize that the world has changed since Israel left Lebanon in 2000, and that Islamist terror groups no longer get considered as "freedom fighters" but as agents of despotism and brutal oppression. The world grew up, at least a little, since 9/11 -- and we're no longer patient with people who target civilians for death as political statements. Sheikh Nasrallah can contemplate that as the bombs fall on his head.

Israel Enters Lebanon

It may not be the massive ground offensive that Israel has threatened, but a small force of IDF soldiers entered Lebanon earlier. Israel says the soldiers will search for weapons and tunnels near the border and do not expect to conduct offensive operations at this time:

Israel declared Tuesday it was ready to fight Hezbollah guerrillas for several more weeks, raising doubts about international efforts to broker an immediate cease-fire in the fighting that has killed more than 260 people and displaced 500,000. The military said early Wednesday it sent some troops into southern Lebanon searching for tunnels and weapons.

Despite the diplomatic activity, Israel is in no hurry to end its offensive, which it sees as a unique opportunity to crush Hezbollah. The Islamic militants appear to have steadily built up their military strength after Israel pulled its troops out of southern Lebanon in 2000. ...

At daybreak Wednesday, a small number of Israeli troops were operating just across the border inside southern Lebanon, looking for tunnels and weapons, the Israeli military said. The military did not provide any more details and gave no indication that action would be expanded into a larger operation.

The AP report shows the uselessness of the UNIFIL forces in southern Lebanon. Once again, a UN peacekeeping force did nothing to force a disarmament of terrorists, but instead provided a screening force that allowed them to re-arm without fear of reprisal. Now Israel has to face off against a tougher and better-armed enemy, one that all of the "peacekeeping" in the world didn't dissuade from committing an act of war against Israel last week.

The IDF may still launch a bigger cross-border operation if their soldiers do not get returned promptly. The Olmert government still shows no inclination to swap prisoners for POWs, Israel having had its fill of such trades over the years. They have finally learned the lesson of the Danegeld, and Hezbollah has learned that its extortion plans will no longer work on Israel.

If the Israelis do invade southern Lebanon, do not expect them to conduct another occupation. This time, they plan on crushing Hezbollah, weakening them to the point where the Saniora government in Beirut can finally disarm the Syrian- and Iran-backed terrorists and secure the border themselves. That could take a few months of combat, during which the Israelis will come under tremendous diplomatic pressure to negotiate a settlement.

They should resist the temptation. Israel has already given its terms: the return of the two soldiers and the enforcement of UN Security Council resolution 1559, which demanded the disarming of Hezbollah. The terrorists have made it clear that until the latter happens, Israel cannot consider its borders secure -- and they should not stop their military action until either Hezbollah complies or Hezbollah ceases to exist.

UPDATE: Reliably liberal but rational Michael Stickings explains why liberals should be supporting Israel:

How would you respond if someone staying at your next door neighbour's house, and with your neighbour's support, broke into your house in the middle of the night and kidnapped one of your children? What if this someone also wanted to destroy you, your house, and everything in it? Even if you yourself have been guilty in the past of being a bad neighbour, even if you don't like your neighbour and that someone, even if you once one hurt one of that someone's loved ones, wouldn't you respond with force and determination to that someone's blatant act of aggression?

This isn't a perfect analogy; for one thing, it assumes a civil crime rather than an act of war, and an easy response would be "call the police". Working within the analogy, however, I would not settle for a solution which brought people from other blocks to sit between our houses, while the neighbor kept my children and swore to kill me and my family. I'd make sure that the person who abducted my child could not possibly ever do it again, even if that neighbor decided to hide in someone else's house.

Oh, Yah, Sure, You Betcha

Chad at Fraters Libertas has a separated-at-birth suggestion that involves yours truly -- and connects me to Fargo. Hey, at least it wasn't Volcano .... er, wait ....

Minnesota Meltdown

The DFL has been sent reeling by the meltdown of party leader Matt Entenza, who withdrew from the Attorney General race after having spent the last week tapdancing about oppo research he'd run on a fellow DFL member and the current Attorney General, Mike Hatch. Both men had already received endorsement for the statewide offices for which they campaigned -- Hatch is the nominee to run against Governor Tim Pawlenty in his bid for re-election -- and the meltdown may kneecap the DFL in both races:

Buffeted by questions about his credibility and by controversy over his wife's multimillion-dollar stock options from a health-care company, DFL endorsee Matt Entenza dropped out of the race for state attorney general Tuesday.

The announcement, less than six hours before the deadline for filing for office, sent shock waves across the state's political landscape. And it threatened to create a multi-candidate internal DFL battle for a nomination that Entenza had locked up. ...

Entenza's troubles began a week ago with the revelation that he had hired a Chicago opposition-research firm that investigated fellow DFLer Mike Hatch, the current attorney general who is the party's endorsee for governor. Hatch, in turn, acknowledged that he had been encouraging candidates to run against Entenza. And Hatch voiced concern that Entenza's relationship with Quam might prevent Entenza from acting in a watchdog role over the health-care industry.

Entenza has been under fire over a number of issues, but the dirt-digging was the final straw. He may still have to explain himself to Hatch's office, as he apparently used his personal money to avoid having to declare the expense in election-finance disclosures. The GOP party chairman, Ron Carey, has already filed a complaint about the apparent violation of election law.

This could also backfire on Hatch. Carey has asked how Hatch managed to find out what Entenza was doing, a question that has not yet been answered. Hatch doesn't stand much of a chance of beating Pawlenty anyway, but the questions regarding the feud between himself and Entenza will likely dog his campaign for the next few weeks.

The DFL, meanwhile, had only hours to replace Entenza on the ticket. They rushed five people to file before the 5 pm deadline today, but now will have to contest a primary after Entenza had sailed to a party endorsement weeks ago. That can only help Jeff Johnson, the Republican who expected to square off against Entenza in November. The DFL only has this one statewide office -- all of the others have gone to the GOP -- and it looks like they will lose even that toehold on state politics.

Entenza got out just as another scandal started to heat up in St. Paul. Someone anonymously sent records, including deposits and cancelled checks, that show Entenza and his wife may have shuffled money around to get past donation limits and financial disclosures. In 2004, Entenza ran afoul of election law by donating $300,000 to a 527 that essentially laundered his money back into Minnesota DFL campaigns. Now it looks like Entenza and his wife sent $600,000 to South Dakota Democrats in order to launder it back into Minnesota.

The Democrats have tried to make a "culture of corruption" their rallying cry nationwide. Here in Minnesota, we have all of the corruption and dirty politics we can handle, thanks to the DFL.

Pork Database Hearing: Live Blog

I'm watching the Senate hearing on the bill that Senator Tom Coburn has pushed to get a searchable database on federal funding. I got to it a little late -- Senator John McCain just started his testimony now

1:42 CT - He's quoting from today's Washington Post about a rancher who found himself stunned to be eligible for federal relef after the space shuttle Columbia disaster -- and those funds came from a drought fund!

1:46 - McCain finishes up by noting that the only reason to refuse this database is to admit that government has something to hide. McCain has certainly taken the right approach on this, but I'm not sure that his anecdotes really get to the heart of the problem. Perhaps it is impolite to mention it, but the real reason isn't to keep ranchers from getting drought funds they don't deserve, but to keep politicians from approving pork-barrel spending that doesn't benefit the nation.

1:48 - Barack Obama now speaks. He says that the vast majority of government spending is beneficial, but that a significant amount is "embarrassing."

1:51 - Obama talks about procurement issues, such as paying 15 times market value for tarps in New Orleans. That's a problem too, but I'm not sure it's apt for this discussion. The database will not likely reveal much about that process that isn't already known. He does say that transparency isn't enough, but it's a start, and it's an absolute requirement.

1:54 - Obama: "Any agency that does not believe in transparency should not have responsibility for taxpayer money.

1:55 - McCain and Obama both note that the people have a right to know which contractors and grantees get federal monies and what they do with it.

1:56 - No one should get federal money, "no questions asked", Obama says. Amen.

2:01 - So far, no one on the committee has voiced any objection to the bill. Right now, Susan Collins has just remarked that some people might find themselves pleased with the various programs and spending in the federal budget. This, of course, has been one of the liberal arguments for the bill; it will convince people that government assistance provides an overall benefit above its cost. As I wrote earlier, at least we will all be arguing from the same set of facts. McCain and Obama agree with Collins.

2:06 - Of course, we get the digs in at the Department of Defense. I hear a Halliburton reference coming ...

2:10 - Obama notes that we will still need to address entitlement spending, but thanks to the explosion of pork-barrel spending, no one trusts Congress to address it honestly. He also says that the idea that Congress has a budget process is a fallacy; it's a "loose, haphazard stew". Not a very tasty one at that, either, but then again I've never liked pork stew.

2:16 - The second panel, with my friend Mark Tapscott, has just taken their seats. Mark has already posted his opening statement at his blog. OMB Watch supports the bill, but wants to see improvements now or in the future -- but they want it passed ASAP.

2:20 - OMB Watch wants focus on four points: front-end quality, data quality, complete data, sub-recipient reporting -- subcontractors, subgrantees, etc. Obama and McCain pointed out the latter as well. OMB Watch says this is a building block, and they're right.

2:25 - Eric Brenner from Maryland's grant office notes that the effort has been worth the trouble in their state.

2:27 - Mark's testifying right now. How would this improve journalism? Mark says it will have the same effect as OpenSecrets.org had on reporting -- the open information will allow much better analysis, and keep a better grip in corruption.

2:30 - The sound cut out just as Mark began talking about blogging. It's a Halliburton conspiracy!

2:33 - OMB Watch says that corruption has mainly been on the contract side, not grants, but that Katrina's aftermath shows that the potential exists through both channels. The connection is now getting very choppy, and I may not be able to get much more of this hearing, unfortunately.

2:38 - OMB Watch wants a user group to help develop the front end. I'd love to apply for that job.

2:41 - Gary Bass has taken the hearing into a very technical discussion about the type of monies involved in tracking the spending.

2:42 - Dr. Coburn: "Every contractor, every grantee will have to know how the money is spent -- and they should!" Amen again.

2:47 - Mark points out that the technical issues do not seem to impede the private sector from building the exact same kind of databases.

2:50 - Hearing adjourned. I think Mark didn't get much of an opportunity to add his thoughts on journalism and blogging, and what effect it would have on spreading sunlight on the appropriations process. In fact, it seemed to me that everyone avoided the word "corruption", probably because it would seem impolitic to talk about it with politicians present. Dr. Coburn came across as very determined to see this project through to fruition.

Don't forget to write your Representative and Senator in support of this project.

Times To Reduce The Size Of Their Newspaper

The New York Times will reduce the size of its newspaper, trimming the news by 5%, and will close one of its printing facilities to save money, it announced today. The changes will result in the loss of 250 jobs:

The New York Times is planning to reduce the size of the newspaper, making it narrower by one and a half inches, and to close its printing operation in Edison, N.J., company officials said yesterday.

The changes, to go into effect in April 2008, will be accompanied by a phased-in redesign of the paper and will mean the loss of 250 production-related jobs. ...

The reduction in the size of The Times will mean a loss of 5 percent of the space the paper devotes to news. If the paper only reduced the size of its pages, it would lose 11 percent of that space, but Bill Keller, the paper’s executive editor, said such a loss would be too drastic, so the paper will add pages to make up for some of the loss.

“That’s a number that I think we can live with quite comfortably,” Mr. Keller said of the 5 percent reduction, adding that the smaller news space would require tighter editing and putting some news in digest form.

I guess that Times Select idea hasn't panned out to well, has it?

The Times, and apparently also the Wall Street Journal, will find themselves no different than any other newspaper in the country. As more consumers turn to the Internet for the news, the need for newsprint will drop accordingly. Newspapers will have to rethink their business process. Eventually, they will find themselves in the news-delivery service, and that the medium (newsprint) has less importance than the news itself.

Will that change be painful? Of course. However, those who adopt this paradigm early will have the easier transition. Newsprint will probably always be around, or at least for a long while, but the daily delivery process has been eclipsed by the new news cycle. Stories do not break at deadline any more -- and the concept of deadlines and putting the paper to bed will be the first casualties. The Times still holds almost all of its stories until midnight, when they release them on the Internet. Competition with the wire services will eventually mean that papers like the Times will have to release stories as they get approved -- meaning their websites will continually update all through the 24-hour day.

That will eliminate the daily delivery, and as more homes get broadband access to the Internet, that paper on the doorstep becomes increasingly anachronistic. It will get the same slow death that afflicted encyclopedias on the bookshelf: it's out of date as soon as it's received. Consumers demand up-to-the-moment news, and the paper is a museum of yesterday's headlines.

This announcement from the Times is just another step along that process. It's not unique to the Times and doesn't reflect its egregious editorial policies. Newsprint will continue to shrink, and in this case, the process has become literal.

IDF: One More Week Needed

The Jerusalem Post notes that the IDF needs just one more week to render Hezbollah incapable of conducting missile attacks on Israel from southern Lebanon. Hezbollah attacks have dropped almost 75% over the past week, dropping from 150 a day to 40, and the IDF believes it can drop that number to zero:

Forty to fifty percent of Hizbullah's military capability has been destroyed in the six days of the IDF counter-attack following last Wednesday's Hizbullah raid in northern Israel, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

The IDF, it is understood, believes it needs another week or so minimum to achieve its military goals in terms of alleviating Hizbullah's capacity to threaten Israel. ...

Meanwhile, Defense Minister Amir Peretz approved a call-up of three additional reserve battalions.

The reservists are set to replace troops currently operating in the West Bank, allowing those soldiers to be deployed in the north, to assist in the conflict with Hizbullah. The orders were expected to be distributed on Tuesday.

The New York Times notes the drop in missile launches in its report on efforts for a new multinational peacekeeping force deployment:

Brig. Gen. Ido Nehushtan, on the Israeli general staff, said, “We have damaged Hezbollah but they still have significant operational capacity.” He noted the decline in rockets launched into Israel in the last two days — an average of 40 a day, down from initial highs of 150 — and said it was a testament to the damage caused by the Israelis.

“It will take time, it’s more than a matter of days on the military side,” he said. “We aim to change the situation and not go back to where we are.”

Despite the dramatic drop in missile launches, the consensus on actual damage to Hezbollah capacity hovers between 30-50%. The difficulty in launching missiles under bombardment probably accounts for the remainder of the difference. Both demonstrate the effectiveness of treating Hezbollah as an enemy at war rather than as some sort of organized crime syndicate. The Israeli offensive has forced Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah to open up a full-scale offensive on Israeli cities. In doing so, he has depleted his missile stocks, estimated at around 11,000 at the beginning of the conflict, and revealed his launch sites and exposed his personnel. That has allowed the IDF to target Hezbollah's forces with deadly accuracy.

This demonstrates why Israel should not be shackled by the United Nations or the G-8. Hezbollah does not have the status of indigenous fighters opposing an occupation. Nasrallah leads a foreign paramilitary force that has attacked a sovereign nation, and Lebanon has allowed them to stage themselves on Lebanese territory (albeit unwillingly, as most acknowledge). The only solution to these non-state militias is their destruction. They cannot survive a war; they rely on soft-hearted diplomats to keep them out of a full-scale military situation.

So far, the diplomats have mostly declined to pull Nasrallah's chestnuts from the fire. However, as the Times reports today and as wire services reported yesterday, Hezbollah's salvation may yet come. Tony Blair and Kofi Annan have continued to press for a multinational force deployment to the region, despite the one that already exists, the one which allowed Hezbollah to start this war in the first place. The Times doesn't bother to mention UNIFIL until halfway through the story:

Israel’s rejection of an international force stems partly from recent history. The foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, said in an interview that such a force must be able to intervene, unlike the current troops, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, or Unifil, which was established in 1978.

“We have an experience with Unifil,” she said: When an Israeli was seized previously, “they just watched.”

As I wrote yesterday, UN peacekeeping forces do nothing but watch anywhere they deploy, because the UN will not engage aggressors. They stood aside in Srebrenica, in Kosovo, and in Rwanda. The only action UN peacekeepers get these days is in tricking out young girls under their protection in exchange for food and water.

We face a global war against the very kind of terrorists that comprise Hezbollah and Hamas. We need to stop rescuing them from their own evil and allow them to suffer the full consequences of their attacks. Only a war will wipe out Hezbollah, because the last six years since the Israeli occupation of Lebanon has proven they won't go away on their own. (via It Shines For All)

Now If Turkey Had Allowed Transit For The 4-ID

Turkey has objected to a warning given by the United States against cross-border action against the Kurdish terrorist group PKK, claiming a double standard for Turkey as opposed to Israel. The PKK have committed raids into Turkish territory, killing 15 Turkish security troops, and Istanbul wants to conduct a military operation -- much like Israel has done with Hezbollah in Lebanon:

"We have repeatedly said that we believe that unilateral military action across the border with Iraq would be unwise," the US amabassador to Turkey, Ross Wilson, said in an interview with the NTV news channel.

He was speaking after Ankara on Monday urged Washington and Baghdad to act against the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), whose militants have enjoyed safe haven in the mountains of northern Iraq, signalling that it is ready to take cross-border action if they fail to do so. ...

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan quickly hit back, highlighting Washington's support for Israeli military offensives against militants in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.

"Terrorism is terrorism everywhere," Erdogan said in Istanbul. "It is not possible to agree with a mentality that tolerates country A and displays a different attitude when it comes to country B."

On one hand, Erdogan has the right to complain. After all, we have supported Israel in its fight against Hezbollah under much the same conditions. If the PKK has indeed raided Turkey and killed Turkish troops there, then the US cannot easily dismiss Erdogan's claims. Iraq has to take some action to restrain the PKK terrorists or face the consequences, and that means the US has to do the same.

That will not be easy. Right now, with all of the violence in central Iraq, the US and the Iraq government cannot afford to stir up another hornet's nest in the pacific Kurdish region. The Kurds have created an oasis of stability and economic growth in the north. Military incursions will threaten to upset all of that -- and with the Kurdish region strategically located between Syria and Iran, the US needs the Kurds to remain staunch friends to America more than ever.

One has to wonder if the PKK would still be in operation had the Turks allowed the 4th Infantry Division to transit Turkey, as originally planned. We would have had to secure the Kurdish region before marching 4ID down into Baghdad to ensure security on our rear, and the PKK would have had to be disarmed if not disbanded. Instead, the Turks forced us to send 4ID via another route, bypassing the Kurds and their own insurgent group.

Erdogan has a sympathetic argument, but little of our sympathy. Had he not created a massive problem for us three years ago, we would be in much better position to solve his problems now.

You Are A Fluke Of The Universe ...

... You have no right to be here ...

Richard Cohen channels National Lampoon's "Deteriorata" in today's Washington Post opinion section in writing about Israel. He argues that since Israel's birth came out of the Holocaust and that many in the Muslim world refuse to acknowledge that genocide, Israel should "hunker down" and apparently allow terrorist groups to attack then without fear of reprisal:

The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort we are seeing now. Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south, but its most formidable enemy is history itself.

This is why the Israeli-Arab war, now transformed into the Israeli-Muslim war (Iran is not an Arab state), persists and widens. It is why the conflict mutates and festers. It is why Israel is now fighting an organization, Hezbollah, that did not exist 30 years ago and why Hezbollah is being supported by a nation, Iran, that was once a tacit ally of Israel's. The underlying, subterranean hatred of the Jewish state in the Islamic world just keeps bubbling to the surface. The leaders of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and some other Arab countries may condemn Hezbollah, but I doubt the proverbial man in their street shares that view.

Well, we can stop here, because most of the above amounts to nothing but gibberish. The conflict in the Middle East has not widened but in fact has narrowed. Egypt and Jordan have dropped out of the war, and Saudi Arabia, at least officially, has blamed Hezbollah for the conflict. Iraq has a new government, one that may still sympathize with Hezbollah and Hamas, but not to the extent that they will lend military support they don't have to help them fight the Israelis. In fact, the only two nations still fighting israel are Syria and Iran.

Cohen argues that the addition of Iran has expanded the fight, and that Hezbollah exists because of the existence of Israel. The fallacy there is that Israel has existed for almost sixty years, while Hezbollah only has operated for a little under thirty. In fact, they sprang into being before the Israeli incursion into Lebanon, borne of the revolution in Iran -- enabled by the foreign policy of Jimmy Carter, who cut support for the Shah because he didn't meet Carter's ideals in a leader, ideals that somehow included Yasser Arafat. Israel didn't create Hezbollah, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini did, and Carter helped put Khomeini in power.

Cohen finishes with this:

Another gifted British historian, Tony Judt, wraps up his recent book "Postwar" with an epilogue on how the sine qua non of the modern civilized state is recognition of the Holocaust. Much of the Islamic world, notably Iran under its Holocaust-denying president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, stands outside that circle, refusing to make even a little space for the Jews of Europe and, later, those from the Islamic world. They see Israel not as a mistake but as a crime. Until they change their view, the longest war of the 20th century will persist deep into the 21st. It is best for Israel to hunker down.

Jews have lived in the area for thousands of years. The Romans, the Ottomans, and finally the British ruled them as their numbers waxed and waned, but the area has always been home to the Jews. In the late 19th century, the Zionists began buying land from Arab owners and resettling in the harsh environment of the Trans-Jordan. Arabs at that time were only too glad to sell them what looked like worthless land for far more than its market value. By the time World War I loomed at the Ottoman Empire breathed its last, the Jews had started to tame the land and expand their settlements. Britain recognized this during World War I -- not World War II -- and obtained a mandate from the League of Nations to administer a Jewish homeland in the Trans-Jordan.

The Holocaust did not create Israel. The Jewish homeland had existed for two decades prior to it, but Arabists in the British government did not make it easy for Jews to emigrate to the new homeland, fearing the wrath of the Arabs in the area. Only three years after the end of World War II did Israel win its independence from the British mandate by a United Nations that opposed such mandates in any case, seeing them (rightly) as a rationalization for colonialism.

The Hebrew presence in the rest of Southwest Asia declined rapidly during the period between the wars. Jews got chased out of Baghdad, where they had built a large community over the centuries. The Arabs chased 20,000 of them out of Hebron, and so on. Claiming the Jewish presence in that region as artifiial rewrites history and misleads readers. The Arabs in the region performed the ethnic cleansing, and the British-mandated Jewish homeland (and later Israel) became the only place where Jews could live safely.

Cohen gives the benighted version of history preferred by Arabs and then advises Israel that they have little right to defend their existence. After all, Cohen argues, how can one allow someone to defend a mistake? Cohen doesn't bother to mention the "mistake" of Islamist terrorism -- well, he does, but casts it off in a patronizing defense of the "they can't help themselves' variety. Israel should not react to their attacks because it will never change the minds of Hezbollah and Hamas.

On that, Cohen and I agree. For that reason, Israel must continue their attacks on both Hezbollah and Hamas and completely wipe them out, unless they agree to lay down their arms and quit committing acts of war. Israel is not the mistake; caving into Islamist terrorism is the mistake. One would think that Americans would have learned that after own Beirut adventure, as well as Teheran and Somalia. Cohen, however, would prefer to keep blaming Israel for the hatred of its foes.

UPDATE: I originally credited "Deteriorata" to Firesign Theater instead of National Lampoon. It's a parody of the Max Ehrmann poem "Desiderata" that graced a million posters in the late 1960s and early 1970s (he wrote it in 1927).

UPDATE II: The Balfour Declaration in 1917 declared the intent of the British government to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. We should remember that the British intended that two homelands be established in Palestine, one for the Jew and one for the Palestinians -- and that the demarcation was supposed to be the Jordan River. The Hashemites stole a march on the British and declared an independent kingdom in what is now Jordan, leaving the British with a much-reduced spot of land for the two homelands.

One of the best histories of the region in the 20th century is A Peace To End All Peace by David Fromkin. It's always on my sidebar, as it's a must-read for anyone wishing to understand the politics of the Middle East.

If You Think American Politics Are Bad ...

In this hyperpartisan age, Americans sometimes feel that our political environment has descended as far as it could go. However, a certain segment of Dutch society intends to prove that we -- and the rest of the world -- still have the capability of shock:

The Netherlands cemented its reputation as Europe's most socially liberal country today when a new political party formed by paedophiles was told it could contest this year's general election.

A Dutch court rejected an attempt by anti-paedophile campaigners to ban the Brotherly Love, Freedom and Diversity party (PNVD), which wants to cut the age of consent from 16 to 12 and to legalise child pornography. "The freedom of expression, the freedom of assembly and the freedom of association should be seen as the foundations of the democratic rule of law and the PNVD is also entitled to these freedoms," the court in The Hague said in a statement. ...

The new party wants to legalise the possession of child pornography and to allow pornography to be shown on daytime television. Violent pornography would be allowed after the evening watershed, young children would receive sex education and youths over the age of 16 would be allowed to appear in pornographic films. Sex with animals would also be allowed by the party, although abuse of animals would remain illegal.

Sex with animals would explain the pedigree of the politicians looking to run for office under the PNVD banner. The thought that a NAMBLA-like organization would form a political party and campaign in an election seems absurd in the United States -- and anywhere else, for that matter. One has to wonder whether the police will take note of the PNVD's candidates for their predilections, at least for future reference.

However, as disgusting as the PNVD is, the judge made the right decision. Ultimately, the 82% of the Dutch who want to see them banned can enact that ban themselves -- at the ballot box. A democratic government has no business banning political parties, unless they espouse violence. Regardless of the despicable nature of their platform, the only remedy for groups like the Pedophile Party is the utter rejection of their candidates, followed by the social shunning of their members.

The Dutch may have socially liberal values, but they also have common sense. They will not allow the PNVD to win a single seat.

Canada To Terrorists: Fly The Friendly Skies

Canadian officials may want to rethink their policies on flight security. The Toronto Sun reports that Canada will not block people from flying in, out, or within Canada just for the tiny little detail of belonging to a terrorist organization:

Being a member of a terrorist organization won't necessarily land someone on Canada's no-fly list, The Canadian Press has learned.

Proposed criteria would limit inclusion on the roster to those who pose "an immediate threat to aviation security," Transport Canada internal briefing notes say.

Draft regulations, disclosed by a source familiar with details of the plan, confirm the no-fly list will be tightly focused and reviewed every 30 days to keep it up to date.

"You cannot be put on the list on the sole basis that you're a member of a 'terrorist group,'" the source said. "In addition, you have to be a demonstrable threat to aviation safety."

Even if one discounted the 9/11 attacks as a warning to Western aviation in general, Canada shows a remarkable lack of concern for their citizens. Terrorists have hijacked airplanes for at least four decades now. Instead of screening people to deny access to acknowledged terrorists, Canada will need to institute stricter gate security and inconvenience everyone -- and still won't be able to guarantee that the known terrorists won't do something. A member of al-Qaeda could simply pull open a cabin door at 37,000 feet and have a good chance of killing everyone on board.

Travelers have been warned. (via Hot Air)

UPDATE: CQ commenters note that it's well-nigh impossible to open a cabin door in flight. Well, I meant that as one of many ways a terrorist could cause mischief in flight even without weapons or explosives ... but that turned out to be a bust. There are many other ways to cause serious problems, and that's not even figuring for the possibility of a ground crew member sneaking weapons or explosives on board -- which I am sure would be difficult, but still possible.

I agree with Malvolio -- why have a no-fly list if terrorists don't automatically qualify for it?

Foreign Intel Had Identified WMD Sites

In the last of the documents of this release, an undated memorandum from the director of the IIS to the Military Industrialization Commission (MIC) discusses counterintelligence information regarding an informant with knowledge of the locations for Iraqi WMD programs. Document ISGZ-2004-007589-HT-DHM2A directs the MIC to change the locations of their assets (emphases mine):

We were informed by one of our sources working abroad, that foreign intelligence is working to obtain information about some military and scientific targets in the Country. The undercover source provided us with a map of the targets, for which he was assigned to gather information during his visit to the Country. For the purpose of pointing out the enemy’s interest, and to enable you to maneuver by changing the locations of these targets, in order to foil enemy’s plans, we hereby list the following:

1- He was presented with a map by the Foreign Intelligence, indicating the nuclear sites in the Country. Our source noticed that most of the sites are located near Mawsil and on the Tigris River, and some on the outskirts of Baghdad.

2- Another map indicated the Chemical sites, of which most are located in the suburbs of Baghdad, north and south of the city. It was noticeable that the sites north of Baghdad were more numerous than those in the south. The Map also marked some sites located on the outskirt of Mawsil City.

3- The third map marked the sites of long range Missiles.

4- A satellite image of the Al-Taji area, indicated orchards located in the triangle of Kirkuk-Mawsil Road, after the Baghdad Gate. Our source was informed that missiles and important military equipment were hidden in these orchards. He was asked to go to the area and observe whether it was well protected by military units and check the presence of any radar [TC: Satellite Dishes] in the area.

5- There are a large number of hidden missiles in the Al-Mahawil and Jubaylah area.

6- There is a warehouse for chemical material in the Al-Mahmudiyah area.

7- On the Baghdad-Falujah road and near Falujah checkpoint, there is a nonfunctional Cement Factory, which is being used for storing Chemical materials. Please observe whether there is any protection around the Factory.

8- Missiles were hidden in the triangle located near the Presidential Palace along the highway to Saddam’s International Airport.

9- There is a missile testing laboratory in the Al-`Amiriyah area.

10- There is secret airport designated for emergency use in the Al-`Aziziyah area, where sixty-five missiles are hidden.

11- Chemical materials were moved from the Al-Qa`qa` depot and hidden in the Industrial High School in Al-Musayib, in the Agricultural High School at al-Yussifiyyah, and other specific schools in al-Mahmudiyyah.

12- Al-Taji Area (Al-Tarmiyyah Triangle).

13- Al-Tharthar area (Tal al-Tharthar) [TC: could be Mountain], north west of the mountain slope (tourist area) [TC: Al-Tharthar is considered a tourist area]

14- Also Missiles were hidden at Biji Refinery.

The MIC had responsibility for all of the WMD programs, including their development, production, distribution, and storage. The message from the top man at the IIS was clear: this information was correct, and the MIC needed to act fast to move the assets around to keep them from discovery. Counterintelligence found out about his visit in time to make the changes necessary.

The Iraqis had WMD. They knew when to move them to keep them from being discovered -- a task for which they apparently had abundant talent.

Loose Lips Generate Paperwork, And Reveal Iraqi Malfeasance

Shortly before Saddam Hussein suspended all cooperation with the UNSCOM inspectors, in 1998 a surprise inspection at the Air Operations Directorate turned up a number of documents relating to "special" weapons -- the designation for WMD used by Iraqi forces. This caused the UN to declare a violation on the Iraqis, and touched off a massive internal investigation in Saddam's armed forces to find out who forgot to cleanse the files. The series of memos and statements in document IZSP-2003-00300856 shows that the Iraqis not only intended on making an example of the men who did such a poor job of purging the files, but that they actively hid materials that implicated Iraq in the hoarding of WMD.

Like any investigation, one has to start out with the specifics of the crime (page 4):

According to the Secret, Personal and Urgent letter of the Diwan of the Defense Ministry no. Intelligence and Security/8/2/5493 dated 19 July 1998; we authorize you to form an investigation committee headed by you including Staff Major General Fahim Sari 'Inad, who is affiliated with the Diwan of the Defense Ministry, Intelligence Colonel Zahar Yunis Muhammad, and the Director of the Air Force Security System.

The duty of the committee is to investigate the incident, in where some special documents have not been kept in the 1st Section of the Air Force Operations Directorate according to the document security instructions. The documents were found by the Special Inspection Committee, which searched our command on 18 July 1998.

The file contains the statements made under interrogation of all the personnel assigned to the office in question. Most amusing are the excuses one gets from the staff, who knew that punishment would be swift and severe for embarrassing Saddam to the international community. Take the statement of Wing Commander Mazin Rashid:

Q1: Wing Commander Mazin Makki Muhammad Rashid, the Assistant Commander of the Surveillance Department in the First Section of the Aerial Movement Directorate, was interrogated about the reason and the person who asked him to sign a statement stating that there are no documents records, material and equipment related to the banned weapons. He replied:

A1: The other officers and I were asked by the Assistant of the Section Commander to destroy all documents related to the banned weapons. Therefore, I searched my office, and found nothing. Afterwards, the officers and I searched the section office and destroyed many of these documents.

Q2: What measures did you take, when the Inspection Team entered the Commands Complex at 0900 hr on 18 Jul 1998?

A2: I participated with other officers in evacuating the secret dossiers and documents from the file cabinet in the directorate. Those documents were kept with Colonel Bilal, the Security Officer of the Directorate.

Q3: The Inspection Team found weapons issuing records in the file cabinet of the section. The records were titled with the word "Special". Why was this word not deleted by you, although you claimed that nothing left about this type of documents??

A 3: These records were in the file cabinet, but none of the officers noticed them. It was in a file including about lectures. I was unaware of this dossier because it wasn’t in my office, but it was in the file cabinet.

As it turns out, many of the people at the Air Directorate had tasks that apparently excluded them from housekeeping. Commander Muhammed Hasib tells investigators that the cabinet in question belonged to the section manager -- and then tells them that the unit had no section manager. Staff Air Commodore Ansaf Muhammed explains that he couldn't be responsible, because someone else was supposed to have cleaned out the cabinet before he was assigned to that unit. Iraqi investigators heard every excuse except that the dog was supposed to eat the documents.

In the end, they pinned blame on two high-ranking officers, both Commodores, and explained the circumstances (page 54). Included in the summation is this rather telling description of Iraqi cooperation (emphasis mine):

4- After the investigation, they found out that the word (private) that is mentioned in the file wasn't audited, either by the previous Director of the Section (Al-Qadisiyyah Hero), the Staff Air Commodore Mahmud Jasim Muhammad or by his successor the Staff Air Commodore Insaf Jasim who is the senior officer in the section. In addition, the Staff Air Commodore Insaf Jasim confessed that he omitted and damaged all the documents related to the Special Committee (as mentioned in the Investigating Council) without checking because he thought that the file didn't include the word (private).

5- The Investigating Council found out that the previously mentioned section followed the orders of the superiors regarding destroying all of the documents relating to the banned weapons and they damaged 12 bags of files and plans. In addition, the section hid many important files during the presence of the Special Committee members, before they arrive and while granting approval to enter.

The two men apparenly received courts-martial for their ineptitude. However unlucky they were, the case shows that Iraq had no intention of ever honestly working with UN inspectors to verify that they had disarmed themselves of WMD capability. The notion that the entire WMD program was some big red herring or a figment of Saddam's imagination dies a painful death on the review of this document. The Iraqis spent a lot of time and effort in clearing out information on those programs in advance of the inspections -- and those who did not succeed in thwarting the inspectors paid the price.

Choosy IIS Agents Choose ... CNN

Another document from the archives of the Iraqi Intelligence Service details the response plan from IIS headquarters in dealing with the discovery of a mass grave early in 2001. The burial site in the southern no-fly zone got the attention of the head of the IIS 5th Directorate, the Counterintelligence directorate, who sent a top-secret memo to the head of M4/1, Foreign Intelligence - Arab Nations. Document ISGQ-2004-00224003 lays out the Iraqi regime's strategy for damage control (emphases mine):

Pages 3-5 contain a Secret memo signed on behalf of the Head of 5th Directorate (Translator Comment (TC): no name indicated) and sent from the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) to the 1st Department of the 4th Directorate regarding information about mass graves in the Southern Area of Iraq, and the rituals and ceremonies to be made for the dead people. The memo was dated 07 February 2001, and contained the following notes:

• The IIS has no information about the mass graves in the Southern Area.
• Graves have to be tested for the presence of nuclear radiation.
• Were they buried alive or did they die of suffocation?
• Were they military or civilian?
• Was there any identification of their names?
• Place signs and accurate details for the mass graves to be reached easily.
• Use trusted news agencies to leak rumors and information that there is a misunderstanding and signs from some Coalition Forces members regarding the presence of the mass graves in Southern Iraq.
• Request assistance from some friendly countries that possess the technological capabilities to search for these graves.
• Give CNN the priority to cover this incident to make a bigger effect on the international community.
• Leak rumors to trusted media sources that the atrocities and mass graves found in the Southern Area were committed by the Coalition Forces. This is in order to make these actions noticeable as monstrous and inhuman to the whole world.
• After that, the remains are to be taken out of the graves; military procedures and arrangements will be made to pay the deceased their last respect. Also the building of memorial statues for the dead in every governorate.

Why would the mass graves need testing for nuclear radiation? Did Saddam use nuclear weapons in Iraq during or after the first Gulf War? The fact that this is one of the first tasks given by the head of the Counterintelligence directorate sounds rather unusual. Certainly by this time -- ten years after the cessation of military operations against Iraq in that region -- the Iraqis would have thought to test for radiation to ensure that we did not use our nukes against them.

The other points of interest show the deliberate manipulation of the media, including CNN. Why did the IIS trust CNN to deliver on their story line? Their confidence came from Eason Jordan's capitulation to Saddam, complete with allowing the regime to dictate the copy that his reporters read into the cameras. Peter Arnett had swallowed the "baby formula" story hook, line, and sinker during the first Gulf War. Why wouldn't they trust CNN to deliver their propaganda unfiltered to the West?

Saddam's Shopping List (Updated)

The American translations of the captured IIS files sometimes contain summaries rather than direct translations of some of the douments. This usually happens when dealing with forms that contain more tables than text; the translators give the gist of the material, presumably allowing investigators to review the data and request specific translations where necessary.

This gives less specificity to the translations, and as a rule I avoid commenting on them. Many of these summaries contain general references to chemicals, but nothing specific enough to call out for review. Document ISGQ-2003-00000847 appears to be an exception. This summarizes a number of memos calling for purchases of chemicals in 2002 and 2003 that appear on their face to be prohibited (emphases mine):

Pages 41-43 contain a correspondence dated on 29 October 2002 from Dhu-al-Faqqar Plant to the Planning and Tracking Directorate including lists of the plant needs [for] the chemical materials for the year 2003 such as: - (SATTS NTRIK) Acid (Page 41) - Sodium Cyanide (Page 41) - Auto Passiuatiw (Page 41) - Naocl (Page 41) - Liquid grain refiner (Page 41) - CADAMX Cadmium Salt (Page 41) - NaOH (Page 41) - PREPHOS 101, 201, 501, 503, 701 (Page 42) - DSA (Page 42) - ACTIVAX CLEANER (Page 42) - EMPHAX CLEANER (Page 42) - HYLITE ZINC (Page 42) - UNIZIN (Page 42) - AUTO PASS SIT (Page 42)

Pages 59-66, 68, 97, 99, 101, 186-189, 254-255 contain lists of the needed chemical materials for the years 2001 and 2002.
- (SATTS BIR KLWRAT ALAMWNIWM) (Page 59)
- HTPB (Page 59)
- DOZ (Page 59)
- TDI (Page 59)
- MAPO (Page 59)
- HMDI IPDI (Page 59)
- (SATTS FWRMALIN) (Page 59)
- (SATTS FWSFWRIK) Acid (Page 59)
- (SATTS AICANWL) (Page 59)
- Sodium Cyanide (Page 62)
- (SATTS II;W SIANID) (MDI) (Page 62)
- 1-3 (SATTS BIWTADAIN) (Page 63)
- EPDM (Page 64)
- VAROX (Page 64)
- A.P (Page 64)
- (SATTS KRAFIT) Powder (Page 65)
- (SATTS ALMINIWM) Powder (Page 65)
- (SATTS D KLWRIN) (Page 65)
- (SATTS KARBWN FAIBR) (Page 66)
- EMPD caoutchouc (Page 66)
- IPPD (Page 189)
- PVI (Page 189)
- CBS (Page 189)
- (SATTS SRKABTW) (Page 189)

Sodium cyanide is an important precursor to WMD, especially the nerve gas tabun, which many suspect was the weapon used in Halabja. We have worked with France and Germany to stop North Korea from acquiring it in 2003 and 2004. The fact that it shows up on Saddam's shopping list as late as for 2003 shows that the Iraqis still used it for some purpose -- and the regime was not supposed to have any of it.

The list of chemicals may have more connection to weapons programs, but certainly the repeated inclusion of sodium cyanide has to point to nefarious intent.

UPDATE: Or it could be used for ... electroplating, according to CQ reader Dutch. He says the list of chemicals is consistent with electroplating, an area of some expertise for Dutch. Good catch by him. However, if that's the case -- and I don't see why it wouldn't be -- why do we keep sodium cyanide away from North Korea? It looks like one of the dual-use issues.

Israel: Return Soldiers And Move Hezbollah Away From Border

Israeli PM Ehud Olmert has told Italy that Israel will accept a truce when Lebanon returns the soldiers captured by Hezbollah and clears the terrorists away from their shared border. The offer came as Italy attempted to craft some sort of compromise that will allow the fighting to stop, according to the AP (via It Shines For All):

Israel would agree to a cease-fire in its six-day-old offensive against Hezbollah if the Lebanese guerrillas withdraw from the border area with Israel and release two captured Israeli soldiers, a senior official said Monday.

The official, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the diplomacy, said Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had conveyed Israel's position to Italy's prime minister, who is trying to broker a cease-fire deal.

Israel had previously demanded the full dismantling of Hezbollah as a condition for ending hostilities. However, the senior official said Israel would agree to Hezbollah merely leaving the border area - with the Lebanese army taking its place.

That shows a little diplomatic flexibility on Israel's part, but one unlikely to bear fruit. The Lebanese Army could not take Southern Lebanon away from Hezbollah without disarming them. After all, the only reason Hezbollah has for retaining its arms is its argument that it alone can stand as a bulwark against the Israelis. That argument seems to be loser at the moment, of course, but it's the only logical rationalization that the group has.

If Lebanon moved Hezbollah away from the border, the group's political support would collapse. They would either have to take Beirut to keep alive, or they would find themselves driven out of Lebanese politics altogether. As it is, the Israeli butt-kicking coming from their unilateral provocation will likely cause heavy political damage anyway.

Armed terrorists do not willingly give up their weapons, especially not in a losing cause. The Lebanese Army does not have the muscle to disarm them. Therefore, the Israeli conditions cannot be met -- and they are the bare minimum that Israel can accept for the sake of its own security. The war will continue until Israel cuts off and crushes Hezbollah and finishes them as a provocative "military" force.

America's Stock Rises Among The Sunni -- As They See The Alternative

The New York Times reports on an interesting development among the Sunni in Iraq, who had bitterly opposed the American presence in their country. They have discovered mathematics and demographics -- and realized that the Shi'a outnumber them almost 3-1. This epiphany has led to a growing sentiment among the former ruling class of Iraq that the Americans may be the only thing standing between them and oblivion:

As sectarian violence soars, many Sunni Arab political and religious leaders once staunchly opposed to the American presence here are now saying they need American troops to protect them from the rampages of Shiite militias and Shiite-run government forces.

The pleas from the Sunni Arab leaders have been growing in intensity since an eruption of sectarian bloodletting in February, but they have reached a new pitch in recent days as Shiite militiamen have brazenly shot dead groups of Sunni civilians in broad daylight in Baghdad and other mixed areas of central Iraq.

The Sunnis also view the Americans as a “bulwark against Iranian actions here,” a senior American diplomat said. Sunni politicians have made their viewpoints known to the Americans through informal discussions in recent weeks.

The Sunni Arab leaders say they have no newfound love for the Americans. Many say they still sympathize with the insurgency and despise the Bush administration and the fact that the invasion has helped strengthen the power of neighboring Iran, which backs the ruling Shiite parties.

But the Sunni leaders have dropped demands for a quick withdrawal of American troops. Many now ask for little more than a timetable. A few Sunni leaders even say they want more American soldiers on the ground to help contain the widening chaos.

In fact, the Sunnis have started to call for the US to increase the number of troops in Iraq, especially in what was once called the "triangle of death". The insurgent attacks on Shi'ites and their shrines has created a huge backlash of anger, resulting in increasing support for militias such as Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, which has Iranian backing. The Mahdis cannot stand against American forces or even the new Iraqi security forces, but they can conduct terrorist attacks and assassinations.

The US launched an offensive against Sadr's militia this month, and hope to dial down the violence by sidelining Sadr. However, the root of Sunni danger comes from the Sunni refusal to engage early in the political process. They have no one to blame but themselves. Had they quit supporting the Ba'athist dead-ender insurgencies and joined in the electoral process from the beginning, they would have more political influence than they do now. The Shi'a and the Kurds practically begged them to participate, and even ensured that they got better representation on the constitution committee and in the executive branch than their votes ensured.

Now that shortsightedness has come back to haunt them. Since so few volunteered for the Iraqi security forces, few Sunnis serve in the officer corps or in the enlisted ranks. They continue to fight against the Americans in some places, failing to coalesce behind a coherent strategy for their own survival.

This development does point out one particular fact, one missed by Edward Wong and Dexter Filkins. The Sunnis see us as the "strong horse" of Iraq. One of the dynamics of Arab culture, besides the sectarian divide between Sunni and Shi'a, is the natural attraction towards strength. Arabs value it above almost all other secular virtues, as do many other cultures, and will try to align themselves with the strongest horse in the race. We seem to have dispensed with the dismissive analysis of Osama bin Laden of the US as a paper tiger; the Iraqis have seen proven false in the three-year crucible of Iraq.

We should consider the effect a pullout will have under these conditions. A stable US presence might avoid a larger sectarian conflict. If we can convince the Sunnis to work under our protection while still maintaining good relations with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and the mainstream Shi'ites, we can ensure stability for Iraq into the foreseeable future.

UPDATE: Forgot to credit Michelle Malkin with the hat-tip; make sure you read her take on this, and follow the links. Also, the Commissar is not sure whether this is a positive development, nor when Bush and Cheney flipped the toggle switch from "EXPLOIT" to "ASSIST".

An International Force?

Tony Blair and Kofi Annan made headlines this morning when they called for the deployment of an international peacekeeping force to resolve the conflict between Israel, Hezbollah, and assumably Hamas. They provided no details of their proposal, but claimed that peace could not be achieved without intervention:

In the face of the escalating violence, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Monday called for an international stabilization force to go to the Mideast to help end the cross-border attacks between Hezbollah and the Israeli military.

The proposed international force would be the first step in what Annan and Blair said should be a series of actions that would stop the hostilities.

"The only way we are going to get a cessation of hostilities is the deployment of an international force to stop the bombardment of Israel and get Israel to stop its attacks on Hezbollah," Blair told reporters at a news conference in St. Petersburg, Russia, at the end of the Group of Eight summit.

Some, like my friend Michael van der Galien, see this as a positive step towards a resolution of the conflict:

If the U.N. as a whole agrees with this, it could be a major step in solving this crises. Simply bringing a stabilization force to the Israeli - Lebanese border would not solve all the problems of course; but it's good first step. The stabilization force should have the authority and equipment, though, to use force against Hezbollah if necessary. It isn't likely that Hezbollah will voluntarily withdraw from southern Lebanon. In short; it's quite likely that Hezbollah will put up a fight.

And this is where the problem lies. UN peacekeeping forces do not fight. Historically, they run away. The worst example came in Srebrinica, where the blue helmets rounded up Bosnians for shelter, and then retreated without firing a shot when the Serbs came. Over 7,000 people civilians died in the resulting massacre. Other examples of the lack of tenacity among UN peacekeeping missions abound -- and we won't even start discussing their record on human rights, especially when it comes to young girls.

UN deployments almost without exception serve the status quo. The deployment in Kosovo shows this dynamic. Almost seven years after UN forces separated the two warring factions within Kosovo -- ethnic Albanians and ethnic Serbs -- the status of the territory is no closer to resolution than the day the UN marched into Kosovo. (The forces there also allowed a pogrom of Christian churches two years ago, standing idly by while the Albanians burnt down Serbian places of worship and killed 19 of them.

Daniel Freedman at It Shines For All has this to say:

The UN's peacekeeping record -- we immediately think of Rwanda and Srebrenica -- hardly inspire confidence. One million Tutsis were massacred in Rwanda and some 8,000 Muslims were massacred in Srebrenica under the U.N.'s watch. And Israel has had its own bad experience with international peacekeepers.

In 1967, when the surrounding Arab states sought to wipe out Israel, the U.N. peacekeepers on the Israel-Egypt border vacated once Egypt's General Nasser asked them to, leaving Israel exposed. In 2002, after Hezbollah kidnapped Israeli soldiers using U.N. uniforms and vehicles as disguises, the U.N., whose peacekeepers witnesses the kidnapping and did nothing to stop the kidnapping, hid their video and refused to cooperate with an Israeli inquiry.

Peacekeepers are not needed because there is no peace to keep. Israel is at war with a terrorist organization that wishes to destroy her. If Kofi Annan and other world leaders really want peace, they'll do everything in their power to help Israel crush Hezbollah and Hezbollah's supporters - Iran and Syria.

Does anyone recall our expedition to Lebanon in the early 1980s was a "peacekeeping force" intended to force Israel out of Lebanon? Does anyone recall how well that worked out? Not only did it not stop Hezbollah and its patron Syria from attacking the Israelis, we ended up with 243 dead Marines after a terrorist attack. Reagan withdrew our forces, yet another lesson for the Islamofascists that the Americans would not fight back against terrorists.

In order to really solve the problem in the Middle East, we have to either kill the terrorists and topple those states which sponsor them, or we have to disarm them and convince them to adopt politics to achieve their political goals. The latter will not happen while the Ba'athists rule Damascus and the mullahs rule Teheran. Putting an international force in the region only postpones the inevitable, and worse, it allows the terrorists to gather their weapons in the temporary calm that will follow.

On 9/11, we recognized the necessity of eliminating Islamofascist terrorist groups and their patrons. The last action we should allow is a hudna to allow the terrorists to regroup. Let's finish the job and end this war.

UPDATE: More UN fecklessness:

A senior U.N. envoy said Monday he will present Israel with "concrete ideas" to end the latest round of fighting after meeting with Lebanon's prime minister. ...

He said he will go to Israel shortly and was optimistic about his peace efforts to end the six-day-old bombardment of Lebanon by Israeli warplanes and rocket attacks by Hezbollah guerrillas on Israel.

Israel's response should be short and simple. Return the captured soldiers and disarm Hezbollah, as per the UN's own Security Council resolution. If Lebanon will not or cannot do that, then Israel must continue to do it themselves.

UPDATE: Er, Kofi, you already have a UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon. It's called UNIFIL. So far, they've obviously been a huge benefit to peace in the region.

Israeli Raids In Lebanon; Chirac Surrenders

The Israeli army crossed into Lebanon for a series of raids on Hezbollah positions this morning, pulling back across the border quickly when the operations were complete. The continuous volley of rockets at Israel's cities provided the impetus for the raids, with the IDF attempting to force Hezbollah to move their launchers farther away from the border:

A government spokesman said Monday afternoon that IDF ground forces had briefly entered southern Lebanon to target Hizbullah bases along the border in order to push the terrorist group out of rocket-firing range.

Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz declared that the IDF currently had much better alternatives than to launch a major ground incursion into Lebanon.

In addition, the IDF has denied Lebanese news reports that an Israeli F-16 jet was downed near Beirut. Virtually all Lebanese news agencies were showing unclear video footage of what was claimed to be the downed jet.

So far, the IDF still claims to have accounted for all of its fighters. They think the video may be of a downed Air Force drone. If so, it appears to be the only loss suffered by the IDF in its push to cut Hezbollah off from their lines of communication. The Israelis say that they have made it impossible for Hezbollah to replenish their launch sites with replacement missiles, and the airports remain closed today as the IAF hit the storage tanks at Beirut International again. They also hit the Beirut-Damascus highway again in the Bekaa, killing two people and wounding 23, but more importantly blocking the main supply route between Syria and its Hezbollah proxies.

The IDF again emphasized that it will not take action that would draw Syria into the conflict. Israel's chief of staff Gen. Dan Halutz told the Knesset today that Hezbollah wants to get Syria to come to its aid, and so far Syria has resisted the pleas of Sheikh Nasrallah. While Nasrallah sees his supply infrastructure demolished, he keeps looking to Damascus. However, it looks like whoever is still in charge in the Ba'athist dictatorship has also learned to read maps -- and that the impossible logistical position into which the fall of Saddam put them has finally dawned on Damascus.

Nasrallah may be facing his Bay of Pigs moment.

In the meantime, France has sent Dominique de Villepin to surrender on behalf of the Israelis, or something close to it:

France sent Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin to Beirut on Monday to express support for Lebanon, President Jacques Chirac's office said.

The prime minister was set to meet with Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora to express French support for and solidarity with the Lebanese, Chirac's office said in a statement.

On Friday, President Jacques Chirac said that the IDF's actions in Lebanon were "totally disproportionate" and asked whether destroying Lebanon was not the ultimate goal. ...

However, Chirac said that he believed another country - likely Syria - was behind the actions of the militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah. "I have the feeling, if not the conviction, that Hamas and Hezbollah wouldn't have taken the initiatives alone," Chirac said.

The French want Israel to stop attacking Hezbollah communication lines within Lebanon. It believes that force should only be used "proportionately" in times of war, which explains why they lost to Germany in 1940 despite having a larger army. The great lesson of the last century has been that anyone wishing to win a war should avoid taking advice from France, and it's comforting in a strange way that France has decided to extend that axiom into the 21st century.

President Bush has the right idea, even if he does express it Texas-style. In an unguarded moment when Bush and Tony Blair thought the microphones were off, Bush gave his opinion on how to stop the bloodshed in the Middle East:

"I think Condi is going to go pretty soon," Bush said.

Blair replied: "Right, that's all that matters, it will take some time to get that together."

The two leaders also referred to an offer by Blair to help. Blair said Rice has "got to succeed" if she goes out to the region.

Bush replied: "What they need to do it to get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit." Shortly afterwards Blair noticed the microphone and hastily switched it off, but not before the recording had reached news media.

That sounds right to me. Now if we can focus on forcing Iran and Syria to stop, everyone will be much better off. (via Hot Air, which has links to the video)

Minnesota Poll No Surprise At All

The Star Tribune reports in this morning's edition that its Minnesota Poll shows Amy Klobuchar with a 19-point lead in the Senate race against current Republican Congressman Mark Kennedy. The Strib describes this as "surprising", but for those of us with experience in the atrocious polling done by the Strib, it comes as no surprise whatsoever:

DFL Senate candidate Amy Klobuchar has opened up a strong early lead over GOP rival Mark Kennedy in a Minnesota Poll that shows Klobuchar with 50 percent of likely voters' support, compared with 31 percent for Kennedy.

Much can change between now and November. But in what had widely been considered a close race, Klobuchar in midsummer has more support than Kennedy in nearly every demographic category: men, women, liberals, independents, lower- and upper-income Minnesotans, seniors, urban dwellers, suburbanites and outstaters.

Kennedy is most popular with younger Minnesotans -- he leads Klobuchar 63 to 16 percent among those under age 25 -- and with Republicans, but he is behind in nearly every other category the July 6-11 poll measured.

It's helpful at this juncture to recall the MinnPoll's history in predicting elections. Over the last twenty years, the poll has miscalculated Republican support every election cycle, getting increasingly worse as time goes on while overestimating Democratic support. When Al Gore narrowly won the state in 2000 (by 2.4%), the MinnPoll estimated a ten-point gap in its final result days before the election, claiming that Bush would only take 37%. He wound up with 45.5%. In the 2002 Senate race, the MinnPoll predicted Walter Mondale would beat Norm Coleman by five points; he lost by two, as MinnPoll underestimated Coleman's support by over eight points.

Their incompetence doesn't just apply to two-way races. In 1998, they predicted that Skip Humphrey would win the governor's race and draw 35% of the vote, with Jesse Ventura coming in last place with 27%. Those positions were reversed on Election Day, with Humphrey only able to attract 28%. They did manage to predict that Tim Pawlenty would win the 2002 three-way race to replace Jesse, but they underestimated his support by nine percentage points.

If you get the notion that the Strib skews its polls against the GOP, you'd be correct. In the last twenty years of elections for President, Senate, and Governor, the Strib has underestimated Republican support by an average of over seven points. The only race in which they did not underestimate Republican support was in 1990, when they picked Rudy Boschwitz to beat Paul Wellstone for the Senate.

It's more helpful to look at other polling and to skip the worthless MinnPoll. Rasmussen, for instance, just finished polling for this race (June 26th), and had Klobuchar leading -- but only 47-44, within the margin of error. Zogby had it 49-41 Klobuchar on June 21. The MinnPoll has a gap more than double that of Zogby -- who has his own accuracy problems -- a "surprising" result, indeed.

The Star Tribune showcases its usual hackery in these results. No one who lives here is fooled by the MinnPoll any longer.

Arabs Fear Iran More Than They Hate The Jews

The New York Times provides an interesting analysis regarding the surprising criticism coming from Arab capitals towards Hezbollah. Yesterday, its chief complained that the Arabs had not rallied around his organization while it fights the hated "Zionists". However, the Arabs understand that Hezbollah represents a non-Arab threat that presents a much bigger problem than Israel:

With the battle between Israel and the Lebanese militia Hezbollah raging, key Arab governments have taken the rare step of blaming Hezbollah, underscoring in part their growing fear of influence by the group’s main sponsor, Iran.

Saudi Arabia, with Jordan, Egypt and several Persian Gulf states, chastised Hezbollah for “unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible acts” at an emergency Arab League summit meeting in Cairo on Saturday. ...

The way some officials see it, Arab analysts said, Israel is the devil they know, but Iran is the growing threat.

“There is a school of thought, led by Saudi Arabia, that believes that Hezbollah is a source of trouble, a protégé of Iran, but also a political instrument in the hands of Iran,” said Adnan Abu Odeh, a Jordanian sociologist. ‘This school says we should not play into the hands of Iran, which has its own agenda, by sympathizing or supporting Hezbollah fighting against the Israelis.”

Hanna Seniora, a Palestinian analyst with the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information, lauded the Arab opposition to Hezbollah on Sunday.

“For the first time ever, open criticism was heard from countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan against the unilateral actions carried out by radical organizations, especially Hezbollah of Lebanon,” wrote Mr. Seniora, who favors coexistence with Israel and opposes radical Islam. “It became clear and beyond doubt that the most important Arab countries did not allow their emotions to rule their judgment.”

What is clear is that even the various kleptocracies in the region have becomed unnerved by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's rhetoric and brazen pursuit of nuclear weapons. The fall of Saddam Hussein removed the one military force that could stack up against Israel, and the American occupation puts Israel out of reach for most of the rest of the Arab nations. That makes any nation that deliberately invites Israeli and American retaliation a little less than rational, and the nutty rhetoric coming from Teheran only means that the Americans will stick around a little longer.

Iranian provocation threatens to engulf all of the Arab nations in a war they cannot hope to win. Why should they back Hezbollah's play, when Sheikh Nasrallah and Iran didn't bother to consult them?

For all their talk, the Arabs understand that Israel really presents no long-term threat to their own regimes. Israel does not covet land outside of their own territory and parts of the West Bank. They do not want Lebanon for themselves, nor Jordan nor Syria. They want to be left alone. Iran, on the other hand, wants to pick up where Saddam Hussein left off. Rather than a pan-Arab vision, though, the mullahcracy wants to reestablish the Caliphate, a pan-Islamism with Teheran in charge. That puts all of their regimes at risk, regardless of whether Iran fails or succeeds.

The result -- we now have the singular event of Arabs taking Israel's side in a conflict with other Arabs. Check your window this morning, because pigs may soon begin to fly.

Democrats Go Underground For Think-Tank Funding

The Internet Age and the rise of the blogosphere has forced a new openness in governance. The open-source communication method routinely strips secrecy and renders political processes transparent, and across the political spectrum, has demanded honesty and full disclosure from political operations. However, the Washington Post reports that Democratic efforts to establish leftist think tanks require secrecy in their funding, and moderate Democrats have started to object:

An alliance of nearly a hundred of the nation's wealthiest donors is roiling Democratic political circles, directing more than $50 million in the past nine months to liberal think tanks and advocacy groups in what organizers say is the first installment of a long-term campaign to compete more aggressively against conservatives.

A year after its founding, Democracy Alliance has followed up on its pledge to become a major power in the liberal movement. It has lavished millions on groups that have been willing to submit to its extensive screening process and its demands for secrecy.

These include the Center for American Progress, a think tank with an unabashed partisan edge, as well as Media Matters for America, which tracks what it sees as conservative bias in the news media. Several alliance donors are negotiating a major investment in Air America, a liberal talk-radio network.

But the large checks and demanding style wielded by Democracy Alliance organizers in recent months have caused unease among Washington's community of Democratic-linked organizations. The alliance has required organizations that receive its endorsement to sign agreements shielding the identity of donors. Public interest groups said the alliance represents a large source of undisclosed and unaccountable political influence.

This goes against everything that liberals claim to value in government. They have spared no opportunity to demand the release of all sorts of information about Republican officeholders and their contributors. During the Clinton administration, liberals kept accusing Richard Mellon Scaife of funding all sorts of efforts to undermine his presidency, leading to Hillary Clinton's "vast right-wing conspiracy" accusations.

Now George Soros and Tim Gill, among others, do not want to let people know who funds Democracy Alliance or their outreach programs to outfits like Media Matters. Their excuse? Contributors do not want to receive criticism for their politics -- while funding groups who routinely criticize others for theirs.

In fact, the whole operation appears to be a political protection racket. Anyone who wants to join these big-ticket donors who comprise the Democracy Alliance have to pay their way into the guild. Membership requires a $25,000 initiation fee and $30,000 a year from that point forward. Membership brings the privilege of secrecy, as well as the force multiplier of combining their efforts with donors such as Soros and Peter Lewis. (see update 1 below)

So who belongs to the left-wing protection guild? John Podesta's Center for American Progress, which has been compared to the Heritage Foundation, received $5 million. In exchange, CAP will remain mum about the sources of its donations, which represents a type of American progress that many will not see as a net positive. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington tells people that it is a non-partisan group -- but they joined the guild and got an unspecified amount of funding. The liberals at CREW that demand a high standard of ethics apparently have no problem with secret donations for political causes, an odd position given their supposed mission.

Who didn't get in? To no one's great surprise, the centrist Democratic Leadership Council didn't make the cut. Neither did the hawkish Truman National Security Project, designed to give Democrats a better image on defense issues. According to a Post source, they lost strictly on ideological grounds -- meaning that the Democracy Alliance has no intent to boost Democratic electoral prospects by engaging the center.

Nothing about this project breaks any laws. However, it shows an appalling tone-deafness to the larger movement towards transparency and honesty in politics. It also appears to be a de facto shakedown for liberal groups and a ego trip for those donors who will grant their funds only to those who pledge unwavering fealty to the most liberal stances.

UPDATE: I corrected a fundamental misunderstanding about the partnership buy-in. That comes from the donors, not the organizations looking for funding.

A Brief History Of Iraqi Missile Units

Another document from the archives of the IIS gives a brief history of the Iraqi short-range missile program. This takes up a small part of document ISGP-2003-00040084, but it does have a fairly revealing description and timeline:

Missile Units and their history in general

This is a brief general history of Iraqi missiles and missile unit formation with timeline development over the time.

1. 1st Unit of ground to ground missiles was established August 1, 1974 with missile called Al-Ra’ad and received later Scud missile. The units at the time were stationed at Al-Hamawil and Al-Taji Area in their early development.
2. The first significant Iraqi missile commander in 1988 was General Hazim Abdulrazak Shihab but Iran-Iraq war was the 1st time Iraq used missile against enemy target since then Iraq has used to Israel an Allied forces.
3. The year 1991 was the first Iraq formed ground to ground missile general command that lead many brigadiers, training and test facility until the establish of republican guard.
4. As per letter 932 in February 2001, Ministry of Defense and Chief of Staff adjustment was made to restructure the ground to ground missile forces. [S]erious small missile units: command, company and platoons, and branches
were formed to reflect the task required. The functions of these units were engineering, chemicals, intelligence, labs and security.
5. in August 22, 2002 general secretary of the Army forces nominates St. General Tha’er Abdulrahman Yassin Abdulrahman Al-Tikriti with consent of the president Saddam to lead the complete the restructuring of the missile forces. In fact chemical classification command, chemical company, finance and transport unit, health, environmental risk assessment unit and many admin security oriented procedures were made.

Note that the reclassifications that called specifically for chemical units and labs in conjunction with the surface-to-surface missile units came in 2001 and 2002. The nomenclature we have read in other documents did not even exist before 2001 -- and yet we are supposed to believe that the Saddam regime had no chemical or biological weapons?

Training Accident Or Dry Run?

One of the fascinating aspects of a dictatorship's fall is the documentation it often leaves behind. Because of the strict discipline required by a tyrant, such regimes often obsessively document every action in order to ensure that people can have ready support to show that they have followed orders. The documentation can leave behind evidence of the regime's crimes, which is why a thorough review is necessary when such documentation can be salvaged.

This appears to be the case with document IZSP-2003-00000592, which contains a report from one of Saddam Hussein's "chemical platoons":

Chemical and Radiation Investigation Report From ; CHEMICAL PLATOON PLACE/ UR TIME/DATE; FEB/04/2002

To Base operation‘s room Map/ Base’ map Grid ( )
Information

1. AGENT’S TYPE USED - DISPERSED GAS
2. NO. OF CASUALTIES - N/A
3. NO. OF CONTAMINATED EQUIPEMENTS - N/A
4. DROP/FALL OF CHEMICAL AGENT ON THE GROUND - N/A
5. FRONT CONTAMINATON - N/A
6. REAR CONTAMINATION - N/A
7. AGENT’S TYPE AND its DENSITY - DISPERSED GAS
8. ELEVATION - N/A
9. TERRAIN - LEVEL/EVEN
10. PLATOON’S ACTION AREA WAS SURVEYED AND DECLARED CLEAR OF ANY CONTAMINATION
11. GENERAL INFORMATION - N/A

CAPTAIN;
MAHMOUD ABOU NEHMEH

This report concerns the actions of a particular chemical-weapons unit in February 2002, in the Ur region. One of the most ancient homes of civilization, Ur also has a nearby air base (Talil). Apparently, a dispersed-gas chemical weapon got discharged in the area, and the platoon filed a report on their actions. It is not clear whether they dispersed the gas themselves or investigated its dispersal, but the report makes clear that someone fired off enough gas to require this report.

Documentation such as these banal and mundane reports keep demonstrating the Iraqi involvement in WMD, this time less than 14 months before our invasion.

ADDENDUM: In document IZSP-2003-00001787 (page 3), we find records of at least one other training session for the Chemical Units, this one involving everyone at the Talib Air Base in April 2001. The record comes from a traning register for the base, which has numerous lectures listed regarding chemical-weapons topics through at least May 2002. Most of these could be construed as defensive tactics, but this particular session was noteworthy:

Exercise: Demonstration of the effect of poisonous chemical agents on living things through the use of the agent CAS [or SAS, but more probably the former]

1 Time of the exercise: 0830
2 Date of the exercise: 4/15/2001
3 Purpose: To acquaint the members of the base with knowledge of the effect of poisonous chemical agents on living things through the use of the agent SAS
4 Participants: All base members
5 Supervision: Lieutenant Colonel `Abdu al-Razzaq Hamad Nayif
6 Positive points: The exercise was carried out successfully.
7 Negative points: None.

Chemical Officer
Lieutenant Colonel
`Abdu al-Razzaq Hamad Nayif

It looks like Iraq had enough chemical weapons material left at Talib to do some serious training -- and one has to wonder why they would do so much training, unless they intended on deploying WMD during an attack.

Another Example Of Iraqi Cooperation

Another of the FMSO documents shows the level of cooperation with UNSCOM weapons inspections that Saddam Hussein provided -- and also demonstrates that the Iraqis actively hid something from the UN. Document ISGZ-2004-028947-1 has orders from M6, the Iraqi Intelligence Service's Directorate of Internal Security. M6 integrated deeply with the Military Industrialization Commission (MIC), the bureau responsible for Saddam's WMD programs. These orders make clear that MIC leadership needed to purge their records of all material that could aid UNSCOM at discovering ... something:

Republic of Iraq Intelligence Service Secret, Personal and Urgent (TC: foreign classification) Letter # M6/1/2/1488 Date 3/23/1997

To: General Managers & Top Officials
Re: Instructions

We noticed during the last inspection of the Agency location by UN team #182, that the team asked about specific acronyms of some of the Agency’s directorates and procedures. Their questions are aimed at determining the
activities of these directorates and finding a connection between their intelligence work and the country’s military industrial activities. In order to avoid the possibility of any discoveries by the upcoming inspection teams, we
find it is necessary to do the following:

1. Go through all the records and files, remove the documents linked to the Atomic Energy Organization and the Military Industrial Commission, or other stations & departments related to restricted weapon programs such
as offers, research, studies, manuals, examinations & invitations to consultants ….. etc.

2. Remove all documents and reports related to tracking the UN inspection teams and UNSCOM, and nterdepartmental memos in that regard.

3. Remove the restricted materials, devices, dual use equipment, documents catalogs, and related books from libraries and technical departments. Ensure clean-up of the laboratories, warehouses and factories from all traces of chemical, biological or radiation that were previously used or stored.

4. The process of removing or destroying the documents, reports and equipment must be done by special committee in accordance with the rules and regulations, and that will obtain the necessary approvals to destroy or move them to a substitute location.

5. Use a standard method of dealing with UN inspection team members. Answers are not permitted other than through the authorized representative. If they question the departments or organizations outside of the agency site, a standard response is to be made to all questions that this is intelligence-related work, and that they have to consult with higher authorities for permission to answer.

6. Directorate 3 is to check all computer work stations, microfilm, computer terminals, discs, and storage retrieval devices to transfer information related to the above subject in coordination with the agency of concern to avoid targeting of these devices in the future.

Put these orders into effect and give our agency feed back within a week from the date issued.

Notes: Return this memo to the agency after the above-mentioned procedures are executed.

Signature of the Director of Directorate 6
3/23/1997

Notice that Khalid Najim ‘Abdallah Sultan Al Tikriti, who ran M6 and personally issued this order, did not instruct his staff to cooperate with the UN. He did not even argue that the UN inspectors would find nothing, even if he ordered them into non-cooperation. Khalid instead gave specific orders to get rid of documents relating to Iraq's Atomic Energy Organization and the MIC, as well as anything related to other "restricted weapons programs".

Why? If the programs had nothing to do with the UN Security Council bans, then Iraq would have nothing to hide. However, Khalid understood that Iraq had plenty to hide -- and in point 3, he tells us exactly what it is. He instructs his staff to clean up "all traces of chemical, biological, or radiation [sic] that were previously used or stored."

This makes it quite clear that Iraq continued to pursue its WMD programs, at least through 1997. Khalid's orders do not contain direction to end those efforts, either, but to hide them better. He thought he could fool the UN weapons inspectors. Khalid had no idea how correct he was.

Not All Lebanese Are Unhappy With Israel

Holly at TMV links to an interesting message up at The Lebanese Foundation for Peace, a site that lists its mission as "to promote a lasting peace between Lebanon, Israel, and Syria". Bridgett Gabriel sends a message to Israel that sounds somewhat different than one might expect:

Thank You Israel

For the millions of Christian Lebanese, driven out of our homeland, "Thank you Israel," is the sentiment echoing from around the world. The Lebanese Foundation for Peace, an international group of Lebanese Christians, made the following statement in a press release to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert concerning the latest Israeli attacks against Hezbollah:

"We urge you to hit them hard and destroy their terror infrastructure. It is not [only] Israel who is fed up with this situation, but the majority of the silent Lebanese in Lebanon who are fed up with Hezbollah and are powerless to do anything out of fear of terror retaliation."

Their statement continues, "On behalf of thousands of Lebanese, we ask you to open the doors of Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion Airport to thousands of volunteers in the Diaspora willing to bear arms and liberate their homeland from [Islamic] fundamentalism.

We ask you for support, facilitation and logistics in order to win this struggle and achieve together the same objectives: Peace and Security for Lebanon and Israel and our future generations to come."

Gabriel tells her readers that the Islamists have held Lebanon hostage ever since the Israeli withdrawal in 2000, assisted by Syria and its intelligence services. The only solution possible is to have Israel destroy the Islamist infrastructure in southern Lebanon, because the Lebanese are powerless to do it for themselves.

Let's hope it works out that way. Israel needs to be careful to avoid attacking non-Hezbollah areas or at least doing so in as limited a manner as possible. We need a democratic and independent Lebanon, and the non-terrorist Lebanese deserve it.

G8: We'll Restrain Israel When You Restrain Yourselves

The G8 released a statement on the Israeli-Hezbollah-Hamas conflict that attempts to restore some common sense to the global debate on the widening war. Responding to calls for a condemnation of Israel, the industrial powers instead tweaked those who complained about Israel acting in its defense:

Group of Eight leaders on Sunday blamed extremists for an upsurge of Middle East violence and while accepting Israel's right to defend itself said the Jewish state should exercise "utmost restraint."

Setting out conditions for an end to violence, G8 leaders in summit talks in Russia put the onus on Hizbollah militants to restore peace by releasing abducted Israelis and ending attacks on Israel.

Then the Israeli offensive against Lebanon could end, said the statement.

"These extremist elements and those that support them cannot be allowed to plunge the Middle East into chaos," said the text hammered out by the leaders of the world's richest nations.

They also called for Israel to exercise the "utmost restraint", but that came as subordinate to the demand that the terrorists return their captives and stop initiating attacks. It's refreshing, if a bit unusual, to see sovereign nations defend the notion of sovereignty these days.

Michelle Malkin has more.

The Secret House Of The IIS

Among the new materials released from the captured archives of the IIS comes a memorandum that circulated among the highest levels of Iraq's spy agency. The director of the IIS had a series of communications regarding the purchase of a secret house in Iraq with which to house activities that the IIS wanted out of sight of UN inspectors. While the activity itself does not get described, the requirement of absolute secrecy for the project gets explicitly referenced in document CMPC-2003-015065 (emphases mine):

Sir: Honorable Director of the Intelligence Service Subject: Allocation of a secret house

In view of the forthcoming completion of the new computer project that is expected to be contracted out, and due to the fact that the said computer is considered among developed high-tech devices and import-banned materials and equipment according to the United Nations decisions, and for fear that the International Inspection Commission pays a visit to the headquarter and searches the present computer building and finds out about the new computer which is supposed to be the future of the data storehouse of the Service’s directorates, and in view of the significance of what was mentioned above, we hereby suggest:

To allocate a secret house near the Service’s headquarter (Al-Mansur or Al-Harithiyyah), for the location of the new computer, in order to simplify the fulfillment of the installation works’ requirements including the establishment of a big telephone cable between the Service’s headquarter and the new computer’s location, knowing that the secret house used by M3 and situated in the pool has been designated as a permanent location for the homicide directorate. Moreover, the new location to be allocated shall also be used to store video film chips (microfilms) holding most of the Service directorates’ documents, and to empty other important documents and devices.

Hoping you would examine and agree upon the allocation of the required secret house.

With appreciation

Director of M3
Top Secret
13 January 1999

According to the CIA, M3 was the Directorate of Data Processing and Information Security. A good portion of the file's 36 pages has scans of handwritten notes on cryptology and secure message transmission. It does not sound as though it could easily be described as a "homicide directorate." That sounds much more like M21, also known as the Al-Ghafiqi Project:

The Al Ghafiqi Project existed to make explosive devices for the IIS to be used in assassination and demolition operations. The Explosives Section of M9/J was extracted from the M9 Directorate in 1990 and assigned as its own directorate, M21; at the same time, the remainder of M9/J was also extracted and designated as M16. The name Al Ghafiqi, referring to a geographic area between Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, was most likely attached to the project in 1990 as it was designated as an independent directorate.

This memo and others that follow in the file show that M3 needed a safe house for data storage of material regarding this "homicide directorare", archiving its paperwork and research as necessary for the group. The project of housing this data was important enough that the director of M3, Sa’d ‘Abd-al-Razzaq Al Majid Al Tikriti, found it necessary to keep the director of the IIS, Tahir Jalil Habbush, informed of the details and to request his personal permission to proceed.

It also demonstrates that the IIS remained cognizant of the need to evade UNSCOM inspectors on the purchase of banned materials and the pursuit of banned programs even in 1999, after Saddam Hussein had kicked the inspectors out of the country. The memo proves that the Iraqis remained defiant and out of compliance with UN resolutions and had no intention of seriously complying with them at all.

Iran Blinks

Apparently yesterday's vote in the UN Security Council made an impression on Iran. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government has agreed to negotiate with the West on the basis of the incentive package proposed earlier and for which Condoleezza Rice wanted an answer last Wednesday:

Iran said Sunday that Western incentives to halt its nuclear program were an "acceptable basis" for talks, and it is ready for detailed negotiations.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice responded that Iran should talk directly to negotiators if it wants to discuss the six-nation proposal.

Frustrated world powers agreed Wednesday to send Iran to the U.N. Security Council for possible punishment, saying Tehran had given no sign it would bargain in earnest over its nuclear ambitions.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters in Tehran that, "We consider this package an appropriate basis, an acceptable basis (for talks). ... We can achieve acceptable results in this path[.]"

Iran initially said it would not accept the offer, with its mullahs stating categorically that Iran had no need to negotiate for their nuclear cycle. Earlier threats of UNSC action went unheeded, probably because of the support Teheran received from Russia and China. Ahmadinejad then stated he would need until the end of August to review the proposal, and both Germany's Angela Merkel and Rice shot back that the package did not require that much thought and demanded a response by the middle of last week.

No one really expected Iran to endorse this package, based on that history, so this comes as a bit of a surprise, especially considering the activity in Gaza and Lebanon. However, it looks like Iran may have finally understood that the political conditions have changed. The UNSC just slapped sanctions on North Korea, who had until now provided technical assistance for Iran's missile program; that appears to be over for the short term. Europe and the UNSC have not demanded an end to Israel's response to the two provocations by Hamas and Hezbollah, and the other Arab nations have not risen to challenge Israel. In fact, they have blamed Hezbollah and by implication Iran for the attacks, especially Saudi Arabia.

Teheran isolated itself over the past few months, and they may have just discovered how few friends they have left.

That does not necessarily mean that Iran has given up on its nuclear quest. It does mean that they cannot hope to push through their program without incurring a lot of political damage, especially with Syria coming under so much pressure to cut off Hezbollah and Hamas. With the war proceeding, the ability of Iran to resupply its one partner in the region has all but disappeared, and along with it Iran's control over the two terrorist organization's operations against Israel. Iran has made a lot of disparaging comments about Israel and their folly in responding to these provocations, but the truth is that Israel could wipe out the Islamists in the immediate region if this conflict gets any wider -- and then Iran will really stand alone against the West, with no proxies left with which to attack.

It's time for them to negotiate and get the best deal they can. It looks like they may have stopped believing their own press releases and recognized it.

Chatting With Mark And Michelle

Yesterday turned out to be one of the hottest days of the year here in Minnesota, with temperatures hitting 99 degrees and enough humidity to make it feel like the world's biggest sauna. Of course, that didn't stop our radio station, AM 1280 The Patriot, from having its Patriot Picnic, a listener-appreciation day with free food and live radio broadcasts by the Northern Alliance Radio Network. Since I'm still recovering from my back surgery, my son drove me to the picnic and I brought a special folding chair to keep me comfortable for my two-hour appearance. You can hear it for yourselves at Townhall's podcasts.

I felt fortunate to be there, because we had an opportunity to interview Mark Kennedy, the MN-06 Congressman running for Mark Dayton's open Senate seat this November. We kept Mark for the entire first hour, and if you've never heard Mark in a live interview, he's terrific. Even when challenged on his opposition to ANWR drilling, he has a clear and concise answer that may not make ANWR drilling proponents (like myself) happy, but convinced that he has thought the subject through carefully. Kennedy instead wants to open the outer continental shelves for drilling in order to produce oil in the amounts necessary to push us away from an overwhelming dependence on foreign energy supplies. Kennedy also wants to eliminate earmaks and reduce federal spending.

One light moment of the interview came when we realized that his opponent, Amy Klobuchar, had sent a videographer to record Kennedy's appearance. Andy Aplikowski notes that the videographer did not get chased away as did Ben Goldfarb at a Klobuchar event. Mitch asked him what he thought about the physical assault on Goldfarb while we were live on the air, and the poor guy barely muttered a "no comment". The crowd, of course, loved it, and we let the fellow do all the recording he wants. Republicans, after all, have nothing to hide.

That's especially true when it comes to Michele Bachmann, who will run for Mark's seat in MN-06. Bachmann won a tough but collegial primary between four excellent Republican candidates, all of whom we liked -- but we're certainly happy Michele came out on top. We talked with Michele for almost the entire second hour, and she showed us why the Democrats are so afraid of her. She charmed the crowd and had us laughing when we talked about her struggle to get her opponent, Patty Wetterling, to agree to a debate. Michele told us that she would have a debate even if she wound up on the stage by herself. I offered to fill in for Patty, but Michele said she wouldn't want to face me in a debate. Yeah, well, Michele's a very accomplished attorney and a fierce and effective conservative in state politics, so I don't think she'd even have to break a sweat in that face-off.

Michelle also came out strongly in favor of ending earmarks, and showed a good understanding of the issue. She pointed out that earmarks usually come without a chance for public debate or input, taking away our right to know how our money is spent. She wants a simplified tax code -- unusual for a federal tax attorney! -- and also wants to either reduce or eliminate the Department of Education, as she insists the federal government has no authority in this area. She correctly answered King Banaian's test on the 9th and 10th amendments, and recalled her horror at being told in law school that those were now considered the "dead amendments".

I should also note that Michele just turned 50, and she looks about 15 years younger than that. If she can win this election and a couple more, she has a good chance of becoming a national candidate for the GOP in the future. She's smart, focused, charming, and articulate -- and a powerfully dedicated conservative. I'd give her a shot at a VP slot in six or ten years, depending on her ability to progress and the evolution of presidential politics over that period of time.

Be sure to listen to the podcasts of the interviews, and read more of the commentary at Let Freedom Ring, where Gary has written a terrific roundup. Don't forget to contribute to Michele and Mark's campaigns -- they are critical in our effort to hold Republican majorities in both houses of Congress.

We Don't Need Help, But Where The Hell Is It?

Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah seems a bit confused after taking a beating from the Israeli military and provoking outrage from Lebanese politicians who resent Hezbollah's unilateral decision to commit an act of war. In a press conference earlier today, the terrorist chief said that Hezbollah needed no assistance to beat the Israelis -- but then complained that no Arab nation had come to his aid:

In a recorded television speech on Sunday evening, Hizbullah head Hassan Nasrallah urged Arab states to come to the organization's aid.

"Where are the Arab nations?" he asked, moments after declaring that Hizbullah wouldn't ask for help from anyone.

Speaking to Lebanese civilians, many of whom have expressed anger at Hizbullah's Wednesday attack in which two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped and which triggered a massive Israeli aerial bombardment of Lebanese infrastructure, Nasrallah affirmed that all damage caused by IDF strikes would be repaired after the battle was won.

"We have friends who have a great ability to help us financially," he said.

He also urged the Arab world not to believe Israeli claims about the escalating conflict. "The enemy is lying," he declared, saying the "Zionists" were "managing a psychological war against us."

If the Israelis want to psyche out Nasrallah, it appears that they have succeeded. First he declares that his terrorist group can beat Israel in an all-out war, including an invasion by tanks, for which he boasted that his troops were prepared to stop with their deaths, a deal that Israel would probably accept. In the very next breath, he called upon other Arab nations to stop sitting on the sidelines and rescue Hezbollah from its own folly.

That plea will fall on deaf ears. If Nasrallah has proven himself incapable of reading a map, the rest of the Arab world will not jump to correct his incompetence. Nasrallah has no lines of communication open, except from Syria. Syria has no lines of communication open, unless Jordan decides to support Hezbollah, which would be about as likely as snow in Mecca next week. Jordan, Iraq, and Turkey surround Syria, and the West controls the Mediterranean Sea. Even Saudi Arabia has no direct way to resupply Syria, which means that Syria has no way to keep Nasrallah supplied.

Once again, we see the strategic importance of holding Iraq in this phase of the war on terror.

Even if a direct supply route could be found, the Arab nations want no part of this battle, not while America has an overwhelming force in the region, one that has become battle-hardened and expert in confronting Arab terrorists as well as Arab military forces. It sliced through the best Arab military force in the region in three weeks. No other Arab nation has a military even at the reduced strength of Saddam's pre-invasion forces.

The only nation that would support Nasrallah is non-Arab Iran. They have the same problem of communications that everyone else does, as I pointed out earlier. The Iranians might be tempted to start lobbing missiles at Tel Aviv -- I doubt they would try to hit Jerusalem, with the Muslim claim on the city -- but it would invite an immediate American response, perhaps including an anti-missile strike that would strip Iran of any leverage at all in the region.

The only support Nasrallah will get is when he accedes to the demands made for the return of the captured Israeli soldiers. Nasrallah gambled and lost; all of the press conferences in the world will not convince the Arab nations, outside of Syria, to help him double down.

ChemicalConsultant's Answers

CQ's correspondent on the mobile laboratories, ChemicalConsultant, has sent a reply to the questions and the criticisms that he received on the earlier thread. That debate was one of the most intriguing we have had on CQ, and revealed a few of our regulars as having expertise in chemistry. i closed the earlier thread because it had dwindled down to a back-and-forth volley between two readers, but the debate remains as interesting as ever. ChemicalConsultant has a fairly technical argument, and it's above my pay grade, although my son would probably be able to make more sense of it. I'd love to get more of the scientific input that we saw in our earlier thread and put aside the more political aspects.

RESPONSE ON ALUMINUM –NaOH CHEMISTRY

In case the commenters on the Mobile Labs, etc, thread wondered what happened to ChemicalConsultant, well, I’m back. Part of my absence was due to having some paying chemical consulting to do. I also decided to dig deeper into the complex matter of aluminate chemistry.

(a)First let’s review dave’s and Simon666’s comments:

“As Simon pointed out, ChemicalConsultant is using a simplified formula for a complex reaction and drawing conclusions from it that have been proven to be wrong. Back when this type of reaction was first patented, the reaction was described in an equation similar to what ChemicalConsultant uses. See this patent description.

This patent is from 1909. Chemical knowledge has advanced since then. Take a look at this patent from 2003, which deals with the same process.

Starting with section [0053] the chemistry of the process is explained. As Simon said, the reaction is best represented by the following equations:

2Al + 3H2O > Al2O3 + 3H2 (1)
and
2Al + 6H2O > Al2(OH)3 + 3H2 (2)

These equations show that sodium hydroxide is not consumed in the reaction. Earlier patents by Belitskus (1970) and Stockburger (1992) also contain equations that show that sodium hydroxide is not consumed. SODIUM HYDROXIDE IS CATALYTIC. Starting in section [0060], several experiments are done to PROVE that sodium hydroxide is catalytic. “

(b) I agree that the reaction is complex. Here are the equations used by Stockburger and Belitkus according to paragraph 0057, p 3, of AA:

2 Na+ + 2 Al + 2 OH- + 6 H2O → 2 Na+ + 2 Al(OH)4- + 3 H2 (3)
and
2 Na+ + 2 Al(OH)4- → 2 Na+ + OH- + 2 Al(OH)3↓. (4)

Also, reaction 4 does not go to completion; only a portion of the aluminate disproportionates to alumina trihydrate (ATH). I learned about the non-completion of reaction 4 when my employer sent me to visit an alumina plant in Louisiana. The aluminum industry is 90% based on the Bayer process which involves reacting bauxite which contains the mineral gibbsite, a form of Al(OH)3, with NaOH at high temperatures and pressures. The reaction is the reverse of equation 4, forming a supersaturated solution of sodium aluminate. When this solution cools, it reverses the reaction to equation 4 but there’s still some aluminate left in solution, with an excess of NaOH. This solution is reacted again with bauxite and the process continues.

(c) I went to this reference; Kirk-Othmer (K-O), “Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology”, Volume 2, for information about the reaction of aluminum with alkali hydroxides. I read the sections titled “Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys”,“Aluminum Compounds“ “Activated Alumina” and “Alumina Hydrates”. All of these sections were written by scientists and/or engineers employed by the Aluminum Company of America, also known as Alcoa.

(i)In “Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys”, the authors write “ Because of its amphoteric nature, aluminum is attacked rapidly by solutions of alkali hydroxides evolving hydrogen and forming soluble aluminates. That’s equation 3. In “Aluminum Compounds”, the authors write, “cooling after digestion requires gibbsite ( a form of Al(OH)3 ) seeding to precipitate Al(OH)3.”They also write that this produces a “spent” solution which contains an excess of alkali relative to aluminate, but both are present in the solution.

(ii) Figure 1 in the “Activated Alumina” section of K-O, shows that Al2O3 only forms when aluminum hydrates are heated to over 500o C. The highest temperature experienced by a form of hydrated aluminum oxide in AA is 170 o C ( see paragraph 0116, page 8). Therefore equation 1 doesn’t happen. If equations 3 and 4 are combined, the simplified but incorrect formula is equation 2; the complex reaction begins with equation 3, followed by equation 4. When it comes to the chemistry of aluminum and its compounds, I believe scientists and engineers who have worked for the world’s largest aluminum producer, Alcoa, know more than dave, Simon and the Andersen brothers (AA). The Andersens are resourceful tinkerers but not chemists. Since my group actually found sodium aluminate in the alumina plant “spent” solutions, but the Andersen brothers didn’t analyze their solutions, who should I believe, them or my lying eyes.

I analyzed the AA patent and found its results are explained by equations 3 and 4. I also reexamined the alleged Iraqi Al Kindi process (DAK) reported by Duelfer’s Iraq Survey Group and found it is explained by these same equations. Since aluminate chemistry is truly complex because the active ingredient, hydroxyls (OH-) go in and out of solution, it took a five page analysis to describe the chemistry accurately. I have sent it to Cap’n Ed who may post it as a link for those interested in the chemical details. [I have it here -- CE.]

The bottom line is that at best DAK could make about 5 times more than the 75 g of hydrogen I initially claimed, in the 3 hours they claimed for the process. This is only half the amount needed to fill the 5 storage bottles. If their reaction temperature got up to about 100o F or 40o C, the reaction shuts down. They would certainly not be able to launch balloons at the one per hour rate reported by Peter Beaumont, Antony Barnett and Gaby Hinsliff, "Iraqi mobile labs nothing to do with germ warfare," The Observer, June15, 2003, quoting “an experienced observer, Martin Furmanski”. This reference came from Joby Warrick of WaPo.

I re-examined the alleged reactor and noted that lines from compressed air bottles lead into two small tanks that also are fed by water. The claim is that the compressed air was used to push water from the main tank through these bottles and into the reactor. Since the system has a metering pump to transfer water, it would serves no purpose to use air. On the other hand, it would possible to transfer volatile materials, collected elsewhere in these high pressure bottles, into these small tanks for reaction with water or another solvent, then into the main reactor. That capability would be more consistent with chemical weapons production rather than bioweapons. The reactor’s temperature probe is located at about 40 cm above the base, far from the alleged reaction mixture which fills the reactor les than 10 cm. The probe would be properly located for a reaction that uses most of the tank volume. As the bioweapons experts point out, the bottom drain valve is located 2 cm above the base, making complete cleanout of the unit very difficult. The reactor I used at my job which produced solids had its drain valve located directly on the bottom. The solids were washed out. The scoop is just a diversion to fool inspectors who are not familiar with the details of the alleged process. It worked! Finally, if gas were the only product being made it would make sense to have the outlet on the top of the reactor to remove it further from potential foaming, plus it would be protected by a removable screen to remove particulates. In any event, the foam would not more than a couple of times the height of the reaction mix so the unit could be made much smaller, making higher quality hydrogen.

In conclusion, the ISG bioweapons experts and associated CIA oversight personnel “connected the dots” in determining that the Al Kindi unit probably did not make BW but they seriously failed to provide competent intelligence when they swallowed the phony Al Kindi hydrogen generation story. As they say in football, “After further review…”, I conclude that the unit was used for making chemical weapons and the ISG was fooled.
Chemical Consultant

Israel Prepares Ground Offensive Into Lebanon

After a rocket attack on Haifa killed eight civilians and narrowly missed a fuel depot, the Israelis have decided to launch a ground offensive into Lebanon to take out Hezbollah rocket sites. They have mobilized a reserve infantry division for the new effort:

The IDF on Sunday mobilized a reserve infantry division in preparation for a possible ground incursion into south Lebanon, The Jerusalem Post has learned. The move was intended as the beginning of a new effort to push Katyusha rocket launching cells away from the Israel-Lebanon border.

The division was setting up command posts along the northern border, while tanks and armored personnel carriers were being transported northward.

A senior IAF officer revealed to the Post on Sunday afternoon that the IDF was using bunker-buster bombs to strike at senior Hizbullah officials in hiding throughout Beirut and Lebanon. According to the officer, several of the bunker hideouts were hidden under civilian parking lots.

The officer also said that the air force had encountered some resistance, including the firing of anti-aircraft shells at IAF aircraft.

The resistance comes from shoulder-launched SAMs, a not unexpected issue in this war. Israel has flown 2,000 sorties already and has not lost an airplane, at least not yet. Their sorties paid off overnight; five long-range rocket launch sites got hit and destroyed. Israel also killed "several" senior Hezbollah leaders in the region.

In Haifa, the news remained grim:

The names of two of the eight people killed in Haifa early Sunday by a Fajar rocket were released for publication on Sunday afternoon. Shlomi Mansora, 35, from Nahariya and Rafi Hazan, 30, from Haifa, died when the rocket hit a maintenance depot at the train station.

Hizbullah operatives fired a barrage of dozens of Katyushas and the more deadly Fajar missiles at the north, killing eight people. Just two hours later, a second barrage of rockets landed in Haifa's port area and Nahariya.

A third barrage of rockets hit the Haifa area on Sunday afternoon. Nobody was wounded in the latest attack. Air raid sirens had sounded immediately before the Katyushas hit.

The IDF has to push the Hezbollah rocket launchers back in order to decrease the Israeli territory they can hit. Right now Hezbollah cannot easily get replacement rockets, but they obviously have a store from which they work. Israel cannot afford to wait until they run out of ammunition; they have to protect their citizens.

However, launching a ground offensive into Lebanon will get a response from Syria. The Jerusalem Post reports that Syria has also mobilized an infantry division and has moved them to the border. If Syria crosses over into Lebanon in support of Hezbollah, that will be a de facto declaration of war against Israel. Israel will have to decide whether to allow this escalation to occur or whether to back off.

Israel could beat Syria in a straight-up fight; even Damascus has to know that much. However, the question that Israel (and the US) has to answer is what Iran intends to do if that happens. Mahmoud Ahmandinejad has certainly made clear that he will support Syria if Syria is attacked. However, Iran has a big problem in delivering on that promise: 135,000 American troops between Iran and Syria. If Iran tries to resupply Syria, it has to do so through Iraq, and through the most hostile area of Iraq in the Kurdish regions of the north. For those who understand geography, this is why Iraq was such a strategic key to the region.

I doubt even the mullahcracy would be that crazy, and again it shows the recklessness of their actions in promoting these missions against Israel. They miscalculated the response from Israel and the response from the global community. The days when terrorists get sympathy have waned, and the terrorist-sponsoring states may finally have begun to realize this. The West will not shackle Israel from responding to a casus belli any longer. While the Lebanese have paid an unfair price for Hezbollah's actions, the Israelis cannot stop until their soldiers have been returned unharmed from the terrorists that Lebanon shelters, however unwillingly. If Syria attempts to intercede, then the Lebanese will find themselves quickly off the hook.