IDF Preparing Ground Incursion, Setting Table For Int'l Forces

After successfully reducing Bint Jbeir and Maroun al-Ras, the IDF has amassed its forces at the border for more operations in southern Lebanon. With American diplomacy working towards an end to the fighting, the Israelis want to clear as much territory from Hezbollah as possible in the time remaining:

The IDF wrapped up its operations in the southern Lebanese village of Bint Jbail on Saturday and withdrew most of its troops from the area. At the same time, the army was gearing up for a new ground incursion into Lebanon.

Also Saturday night, the IAF struck a road along the Lebanese border with Syria that the IDF said was being used by Damascus to smuggle weapons to Hizbullah.

It does not appear that Israel has contemplated an all-out occupation of the land south of the Litani. However, they do intend on trapping as many of Hezbollah's fighters between their airstrikes and their ground forces. Cutting off the road to Damascus ensures that Hezbollah will get little resupply from their Syrian patrons. It helps the Israelis force Hassan Nasrallah to run through his stores quickly, a pragmatic if disturbing manner to render them more impotent later on.

As David Horovitz explains in the Jerusalem Post, the initiative aims to beat the clock in kneecapping Hezbollah for the peacekeepers that will surely come soon to southern Lebanon:

[T]he talk is of 10-20,000 troops led by France and/or Turkey, with possible contingents from Germany, Italy, India, Brazil and Pakistan. But with European troops bound to be targeted by Hizbullah and its allies, some commentators are suggesting that any European role should be backed up with forces from the Arab world - from Morocco, Algeria, Egypt and/or Jordan.

However composed, the concern for Israel is that the force simply will not survive in the vicious territory where it will deploy. And, ironically given the international pressure for its establishment, the strong sense in Israel is that the sooner it takes shape and the Israeli-Hizbullah fighting ends, the poorer the force's chances of having a constructive impact and a viable future.

Anxious to minimize Lebanese civilian casualties, concerned not to find itself reoccupying Lebanon, determined to limit its ground force fatalities, yet increasingly aware of the limitations of its air power, the IDF is, nonetheless, daily weakening the potent guerrilla infrastructure Hizbullah has painstakingly constructed over the past six years. Its commanders chorus, day after intense, taxing day rooting out a thoroughly entrenched guerrilla force, that it still has much more left to do. If a ceasefire comes sooner rather than later, purported "good news" for international diplomacy would likely turn out to be very bad news indeed for the international troops left to grapple with a defiant, even victorious Hizbullah.

The Israelis have plenty of experience with peacekeepers lacking any will or ability to fight off Hzbollah. They understand that they have a short window of time in which to inflict maximum damage. With luck, they may have enough time to reduce the terrorists to a point where even a multinational force can force them to withdraw -- or better yet, put Hezbollah in position where it is unable to challenge at all.

Given those parameters, expect the IDF to strike soon and hard.

Hezbollah Hiding Among Civilians

Some people have argued over the last two weeks that Hezbollah's reputation for hiding among civilians is either false or overblown. However, Australia's Herald-Sun newspaper published photographs that show Hezbollah firing positions within residential areas of Lebanon, confirming the terrorists' use of civilians as human shields (via AJ Strata):

THIS is the picture that damns Hezbollah. It is one of several, smuggled from behind Lebanon's battle lines, showing that Hezbollah is waging war amid suburbia.

The images, obtained exclusively by the Sunday Herald Sun, show Hezbollah using high-density residential areas as launch pads for rockets and heavy-calibre weapons.

Dressed in civilian clothing so they can quickly disappear, the militants carrying automatic assault rifles and ride in on trucks mounted with cannon.

The photographs, from the Christian area of Wadi Chahrour in the east of Beirut, were taken by a visiting journalist and smuggled out by a friend.

The Herald-Sun site clearly shows anti-aircraft guns in a suburban residential neighborhood. The crew comprises two middle-aged men and at least two who look no older than teenagers. In the background, viewers can clearly see well-maintained apartment buildings.

According to the text, the paper has another picture of a Katyusha rocket lying in a devastated residential area, hit by Israeli bombers. The Australian who took the pictures said that the neighborhood had not been targeted by the Israelis until Hezbollah set up the rocket launchers there -- and then the IDF returned fire and destroyed the residential buildings around the launcher.

When people complain about the civilian death toll in Lebanon, we need to remember why it has been as high as it has been. Lebanon and the UN allowed Hezbollah to use civilians as human shields for their rocket launchers and anti-aircraft batteries. The Israelis have little choice but to target Hezbollah's offensive assets, and that makes the collateral civilian damage the responsibility of the terrorists and their enablers.

Northern Alliance Radio Today

The Northern Alliance Radio Network airs today, as it does every Saturday, starting at 11 am CT. Brian and Chad from Fraters Libertas and John from Power Line take the first two hours, and Mitch Berg from Shot in the Dark joins me at 1 pm CT. We'll be talking about all the week's events. At 2 pm CT we'll be talking with Michael Ledeen, who got smeared badly by what can be politely described as an incompetent analysis by James Bamford in the Rolling Stone. How many other magazines make the claim that Saddam Hussein went into hiding in December 2001 -- in Iran?

You can listen to the show on AM 1280 The Patriot if you're in the Twin Cities, or on our Internet stream at the same website or on Townhall. Join the conversation by calling 651-289-4488!

BUMP, 1:45 PM: Michael Ledeen coming up in 15 minutes ...

Blog Wars, Minnesota Style

Fraters Libertas tells readers how we do blog wars here in the upper Midwest: we shoot each other and get the whole conflict behind us.

Actually, Kevin at Eckernet has issued a challenge across the political spectrum of Gopherblogs:

Ok, I hope to be putting together a Battle Royale of the Blogosphere on a field of combat. Yes, I'm trying to put together an Minnesota Blogosphere Paintball game.

The particulars are yet to be decided (or even thought about) but for now I am trying to guage interest. Preferably I would like to have the teams be the Right side of the Blogosphere vs the Left side of the Blogosphere. So hopefully we can get enough interest from both sides.

Gonna try to work in a charity in there as well. Not sure if I should just pick one or if the proceeds go to the charity of the victor's choice.

Sounds like a great idea! What could be more fun that bloggers shooting their ideological rivals? Er, with paintballs, of course -- and then topping the evening off with a Leinekugel or a Grain Belt afterwards. Sounds like a great idea to me. However, since I'm still recovering from back surgery, I doubt I could participate as a combatant. Perhaps I could assume the role of the UN here -- and blame the team that shoots back for starting all the trouble.

Kevin, you can call me at 1-800-TURTLEBAY to sign me up. Or, perhaps, I'll just bring a camera and live-blog it!

Ironically, shooting each other with paintballs seems a hell of a lot more responsible than obsessing over sock-puppetry to the point where bloggers deliberately antagonize one another, or than sending sicko suggestions about a blogger's two-year-old child, or engaging in DDOS attacks against ideological rivals. It certainly beats calling each other childish names instead of relying on rational argument, and that includes in the comments section here.

But, hey, shooting each other is just our blogosphere equivalent of Minnesota Nice. Go figure.

Let Slip The Doves?

Events have moved quickly since last night, and Condoleezza Rice's return to the Middle East may result in a cease fire rather quickly. After Hezbollah indicated last night that they would be willing to eventually disarm as part of an overall settlement over the Israeli-Lebanese border issues, Rice called the offer a "positive step" -- and Israel has just stated that it will not insist on Hezbollah's disarmament as a prerequisite to a cease-fire:

En route to a new round of Middle East negotiations, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Saturday that she was encouraged by Hezbollah's general agreement to disarm and accept an international force in Lebanon, which she called a "positive step" that also strengthens the Lebanese government in the illusive search for a cease-fire.

"Obviously we are all trying to get to a cease-fire as quickly as possible, so I'll take this as a positive step," Rice told reporters on her plane flying from Malaysia to a refueling stop in Qatar. "I think there are a lot of elements that are coming together."

That brought the softening of the Israeli position:

Israel will not demand the immediate disarming of Hizbollah as part of a deal to end the current fighting in Lebanon, a senior Israeli foreign ministry official said on Saturday. ...

The foreign ministry official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Israel would demand that the proposed peacekeeping force in south Lebanon keep Hizbollah away from the Israeli border and prevent the group from replenishing its stockpile of rockets from Syria and Iran.

The official told Reuters that Israel was seeking a commitment to "start the process of implementing"
U.N. Security Council resolution 1559, which calls for disarming Hizbollah.

"But disarming Hizbollah now is not what Israel is demanding," the official said, adding that "disarming Hizbollah will not be part of the mandate for the (peacekeeping) mission."

This could start a process that will reverse the actions of the last two weeks. Israel has tried this before and failed to defeat Hezbollah, even while occupying southern Lebanon for eighteen years. They're not anxious to do that again; many believe that occupation to be Israel's Viet Nam. The Lebanese would like to get rid of Israel in that region, and they know now that they can't do that while Hezbollah remains armed. Hezbollah, which assured the Saniora government that the mission would be some kind of milk run, now understands that their political position within Lebanon is more precarious than ever. And everyone knew that an international force would not actively disarm Hezbollah, because no one would send troops to go to war on behalf of Israel.

If it worked, the Israelis would see Hezbollah retreat behind a security zone, perhaps the Latani, allowing the Lebanese Army and a stronger international force to replace them and act as a buffer. At that point, the Lebanese would disarm Hezbollah while Beirut and Jerusalem worked out the final details of the border issues and restore diplomatic relations, a la Jordan and Egypt.

That, however, is a mighty big if, as a number of commenters pointed out last night and today on my earlier post. Rick at Right Wing Nuthouse calls it a "crock", and he may well be right -- certainly history has shown them to be ruthless and untrustworthy. However, as far as I know, Hezbollah has never made a public offer to disarm themselves under any circumstances except the elimination of Israel from the Middle East. Just floating that proposal makes them appear too weak to continue fighting against Israel, politically and/or militarily. And their terrorist leadership has gone very quiet lately, especially Hassan Nasrallah, last reported to be hiding behind the skirts of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

It's an opening, and it's worth investigating.

Whistleblowing Does Not Mean Going To The Press

The Washington Post reports that a federal grand jury has issued a subpoena to Russell Tice, an officer in the National Security Agency whose employment was terminated after stories about classified programs began appearing in the press. The Department of Justice has tasked the panel with investigating possible violations of the Espionage Act, and Tice's admissions of contacts with journalists appears to be a good place to start:

A federal grand jury in Alexandria is investigating unauthorized leaks of classified information and has issued a subpoena to a fired National Security Agency officer who has acknowledged talking with journalists about the agency's warrantless surveillance program, according to documents released yesterday.

The 23-member grand jury is "conducting an investigation of possible violations of federal criminal laws involving unauthorized disclosure of classified information" under the Espionage Act and other statutes, according to a document accompanying the subpoena.

The demand for testimony from former NSA officer Russell Tice provides a sign of the Justice Department's aggressiveness in pursuing the leak investigation, which follows a series of controversial news reports on classified programs. It also marks the latest potential use of the espionage statute to combat such leaks.

Tice is a member of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, which claims that the government has begun a "witch hunt" for whistleblowers with this action. The group's director, Sibel Edmonds, said in a statement on the web site that "to prevent the public’s right to know, they [the government] now are getting engaged in a witch hunt targeting these patriotic truth tellers.” The New York Times quotes the ACLU as describing Tice as a "courageous federal employee' and his leaks as a "valuable public service".

Simply put, neither the NSWBC nor the ACLU has a clue about whistleblowing, especially in a national-security context -- and their actions will leave our nation defenseless in an asymmetrical war on terror if they succeed.

Contrary to public opinion, whistleblowers have many legal options open to them to get attention to potentially illegal operations within classified programs. They can address the issue with their superiors, which they should do first. If that does not succeed, the whistleblower can contact the lawyers for the intel unit to which they belong. Failing that, they can contact the FBI and/or the DoJ's attorneys. If that doesn't work, a whistleblower can then contact one of the Congressional committees on intelligence.

In fact, we saw an example of that earlier this month. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, the Republican chair of the House Intelligence Commitee, scolded the White House for not briefing him and the ranking member on his committee (Jane Harman) on a "major" national-security program. The information came to Hoekstra from a participant in the program concerned about its legality and the lack of involvement by Congress -- in other words, a real whistleblower.

Anyone who holds a national-security clearance knows how to work within cleared channels to gain the proper attention to a problem of legality. The one option that whistleblowers never have is to expose the secrets to the public, and therefore to our enemies. At regular intervals, cleared personnel get briefed on proper procedures, and they receive warnings at each briefing about the perils and penalties for violating their clearances.

If Tice did blow these programs, and he has admitted as much publicly, then he has violated a number of laws protecting sensitive information. Contrary to the clams of the ACLU and the NSWBC, the public does not have an unfettered "right to know". American law and centuries of court rulings allow the government to classify information so that sensitive information regarding our security does not get revealed, especially on the pages of the New York Times. Classification decisions come from the elected executive, who answers to the voters. They do not get made by individuals who answer to no one and work from their own personal agendas.

Real whistleblowers in the cleared community know how to work within that system. Russell Tice broke the law, and he should pay the penalty for doing so. Otherwise, clearances will mean nothing, and our efforts to stop our enemies from attacking and killing us will get parried with ease -- and Americans will pay a steep price for Tice's ego trip and the partisanship of the New York Times. (via Just One Minute)

McKinney Equates Security Stop With Bush-Merkel Neckrub

Cynthia McKinney has decided to go down swinging in the runoff for her primary seat. However, she's not swinging at Hank Johnson, the man trying (and so far succeeding) in squeezing her out of Congress. Instead, McKinney keeps trying to use Bush Derangement Syndrome as a lever with her constituents, and has attempted to explain away her assault on a police officer by claiming molestation -- and using Bush as an excuse:

At Thursday's news conference, McKinney told reporters her altercation with a Capitol police officer in March had no effect on the primary election results and said the fallout was created by people who had a political agenda. "One of the things that the press was a party to was the ... spiraling of an incident," she said.

McKinney likened her response — she allegedly struck an officer after he grabbed her from behind — to that of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who threw up her fists when President Bush unexpectedly massaged her neck at the recent G8 Summit.

"This woman, who was touched from behind, had a reaction," McKinney said.

I'm sorry -- I must have missed where Angela Merkel hit George Bush in the chest with a cell phone. She put her arms up in surprise, and had McKinney done that on Capitol Hill, then she would have had no further problems. Instead, she wants to excuse her own behavior by deflecting attention to George Bush while claiming molestation.

Let's please recall that McKinney disregarded a security post and repeated calls for her to stop. She was not sitting on a dais, minding her own business; she violated procedures that exist for her own protection. McKinney still can't admit that the incident was her fault. She wants voters in her district to believe that the police officer molested her in the halls of a Congressional office building and that her assault was self-defense.

The police officer should sue for defamation. His union has already contributed to Hank Johnson, and perhaps they should consider an endorsement. Speaking of which, former mayor and Carter administration official Andrew Young endorsed McKinney yesterday -- which just about wraps up the nutcase contingent behind their leading politician.

Iranians Don't Take The UN Resolution Seriously

Yesterday the UN Security Council unanimously approved a resolution demanding that Iran comply with a previous UNSC resolution to stop enriching uranium while talks proceed on the nuclear crisis. The consequences of the new resolution were indeed dire -- the UNSC might actually ... really ... pass another resolution:

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council reached a deal yesterday on a resolution that would give Iran until the end of next month to suspend uranium enrichment or face the threat of sanctions.

The latest draft is weaker than an initial proposal from Britain, France and Germany, with US backing. Although the earlier version would have made the threat of sanctions immediate if Iran did not comply, the new draft would essentially give Iran another chance to come around. That was a victory for Russia and China, arguing that the resolution was not an ultimatum but a new request for Iran to accept a deal that would give it various incentives if it suspended uranium enrichment and reprocessing.

“There are no sanctions introduced on Iran in the draft resolution that we are finalising,” Vitali Churkin, the Russian Ambassador to the UN, said. He emphasised that work on the resolution was not finished.

With the Un showing that kind of strength, one might expect Iran to quiver in its boots -- from laughter. Today, Iran gave its unofficial response:

Iran state radio said Saturday the government would reject a proposed U.N. resolution to suspend uranium enrichment by Aug. 31 or face the threat of international sanctions.

"Iranians will not accept unfair decisions, even in the framework of resolutions by the international bodies," the state-run radio said.

Perhaps this time the UNSC will threaten to write a strongly-worded memo.

We'll talk about this with Michael Ledeen today on the Northern Alliance Radio Network, so be sure to tune in.

They're Not With Us, Volume II

A week ago, Hamas went out of its way to disassociate itself with Hezbollah in Lebanon, leaking to the press that they understood the danger of linking its conflict with the Iranian/Syrian proxy in the north. Later, however, they floated an idea to team up with Hezbollah on prisoner swaps. Today, Mahmoud Abbas explicitly rejects that sentiment, announcing that they will not work with Hezbollah on negotiations:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said Saturday his government has no intention of teaming up with Shi'ite Hizboullah on negotiating the release of Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners held by Israel. ...

Hamas had raised the possibility this week of teaming up with Hizbullah to negotiate terms to release of Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners in Israel in exchange for the three IDF soldiers.

But Abbas said the situations were too different to coordinate a release.

"Our brothers in Lebanon have their own special case ... and we have our special case," he said while in Alexandria to meet with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

That's the good news. The bad news is that, according to Abbas, Israel has agreed in principle to release Palestinian prisoners first in a trade for Gilad Shalit. Abbas said that the releases had to fit certain parameters: wonen, "children" (likely teenage rockthrowers or worse), the sick and elderly, and most importantly, people the Israelis would not be releasing under other circumstances. In the last such swap, Abbas complained that a large number of the prisoners had served their full sentences already.

The Israelis are making a mistake if they agree to this, unless it comes with the complete disarming of all militias and an agreement by Hamas to recognize Israel and to honor past agreements. Paying the Danegeld only ensures that the Danes will not depart, as the proverb states. Prisoner swaps should come at the end of hostilities and not as the end result of extortion. Israel has done this too often, and the result has always been more abductions. Why does Ehud Olmert think that Hassan Nasrallah felt sanguine enough about his abduction mission to launch it?

Israel's military action put enough pressure on Abbas to keep them from linking with Hezbollah. Giving up now takes them back to square one -- or perhaps even further back. A prisoner swap with no other resolutions to the overall status only endorses more kidnappings and raids.

Has Hezbollah Folded?

Hezbollah politicians have agreed in principle with the Saniora government to an international military force to occupy Lebanon and, more importantly, to disarm the "guerillas" that touched off the war:

Hezbollah politicians, while expressing reservations, have joined their critics in the government in agreeing to a peace package that includes strengthening an international force in south Lebanon and disarming the guerrillas, the government said.

The agreement — reached after a heated six-hour Cabinet meeting — was the first time that Hezbollah has signed onto a proposal for ending the crisis that includes the deploying of international forces.

The package falls short of American and Israeli demands in that it calls for an immediate cease-fire before working out details of a force and includes other conditions.

The agreement has its pitfalls. It calls for a broad approach to resolve the war, including a final determination of Shebaa Farms, presumably in Lebanon's favor. (The UN says it belongs to Syria as part of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, but Syria says it belongs to Lebanon.) The deal also calls for an Israeli withdrawal and an exchange of prisoners, which Israel has previously rejected.

However, it does contain an agreement by Hezbollah to disarm, While this could be a political manuever to make Israel look bad if they do not agree to it, an offer to disarm by Hezbollah in any context that does not include the destruction of Israel should send shockwaves through the jihadi community. Hezbollah has been called the finest Arab fighting force, especially since the demise of the Saddam Hussein regime. This will be seen -- rightly -- as a surrender to the Zionists in Israel and the democrats in Lebanon.

Israel should call Hezbollah's hand. If they are bluffing, it will be yet another major miscalculation. However, certain signs point to this being a serious offer.

First, Hassan Nasrallah has retreated to the shelter of his patrons, first in Damascus and then rumored to be hiding in the Iranian embassy. Second, his admission of setbacks to his troops indicate that he was already in some serious trouble with his fellow terrorists. This new offer makes it appear that a leadership change has occurred in Hezbollah -- and Nasrallah may wind up fleeing Lebanon altogether.

A disarmed Hezbollah will be a major victory for the West, and a reminder that talk only gets us so far, especially when dealing with fanatics. Sometimes war provides the only answer that they can understand -- and a massive defeat has to take place before change can occur.

Shooter In Seattle

A gunman killed at least one and injured five others in a Jewish center in Seattle today, and local reports say he did it for political purposes. Seattle's KING-5 television station reports that the man introduced himself as a Muslim before firing indiscriminately:

One person has been killed and at least five others have been injured in a shooting at the Jewish Federation at 2031 Third Ave. in downtown Seattle. One suspect has been taken into custody.

Police have taken one person into custody but there may be more suspects in or around the building.

Sources told KING 5 the suspect is a Pakistani man with a criminal background. He is from the Tri-Cities but his citizenship is unknown. Officials are on the way to the Tri-Cities to interview his family.

According to the Seattle Times, a man got through security at the Jewish Federation and told staff members, "I'm a Muslim American; I'm angry at Israel," then began shooting, according to Amy Wasser-Simpson, the vice president for planning and community services for the Jewish Federation.

This same center held a rally last weekend to support Israel in its war against Hezbollah, an event co-sponsored by over forty different community organizations. Understandably, the offices of the center had very tight security, and police have not explained how the gunman managed to get past it. The numbers and status of the victims have not been made entirely clear at the moment, but police have apparently confirmed at least one death.

More details will surely follow. Some may start thinking about those Hezbollah sleeper cells that Hassan Nasrallah threatened to unleash against the West, but it's an extremely unlikely explanation for this incident. If this initial report is accurate, it looks much more like a lone nutcase taking out his bigotry in a violent manner. Hezbollah would not waste a sleeper agent on an attack of this type, with so few potential victims. When Hezbollah strikes, they aim for maximum damage, as they did in Buenos Aires when they killed over eighty people at a Jewish center. This sounds much more similar to the wannabe jihadi in North Carolina earlier this year.

Regardless, this conflict will bring out the nuts on all sides. We will have to keep a watchful eye for trouble in the weeks ahead. (via Hot Air)

Still Stoned

Michael Ledeen's colleagues at National Review join the chorus of laughter and derision inspired by James Bamford's ridiculous effort in Rolling Stone, spinning a conspiracy theory involving Michael and the Bush administration. I wrote about the silliness yesterday, and today Andrew McCarthy and Mark Levin take up Bamford's piece:

In a screed Rolling Stone is passing off as journalism, James Bamford becomes the latest in a growing crowd of hacks to smear our friend Michael Ledeen.

Up until now, the fiction recklessly spewed by disgruntled intelligence-community retirees and their media enablers — some of whom have conceded that the claim is based on zero evidence — has been that Michael had something to do with the forged Italian documents that, according to the Left’s narrative, were the basis for President Bush’s “lie” in the 2003 State of the Union Address that Saddam Hussein had obtained yellowcake uranium (for nuclear-weapons construction) in Africa. Of course, Michael had utterly nothing to do with the forgeries (the source has actually been identified); the forgeries were not the basis for the president’s statement; the president did not claim Saddam obtained yellowcake — merely that intelligence reports indicated that Saddam had sought to obtain it; and the British intelligence reports that actually were the basis for the president’s statement were true (the Brits stand by them to this day). But hey, why let the truth get in the way of a good story?

Naturally, the Italian forgeries make a cameo appearance in Bamford’s just-released hit piece. His anxious reprise of the distortion has Italian intelligence telling the Bush administration that Saddam had obtained uranium in West Africa, which becomes the source of the president’s State of the Union assertion. But, aside from being wrong, Bamford’s recitation makes no sense. We understand Italian intelligence denies ever having said any such thing. Obviously, though, if (a) it had said such a thing, and (b) that information had been the basis for the president’s assertion, then Bush would have said Saddam obtained uranium. Instead, he said Saddam had merely inquired about uranium — and in Africa, not, as Bamford claims, West Africa. This is exactly what was alleged by the British intelligence reports — the president’s real source.

That's just the appetizer, McCarthy and Levin run rings around Bamford's paranoid fantasies, demonstrating several places where Bamford uses suppositions as fact and then bases his conclusions on them.

McCarthy and Levin save the best argument for last, as I did. Bamford says that Ledeen and the neocons bought into Manucher Ghorbanifar's implication that Saddam Hussein was hiding in Iran -- in December 2001. Incredibly, Bamford seems unaware that Saddam Hussein was in charge of Iraq in December 2001, and in fact remained so until April 2003. Not only that, but this supposed journalistic expert on the Middle East and intelligence work appears ignorant of the fact that the Iranians hated Saddam Hussein with a vengeance for his oppression of the Shi'a in Iraq and his brutal war against them in the 1980s.

And the editors of Rolling Stone have yet to issue any kind of correction or explanation for this farcical exposition by Bamford.

Read the entire NRO article. Also, I will be interviewing Michael Ledeen about this story and other developments in Iran tomorrow on the Northern Alliance Radio Network at 2 pm CT. Be sure to tune us in.

UPDATE: Hiding in Iran. Fixed the typo, thanks to Russ in the comments.

Post-Invasion Intel Showed WMD Went To Syria

Among the captured documents of the Iraqi Intelligence Services is a memo written in Arabic that describes pre-war intel from an Iraqi source working in Syria. Dated July 13, the memo itself was written after the invasion, but it describes the movement of trucks from Iraq into Syria just before the American invasions. Document ISGQ-2005-00022470 has notations reading "DOD" that indicate the Pentagon has already reviewed the data:

ISGQ-2005-00022470 PAGE (1) MR. HOGGER (KURDISH NAME) REGARDS, KINDLY REVIEW THOSE PAGES AND PLEASE FORWARD THEM TO MRS.MONA FOR FURTHER REVIEW AFTER TRANSLATION THANK YOU SIGNED ABO ABDULLAH JULY 13TH

=======

PAGE (2)

ESQUIRE, THE DIRECTOR OF COORDINATION AND FOLLOW UP OFFICE

Reda (name) CA11

July.13th

Subject: we have information about the location of Mass Destruction Weapons

On Moharram 10th (Arabic calendar), prior to US/allied invasion to Iraq, fifty (50) Iraqi trucks entered Syria as convoys (or groups), I met some the drivers of those trucks, they got no idea about the content of their trucks.
The loads basically came from some where in Baghdad, Iraqi intelligence were escorting the loads. During their tripe, those truck drivers were stopped and asked frequently by the intelligence officers about whether or not they got any idea about the content of their loads, the divers replied “we have no idea”, then the officers would say “thank you”.

Upon their arrival to Deayr Ezoor city/ Syria, the drivers were ordered to get down, elements from Syrian intelligence got into the trucks, they took the trucks to big barracks for downloading.

After that; Iraqi drivers got their trucks back, they got $200 as a reward.

The drivers told me that it was their second time to bring such secret shipment; the first shipment was Moharram 1st.

I have a friend in Syria working in Syrian company, the man has ½ of the company, and the other ½ belongs to a Syrian businessman.

This Iraqi person, a former counselor at Iraqi embassies, has strong connections with Iraqi embassy in Syria, he knows all Iraqi intelligence men there, and he has no idea that I am working with the Iraqi opposition in Syria.

I used to visit him daily during that period to listen to the important news.
When the trucks arrived to Syria, I visited him, told him “Iraqi weapons got inside Syria”, he replied “who told you”, I said “I have my own resources”, he replied “don’t tell any one about that because actually it is inside”.

CA 11-10

Mrs. Mona; please keep it in file CA 11 30
SIGNED
JULY 13TH

For those unfamiliar with the Muslim calendar, 10 Mohorram would equate to March 14th for 2003 -- or a little over a week before our invasion of Iraq. The opposition source told the Kurds that the trucks arrived in Dayr az Zawr, a Syrian city on the Euphrates in the expansive eastern section of Syria. A look at a map shows Dayr az Zawr in the middle of nowhere, with plenty of space to hide stockpiles from 50 trucks.

After unloading the trucks -- taking care to separate the Iraqi drivers from their vehicles while doing so -- the Syrians returned the trucks to the drivers and paid each of them $200, a rather princely sum for an Iraqi in 2003. And that was the second such convoy that IIS officers conducted into Syria; the first had been on Mohorram 1, or March 5th.

While this is not quite a smoking gun, it provides yet another piece of evidence pointing to a massive operation to hide Iraq's WMDs. Saddam Hussein must have thought that if the Coalition could not find the WMDs, they would have to withdraw and allow him to assume power once more. It would explain why he allowed so much of his army to disappear rather than fight; he expected to command them again within a few weeks. In fact, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri told Time Magazine that Saddam had made a mistake allowing the army to fight at all:

Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, Saddam's top lieutenant with a $10 million bounty on his head, struck a defiant tone in an intervew appearing on Time magazine's Web site in which he wrote out answers to questions sent in May through intermediaries. Time said it wasn't clear when his answers were written.

Al-Douri, the highest-ranking figure from Saddam's regime still at large and the "king of clubs" on the most wanted list, said Saddam blundered by having his army confront the U.S.-led invasion force instead of holding it in reserve to fight a guerrilla war, but he said the old army has bounced back.

This movement of the weapons also appeased Russia, which helped Saddam build them. The Russians did not want the US to discover the weapons stores and pressed Saddam to get them somewhere else, and fast. American intel has long claimed to have seen these convoys streaming across western Iraq into Syria, and this provides a more complete picture as to what they did when they arrived.

Draft Bill On Detainee Trials Outlines Procedures

The Washington Post reports on the initial drafts from the Bush administration for their proposal to Congress for authorized military tribunals for detainees in the war on terror. The tribunals will use the template from our criminal justice system, with necessary modifications in accordance with fighting an ongoing war. The result shows the problems with holding tribunals while hostilities continue, for both testimony and thresholds of evidence.

Here are the parameters the White House will propose to Congress:

Rationale

The draft states that using the federal courts or existing military court-martial procedures to try suspects in the war on terrorism -- described formally as "alien enemy combatants" -- is "impracticable" because they are committed to destroying the country and abusing its legal processes. Routine trial procedures would not work, it states, because suspects cannot be given access to classified information or tried speedily. Service members involved in collecting evidence cannot be diverted from the battlefield to attend trials, and hearsay evidence from "fellow terrorists" is often needed to establish guilt.

One might add that the Geneva Convention, which the Supreme Court stated is applicable to these detainees, do not allow civil trials for detainees. They have to have access to the same system of justice as the military members of the detaining force, ie, courts-martial or an acceptable substitute. This rationale covers most of the grounds on which the Pentagon objects to granting access to civilian courts.

Formation of Military Commissions

The commissions are to be established under existing presidential authorities but appointed by the Secretary of Defense or his designees. The jurors will be any commissioned, active-duty military officers considered qualified because of "age, education, training, experience, length of service, and judicial temperament." The head of each commission will be a military officer with legal credentials.

I don't see any rational objection to this proposal. Presumably, one would prefer that all members of the commission have legal credentials, but I don't know whether that would be practical.

Covered Crimes and Persons

The draft initially said that only "alien enemy combatants" who are not U.S. citizens can be tried by military commissions. That phrase is crossed off in the text of this copy, and instead it appears to cover anyone "engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners" who violate the laws of war or provisions of this bill.

The commissions have jurisdiction over 19 offenses considered violations of the laws of war, ranging from attacking civilians and protected property to using persons and property as shields and torture, maiming, mistreating dead bodies, rape and conspiracy. The commissions also can be used to try those who -- in the context of armed conflict -- hijack vessels or aircraft, destroy property, aid an enemy, or commit acts of terrorism, murder or spying.

We can expect a lot of argument over the apparent inclusion of US citizens in this process. However, it would likely only apply to terrorists detained outside of the US who had American citizenship. Congress will want to make that distinction very clear. They do not want to allow a process in which American citizens detained in the US would not have the right to a criminal trial for criminal conduct, and they would likely be correct. The hassles of pulling American troops out of the field for testimony would not apply in those circumstances, and the criminal prosecution of American traitors can be structured to maintain secrecy in most circumstances.

Trial Procedures

"A person charged with an offense under this Act may be tried and punished at any time without limitations," the bill states. Speedy trials are not required. Defendants are entitled to two principal lawyers -- one drawn from U.S. military ranks and a civilian cleared to read materials classified as "Secret."

Hearsay information is admissible at the discretion of the military lawyer presiding over the commission, unless circumstances render it unreliable or unnecessary. That lawyer can close the proceedings to protect any information that might "cause identifiable damage to the public interest" or endanger participants or national security interests. The lawyer can also order "exclusion of the defendant" and his civilian counsel, but instances of this should be "no broader than necessary." Classified evidence can be provided to the defendants in summary form but is not required if doing so would compromise intelligence sources.

I suspect this will cause some pushback as well. Hearsay has a number of applications within the civil court system in the US, more than people realize, but if the only evidence against a detainee is that someone else says he's a terrorist, that opens the door to plenty of abuse. A number of the detainees already released from Guantanamo were captured through the use of bounty hunters. The military did not consider that hearsay reliable enough for continued detention, and Congress will want to see some hard limits on the use of hearsay. Excluding defendants and their civilian attorneys will also cause some grief. I don't expect that to survive.

Punishment

A two-thirds majority vote is needed to convict on any charge; a three-quarters majority is needed to order a sentence of more than 10 years. All members present must vote to impose the death penalty, and it must be approved by the president. But those enemy combatants and "persons who have engaged in unlawful belligerence" can be detained until "the cessation of hostilities," notwithstanding any jail sentence they receive from the commissions.

This shows one of the problems with tribunals in the midst of hostilities. No one who gets a lighter sentence will get released, because if they conducted terrorist operations against the US, we simply cannot allow them the freedom to do it better the next time. That final clause will get used to give people life sentences for all crimes. If that's the end result, then why bother holding the tribunals at all? The initial military reviews can determine whether a detainee has any connection to terrorism, and if not, let him go. The rest should stay detained until the end of hostilities, as the Geneva Convention allows. Sentences under this system appear superfluous.

It isn't a bad first draft, and it has more detainee protections than I would have predicted. Congress will chew this over for some time to come.

Pander Bears

Instead of the donkey as a party mascot, the Democrats may want to consider a more exotic animal. Peter Beinart has a suggestion -- the pander bear. Beinart scolds Democrats for mindless and ineffective pandering to the pro-Israeli crowd by demanding that Nouri al-Maliki make himself into a sock puppet for America when he came to address Congress:

After years of struggling to define their own approach to post-Sept. 11 foreign policy, Democrats seem finally to have hit on one. It's called pandering. In those rare cases when George W. Bush shows genuine sensitivity to America's allies and propounds a broader, more enlightened view of the national interest, Democrats will make him pay. It's jingoism with a liberal face.

The latest example came this week when Democratic senators and House members demanded that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki either retract his criticisms of Israel or forfeit his chance to address Congress. Great idea. Maliki -- who runs a government propped up by U.S. troops -- is desperate to show Iraqis that he is not Washington's puppet. And the United States desperately needs him to succeed because, unless he gains political credibility at home, his government will have no hope of surviving on its own. ...

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid demanded that Maliki eat his words or be disinvited from addressing Congress. "Your failure to condemn Hezbollah's aggression and recognize Israel's right to defend itself raise serious questions about whether Iraq under your leadership can play a constructive role in resolving the current crisis and bringing stability to the Middle East," wrote Reid and fellow Democratic Sens. Richard J. Durbin and Charles E. Schumer on July 24.

How, exactly, publicly humiliating Maliki and making him look like an American and Israeli stooge would enhance his "leadership" was never explained in the missive. But of course Reid's letter wasn't really about strengthening the Iraqi government at all; that's George W. Bush's problem. It was about appearing more pro-Israel than the White House and thus pandering to Jewish voters.

The eruption of war on Israel's northern border has made a number of Democrats nervous about their standing with American Jews. The party took them for granted before then, and reasonably so, as the vast majority (75%, if I recall) continued to support Democrats for national office. However, this constituency has seen their party start tilting so far left that they worry about American support for Israel in time of war, especially given the Democrats' knee-jerk hatred of an administration that has consistently stood by Israel.

Instead of simply supporting the administration in the current crisis, which would not have had any effect on their arguments against the war in Iraq, they chose to remain confrontational and invent a crisis where none existed. They forgot that Maliki represents the Iraqis, who do not have an overwhelming love for Israel. Neither do Egypt or Jordan, and Democrats in previous administrations managed to maintain courteous relations with the leaders of both countries -- neither of whom headed representative democracies. Instead of listening with diplomatic courtesy to a man who has pledged his support for the effort against terrorism in his own country, they called him an anti-Semite and went out of their way to deliver a diplomatic insult.

As Beinart writes, this shows that the Democrats do not have any principles to offer the American voter except their status as the anti-Bush. That only takes them so far, and when Bush retires in 2009, this party will have nothing left at all, except pandering through cheap rhetorical stunts like they did this week. If anyone ever wanted an example of why Americans of all stripes should not trust Democrats with national security and international relations, Harry Reid and his Pander Bears provided it in spades.

Making the CUT (Update: Pork Database Progress!)

My new post at the Heritage Foundation Policy Blog discusses a new effort by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) to give Congress the power to remove spending from an already-approved budget. King's proposal, Cut the Unnecessary Tab (CUT) resolution, would amend House rules to require a quarterly rescission bill to review all unspent federal monies. Any member could then offer an amendment to delete a particular line item, and each amendment would have to receive a recorded vote -- putting each Representative on record on the program involved.

King's release describes the benefits:

Everything Is On The Table • All appropriations spending is subject to review and rescission.

During this spending reduction process, every single spending item would be up for reconsideration, and no Member of Congress could make excuses for failing to cut spending because the process would provide a record of their actions.

All Savings Go to Deficit Reduction
• Savings will be returned to the general fund and cannot be used for new spending – thus ensuring taxpayers are ultimate beneficiaries.

Sunshine to the process
• The process of cutting spending would be open to the public.
This spending cutting bill and its amendments will be on the Internet so that Americans can exercise their right to contact their Members of Congress and make their views known.

Will this result in an increase in spending discipline? It may not solve the entire problem, but it does give Congress another tool to control pork-barrel spending. I discuss this in greater depth at Heritage; be sure to read the entire post and let me know your thoughts.

UPDATE: In another post at Heritage, I note that the Coburn bill creating an on-line federal database of all spending has passed unanimously in Senate committee. It now has a number of co-sponsors from both parties, including Harry Reid and Bill Frist. (Trent Lott, oddly, is not among them!) Hopefully it will come to a vote in the full Senate very quickly. However, one major hurdle has to be overcome when it goes into joint conference. Read the post to see where the extraordinary coalition supporting S.2590 could fall apart.

UN Acts Late In Removing Observers

The UN has finally started withdrawing its observers from the war zone in southern Lebanon, the AP reports this morning:

The United Nations has decided to remove unarmed observers from their posts along the Israeli-Lebanese border, moving them in with the peacekeeping force in the area, a spokesman said Friday.

The decision came after one of the posts of the observer force, known as UNTSO, was destroyed by an Israeli airstrike earlier this week, killing four.

The press will no doubt spin this as the fault of the Israelis. However, the UN has known of Hezbollah's efforts to use the UNTSO bases as shields for their offensive operations for at least the last two weeks, if not longer. Their own report from July 20th, compiled by their own analysts, made this clear:

28. Control of the Blue Line and its vicinity appears to have remained for the most part with Hizbollah. During the reporting period, Hizbollah maintained and reinforced a visible presence in the area, with permanent observation posts, temporary checkpoints and patrols. It continued to carry out intensive construction works to strengthen and expand some of its fixed positions, install additional technical equipment, such as cameras, establish new positions close to the Blue Line and build new access roads. These measures resulted in a more strategically laid out and fortified structure of Hizbollah’s deployment along the Blue Line. Some Hizbollah positions remained in close proximity to United Nations positions, especially in the Hula area, posing a significant security risk to United Nations personnel and equipment, as demonstrated during the heavy exchanges of fire on 28 May. In letters to the Foreign Minister, dated 23 March, 27 June and 5 July 2006, the Force Commander, General Pellegrini, expressed grave concern about the Hizbollah construction works in close proximity to United Nations positions and requested that the Government of Lebanon take necessary actions to rectify the situation. However, the situation remained unchanged despite repeated objections addressed by UNIFIL to the Lebanese authorities. UNIFIL observed the reconstruction of Hizbollah positions that were damaged or destroyed during the 28 May exchange of fire.

UNIFIL told the UN back in March that Hezbollah had created this danger; responsibility for the deaths of the UNTSO personnel lie with Turtle Bay and Kofi Annan. (via It Shines For All)

Christopher Teaches All The Wrong Lessons

Warren Christopher had two opportunities to influence foreign policy from the top. He served as Deputy Secretary of State for all of Jimmy Carter's term of office, and then as Secretary of State for Bill Clinton's first term. These periods will be best known, in terms of Islamists, as periods of American retreat. Christopher headed the negotiations that dragged the Iranian hostage crises to 444 days, as Carter refused to respond to an act of war with American strength and instead accepted the ongoing humiliation from Teheran. His tenure as Secretary of State comprised the Oslo fiasco, which bound Israel and created a protostate for Yasser Arafat, which he used to both enrich himself and launch multiple intifadas against the Israelis.

One might think that a former diplomat with this kind of track record would refrain from offering advice on Middle East conflict. However, Christopher takes to the pages of the Washington Post to instruct Condoleezza Rice and the Bush administration to take the Neville Chamberlain route once again -- because, and I'm not kidding, it worked so well in the past:

My own experience in the region underlies my belief that in the short term we should focus our efforts on stopping the killing. Twice during my four years as secretary of state we faced situations similar to the one that confronts us today. Twice, at the request of the Israelis, we helped bring the bloodshed to an end.

In June 1993, Israel responded to Hezbollah rocket attacks along its northern border by launching Operation Accountability, resulting in the expulsion of 250,000 civilians from the southern part of Lebanon.

After the Israeli bombardment had continued for several days, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin asked me to use my contacts in Syria to seek their help in containing the hostilities. I contacted Foreign Minister Farouk Shara, who, of course, consulted with Syrian President Hafez al-Assad. After several days of urgent negotiations, an agreement was reached committing the parties to stop targeting one another's civilian populations. We never knew exactly what the Syrians did, but clearly Hezbollah responded to their direction.

In April 1996, when Hezbollah again launched rocket attacks on Israel's northern border, the Israelis countered with Operation Grapes of Wrath, sending 400,000 Lebanese fleeing from southern Lebanon. Errant Israeli bombs hit a U.N. refugee camp at Cana in southern Lebanon, killing about 100 civilians and bringing the wrath of international public opinion down upon Israel.

This time Shimon Peres, who had become prime minister after the assassination of Rabin, sought our help. In response, we launched an eight-day shuttle to Damascus, Beirut and Jerusalem that produced a written agreement bringing the hostilities to an end. Weeks later, the parties agreed to a border monitoring group consisting of Israel, Syria, Lebanon, France and the United States. Until three weeks ago, that agreement had succeeded for 10 years in preventing a wholesale resumption of hostilities.

What do these episodes teach us?

To any rational person, it would teach that temporary cease-fires have benefitted the terrorists and impeded any long-term solutions to the problem of the Islamist impulse. Instead, Christopher uses this litany of failure as proof that his cease-fire approach works, and urges Israel and the US to travel that road again.

Anyone who has studied the inept diplomatic moves of the last four decades has to come to grips with one immutable fact: the terrorists and their sponsors want Israel destroyed. The cease-fires imposed by outside forces has never tempered that desire in the least. Egypt and Jordan opened diplomatic relations not because of any cease-fire, but because the moderate governments of those states finally saw the futility of fighting and losing to Israel. The terrorists and their sponsors have not seen that; the West keeps imposing cease-fires as soon as they start losing, pulling their chestnuts out of the fire before they even get warm.

Repeating this process yet again just postpones the inevitable. Syria and Iran -- especially Iran -- want to see Israel destroyed, and they will continue to arm Hezbollah to achieve that goal, especially since it costs them so little to do so. After this cease-fire ends, Hezbollah will provoke another war, one for which they have better preparation. And time is not a neutral force in this conflict: if the cease-fires continue long enough, Iran will have a nuclear weapon for Hezbollah to shoot at Israel.

The time for resolution has come. Cease-fires have not solved anything in this region, and we cannot wait for Iran and Syria to grow up. Israel has to put Hezbollah into a position where it can no longer provoke war, and the world has to force Syria and Iran to end its proxy war. Leaving Hezbollah in the field provides the means for future war, not peace. Christopher and his appeasement remain part of the problem, not the solution.

UPDATE: Mona Charen makes a too-rare appearance at The Corner to remind us that Israel has tried Christopher's advice on a number of occasions. They have not given a full-blown military response to provocations since Oslo (1993, on Christopher's watch) until this month. They withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, and Gaza from 2005. Has this made Hezbollah and Hamas more amenable to peaceful coexistence? Has it had any salutary effect on Israel's security at all?

McKinney Losing Big To Johnson

CQ readers may have been surprised to see an advertisement for a Democrat appearing on the site. However, Hank Johnson has made an extraordinarily large effort to expand his reach in the upcoming primary runoff for Cynthia McKinney's seat in Congress. That effort seems to have paid off for Johnson, as the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that Johnson has 25 points over the controversial incumbent with a little over a week to go before the election:

A new poll by Insider Advantage shows challenger Hank Johnson with a hefty lead over incumbent Cynthia McKinney in the Democratic run-off for the 4th District congressional race.

The poll shows Johnson leading McKinney, 46 to 21 percent, with a third of voters undecided. The survey recorded the responses of 489 likely voters and has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 5 percent.

Run-offs are notorious for low turnout, which often makes telephone surveys unreliable. Matt Towery, CEO of InsiderAdvantage, said he was unwilling to say that McKinney was headed for certain defeat. "But is she in deep, deep, deep, deep troube? Yes," he said.

Towery said McKinney and Johnson split the African-American vote in the district, which makes up nearly 53 percent of the electorate. But an overwhelming number of white voters surveyed, who make up 42 percent of the 4th District electorate, said they preferred Johnson.

This election will break less on party or racial lines than on sanity lines, and Johnson has a huge advantage over McKinney in that category. McKinney still insists that George Bush set up the 9/11 attacks as a way to personally aggrandize power, although she has absolutely no proof of the allegation -- and with Osama bin Laden taking personal credit in more than one statement, it seems unlikely she will find any. McKinney has increasingly relied on propping up a cult of personality, giving voters a near-messianic vision of herself as the only person capable of representing her constituency, while embarrassing them by assaulting Capitol Hill police officers and -- well, opening her mouth.

Johnson, on the other hand, has conducted a dignified and somewhat low-key campaign, and it has worked to contrast him with the hyperbolic incumbent. McKinney refused to debate Johnson, and one can understand why; his style would come across as serious and dignified and show her up for the hysterical harpie she has become.

This is not to say that Johnson is a conservative's dream. People should check out Johnson's website to see hi s positions on the issues, which correspond very closely to the Democratic Party platform, such as it is these days. His voice will lend itself to increased spending and increased taxes. However, one can expect no less from this particular district, as those policies find great favor among McKinney's constituents. This district will not turn Republican in the next few weeks.

What Johnson will bring to Congress is a responsible voice for that constituency, a voice that will garner attention for the right reasons. I will likely oppose most of what Johnson supports, and vice versa, but Johnson will at least have my respect and that of the rest of Congress. Johnson will not use his office to turn himself into some kind of pop-culture martyr. The voters of his district deserve to have a responsible Representative, and it appears that enough of them agree.

McCain Abandoning Campaign Reform?

The New York Sun reports that presumed presidential candidate John McCain has quietly removed himself from campaign-finance reform efforts in Congress. After infuriating conservatives with his efforts to impose speech limits -- and with the mostly unsuccessful efforts to muzzle the blogosphere -- McCain's name no longer appears on a public-financing campaign bill that he had at one time co-authored:

The quartet of lawmakers behind every major federal campaign finance restriction in the past decade is suddenly missing one of its members.

The elided surnames of the four men, "McCain-Feingold-Shays-Meehan," have become synonymous with so-called campaign finance reform, but Senator McCain, a Republican of Arizona, is conspicuously absent from the latest effort.

On Wednesday, Senator Feingold, a Democrat of Wisconsin, Rep. Martin Meehan, a Democrat of Massachusetts, and Rep. Christopher Shays, a Republican of Connecticut, introduced a bill to revive the crumbling system for public financing of presidential campaigns.

The bill is largely identical to a measure all four men introduced in 2003, but this time around Mr. McCain is not on board.

A spokeswoman for Mr. McCain, Eileen McMenamin, did not return calls seeking comment for this article, but several people involved in discussions about the legislation said the senator's absence was related to his widely expected bid for the presidency in 2008.

The Senator wants to avoid looking like a hypocrite if he chooses to waive public funding, as both George Bush and John Kerry did for the 2004 primaries, in his 2008 run for President. His reformer partner in the House, Christopher Shays, tried to give him some cover by telling The Sun that he would not advise anyone to agree to public financing in the current system.

However, this still demonstrates some level of hypocrisy, no matter how McCain cuts it. In the first place, if McCain agrees with Shays, then he should have kept his name on this bill to fix the system he sees as broken. Secondly, Shays never explains the difference between what we have now and what the now-reduced team of reformers proposes. After all, $75 million is a lot of money, and that's what Bush and Kerry (and Howard Dean) passed up --- because they knew they could raise more. Either their bill simply allocates more money to the candidates, or once again it restricts who can give, when, and how much -- an approach we have used since Watergate, to no one's satisfaction.

Public financing of elections has a similar effect to government control of an economy: it subsidizes mediocrity and penalizes excellence, at least in terms of candidate popularity. A free market allows the people to fund their chosen candidates to the level their politics inspir, and unpopular candidates get weeded out pretty quickly. Government financing requires taxpayers to fund every candidate, even those which the individual taxpayers do not support, and gives them an unearned financial parity with other candidates.

We have tinkered with campaign finance for over thirty years. Has the system stopped "checkbook politics", or was George Soros a figment of our imagination in 2004? McCain's BCRA imposed speech limits on politics for the first time in almost a century in 2002, and it didn't stop the flow of money. It won't take long before the "reformers" decide that the multi-party system creates corruption and attempt to do away with it.

The only solution for corruption is sunlight. We need more speech, not less, and more engagement in the system on a voluntary basis by the citizenry. If McCain has really come to this conclusion, then let him say so. Otherwise, withdrawing his name from this latest attempt at public financing just so he can take advantage of private financing is the height of hypocrisy.

Israel Rejects UN-Led Force In Lebanon

Israel's outspoken ambassador to the UN, Dan Gillerman, explicitly rejected the deployment of another United Nations-led force in southern Lebanon as part of any cease-fire initiative. Gillerman said that any force deployed to replace the Israelis would have to have more professional leadership than that offered by Turtle Bay:

Israel's U.N. ambassador on Thursday ruled out major U.N. involvement in any potential international force in Lebanon, saying more professional and better-trained troops were needed for such a volatile situation. ...

Gillerman was highly critical of the current U.N. peacekeeping force, deployed in a buffer Zone between Israel and Lebanon since 1978, saying its facilities had sometimes been used for cover by Hezbollah militants and that it had not done its job.

"It has never been able to prevent any shelling of Israel, any terrorist attack, any kidnappings," he said. "They either didn't see or didn't know or didn't want to see, but they have been hopeless." ...

The flaws with the U.N. force make it imperative that any U.N. force come from somewhere else, though it could have a mandate from the United Nations, he said. "So obviously it cannot be a United Nations force," Gillerman said. "It will have to be an international force, a professional one, with soldiers from countries who have the training and capabilities to be effective."

I detailed that sorry history in my previous post, using the UN's own report on UNIFIL as a source. That report also explains why Israel has refused to allow the UN to contribute the investigation into the shelling of the UNTSO position earlier this week. The UN already knew that Hezbollah had built its positions in close proximity to the UNTSO/UNIFIL camps -- and Kofi Annan did not do anything to get those men out of the area once fighting broke out. Why should Israel allow the UN to bias the investigation when it will inevitably pin the blame on Kofi?

Gillerman says Israel will agree to an international force, but only under certain conditions. The "peacekeepers" have to ensure that Hezbollah gets disarmed, even if they have to do it themselves. They have to deny Hezbollah access to the area around the Blue Line so that they cannot provoke the Israelis any longer. Gillerman also wants the international force to monitor the border between Lebanon and Syria to ensure that Bashar Assad and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad do not resupply Hassan Nasrallah and his band of terrorists.

Under the circumstances, it's clear that the UN won't agree to those missions. They had 28 years to do all of these tasks and completely failed in doing so. Gillerman and Israel do not plan on waiting 28 years for the UN to develop the testicular fortitude to do the job this time.

UN Report Reveals Uselessness of UNIFIL

The United Nations quietly released a report on the UNIFIL mission on July 20th covering events since the beginning of the year in southern Lebanon. The report reveals the uselessness of the UNIFIL mission as the UN itself details how Hezbollah held control of the territory and how the UN stood by as the terrorists dug into their positions.

After a lengthy description of tit-for-tat provocations during the reporting period, the report describes the situation on the ground prior to the eruption of war earlier this month:

28. Control of the Blue Line and its vicinity appears to have remained for the most part with Hizbollah. During the reporting period, Hizbollah maintained and reinforced a visible presence in the area, with permanent observation posts, temporary checkpoints and patrols. It continued to carry out intensive construction works to strengthen and expand some of its fixed positions, install additional technical equipment, such as cameras, establish new positions close to the Blue Line and build new access roads. These measures resulted in a more strategically laid out and fortified structure of Hizbollah’s deployment along the Blue Line. Some Hizbollah positions remained in close proximity to United Nations positions, especially in the Hula area, posing a significant security risk to United Nations personnel and equipment, as demonstrated during the heavy exchanges of fire on 28 May. In letters to the Foreign Minister, dated 23 March, 27 June and 5 July 2006, the Force Commander, General Pellegrini, expressed grave concern about the Hizbollah construction works in close proximity to United Nations positions and requested that the Government of Lebanon take necessary actions to rectify the situation. However, the situation remained unchanged despite repeated objections addressed by UNIFIL to the Lebanese authorities. UNIFIL observed the reconstruction of Hizbollah positions that were damaged or destroyed during the 28 May exchange of fire.

29. UNIFIL encountered an increase of temporary denials of access by Hizbollah in different areas along the Blue Line. On one occasion Hizbollah searched a UNIFIL vehicle and temporarily confiscated United Nations equipment. In general, the Force was able to regain and assert its freedom of movement within a short period of time and, in some instances, with the assistance of the Lebanese authorities.

The UN watched and did nothing as Hezbollah -- a terrorist group and obvious provocateur against peace in the region -- built and reinforced defensive and offensive positions. The UN also watched as Hezbollah built those positions near the observer and peacekeeper posts, and did nothing to stop it. Kofi Annan could not have been unaware of the problem; the UN tried to get the Lebanese Army to address the issue to no avail.

Yet, Kofi Annan publicly accused Israel of deliberately targeting UN positions even though UNIFIL had already reported that Hezbollah had intended to use them as shields.

This shows how dishonest and biased Annan and the entire UN structure is against Israel. The UNSC issued the UNIFIL mandate to keep this kind of activity from provoking a war. Instead, the UN mission allowed Hezbollah to build its war infrastructure under their noses, even allowing Hezbollah to put the international troops at dire risk, and Turtle Bay knew all about it. (hat tip: CQ reader Raymond P)

UPDATE: Cleaned up some clumsy sentence structure.

Hamas Skims Off The Top

Remember all the sob stories Hamas plied about how the international sanctions on their group had Palestinians starving in the street? Journalists from around the world issued hysterical alarms about how cutting off salaries of Palestinian Authority civil servants would collapse the economy and cause untold human suffering? Apparently, all of that concern did not reach the upper levels of Hamas itself, which has skimmed the international aid it has received for salaries of senior officials:

Some of the Arab League money recently transferred to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has been paid out to Hamas ministers this week, according to PA sources. ...

The Arab League raised money to help the Palestinians in March but was unable to transfer it until earlier this month. America has pressured banks not to allow money to flow to the PA, lest they be held in violation of US anti-terror laws, which forbid sending money to organizations that the government has designated terrorist groups, as Hamas has been. At the time of the transfer, the Arab League declined to specify how the $100 million provided by it and Saudi Arabia had reached Abbas.

Now in Abbas's hands, a PA official confirmed to The Jerusalem Post, it was used to make "downpayments" this week to all civil servants in the PA - including the prime minister and all the cabinet ministers, even though they are members of Hamas. The official stressed that the money was given to the PA and not to Hamas directly, but that there could be no discrimination in the payment of government workers.

Only a fraction of the total salaries owed to workers was paid.

This proves one of the absolute truths of international aid: little of the aid gets through a fundamentally corrupt organization.

Israel Calls Up 30,000 Reserves

Israel has made it clear that they will not soon scale down their attacks in southern Lebanon. The IDF called up 30,000 troops for training in the fight against Hezbollah:

Israel's government on Thursday called up at least 30,000 troops to begin training for duty in the offensive against Hezbollah, and Lebanese officials estimated a civilian death toll as high as 600 with fighting in its third week. ....

The high-level conference in Rome ended Wednesday with most European leaders urging an immediate cease-fire but the United States willing to give Israel more time to punish Hezbollah and ensure an international peacekeeping force for south Lebanon.

"We received yesterday at the Rome conference permission from the world .... to continue the operation, this war, until Hezbollah won't be located in Lebanon and until it is disarmed," Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon told Israel's Army Radio.

"Everyone understands that a victory for Hezbollah is a victory for world terror," said Ramon, believed to be close to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

One of the guests on Hugh Hewitt's show yesterday said that Israel had only mobilized 0.3% of its military forces for this war. Israel apparently wants to add to that capability in a hurry. That appears to give credence to the general prediction that Israel will invade souhern Lebanon in force in the near term, possibly in advance of an international peacekeeping force.

Nasrallah had better buckle up, because it will be a bumpy ride.

Tour Winner Tests Positive For Excessive Testosterone

So much for American dominance at the Tour de France. It looks like Floyd Landis will get disqualified over a positive test for excessive testosterone. This result, if confirmed, would show that Landis juiced just before his remarkable comeback in Stage 17, the key to his victory:

Tour de France champion Floyd Landis tested positive for high levels of testosterone during the race, his Phonak team said Thursday on its Web site. ...

The Swiss-based Phonak team said it was notified by the UCI on Wednesday that Landis’ sample showed “an unusual level of testosterone/epitestosterone” when he was tested after stage 17 of the race last Thursday.

Landis made a remarkable comeback in that Alpine stage, racing far ahead of the field for a solo win that moved him from 11th to third in the overall standings. He regained the leader’s yellow jersey two days later.

The team and Landis have asked for a new test on Landis' "B" sample. If the new tests confirm the original results, Landis will almost certainly be stripped of his title. Phonak has also publicly stated that it will fire Landis if the allegations are true.

If so, this will be yet another embarrassment for sports of all types. At least cycling takes this seriously. Too many professional sports turn a blind eye to substance abuse, which encourages athletes to juice themselves and forces others to make tough decisions as to whether to keep up. With millions of dollars on the line, many make the wrong decision, and the cycle keeps repeating itself.

Hopefully, this will prove to be an error on the part of the laboratory. If not, Landis deserves all the ridicule that will come his way. (via Michael van der Galien at TMV)

The Nasrallah Bug-Out

When the going gets tough, the tough get going ... to Damascus. Apparently unhappy with Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah's direction, Syrian intelligence has whisked the Hezbollah leader to Syria for a series of meetings. Coming as it does on the heels of Nasrallah's own admission of severe blows to his efforts, one has to wonder whether Nasrallah will return to Lebanon:

Hizbullah head Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah is currently in Damascus, the Kuwait based a-Siasa newspaper reported Thursday. Nasrallah was apparently taken to Damascus by Syrian intelligence for a series of meetings.

According to the report, Nasrallah is scheduled to meet with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani and perhaps with Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Nasrallah has to answer to his two major patrons, and the indications so far would be that the conversation will be "frank and open" -- diplo-speak for a butt-chewing. Commanders do not often leave a war theater for consultations when operations run smoothly; those who wish to consult come to the commander instead. Otherwise, it risks disrupting the operational flow of a successful campaign. Obviously, Syria and Iran do not consider Hezbollah's performance to fall into that category.

One has to wonder why Ali Larijani wants to meet with Nasrallah. Larijani has enough on his plate handling the Iranian nuclear-technology portfolio without getting entangled in the events of southern Lebanon. In fact, Iran should want to see as little linkage between the two as possible. Has Nasrallah asked for more potent warheads on the missiles he intends to fire at Tel Aviv, or has Larijani suddenly become the 'fixer' of the Ahmadinejad regime?

Certainly, Hezbollah troops have to question the timing of this field trip. As the Israelis continue targeting Hezbollah offices and command centers, suddenly Nasrallah has to attend meetings hundreds of miles from the fighting. If one didn't already know about the Islamofascists' courage in attacking schoolgirls and falafel stands, one could conclude that Nasrallah and the rest of the Hezbollah leadership still above room temperature had a bit of a yellow streak.

UPDATE: Apparently, Rush has read something from this post on the air according to commenters, and may not have credited me. I'm fine with that, if that's what happened. He credits me often enough that if he didn't today, I know it was a pure oversight. Besides, Rush has done plenty for me, and I'm honored to be on his reading list.

Rolling Stoned On Iran

Rolling Stone's James Bamford has a new article on the crisis in Iran that fundamentally misrepresents one of his sources and mangles history so badly that one wonders when RS laid off its fact-checkers. I have been in touch with Michael Ledeen, whose extensive quotes appear throughout the article, and he has a number of issues with Bamford's article.

Let's start with the factual errors as Micheal outlines them. Bamford writes:

Weeks later, in December, a plane carrying Ledeen traveled to Rome with two other members of Feith's secret Pentagon unit: Larry Franklin and Harold Rhode, a protégé of Ledeen who has been called the "theoretician of the neocon movement."

Ledeen told me that "They were certainly not on my flights in either direction. ... Only an ignoramus would call Harold a protege of mine. If anything, it was the other way around."

Completing the rogues' gallery that assembled in Rome that day was the man who helped Ledeen arrange the meeting: Nicolò Pollari, the director of Italy's military intelligence. Only two months earlier, Pollari had informed the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein had obtained uranium from West Africa—a key piece of false intelligence that Bush used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Ledeen: "Italian intelligence never said any such thing. Bush used British intelligence, not Italian, in his State of the Union address." In fact, Bamford misstates the evidence itself. The Bush administration said that Saddam had attempted to purchase uranium from Africa, not West Africa. They didn't claim that Saddam had actually concluded a purchase. The intel showed that Saddam was still attempting to develop nuclear weapons in defiance of the UN Security Council sanctions.

The British government still stands by that intelligence. In the Butler report, they explain that their intel came from a source not associated with the French/Italian counterfeited documents. Joe Wilson's own report to the CIA corroborated it, although Wilson tries the same spin that Bamford uses so clumsily here by claiming that Saddam never actually bought the uranium. Wilson's report went to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which noted that the Nigerien PM told Wilson that a secret trade delegation from Iraq had, in his opinion, tried opening a clandestine channel for uranium.

Ledeen, Franklin and Rhode were taking a page from Feith's playbook on Iraq: They needed a front group of exiles and dissidents to call for the overthrow of Iran. According to sources familiar with the meeting, the Americans discussed joining forces with the Mujahedin-e Khalq, an anti-Iranian guerrilla army operating out of Iraq.

Ledeen: "It never came up as far as I know. I did go to the bathroom from time to time, but I was present 99% of the time."

But by far the most egregious error in the article comes on page 3, in the same section discussing the trip to Rome. Bamford puts the time frame as December 2001, and Ledeen agrees. Here's what Bamford wrote about one of the major underpinnings of this entire conspiracy to start a war with Iran:

The men then turned their attention to their larger goal: regime change in Iran. Ghorbanifar suggested funding the overthrow of the Iranian government using hundreds of millions of dollars in cash supposedly hidden by Saddam Hussein. He even hinted that Saddam was hiding in Iran.

The idea that the Iranians would ever hide the man who waged a brutal war against them for eight years has a humor all its own. However, Bamford seems to have forgotten one critical point: Saddam was still running Iraq in December 2001, and would for the next sixteen months. Saddam may not have allowed people to know his specific whereabouts at any given moment, but we knew damned well he was still in Iraq, and still in charge.

Did Bamford bother to do any research at all on this story, or did he just make it up as he went along? And how about the Rolling Stone editors? Apparently, the levels of fact-checking ceased to exist on this story, and RS allowed Bamford to spin his fantasies unimpeded. No one ever questioned why the Shi'ite mullahcracy would shelter a genocidal Sunni madman that had brutally oppressed their brethren for decades. Hell, RS couldn't even read a calendar.

Ledeen sent this letter to Rolling Stone in response to this embarrassment:

Jeez, I thought it was only coffee in that cup Jim Bamford drank from at my house, but apparently he slipped something stronger into it when I was opening the box of cookies he brought over. Anyone who thinks I have any influence on the Bush Administration is regularly swallowing something more powerful than caffeine.

That's the actual context. The opposite of what Bamford says.

I can tell you from personal experience that Michael Ledeen has never supported armed intervention in Iran, for sound political and military reasons. He has even commented to that effect on more than one occasion on my blog. Ledeen has always championed an approach that funds democracy activists within Iran as a means of regime change. Anyone who has bothered to read Ledeen even superficially knows his viewpoint on action against Iran.

Bamford has no credibility as a journalist, and the Rolling Stone has become the purveyor of paranoid conspiracy fantasies.

General MacKenzie Responds To Annan At G&M

General Lewis MacKenzie told the CBC yesterday about communications from the Canadian soldier killed in the Israeli bombardment at their UNIFIL position, information that Kofi Annan could have used before leaping publicly to the conclusion that the IDF deliberately attacked the UN. Today he expands on his comments in the Globe & Mail in an article entitled, "Kofi's Rush To Judgement" (via Newsbeat1, one of the best aggregators in Canada):

The blast on Tuesday claimed the lives of Major Paeta Derek Hess-von Kruedener, a Canadian serving with the UN Truce Supervision Organization mission in southern Lebanon, and three other UN soldiers. On July 18, Major Hess-von Kruedener had sent a number of his colleagues, including regimental officers such as myself, an e-mail describing what the situation was like at his location since the Israeli attacks began against Hezbollah in Lebanon.

"Based on the intensity and volatility of this current situation and the unpredictability of both sides (Hezbollah and Israel), and given the operational tempo of the Hezbollah and the IDF, we are not safe to venture out to conduct our normal patrol activities. We have now switched to Observation Post Duties and are observing any and all violations as they occur." ...

The penultimate paragraph of Major Hess-von Kruedener's e-mail is prophetic, to say the least: "The closest artillery has landed within two metres of our position and the closest 1,000-pound aerial bomb has landed 100 metres from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity."

This is what we call "veiled speech" in military jargon. It means hiding the truth in lingo that outsiders would not necessarily understand. What he is saying translates roughly as: "We have Hezbollah fighters all over our position engaging the IDF and using us as shields. They will probably stay, hoping that the IDF won't target them for fear of hitting us."

Surprising? Not really.

The general explains that he has personally experienced the deliberate placement of weapons systems around civilian assets such as hospitals, schools, and churches to take advantage of their status and avoid returning fire. He himself saw this happen around his own UN positions in Sarajevo, when MacKenzie served as the first UN commander of peacekeeping forces in Sarajevo -- and Annan served as the UN undersecretary of peacekeeping. MacKenzie solved the problem by informing the forces attempting to take advantage that he would start firing on their positions within the hour, a message that the terrorists took as a good piece of advice.

Unfortunately, the UNIFIL forces did not have that kind of option. MacKenzie writes that as unarmed observers, they had no ability to fend off Hezbollah terrorists and keep them from using UNIFIL positions as shields against the Israelis. That is what led to the death of the four soldiers. Had the IDF refused to fire back, Hezbollah would still be using the UNIFIL position as a shelling station.

That begs the question: why didn't Annan get the UNIFIL troops out of southern Lebanon when the fighting erupted? They could do absolutely no good, and wound up being exploited by the terrorists. Perhaps Annan wanted them to "observe" in order to report on war crimes, and that would only mean pursuing those issues against the IDF. After all, Hezbollah is not a member of the UN.

Annan has some explaining to do. In the meantime, the Globe & Mail should pull this column out from behind its paid-subscription firewall and allow all Canadians to read the general's explanation. The good folks at G&M will shortly conclude that this information should be readily accessible to all of their nation; this issue is too important to let Gen. Mackenzie's words get screened away from readers.

Someone Makes An Honest Living At The UN

The New York Sun found someone who supports free-market economics and property rights at the United Nations. Unfortunately, Osman Osman put those principles to use in a drug-smuggling operation and got busted by the FBI:

A U.N. employee used U.N. diplomatic pouches to smuggle illegal drugs as part of a ring that brought 25 tons of contraband into New York in the past year and a half, federal prosecutors and the FBI said yesterday.

The shipments of khat — an illegal stimulant grown in East Africa — were received by a mail clerk employed by the United Nations, Osman Osman, who sent them across America, according to an indictment unsealed yesterday.

Prosecutors say Mr. Osman, a Somali citizen who had been employed at the United Nations for 29 years, was an important cog in the largest khat trafficking enterprise America has known. Forty-four defendants were named in yesterday's indictment, and 14 were still at large, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's office said.

Let's give credit where due. When was the last time you heard anyone at the UN described as "important" to a market economy?

Osman's business, unfortunately, funded a lot of misery, especially in Somalia. Osman's operation rang up around $10 million over the last eighteen months or so, and a lot of that money went back to Somali warlords. That helped pay for wars between each other and Islamist armies, which resulted in the fall of Mogadishu to an al-Qaeda affiliate. Osman might try to plead that he wanted to fight Islamofascism, but I doubt that argument will fall on sympathetic ears.

The UN unwittingly provided the lines of communication for this trade over several years, perhaps decades; Osman started working in the mail room in 1977. We used to think that Turtle Bay was useless, but Osman has proven us incorrect. It turns out that UN diplomatic pouches do have some purpose, other than promoting the causes of oppressors like Cuba and Iran and enforcing the status quo no matter how tyrannical it may prove.

The Dean Of Divisiveness

In this ever-changing, mixed-up world, thank goodness that we have the constant of Howard Dean's mouth. Easily one of the most hypocritical political figures in the past generation, Dean decided to lecture America on "divisiveness". Of course, he blamed Republicans for it, within hours of comparing one GOP candidate to a mass-murdering dictator and calling a visiting dignitary anti-Semitic:

Down with divisiveness was the message Wednesday delivered by Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean as he told a group of Florida business leaders that Republican policies of deceit and finger-pointing are tearing American apart.

Great modeling for that anti-divisiveness campaign, Howie.

The Republican agenda "is flag-burning and same-sex marriage and God knows what else," Dean said. "We need real change in this country. We're in trouble."

And that would be .... less divisive? Actually, Dean was just cooling down from earlier statements, where he compared Katherine Harris to ... Joseph Stalin. He also called visiting Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki an anti-Semite:

Democrat leader Howard Dean called the Iraqi prime minister an "anti-Semite" during an address before party loyalists on Wednesday, drawing a swift rebuke from Republicans. The Democratic National Committee chairman also called Republican Senate candidate Katherine Harris a "crook" and compared her to Stalin. ...

"Thank God for Bill Nelson, because we'd have another crook in the United States Senate if it weren't for him. He is going to beat the pants off Katherine Harris," Dean said during his 20-minute address. "She doesn't understand that it's…improper to be chairman of a campaign and count the votes at the same time. This is not Russia and she is not Stalin."

Recall, please, that the Dean of Divisiveness once defended the presumption of innocence for Osama bin Laden in relation to the 9/11 attacks, a presumption he didn't bother granting Tom DeLay. Dean also called the Republicans the "white Christian party", and famously revealed that he hates Republicans, "and everything they stand for".

Dean doesn't want to abandon divisiveness; he's raised it to an art form, and it's the only tool in his arsenal.

UPDATE: I forgot to give The Florida Masochist a hat-tip on the Harris link. Sorry, Bill!

The Nasrallah Blues

Haaretz reports that Israel has penetrated Hezbollah communications, and Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah has quite a different spin on events internally than externally. While issuing public statements full of bombast and dire predictions for Israelis, his private communications acknowledges the shock of Israeli military action has taken a toll on operational capability and morale:

An Israel Defense Forces analysis of the messages transmitted by Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah to his men during the fighting in Lebanon reveals a slightly different tone from the one he took in three public television interviews in the same period and in an interview with the Lebanese newspaper A-Safir. ...

Nasrallah admits that his organization is having morale problems and says his group will receive support and encouragement.

He adds that not only Hezbollah, but also Israel, has been badly hit.

He also complains frequently that the Arab states have deserted Hezbollah and the Lebanese and are not helping them against Israel.

This isn't much of a surprise, except for the speed in which Israel has tapped into Hezbollah's internal communications. Nasrallah admitted that he didn't anticipate the overwhelming Israeli response, a miscalculation that certainly has contributed to the declining morale in his organization. After all, Nasrallah made this sound like a milk run, and now the jihadis have another Israeli invasion on their hands.

It also sounds like Nasrallah had to make an accounting of his actions in order to convince his men to continue their fight. Having a commander communicate an apology of this sort indicates a growing dissatisfaction with leadership in the ranks. Nasrallah so far has done nothing to convince anyone that he has a grasp of either strategy or tactics. He has proven that he has no understanding of his enemy, nor much of his putative allies in the region, almost all of whom have declined to rush to his side in this fight.

Nasrallah had better have a victory to show them soon, or he may find himself replaced with wiser counsel.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers!

Harper Says UNIFIL Attack Not Deliberate, General Explains Why

Two figures of Canadian leadership came forward today in opposition to Kofi Annan's assertion that Israel deliberately targeted a UNIFIL position, resulting in four deaths, including one Canadian soldier. PM Stephen Harper told reporters that he thought the attack had been a mistake, and retired Major General Lewis MacKenzie told CBC that the Canadian soldier who was killed in the attack complained that Hezbollah exploited their position as a shield:

“I certainly doubt that to be the case given that the government of Israel has been co-operating with us in our evacuation efforts and our attempts to move Canadian citizens out of Lebanon and also trying to keep our own troops that are on the ground involved in the evacuation out of harm's way,” Mr. Harper said.

“I seriously doubt that but we obviously want to get information.”

He said Ottawa now wants to know why the UN post was attacked and why it remained occupied during “what is now more or less a war.”

Meanwhile, Gen. MacKenzie gave a radio interview which gave a little more clarity to the situation on the ground near UNIFIL (via It Shines For All and a number of CQ readers):

"...the tragic loss of a soldier yesterday who I happen to know and I think probably is from my Regiment. We've received e-mails from him a few days ago and he described the fact that he was taking within - in one case -- three meters of his position "for tactical necessity - not being targeted". Now that's veiled speech in the military and what he was telling us was Hizbullah fighters were all over his position and the IDF were (sic) targeting them and that's a favorite trick by people who don't have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields knowing that they can't be punished for it."

Retired Canadian Major General Lewis MacKenzie interviewed on CBC Toronto radio 26 July 2006

The interview can be heard at this link. Oddly, the CBC itself didn't bother to include that information in its own reporting on the story. Meanwhile, Kofi Annan said he "accepted" the explanation of Ehud Olmert that the attack had been an error and not a deliberate strike at the UN. Given this development, one wonders why he would have jumped to his conclusions so quickly.

A Reminder Of Hezbollah's Track Record

Some still consider Israel's decision to respond with a limited war to Hezbollah's invasion, which killed eight and saw two IDF soldiers abducted by the terrorists, an unreasonable reaction to the scale of the provocation. People have forgotten that Hezbollah has not sat quietly in Lebanon and acted as a political party during the six years after Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon. Just eight months ago, Hezbollah fired off rockets at Israel:

Rocket Attacks Don't Dent Sharon By Martin Sieff Dec 29, 2005

WASHINGTON, The latest wave of Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah rocket attacks on Israel suggest an ambitious tactical political agenda on the part of the attackers. With Israel deep in the throes of probably its most crucial general election in almost 29 years, terrorist groups are trying to directly influence the political process.

The attacks certainly fulfill the warning of Israeli security chiefs that hostile Islamist groups would seek to follow up the unilateral Israeli withdrawal Gaza earlier this year with a new wave of terror attacks. And certainly so far, the guerrillas still do not appear to be anywhere near reclaiming the capability they enjoyed for years in the Second Intifada of massacring dozens of Israeli civilians, including women and children, almost per week in suicide bomb attacks.

The attacks by Hezbollah from the north are clearly backed by the new hard-line regime in Iran where the new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has called for Israel to be wiped off the map and questioned the historical accuracy of the Holocaust. As tensions mount between Israel and an Iran rapidly driving to acquire a formidable nuclear strike capability, Iran is clearly showing no hesitation in playing the Hezbollah card.

And in May 2005, this report from Isracast reminds us that Hezbollah showered northern Israel with rockets for three days in September 2004. This came as Ariel Sharon considered the Gaza withdrawal, and led Sharon to forswear a new war in Lebanon at that time -- when Rafik Hariri's assassination forced the Syrians to withdraw from Lebanon themselves:

Along the Lebanese frontier, Hezbollah launched a series of cross border shellings of Israeli civilian and military targets. There were no Israeli casualties but some damage. The IDF responded with limited air strikes and tank fire. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon says Israel has no intention of being drawn into a further escalation by the pro-Iranian Hezbollah.

Hezbollah guerillas in south Lebanon shelled Israel for further three days running. Although Israeli aircraft and tanks fired back, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Israel has no interest in being drawn into a further escalation.

* Sept.11th - Hezbollah fires Katyusha rocket at Western Galilee town of Shelomi - the rocket slams into the industrial zone causing damage but no casualties because the area was abandoned due to Independence Day.
* Sept.12th - Hezbollah fires 2 rockets from south Lebanon at IDF position in Mount Dov area (Shaaba farms) of Syria. No Casualties or damage. Israeli forces return fire at Hezbollah positions in the area.
* Sept.13th - Hezbollah fires 13 mortar bombs at IDF positions in Mount Dov, IDF fires back and hits 3 Hezbollah positions.

One might ask what the UNIFIL forces did during this time. Apparently, not a lot. They didn't act as a deterrent, nor did they do much to stop it. That might come up for discussion at the UN Security Council very soon, because UNIFIL's mandate expires next Monday:

According to Security Council resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) of 19 March 1978, UNIFIL was established to:

* Confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon;
* Restore international peace and security;
* Assist the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area.

Most recently the mandate of UNIFIL was extended until 31 July 2006 by Security Council resolution 1655 (2006) of 31 January 2006.

I doubt seriously that anyone will support its extension, given the complete failure of this mission to provide any sort of protection against terrorism in the region. (UNIFIL link via NZ Bear)

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has a picture that explains why UNIFIL failed so miserably, and why the UNSC will not likely renew its mandate.

Democrats Abandoning Coleen Rowley?

When famed FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley announced her candidacy against Rep. John Kline for Minnesota's second district, Democrats cheered her and swore to support her against the Republican incumbent. Unfortunately, Rowley has transformed from media darling to political incompetent, and now Roll Call reports that Democrats have quietly abandoned her to her own devices:

National and Minnesota Democrats seem about ready to walk away from Coleen Rowley’s ill-fated campaign to unseat Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.) — just as her campaign manager recently did.

Many in the party had hoped that Rowley's national fame — Time magazine named her Person of the Year in 2002 for being a whistle-blower at the FBI — would make her an exciting, appealing candidate in an otherwise Republican-leaning district. But now some state Democrats say Rowley's first run for political office is going so badly that they're turning their sights on damage control.

"She's running the single worst campaign that could be run," said one state Democratic insider. "I'm worried that if she's running a weak race in the 2nd it's going to hurt the statewide candidates. What's going to get people to turn out and vote Democratic?"

Her first mistake was getting into the race without any kind of platform in mind, other than a bad case of BDS. While Democrats burst with enthusiasm, most others wondered why Rowley thought she could go from a non-political job at the FBI to Congress on the strength of a Time Magazine cover. Political careers have been launched on less, though, and those of us in MN-02 watched with curiosity how Rowley would campaign in a strong Republican district.

As it turns out, badly. She drove a stake into the heart of her campaign almost immediately by having a photoshopped picture of Kilne in a Nazi uniform placed on her offical website. Kline, who served as an officer in the Marine Corps before his election to Congress, protested vociferously at the slight to himself and to his fellow Marines. She took the picture down off of the website but refused to apologize to Kline.

Even before that, Rowley associated herself with the far-Left nutcases that MN-02 residents rightly mistrust. Rowley just missed her chance to join Cindy Sheehan in Crawford last summer to join the anti-Bush circus. Rowley seemed very enthusiastic about her support of Sheehan, at least until Sheehan started falling in love with Hugo Chavez and claimed that the Bush administration was the biggest terrorist organization in the world. Rowley never did address Sheehan's wackier public statements, and has scrubbed Sheehan almost completely from her site.

Rowley has turned into an embarrassment for all Minnesotans, and the rational voters of MN-02 has a clear choice in November: support an incumbent who has proven his mettle on the battlefield and in Congress, or vote for a far-Left nutcase that thinks Nazi allegations are amusing and that Cindy Sheehan represents rationality. Given that choice, no wonder Democrats have decided to ignore Rowley.

UPDATE: The Influence Peddler picked this up about the same time I did , and has more thoughts.

If You Though Al-Jazeera Was Nuts Before ....

Earlier today, I linked to an Al-Jazeera editorial that blamed Rick Santorum for speaking out against Islamic fascism, as if the problem came from Santorum's imagination instead of the festering fever-swamps of radical Islam. The editorial by Mohammed Khaku ran yesterday, but today's editorial takes Al-Jazeera from hysteria to paranoia:

Nassrullah spoke through Al-Manar TV, which was also simultaneously aired by several other TV stations. He said that his information now is that the ongoing Israeli war on Lebanon was initially planned to start in September or October, using any excuse to start it at that time.

Nassrullah added that the Hizbullah military operation, which resulted in killing some Israeli soldiers and capturing two of them disrupted the preparation for that war.

Humiliating, as it was, to the Israeli arrogance of power and pretense of invincibility, Israeli leaders started their war prematurely, before completing their preparations, particularly in the aspects of information, weapons, and logistics.

Hassan El-Najjar accepts this argument from Nasrallah without producing a single piece of evidence to support it. Under this fantasy, the Israelis didn't have enough on their plate with the ongoing crisis in Gaza; they wanted to start a two-front war. Nasrallah's unsupported and ludicrous assertion asks the world to take pity on Hezbollah because Israel would have attacked them later had Hezbollah not attacked them earlier to start the war.

Najjar just gets warmed up with this example of poor journalism and thought. He extrapolates Nasrallah's assertion into a grand conspiracy to attack Iran -- and to give George Bush an "October Surprise" that would help Republicans beat Democrats in the mid-term elections. No, really:

For the Bush administration, the September/October planned war would have been a fatal blow to Democrats who are poised to win a majority in Congress due to the rising anger of the American people against the Bush war policies, particularly his unwarranted war and failure in Iraq.

So, the planned Israeli war on Hizbullah was supposed to serve as the Bush October surprise to paralyze American voters and force them to vote for Republicans, who asserted themselves so far as the WAR PARTY.

In deed, without knowing it, Hizbullah has done the American people a great service by thwarting the Bush October surprise.

You got that? Nasrallah wanted to help the infidel Americans by attacking Israel, just so he could deflate the planned Israeli war in October (that would have been unprovoked, of course, because Hezbollah is peaceful).

How long do you suppose before this paranoid conspiracy theory travels through the nutcases at DU?

UPDATE: A Newer World points out that the web site that published this is not the same as Al-Jazeera in Qatar. It's less of an issue on this post than the one on Santorum previously, but I wanted to make sure it gets noted on both. Gaius Arbo at Blue Crab Boulevard also noticed the difference.

Israel Wants 2-KM Security Zone; France Surrenders On Behalf Of NATO

The Israelis have begun to discuss the details of an acceptable situation for a cease-fire, the AP reports, as Ehud Olmert has given the dimensions of the security zone Israel wants in southern Lebanon. He proposes a 2-kilometer buffer zone (1.2 miles) that would initially have an international military force patrolling to keep Hezbollah out of range of Israel's cities and towns:

"We want a two-kilometer (1.2-mile) space from the border in which it will not be possible to fire rockets toward soldiers and civilians' houses and in which there will not be contact with military border patrols," Olmert was quoted as telling the committee.

Israeli soldiers patrolled a "security zone" during Israel's 18-year occupation of south Lebanon, but Olmert indicated the new buffer zone would be different. "We do not have any intention of returning to the security zone but want to create an area where there will be no Hezbollah," he was quoted as saying.

Olmert also reiterated Israel's call for an international force with muscle to be deployed along the Israel-Lebanon border.

"We need international intervention forces that have military capabilities and ability to respond and enforce, and not forces similar to UNIFIL," he said, referring to U.N. peacekeepers who have been deployed in the area since 1978."

The strip appears to include the hot spots of Maroun al-Ras and Bint Jbeil, two towns that have served as Hezbollah. Israel wants all of these outposts of terrorism cleared out and then screened from reoccupation by the Syrian and Iranian proxies, who have continually waged war against Israel for the six years since Israel's evacuation of southern Lebanon. Obviously, Israel does not trust anyone else to clear out the Hezbollah guerillas from the proposed security zone, and they intend on finishing that job before allowing an international force to enter.

Just as obviously, the Israelis will not allow that force to be a reconstruction of UNIFIL. They want a force that will actually use force to keep terrorists out of the security zone. UNIFIL has singularly lacked the will and the mandate to do so, and this war shows just how ineffective UNIFIL has been at "peacekeeping". Israel wants NATO forces in the area, or at least have NATO command the forces that get deployed in the security strip. Unlike the UN, NATO will allow their forces to engage violators in a DMZ, and until the Lebanese Army gets strong enough to assume control of the area, the international force will have to take action when needed.

France, however, has surrendered on behalf of the organization to which it contributes so little militarily. Jacques Chirac has announced that France will oppose a NATO deployment in Lebanon because it would lack credibility:

French President Jacques Chirac said Wednesday that NATO should not lead a proposed international force in Lebanon, saying the alliance is seen in the region as "the armed wing of the West."

"As far as France is concerned, it is not NATO's mission to put together such a force," Chirac told the daily newspaper Le Monde. "Whether we like it or not, NATO is perceived as the armed wing of the West in these regions, and as a result, in terms of image, NATO is not intended for this."

Israel has suggested it would prefer a NATO-led coalition in Lebanon, not the traditional UN peacekeeping force that has tried but failed to bring peace to Lebanon over the last three decades. France has said a multinational force should be placed under United Nations authority.

Sorry, Jacques, but the UN lacks a lot of credibility where it counts: on the ground. Hezbollah learned quickly that the UNIFIL forces would not defend the supposed security zone they were sent to maintain. This war shows how badly Hezbollah infiltrated the area, digging holes for rocket launchers all over the place and holding towns like Maroun al-Ras and Bint Jbeir as command centers. Israel will not agree to a hair of the dog this time, not after the demonstration of strength Hezbollah has shown under UNIFIL's noses.

Chirac may worry about NATO being seen as the "armed wing of the West", but that's precisely what it is and what it is meant to be. Hezbollah has no respect for the UN, but they may learn some for NATO. Under more competent command and better strength, a NATO-led coalition will respond in force to provocations, a lesson that the Balkans learned, even if NATO had no plan for the future there. This time, the plan will be simple: keep the ground clear of Israelis and Hezbollah until the Lebanese Army can develop the strength to hold its own against the terrorists. Even Israel appears willing to agree to that.

Oddly, Chirac never voiced these concerns when the Balkans erupted. His voice was among many who called for NATO intervention even after Russia vetoed any assistance at the UN Security Council. Chirac appreciated the "armed wing of the West" when it suited his purposes, but now worries about its credibility in Lebanon, a conflict with much more potential for destruction than anything in the former Yugoslavian provinces. Maybe that springs from the fact that NATO's mission in the Balkans protected Muslims from Christians, rather than Jews from Muslims. (via It Shines For All, and make sure you check the link to Truth Laid Bear's interactive map!)

UPDATE: Refined the first link to NZ Bear's map, which focuses readers on Maroun al-Ras and Bint Jbeil. Thanks to the Bear for the assist!

The Transformation From Dove To Hawk

Today's Der Spiegel has a fascinating column from Zeev Avrahami, a former Israeli soldier turned peace activist after his required service ended. Avrahami discusses the generational attitudes of Israelis towards their vision of their nation's place in the world and how it affected the policies adopted by a series of governments. Avrahami concludes that his peace activism may have been misplaced after all, and the man he despised twenty years ago is now the man he misses:

Every time war footage from Lebanon flickers across the flat screen television in my apartment on the 30th floor of a high-rise in mid-town Manhattan, I am overwhelmed by a deep feeling of sadness. When I scan through the news on the Internet each morning, I'm overtaken by anger. The result is confusion: I go to sleep at night thinking I am a dove and wake up in the morning to find out I am a hawk.

It's gotten so bad that I have even started missing Ariel Sharon, the former prime minister of Israel who has been lying in a coma for the past six months. I find myself writing screenplays in my mind: Sharon wakes up, stares at the TV screen, and sees Israel invading Lebanon. Sharon, I think, would presume he has landed in hell where he is damned to relive the most dreadful moments of his political career.

The very fact that I am reminiscing about Sharon is shocking -- many people of my generation can't stand him. The man led Israel into its traumatic "optional war" of 1982 when we invaded Lebanon -- an experience that left behind numerous scars on the Israeli population, both physical and psychological. The soldiers who fought in southern Lebanon then did not understand why they where there; why they lost their friends, their youth and their innocence; why they had to fight against an unknown enemy and patrol the streets of Lebanese cities -- passing by civilians who were drinking coffee and playing backgammon in the cafes.

Avrahami writes movingly about his experiences in the military, and how he came to the conclusion that Israel had to change its stance from armed fortress to a good neighbor. Avrahami served forty-five days in prison for his refusal to report when his reserve unit got activated and ordered back to Gaza, where Avrahami had spent his two years of active duty. He became a peace activist and a journalist, part of the generation that rejected the vision of Israel shared by their parents and grandparents.

The withdrawals from Gaza and Lebanon opened his eyes. He "knew" that the violence and intifadas sprang from Israeli military occupations, and that the violence would abate as soon as the Israeli military left. He did not expect the violence to not only continue but to amplify. The rockets coming from Hezbollah territory into northern Israel and from Gaza into Sderot and now Ashkelon have changed his mind about the nature of Israel's enemies. Avrahami has reluctantly concluded, as his parents and grandparents did, that Israel's struggle is existential and not political.

Avrahami has laid down his olive branch and picked up his gun -- literally. He informed the Israeli Embassy here in the US that if the IDF has some need of a thirtysomething journalist with a couple of years' experience and twenty years of better perspective, they know where to find him. Be sure to read the entire essay.

Stop Helping Me!

I'm sure that will be the message from the Bob Casey campaign after they see Al-Jazeera's endorsement of the Democrat running against Rick Santorum for the Senate. Casey did not pursue this particular seal of approval, obviously, but the terror apologists' appeal to readers to "vote Democratic" doesn't portend a groundswell of support in any case:

Sen. Rick Santorum (R., Pa.) remarks at the National Press Club on Wednesday July 19th 2006 calling for regime change in Iran and described "Islamic fascism" as the "great test" of this generation, as threatening to the United States as last century's German Nazism and Soviet communism was inappropriate. These prejudicial remarks were derogatory, and highly unbecoming for a member of US senate. The Senator rhetoric in a public forum demeans both himself and the party he represents, particularly at a time when entire Middle East is in turmoil. Muslim of Lehigh Valley strongly condemned Senator remarks outrageous, inflammatory and un-American. ...

By associating the words "Fascism" with the Islam is to instill fear and by not acknowledging that a political agenda is not the same thing as a belief system, Senator Santorum invoked the oldest and the strongest kind of human fear -- fear of the unknown. Zionist and the pro-Israel lobby continue to instill fear in Americans by escalating unsubstantiated threats against them and fabricating a vast web of lies to justify their actions against Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. By instilling fear of orange and red alerts we Americans have witnessed increased government intrusion into our daily lives and the erosion of our basic rights and freedoms.

Don’t ask Santorum to “apologize,” folks. Vote Democratic.

I wouldn't ask Santorum to apologize for speaking the truth, and this hysterical rant from Mohammed Khaku shows that he hit pretty close to the mark. Al-Jazeera wants people to think that "Islamic fascism" doesn't exist, that it is just a paranoid fantasy spun by Zionists and their puppets in order to inflame Americans against the poor, humble Muslim. The folks at CAIR have spewed the same nonsense since 9/11, and no one buys it from them, either; it certainly won't sell coming from the CNN of the jihadis.

Perhaps Khaku can explain what happened in lower Manhattan on 9/11 in a rational manner that doesn't involve a radical Muslim effort to impose a theocratic tyranny around the world. Khaku could then report on the attack on Khobar Towers, the embassy bombings in Africa that killed hundreds of bystanders (mostly Muslim), and the bombing of the USS Cole. The Al-Jazeera reporter could add an analysis of bombings in Bali, Madrid, London, Istanbul, Morocco, Bali again, and now Mumbai, all while showing how radically oppressive Islamists somehow did it all without any reference to Islam.

In fact, Santorum's construction -- "Islamic fascism" -- intended on showing the difference between moderate Muslims and the fanatics of al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and so on. Santorum could have said that the rise of Islam constituted the greatest test of our generation, but he didn't; he chose to focus on one impulse of a small minority of Muslims that want to impose their religious dictates on the world by force. They want their religion to control all aspects of life for every man, woman, and child on Earth. That technically might not be "fascism" in the original Mussolini sense, but it works for a general definition. We can be sure that Khaku would have still screeched his opprobrium had Santorum used "Islamic tyranny" or "Islamic oppression" instead, and the result would have actually been less accurate, not more.

Khaku does have one argument correct. For the most part, if voters believe that Islamic fascism doesn't exist and poses no threat whatsoever, they should vote Democratic, especially with the kind of leftward pressure we have seen from groups like MoveOn and International ANSWER.

UPDATE: A Newer World points out that the web site that published this is not the same as Al-Jazeera in Qatar. Good catch, and I'll update the other post as well.

New York Senators Backing Away From Bolton Filibuster

Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton both joined a filibuster against the confirmation of John Bolton as ambassador to the UN last year, having received some additional political cover by George Voinovich's tearful opposition. Now that the White House has resubmitted Bolton for confirmation after Voinovich's reversal, one might expect them to follow Joe Biden into a repeat of a Democratic filibuster. However, the New York Sun reports that both have come under pressure from constituents to support Bolton, enough so that they have refused to openly give their positions on his confirmation:

As the Senate prepares to consider anew the nomination of John Bolton as United Nations ambassador, Senators Schumer and Clinton are facing increasing pressure from pro-Israel groups to renounce another Democratic filibuster in light of the escalating war in the Middle East.

The Foreign Relations Committee is set to hold a hearing on the nomination tomorrow, and several Democrats on the panel have voiced their unswerving opposition to Mr. Bolton's nomination.

From New York's senators, however, there has been nothing but silence. Mr. Schumer and Mrs. Clinton voted to block Mr. Bolton's confirmation a year ago, but they have not declared their positions this time around.

Aides to both senators did not respond to repeated inquiries about the Bolton nomination over the last three days.

One Jewish leader may have an idea why. The president of the Zionist Organization of America, Morton Klein, said yesterday that "important friends" of Mr. Schumer and Mrs. Clinton have confided to him that the senators are "seriously reconsidering" their position on Mr. Bolton. Mr. Klein, in a telephone interview, would not disclose the names of the friends, saying they had not given him permission to do so.

We should hope that they would reconsider their previous opposition, a position thoroughly discredited by Bolton's performance at Turtle Bay ever since his recess appointment. He has stood fast for American interests and pressed for meaningful reform at a time when the international body has obstinately refused to address rampant corruption and the co-opting of Turtle Bay by tyrannies and kleptocracies, as evidenced by the new Human Rights Council.

Biden and other Democrats want to continue their partisan obstructionism by undermining our envoy -- again -- while the US needs his tenacity and attention on a whole host of crisis situations. Biden, as before, wants to use an excuse of a superfluous document release as an excuse to sabotage American foreign policy, which belongs in the purview of the President, and not the minority caucus of the Senate. The Democrats stand on even shakier ground here than in their obstructionism on the appellate judicial appointments; the UN ambassador does not serve a lifetime appointment, after all, but leaves his post after a change in adminstrations.

Schumer and Clinton may represent a liberal state, but they have a constituency that wants the US to remain stronng on Israel, and that constituency knows that Bolton will do the job at the UN. The two Senators can hardly afford to anger the Jewish voters in New York, especially Clinton, who runs for re-election this year. They should support Bolton for the right reasons -- he's doing a great job and is the right man at the right time -- but if they can't do that, they should at least listen to their voters.

One Last Salute To An American Hero

America lost one of its bravest and toughest sons today. Carl Brashear, the Navy's first black diver, died at age 75, leaving behind four children and a legend:

Carl M. Brashear, the first black U.S. Navy diver who was portrayed by Cuba Gooding Jr. in the 2000 film "Men of Honor," died Tuesday. He was 75.

Brashear died at the Naval Medical Center Portsmouth of respiratory and heart failure, the medical center said.

Brashear retired from the Navy in 1979 after more than 30 years of service. He was the first Navy diver to be restored to full active duty as an amputee, the result of a leg injury he sustained during a salvage operation.

"The African-American community lost a great leader today in Carl Brashear," Gooding said of the man he played alongside Robert DeNiro, who was Brashear's roughneck training officer in "Men of Honor." "His impact to us as a people and all races will be felt for many decades to come."

Men Of Honor paid tribute to Brashear, and a terrific performance by Cuba Gooding allowed Americans to know a little about Brashear and his tenacity and courage. He had already served 18 years in the Navy as a diving specialist when an accident almost tore his leg from his body, and the doctors amputated it to keep gangrene from killing Brashear. He could easily have taken a disability leave -- the Navy insisted on it -- but instead requalified as a Navy diver with his prosthesis. He continued his career and achieved the highest rank among all divers.

If the movie juggled facts and got a little schmaltzy, Brashear never appeared to do either. His tough-as-nails legend provides inspiration for all Americans, and many more to come. In that way, Brashear will never really leave us; we will simply tell his story to the next generation, and he will continue to inspire and instruct us.

Godspeed, Carl Brashear, and thank you.

Hanging With Eudora & The Little Admiral

Since the Little Admiral is spending the night with the First Mate and I, I decided to take the night off from blogging and watch a movie -- Finding Nemo, one of our favorites. At 4, she's still too skittish to watch the more intense scenes, but she loves the movie and all of the characters. It's one of our favorites as well, and all three of us had a wonderful time.

I used the down time to install the latest version of Eudora to replace Outlook Express as my e-mail client. OE's junk mail tools kept malfunctioning, and for some reason hyperlinks would not launch web pages but opened directories on my hard drive instead. In previous years, I had used Eudora off and on, but that was at least three versions ago. Now Eudora is at version 7, and it has changed tremendously. I'm still fooling around with the settings, which looks like it could take me all week, but so far I'm impressed with the functionality.

If you have any tips on best practices with Eudora, let me know. I'm hoping to put an end to e-mail meltdowns and junk-mail errors that bury wanted mail and deliver the spam.

Israelis Take Out Hezbollah Commander

The Israelis hit a Hezbollah "war room" in southern Lebanon, killing five terrorists and their regional commander and discovering sophisticated equipment of interesting pedigree:

As fighting in Maroun al-Ras came to a close on Tuesday, IDF troops killed five Hizbullah gunmen, including the movement's regional commander.

Several IDF soldiers were lightly wounded in the clashes and were evacuated under fire.

Earlier, Brigadier General of Division 91, Commander Gal Hirsch, revealed that troops operating in Bint Jbeil discovered war rooms with eavesdropping and surveillance equipment made by Iran, being used by Hizbullah against Israel.

The IDF appears to be laying the groundwork for a large-scale invasion using ground troops and armor. They have taken two points with some strategic significance for Hezbollah, and in this particular case wiped out the command structure for Hezbollah in the area. Israel claims that it controls Bint Jbeil, another strategic point known as the capital of Hezbollah. Its fall not only complicates the terrorist communications, it shows that they cannot hold ground against the Israelis in a military attack. In a land that may not worship power but certainly salutes it, a few more of these defeats could prove fatal, literally, to Hassan Nasrallah.

In these war rooms, Hezbollah has shown some sophistication in their tactics and strategy. The Iranian-made equipment shows that Teheran has contributed both materiel and training to the Hezbollah terrorists, but that shouldn't be news to anyone. The discovery demonstrates the extent to which Nasrallah's forces rely on traditional military communications and tactics -- which makes them vulnerable to traditional military attack through overwhelming force.

The IDF has shown some progress in this war, and that points to a sudden large push to cut off and destroy what remains of Hezbollah in the field. By the end of this week, Israel will probably push its army into Lebanon to create the buffer zone that an international force can patrol -- after Hezbollah's destruction.

Survey USA Shows Strib's Polling Ineptness

Survey USA has just released its latest polling on Minnesota's statewide races, and the results look much closer to previous polling than the Minneapolis Star-Tribune's Minnesota Poll last week. The Strib's in-house poll showed Rep. Mark Kennedy (MN-06) trailing Amy Klobuchar by a whopping 19 points and losing in almost every imaginable demographic category, despite national polling showing the gap to be between three to eight points. Survey USA's results fall square in the middle of the national polls:

42% Kennedy (R)
47% Klobuchar (DFL) [Democrat-Farmer-Labor, the state's Democratic Party]
8% Fitzgerald (I)
4% Undecided

Kennedy has a 15-point lead among men, a demographic that the MinnPoll showed him losing, and an 11-point lead in the 18-34 bracket, an unusual result for the GOP that did get reflected in the MinnPoll. Interestingly, 28% of self-described liberals support Kennedy over Klobuchar, almost identical to the proportion of self-described moderates. He also has a slight edge over Klobuchar in the African-American vote. The race is much, much closer than the Strib wants its readers to know; in fact, the gap only barely exceeds the margin of error.

Unfortunately for Mike Hatch, the Democratic nominee for governor, he cannot say the same for his race. The Strib's MinnPoll had Governor Tim Pawlenty up by only two points over Hatch. The current DFL meltdown between Hatch and the just-departed DFL candidate for Attorney General, Matt Entenza, may have pushed Hatch down a few points, but the 14-point gap shown by Survey USA shows once again that the MinnPoll has serious flaws in methodology or reporting. Pawlenty beats Hatch in almost every demographic category, even among women, blacks, and hispanics. He thumps Hatch in every age category, and Hatch can only garner 50% of all self-described liberals.

Mark Kennedy's campaign laughed off the Strib's ridiculous reporting last week; now the entire state is in on the joke that the MinnPoll has become. One wonders what fairy tales the Strib will dream up next.

Sweden Warned UN Of OFP Kickbacks, UN Shrugged

A new report from Sweden shows that the UN had full awareness of the Oil-For-Food program's corruption, but chose to do nothing about it. The Swedish Foreign Ministry released a statement that claims the Swedish delegation brought the kickbacks to the attention of the UN sanctions committee in 2000:

An unidentified Swedish company informed the country's embassy in Amman, Jordan, in 2000 that Iraq was demanding 10 percent "fees" on all deals as a way to circumvent U.N. sanctions on Saddam's regime, according to a Swedish Foreign Ministry document published on the Web site of Swedish Radio.

The document was sent from the embassy in Amman to the Foreign Ministry and Swedish delegation at the
United Nations in December 2000, Swedish Radio said.

The document stated clearly that the extra fees violated U.N. sanctions. But it was "clear that an open Swedish engagement in this issue would negatively affect other Swedish business opportunities" in Iraq, it said.

Anders Kruse, head of the Foreign Ministry's legal division, said Sweden had forwarded the information to the U.N. committee in charge of sanctions and was told the extra fees were widely known.

Turtle Bay has long claimed ignorance of the problem until the 2003 invasion of Iraq produced reams of evidence of kickbacks and payoffs. Kofi Annan claimed that the UN didn't audit the OFF program thoroughly enough and never had any awareness of the vast monies being kicked back to Saddam Hussein. This announcement by Sweden makes clear that the UN had both knowledge and evidence of the corruption and a pretty good idea of its scope, but declined to enforce its own sanctions against the dictator.

People who keep claiming that the UN had Saddam "in his box" should take note of this development. The UN had no interest in keeping Saddam in his box or anyone else's, either. The program had no auditing and little oversight, and it existed to enrich Saddam even while he defied the organization that put money in his pockets. The billions of dollars that he collected from the "humanitarian" program went for more illicit military materiel and more firepower with which to oppress and tyrannize the Iraqi people.

Now the same organization that claimed to keep Saddam in check wants to push Israel aside and keep Hezbollah in check in Lebanon. Does anyone wonder why the Israelis show such great reluctance to accept that proposition?

Biggest Pork Item In History?

Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) got Congress to pass his amendment to the Deep Water Energy Resources Act that had nothing to do with deep water or energy resources. Instead, HR 3496 earmarked $1.5 billion for the Washington DC Metro system, which operates above water in all senses except financially. The Heritage Foundation's Ronald Utt describes the amendment as "the biggest pork earmark in history", and it's headed for the Senate.

I discuss this in my latest post at the Heritage Foundation. Most amazing, the earmark comes because the constituent cities and states involved have little interest in funding improvements to their own system -- so Davis decided to charge every man, woman, and child in America $5 to have someone else ride the bus or train in our nation's capital.

Why, exactly, is this a federal problem? Davis has an explanation that will make you roll your eyes, and the Washington Post editorial supporting it should make you laugh out loud. Be sure to read it, and perhaps point out the folly of this earmark to your Senators.

Rice: No Return To Status Quo Ante

Condoleezza Rice made it plain to Mahmoud Abbas that the United States would not accept a return to the status quo ante after the attacks on Israel by Hezbollah and Hamas this summer. Rice called for those who want to see a new Middle East to demand change, and that cease-fires would have to wait until a consensus for real change arrives:

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met Tuesday with Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah following her earlier meeting with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

"It is time for a new Middle East," Rice said in the meeting. "It is time to say to those that don't want a different kind of Middle East that we will prevail. They will not."

Rice admitted that the suffering of all innocent people in the region was disturbing, but nonetheless, did not call on Israel to stop its actions in Lebanon. She stated that the US supported Israel's "neutralization" of the terror group Hizbullah.

The old assumptions have brought us to the current situation, and the Bush administration knows that returning to the same sitiuation will only cause more war. Security in the Middle East will continue to be a pipe dream while organizations like Hezbollah continue to hold territory and retain the capacity for armed assaults on Israel. The proxy wars have to stop, and that means the proxy sponsors have to cut them off or watch them get destroyed by Israeli military.

If Abbas wants the carnage to stop, he needs to tell that to Bashar Assad and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, not Rice. As long as Syria and Iran continue to pursue a proxy war against Israel through Hezbollah and Hamas, Israel will respond in kind. Iran, Syria, and Hassan Nasrallah selected Lebanon as the battlefield, not Israel. Everyone knows the loci of the problem, but they want the US to restrain Israel instead of demanding change from Damascus and Teheran.

If this situation does not come to a permanent resolution on this occasion, we will have another twenty years of wars and provocations along the Israeli-Lebanon border. Should we settle this now, while the worst weapons in the Hezbollah arsenal are short- and medium-range missiles, or should we wait until they have chemical or biological weapons to fire at Israel? The problem with status quo ante is that it imposes a status quo on Israel while Hezbollah continues to increase its danger to the region. If the Arabs truly want peace, or at least quiet, then they need to address their side of the problem. We're no longer in the business of imposing unilateral remedies on Israel.

The Absurdity Of Proportionality

Richard Cohen makes amends for his last column, in which he called Israel a "mistake", by debunking the notion of proportional response to war. For some reason, the global community has taken this concept up as a cudgel with which to beat Israel in its fight against the Hezbollah terrorists who touched off the war, as if any war in human history has ever been deliberately fought within the bounds of "proportionality":

The list of those who have accused Israel of not being in harmony with its enemies is long and, alas, distinguished. It includes, of course, the United Nations and its secretary general, Kofi Annan. It also includes a whole bunch of European newspapers whose editorial pages call for Israel to respond, it seems, with only one missile for every one tossed its way. Such neat proportion is a recipe for doom.

The dire consequences of proportionality are so clear that it makes you wonder if it is a fig leaf for anti-Israel sentiment in general. Anyone who knows anything about the Middle East knows that proportionality is madness. For Israel, a small country within reach, as we are finding out, of a missile launched from any enemy's back yard, proportionality is not only inapplicable, it is suicide. The last thing it needs is a war of attrition. It is not good enough to take out this or that missile battery. It is necessary to reestablish deterrence: You slap me, I will punch out your lights.

Israel has been in dire need of such deterrence ever since it pulled out of Lebanon in 2000 and, just recently, the Gaza Strip. In Lebanon, it effectively got into a proportional hit-and-respond cycle with Hezbollah. It cost Israel 901 dead and Hezbollah an announced 1,375, too close to parity to make a lasting difference. Whatever the figures, it does not change the fact that Israeli conscripts or reservists do not think death and martyrdom are the same thing. No virgins await Jews in heaven.

To use a crude analogy, if someone is stupid enought to bring a knife to a gunfight, it doesn't mean that those holding the guns have a moral obligation to fight with knives instead. Proportionality demands exactly that, and it leads to nothing but longer and more destructive wars. Part of the reasons nations build strong militaries is to deter people from committing aggressive acts against them. The United States did not build the military it has just to provide "proportionate" reponse. Such a limitation would invite any tinpot dictator or kleptocrat to attack us, knowing that we would only respond in proportion to their ability to attack. It makes every fight even-up from the beginning, odds that would encourage a lot more fighting, not less.

For too long, the world has expected Israel to fight with one hand behind its back, even when others commit acts of war against them. Israel withdrew from Gaza and from Lebanon to avoid the implications of occupation, where Israel had to act in a law-enforcement mode where proportionality makes more sense. Now, however, Hezbollah invaded Israel, killed eight soldiers, and captured two others -- an act of war that no other nation would abide, with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter's United States, circa 1979.

If Hezbollah finds itself holding a knife in a gunfight, then the blame falls on Hezbollah and the Lebanese government that granted then de facto sovereignty in the south. Wars do not get fought through "proportionality," and they certainly do not end that way. They end when one side overwhelms the other with superior force and dictates terms to the loser, or when one side decides they've had enough and sues for peace. Demands for proportionality lead us to where we are today -- long, bloody wars of attrition that solve nothing and embolden asymmetrical warfare.

How about this for proportionality: Israel comprises about 6.3 million people, while Hezbollah's sponsors, Syria and Iran, comprise a combined 87 million people. Does that mean that the global community will allow Israel to impose a 13:1 death ratio in this war, and to keep killing people indiscriminately until they reach the correct numbers? When the UN and its international dupes start endorsing that proposal, then we can take their demands for proportionality seriously.

We Haven't Changed The Paradigm At All

I find it very helpful to read columnists from across the political spectrum, and not just to find targets for fisking; sometime one needs an outsider's perspective to see a larger truth. In this case, E.J. Dionne provides that perspective, and the larger truth is that after a generation of demanding smaller federal government, Republicans -- especially Republican incumbents -- have not succeeded in changing the political paradigm of pork-barrel politics at all:

Most people outside Virginia's Hampton Roads region have never heard of Craney Island -- and neither had Webb, an anti-politician whose career has taken him from the military to the Reagan administration to writing and now back to the Democratic Party.

Allen asked: "Jim, what's your position on the proper use of Craney Island?"

Webb replied, candidly: "I'm not sure where Craney Island is. Why don't you tell me?"

No doubt feeling very pleased, Allen replied: "Craney Island's in Virginia."

Just last week -- as Jim Hodges of the Daily Press in Newport News, Va., reported -- the Senate authorized a $671.3 million expansion of Craney Island, adding 580 acres and "offering a boost for a future port there."

Allen wanted no one to miss the significance. "This is huge," he told reporters. "It's a big, big deal."

Part of the problem for Webb is his complete ignorance of Craney Island. It has special historical significance to Virginians; the Confederate ship Virginia was built from the shell of the Merrimack. The US also repelled a British invasion force on Craney Island in the War of 1812, a rare military victory in that difficult war. Now it serves as a major fueling depot for the Navy and employs, one assumes, hundreds of Virginians. For a Virginian running for a Senate seat to have no knowledge at all of Craney Island shows at least a lack of preparation, if not cluelessness regarding Virginia's assets on Webb's part.

It also appears that Allen wanted Virginians to know more about the economic impact of Craney Island in the future - a future that includes some significant pork-barrel spending, thanks to Allen. The $671 million may indeed serve some critical federal need, considering the use of Craney Island at present. However, the pandering to Virginians on earmark spending shows that Republicans still have not learned to trust the message of limited government and reduced federal spending. Dionne buttresses that with other examples from campaigns by Senators Mike DeWine and Conrad Burns, all of whom highlight federal dollars for local initiatives as reasons for their re-election.

Republicans will point out that electing Democrats would make the situation worse, and that is true, but even that points out the basic inconsistency. Dionne doesn't include examples from the campaigns of Democratic incumbents. Even if he did, however, the Democrats argue, for the most part, that increased federal spending benefits people as a basic principle. No one doubts that Democrats spend money on pork; Robert Byrd has made a name for himself in that process, and he's stuck that name on everything that doesn't move in West Virginia.

Republicans, expecially conservatives, argue that federal spending puts too much power in Washington and takes money away from where it can be most effective, or at least they argue it in the hypothetical. In the practical, however, and especially when incumbents feel threatened, the GOP starts relying on pork-barrel politics to get themselves back in office. Despite a generation having passed since the election of Ronald Reagan and the demand for limited government, the Republicans seem to have abandoned the difficult work of increasing freedom by limiting federal government for the lazy approach to power -- through the pork they once abhorred.

If the GOP intends on establishing itself as a credible authority on limited government, it has to start selling that to the voters, and set examples that count. Instead of bragging about bringing home $670 million in federal projects, Republican incumbents should be telling voters that they saved, say, $2 billion in wasteful spending, and that meant that Virginians (or Ohioans or Montanans) created hundreds of new jobs. We can't change the paternalistic paradigm of pork-barrel politics until politicians stop relying on it for re-election.

Palestinians Want Out Of The War

It has become clear that the Palestinians in Gaza want to get out of the way of the border war Israel has in its north. All groups in Gaza have now agreed to stop fighting and return Gilad Shalit in exchange for a simple cessation of hostilities and the promise of future releases of prisoners:

All groups in Gaza, including Hamas, would now accept a cease-fire deal with Israel which would include releasing Gilad Shalit, according to the Palestinian Agriculture Minister, who also heads the coordinating committee of Palestinian organizations there.

Ibrahim Al-Naja said the factions were ready to stop the Qassam rocket fire if Israel's ceased all military moves against the Palestinian factions in Gaza. They are also ready to release Shalit in exchange for guaranteeing the future release of Palestinian prisoners.

Hamas leaders did not confirm this report on Monday, but if it is true, then this is the first time that Hamas has indicated its acceptance of the Egyptian proposal to solve the crisis.

If true, and if the Palestinians plan to keep their word and put an end to all Qassam rocket attacks, then this represents a major victory for the Israelis. Like Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon, the Gazans believed that the Israelis would negotiate on the basis of extortion. Previous Israeli governments had given up hundreds of prisoners for a handful of hostages in the past, and the terrorists had no real reason to believe that anything had changed. In fact, they interpreted the withdrawal from Gaza as a sign that the Israelis would not fight back.

Events have proven them wrong. Not only have the Israelis tired of the hostage game, but they have made clear that any further provocations will be considered acts of war and trigger the appropriate response. Nasrallah made his astonishment clear in his interview with Al-Jazeera that a nation would go to war over just two kidnapped soldiers -- and that his Arab brethren would not sympathize with his strategy.

It remains to be seen whether the Palestinians will honor such an agreement. It could, after all, just provide a cover for their "triangle offense", where a couple of groups announce a cease fire while another continues to attack until Israel responds -- and then the other groups blame Israel for violating the cease fire. Islamic Jihad ran most of these rocket sites; will they agree to stop attacking Israel? We'll see, but at least Israel has made plain the response they can expect if they do not.

Assuming the Palestinians adhere to the cease-fire, the Israelis get a cessation on rocket attacks and their soldier returned to them, as well as the elimination of one front in their war. In return, all they concede is the promise to release minors and women at some later date, moves which they wanted to make before the kidnapping took place anyway. The agreement also abandons Hezbollah to their own political devices, and points to a split between Iran and the Palestinians that might hold some cause for optimism.

Iraqi Intel Memo Describes Osama Connection

FMSO has translated a new set of documents from those captured in the fall of Saddam Hussein, and one of them seems very provocative indeed. A memo from the Afghan section of the Directorate of Counterintelligence (M5) to the head of M5 dated September 15th, 2001 relays information from an Afghani source that Taliban consul discussed the relationship between Osama, Iraq, and the Taliban. Document CMPC-2003-001488 had previously been translated by Iraqi blogger Omar at Iraq the Model for Pajamas Media last March, but now has been translated by the government:

Office of the Presidency Intelligence Service M5/3/9/2

The Honorable Mr. General Director Manager M5
Subject: Information

Our Afghani source numbered 11002 had provided us with the information on the denotation paper number -1- )
The Afghani Consul Ahmad Dahstani (the information on the denotation paper number (2)) had mentioned in front of him with the followings:

1. Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban Group in Afghanistan were in touch with the Iraqis and that group of the Talibans and Osama Bin Laden had visited Iraq.
2. The United States of America has evidence that the Iraqi government and Osama Bin Laden's group expressed cooperation among themselves in bombing targets in American.
3. In case Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban were proven to have been involved in carrying out these terrorist operations, it could be possible that the United Stated will attack both Iraq and Afghanistan.
4. The Afghani consul heard about the connection between the Iraqis and the Osama Bin Laden group during his stay in Iran.
5. Upon what has been presented we suggest writing to the Intention Committee with the above information.

Please revise…Your recommendation …. With appreciation,

Four days after 9/11, the North Africa and East Asia bureau of the Counterintelligence Directorate appeared very concerned with this information being discussed, so much so that the information went right to the top of the directorate.

Tennessee's Ford Dynasty Transforms Into An Edsel

With Bill Frist retiring from the Senate after this year, the open seat allows Democrats an opportunity to close the gap on the GOP. The Tennessee Democrats have turned to Rep. Harold Ford Jr, who has held TN-09 for five terms following the eleven his father served in the same seat. The Democrats had to believe that Ford was the right man at the right time -- popular, strong political connections, charismatic, and an unabashed moderate.

According to the latest data at Rasmussen, which has not been released as an article, the Democrats appear to have made a mistake. Ford not only has not captured the imagination of the Volunteer State, right now polls show him losing to all three Republicans vying for the nomination in head-to-head races. Ford badly trails the GOP favorite, Bob Corker, by 12 points. He trails the other two candidates within the margin of error (Ed Bryant and Van Hilleary), but only gets 41% of the vote at best in any of the three. Coincidentally, that's also his unfavorable rating in Tennessee, showing that recent family troubles with corruption and a lack of influence outside of Memphis have hurt his image.

The numbers look even worse for the 2008 presidential campaign. Despite holding a narrow edge on a generic race between the two parties, the Democratic frontrunners tank in head-to-head contests with Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. Hillary Clinton can't do any better that 36% against either, and even in a big pro-gun state Rudy manages to get just under a majority. Native son Al Gore doesn't do a lot better than he did in 2000, losing to both McCain and Giuliani as well.

Democrats want to use Tennessee as a door opener for the South. They aren't volunteering for the task in Tennessee.

Nasrallah: Saniora Gov't Knew Of Abduction Operation

MEMRI has the transcript of an Al-Jazeera interview with Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah in which he states that the Lebanese government explicitly knew that Hezbollah would invade Israel and abduct Israeli soldiers. This undercuts the depiction of Lebanon as a helpless victim in some degree:

Interviewer: "Did you inform them that you were about to abduct Israeli soldiers?"

Hassan Nasrallah: "I told them that we must resolve the issue of the prisoners, and that the only way to resolve it is by abducting Israeli soldiers."

Interviewer: "Did you say this clearly?"

Hassan Nasrallah: "Yes, and nobody said to me: 'No, you are not allowed to abduct Israeli soldiers.' Even if they had told me not to... I'm not defending myself here. I said that we would abduct Israeli soldiers, in meetings with some of the main political leaders in the country. I don't want to mention names now, but when the time comes to settle accounts, I will. They asked: 'If this happens, will the issue of the prisoners be over and done with?' I said that it was logical that it would. And I'm telling you, our estimation was not mistaken. I'm not exaggerating. Anywhere in the world – show me a country, show me an army, show me a war, in which two soldiers, or even civilian hostages, were abducted, and a war was waged against a country – and all for two soldiers. This has never happened throughout history, and even Israel has never done such a thing."

This revelation paints the Saniora government more as an accomplice before the fact than as a shocked bystander. If Nasrallah told the truth, not only did the Lebanese government know of the operation and did nothing to prevent it -- not even by simply disagreeing with it -- they actively encouraged it in order to get Lebanese prisoners sprung from Israeli jails, including a murderer of a four-year-old girl.

That puts the Israeli counteroffensive in much clearer context.

On another note, this shows how badly Nasrallah miscalculated his operation. Prior to this in the transcript, Nasrallah noted that the Arab disapproval shocked him, especially when it did not come with denunciations of Israel. Nasrallah said he would be satisfied if other Arabs condemned both the "hangman and the victim"; Nasrallah sees Hezbollah as the victim, of course.

If so, then they are victims of Nasrallah's foolishness. Nasrallah complains that no one ever started a war over the abduction of two soldiers, but sovereign nations have rarely if ever committed such an act. That's the entire point, one Nasrallah missed entirely. Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran misunderstood the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza as a surrender to Islamofascist terrorism, one of the most spectacular cases of believing one's own press in recent history. Israel pulled back so that they could treat any provocations from Gaza as acts of war and to get Jews out of the line of fire. Had they truly understood the situation, the Islamists would have known that a border raid and abduction (and the deaths of eight other soldiers) would get a singularly harsh response.

The entire interview features Nasrallah as somewhat nonplussed that the Israelis would not understand that stealing soldiers is just a bargaining tactic for Islamists. Nasrallah and Lebanon just discovered that Israelis react to acts of war by conducting a real war in return. The clueless Nasrallah had better start learning something about his enemy before provoking any further responses.

Hot Air has the actual visual, and Michael van der Galien has more thoughts at TMV.

Why The Chickenhawk Slur Makes No Sense

Jeff Jacoby puts an end to the "chickenhawk" slur in today's Boston Globe. He points out that, if the people who fling the insult actually believed what they say, they would have to abdicate on decisions regarding peace as well as war:

You hear a fair amount of that from the antiwar crowd if, like me, you support a war but have never seen combat yourself. That makes you a ``chicken hawk" -- one of those, as Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, defending John Kerry from his critics, put it during the 2004 presidential campaign, who ``shriek like a hawk, but have the backbone of a chicken." Kerry himself often played that card. ``I'd like to know what it is Republicans who didn't serve in Vietnam have against those of us who did," he would sniff, casting himself as the victim of unmanly hypocrites who never wore the uniform, yet had the gall to criticize him, a decorated veteran, for his stance on the war.

``Chicken hawk" isn't an argument. It is a slur -- a dishonest and incoherent slur. It is dishonest because those who invoke it don't really mean what they imply -- that only those with combat experience have the moral authority or the necessary understanding to advocate military force. After all, US foreign policy would be more hawkish, not less, if decisions about war and peace were left up to members of the armed forces. Soldiers tend to be politically conservative, hard-nosed about national security, and confident that American arms make the world safer and freer. On the question of Iraq -- stay-the-course or bring-the-troops-home? -- I would be willing to trust their judgment. Would Cindy Sheehan and Howard Dean?

The cry of ``chicken hawk" is dishonest for another reason: It is never aimed at those who oppose military action. But there is no difference, in terms of the background and judgment required, between deciding to go to war and deciding not to. If only those who served in uniform during wartime have the moral standing and experience to back a war, then only they have the moral standing and experience to oppose a war. Those who mock the views of ``chicken hawks" ought to be just as dismissive of ``chicken doves."

In fact, Jacoby doesn't quite go far enough in his denunciations. People who toss around that slur mindlessly endorse the idea of military autocracy over a broad representative democracy. Only in juntas do we see societies where military experience is a prerequisite in determining the policies of a nation. The same people who sling this insult are the first to turn around and call their political opponents "fascists", exposing an intellectual shallowness that colors the rest of their writings.

On the other hand, it gives us the opportunity to annoy them by adopting their slurs as a fun way to highlight the hypocrisy. The 101st Fighting Keyboardists' blogroll has gotten out of date, but I do plan on updating it this week. I have saved all the e-mails requesting admission, so please be patient a little longer. Freedom Dogs had worked on some T-shirts before I got injured, but I think he still has them available. (via Michelle Malkin)

Specter Defends Himself -- Poorly

Senator Arlen Specter tried to convince people that his new FISA compromise bill with the White House amounts to, well, a compromise, instead of the surrender that it obviously is. Specter finds himself stuck between an unconstitutional incursion on wartime powers, and a program he calls a "festering sore" even as he guarantees its continuance:

President Bush's electronic surveillance program has been a festering sore on our body politic since it was publicly disclosed last December. Civil libertarians, myself included, have insisted that the program must be subject to judicial review to ensure compliance with the Fourth Amendment.

The president has insisted that he was acting lawfully within his constitutional responsibilities. On its face, the program seems contrary to the plain text of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which regulates domestic national security wiretapping. The president argues, however, that his inherent constitutional powers supersede the statute. Without knowing the exact contours of the program, it's impossible to say whether he is right or wrong. But three federal appeals court decisions suggest the president may be right.

The integrity of our nation's adherence to the rule of law requires an answer to the question of whether this program is legal. The protection of our nation's security and individual rights requires a modification of the program if it is not lawful as currently fashioned. The challenge, which I have been trying to meet legislatively, is to structure a procedure under which the courts can adjudicate the lawfulness of this highly sensitive program while maintaining the secrecy the president contends is so important.

Three appellate decisions indicate much more than just "the president may be right"; the case law indicates that Congress can pass as many statutes as it wants, but they can't override the authority inherent in Article II. What Specter proposes is to pass a law that pretends to make legal what already existed as legal authority in the Constitution so that Congress can pretend to have some control over intelligence-gathering against wartime enemies. It's a political fig leaf, but for Congress, not for the White House.

I suspect that is why Bush agreed to a judicial review, as long as the bill did not dictate one. He knows that a judicial review will uphold his authority under Article II. For that matter, so does Congress. No one has attempted to push this into the courts for the simple reason that a loss would be a permanent reminder of the limits of legislative authority. The White House probably wanted Congress to take the issue to the Supreme Court after the program got revealed in the New York Times last December and his critics started complaining vociferously about listening to international communications between people already identified as or suspected of being terrorists or terrorist accomplices.

In my opinion, anything which moves this to a judiciak review will bring some closure to the debate and therefore represents a positive step. If Specter would just argue that his bill at least does that in this one instance, as the White House has already established its commitment to the review, then it would be easier to accept his reasoning. But if Specter continues to pretend that this bill does anything to enforce authority where it does not exist, then he can keep making that argument until he's blue in the face. No one buys that at all, not even most Bush supporters who believe he has the authority to conduct this program. All Specter did was put a happy face on a Congressional climb-down, and everyone knows it.

For those who agree with me on the politics but disagree with me on the substance of the Constitutional conflict, be sure to read TalkLeft, who has good links to opposing arguments.

Note To CNN: Secrecy Is The Norm

CNN had a good article last night explaining why Randy "Duke" Cunningham could deliver so much pork to his partners in corruption -- he hid earmarks in classified appropriations bills for the intelligence budget. The report made much of the secrecy involved in black-box budgeting -- but said nothing about the normal operational secrecy of earmarks in every other facet of appropriations.

In my lastest post at the Heritage Foundation's Policy Blog, I point that out -- and discuss the obvious solutions. Give it a read, and let me know what you think.

Addendum: Don't forget to blogroll the Policy Blog, and you can get the RSS feed here.

Playing Dress-Up In Chicago With Radical Nostalgists

In what could literally become a blast from the past, the reorganized Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) will hold a national convention next month in Chicago. The meeting comes 37 years after the original SDS radicals created havoc on the streets of the city, especially their militant wing, The Weathermen:

Students for a Democratic Society, the "New Left" organization whose numbers swelled on college campuses in the 1960s, has resurrected itself and is planning its first national convention in 37 years. Next week, on August 4-7, the reconstituted group returns to Chicago, the same city where SDS had its headquarters and where rioting erupted at the 1968 Democratic Party convention.

"We're attempting to have a convention that is unifying, to heal the wounds of the last convention," an SDS New York regional coordinator, Thomas Good, 48, said. "Our radical ideas include health care for everyone and stopping torture as an instrument of foreign policy."

Er, wait a minute. Thomas Good would have been eleven years old in 1969. Whose wounds does he propose to heal? He cannot possibly have participated in the meltdown of '69. It looks like Good wants to play-act at radicalism, attempting to capture the rage of a by-gone era in order to feel better about himself now.

One man who actually has a claim to have "wounds" from the last convention -- in other words, he wasn't a pre-adolescent at the time -- is former SDS member and now author Maurice Isserman:

"I am a little skeptical or bemused at the idea that you can go back and pluck a name out of history," a Hamilton College history professor, Maurice Isserman, 55, said. The author of "If I Had A Hammer: The Death of the Old Left and The Birth of the New Left," Mr. Isserman remains unapologetic about his own membership in SDS in 1968-9 but is nevertheless baffled why anyone would want to re-create the group today. He compared it to "something like a costume drama" of "dressing up in other people's clothes."

It's more than playing dress-up; it demonstrates the lack of credibility from which the radical Left suffers today. Their hard-line socialism and terrorist apologism has few takers today, and the Thomas Goods of the world lack any kind of influence as a result. Instead of winning converts by intellectual debate over the merits of their policies - a sure-fire losing proposition -- they want to gain attention by changing brand names, hijacking "SDS" in order to associate themselves with a time when people didn't realize that New Left radicals offered nothing but totalitarianism and nihilism.

Consider this the Trekkie convention of the Left: they get to "dress up" like their favorite radicals of another era, talk in their language, and make everyone view them as people in desperate need of a life. The only assets that the SDS-Trekkies lack over their sci-fi counterparts are sensible source material, good intentions, and cool costumes.

New, Improved John Kerry -- Now With Even Less Substance!

John Kerry's long battle with incoherence continues today, as the Detroit News reports. Kerry, trying to resurrect his presidential hopes, attacked George Bush for the war yesterday -- but this time he griped about the war in Lebanon, claiming it never would have happened had Kerry won the election:

U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D- Mass., who was in town Sunday to help Gov. Jennifer Granholm campaign for her re-election bid, took time to take a jab at the Bush administration for its lack of leadership in the Israeli-Lebanon conflict.

"If I was president, this wouldn't have happened," said Kerry during a noon stop at Honest John's bar and grill in Detroit's Cass Corridor.

Bush has been so concentrated on the war in Iraq that other Middle East tension arose as a result, he said.

"The president has been so absent on diplomacy when it comes to issues affecting the Middle East," Kerry said. "We're going to have a lot of ground to make up (in 2008) because of it."

In fact, George Bush has worked with the UN in trying to settle the Hezbollah question, the very path that Kerry demanded Bush take with Iraq during the 2004 campaign. The US pressed for the adoption of UN Security Council 1559, which demanded that the Lebanese government disarm Hezbollah and remove them from the Israeli border. It was the Bush White House that allied with France -- the John Kerry gold standard of coalition-building -- to force Syria out of Lebanon after a popular uprising in 2005.

Kerry, however, ignores all of this. In fact, Kerry fell back into the losing strategy from 2004: complain and then offer no alternative. "We have to destroy Hezbollah," Kerry told his Democratic audience. Well, okay -- but how? Would Kerry have invaded Lebanon? Under what pretext?

George Bush pulled together a broad coalition of nations to invade Iraq only after twelve years of defiance in the face of 16 UN resolutions, and only after years of attacks on coalition aircraft enforcing a no-fly zone. Saddam's Iraq had never completed a peace treaty with the US and its partners after the Gulf War, only a cease-fire with conditions that Saddam refused to meet. Under those circumstances, a state of war already existed between Iraq and the coalition from the Gulf War; our invasion put it to an end.

In Lebanon, however, Kerry vaguely claims that he would "destroy" Hezbollah. Unless Kerry planned to have America invade Lebanon in exactly the same manner as the Israelis, that is nothing but an empty threat. Kerry doesn't have the stomach to face off against terrorists in Iraq, where the US has valid national-security concerns, such as control of the oil flow and dismantling of terrorists' lines of communication between Iran and Syria. Why should we believe he would have the werewithal to withstand the kind of casualties that Israel has taken and will continue to take in southern Lebanon?

Kerry reminds all of us why his candidacy went off the rails in 2004. He did much the same thing on Iraq, blasting Bush on his prosecution of the war, and then failing to propose any different strategy or tactics. Kerry keeps revealing himself as an empty suit, an anklebiter with nothing but criticism for others, lacking any kind of original thought or leadership.

Rice: Lebanon Must Assert Sovereignty

Condoleezza Rice made a surprise visit to Beirut this morning, meeting with Lebanese PM Fuad Saniora as war continued to hit close to the capital. Rice made clear that any resolution to the conflict had to remove Hezbollah missiles and terrorism from the southern border, and that Lebanon's government had to assume sovereignty over its territory:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora in Beirut on Monday in a show of support for that country's weakened democracy, which is struggling to contain the fighting between the Hezbollah militia and Israel. ...

"If there is a cessation of hostilities, the government of Lebanon is going to have to be the party," she said. "Let's treat the government of Lebanon as the sovereign government that it is."

That is the key point in all of the discussions regarding a cease-fire, and it expands on a point made by John Bolton last week at the United Nations. No one will trust a cease-fire agreement with a band of terrorists. For one practical reason, the terrorists have nothing to lose by violating an agreement -- no territory, no fixed assets, nothing. Second, the aim of terrorists has nothing to do with a negotiated peace but for all-out victory, which relates to the first reason.

Sovereign nations, however, have risks associated with war that underpins negotiations. A nation which attacks another risks its own territory being captured if it loses. That rule of war used to act as a deterrent to aggression in the past. However, with the advent of terrorist proxies and the tolerance of such in the Fourth Geneva Conventions -- which has never been signed or ratified by the US or Israel -- that risk has been minimized to the point where it pays to employ such tactics. It's no coincidence that the use of non-uniformed proxy terrorists have exploded since the mid-70s, when this convention gained acceptance by a significant number of nations.

Rice makes an important point in making Saniora responsible for the cease-fire, when one comes. We will no longer accept the notion that a state has no responsibility for actors within their own borders when they become a threat to other nations. This is the Bush Doctrine restated in Westphalian terms. States have sovereignty within their own borders, but with that sovereignty comes responsibility to ensure that they control the use of force that could threaten others. In fact, under the Bush doctrine, that responsibility is assumed with sovereignty -- and when actors from that state attack other nations, it is as if the nation as a whole attacked.

That's the message Rice delivered to Saniora this morning. We want Lebanon to thrive, but the Lebanese government can't have it both ways. If they cannot control Hezbollah, then they will reap the consequences of Hezbollah's actions, up to and including war. (via It Shines For All)

IDF: Hezbollah Running Out Of Missiles

Hezbollah has started to run low on munitions and morale, according to the IDF. Without secure lines of communication to Syria, the terrorists have been unable to resupply, and this has led jihadis in northern Lebanon to avoid joining the fight against Israel:

IDF Military Intelligence (MI) believes the army has 10 days left before diplomatic pressure puts an end to Operation Change of Direction against Hizbullah, The Jerusalem Post learned on Sunday.

In addition, MI - reflecting its latest strategic assessment - believes that the Islamist group has already been dealt a severe blow by the IDF operation launched 12 days ago, and that within a month it will run out of Katyusha rockets to fire at Israel. ...

The unit has been able to recruit reserves, but MI has noticed that it has run into difficulty convincing members of the terror group who reside in northern Lebanon to travel south to participate in the fighting.

Once the unit exhausts the missiles currently in its possession, it will, MI believes, have difficulty acquiring more, since most of the roads and supply routes have been destroyed by the IDF. Several Syrian and Iranian attempts to send supplies to Hizbullah have been thwarted by the IDF.

This shows why asymmetrical warfare cannot beat a true military response. Terrorists thrive on the reluctance of Western nations to actually respond militarily to their attacks. Tactics and strategy that force responses in civilian areas usually lead to law-enforcement tactics in order for nations to avoid the kind of televised images we have seen from Lebanon. In that kind of low-level approach, however, the terrorists can resupply at will and continue with intermittent attacks -- and know that they will get away with them.

Hezbollah got surprised by Israel's military response and by the lack of support they received in the Arab world as a result. IDF operations have forced Hezbollah to fire many more rockets into Israel, trying desperately to hold Israeli cities hostage in order to put an end to the IDF invasion of southern Lebanon and the bombing of the infrastructure. They have fired thousands of missiles and rockets into Israel in less than two weeks, a number that might have taken them five years to reach in the normal asymmetrical mode.

And this shows why Israel has reacted with overwhelming force, and why cries about Lebanon's infrastructure make no sense. Critics have excoriated Israel for setting Lebanon back twenty years by bombings roads, bridges, and communications assets. Some have called it "collective punishment", an odd term to use for the response when at least a portion of a government commits an act of war against its neighbor. It has been clear from the start of the IDF operation that Israel targeted these assets because they consider themselves at war, not as some police force on steroids, and that the first assets one attacks in war are command, control, and communications of the enemy.

The roads and bridges, as well as the airports, would have allowed Syria to resupply Hezbollah.

Now, it appears that Syria cannot effectively rearm their proxy in southern Lebanon. Israel has even attacked convoys coming out of Syria attempting to do just that, destroying the munitions and sending a message to Syria of air supremacy, a lesson Syria has learned over and over again against the Israelis. Starved of missiles and rockets, the Hezbollah terrorists will lose their one weapon of deterrence against Israel and start to collapse.

According to the IDF, that process has already begun. Jihadis in the north have not come to the aid of their brethren, and Sheikh Nasrallah will run out of bodies to throw at Israeli tanks very quickly. Israel may only need a couple more weeks before crippling Hezbollah not only as a military threat but also as a political movement in Lebanon. Nasrallah needs a rescue, but no one will send their cavalry over the hills to effect one -- not even their brothers in terrorism.

Kosovo Talks Begin, Seven Years Later

Talks on the status of Kosovo, the breakaway Serbian province in its south, will finally begin in a few hours seven years after NATO intervention forced the Serbian army to withdraw:

Formal talks to decide the future status of Kosovo begin in Vienna on Monday involving political leaders from Serbia and Kosovo itself.

Kosovo, technically still part of Serbia, has been run by the international community since the end of the war in 1999.

These are the most important talks over its future since Nato bombing forced the Serb army out in 1999.

They are being brokered by United Nations Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari.

People claim that the Bush administration had no plan for Iraq, but we helped the Iraqis form a representative government and held three national elections in less than half the time that the United Nations has sat on Kosovo. After bombing the Serbian army and forcing them to withdraw, the UN did nothing to address the status of the Kosovars for seven long years. In that time, ethnic violence has claimed the lives of dozens as the Serbs and the ethnic Albanians both jockey for position and power in advance of the talks.

In fact, NATO has just beefed up its forces, which tells everyone that they expect violence to escalate once again.

This demonstrates why the UN has little use in actual problem resolution. The UN "solution" to every crisis is to enforce the status quo, even if that means no solution at all. It should have never taken seven years just to get started on a resolution to the Kosovo question.

Arabs Pressuring Syria To Cut Hezbollah Support

The Arab nations continue to pursue a policy of opposition to Iranian dreams of hegemony in the Middle East, and have begun a campaign to pressure Bashar Assad into cutting off support for Hezbollah. Rather than unite behind the Persian power play, the Arabs appear to regard Teheran as a bigger threat than Israel:

Mideast diplomats were pressing Syria to stop backing Hezbollah as the guerrillas fired more deadly rockets onto Israel's third-largest city Sunday. Israel faced tougher-than-expected ground battles and bombarded targets in southern Lebanon, hitting a convoy of refugees. ...

With Israel and the United States saying a real cease-fire is not possible until Hezbollah is reined in, Arab heavyweights Egypt and Saudi Arabia were pushing Syria to end its support for the guerrillas, Arab diplomats in Cairo said.

A loss of Syria's support would deeply weaken Hezbollah, though its other ally, Iran, gives it a large part of its money and weapons. The two moderate Arab governments were prepared to spend heavily from Egypt's political capital in the region and Saudi Arabia's vast financial reserves to break Damascus from the guerrillas and Iran, the diplomats said.

If the other nations succeed in splitting Syria from its terrorist proxy, Hezbollah will have huge problems in Lebanon. While they get more support from Iran than Syria, Iran has no way to directly supply Hezbollah in Lebanon. Sheikh Nasrallah's lines of communications go to Damascus, and if Assad cuts those, Hezbollah cannot last as a military force. It's all fine to proclaim one's self free of the fear of death, as Nasrallah's terrorists have done, but it's another to keep fighting when the rockets, missiles, and grenades are all gone.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan want an end to the whole war. They want Israel to return the Golan Heights and Shebaa Farms and Assad to sign a comprehensive peace deal with Ehud Olmert. The Egyptians and the Jordanians have long had diplomatic relations with Israel, and they understand that an Israel with normalized relations is no threat to their sovereignty. However, a war breaking out in the region threatens everyone with either Iranian dominance or American intervention, neither of which appeals to the pragmatists in Cairo and Amman. Riyadh just wants to sell oil and keep Teheran bottled up in its corner.

Israel wants the same end as the three Arab nations. All Israel wants is to live in peace, and to stabilize the area so that they can finally come to a resolution in the West Bank. They would gladly negotiate with Syria as long as Syria gave up its terrorist proxies. Olmert would want a Western screening force to ensure Syria's compliance, and as the International Herald Tribune reported earlier, took the West by surprise with his request to have the force under NATO control:

With NATO straining to fulfill its commitment in Afghanistan and facing new demands from the United Nations to send troops to Sudan, Israel's proposal that NATO provide a buffer zone along the Israeli-Lebanese border surprised members of the alliance Sunday. Amir Peretz, the Israeli defense minister, told the German foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, that Israel would welcome a NATO force, saying that the Lebanese Army was too weak to do the job. Diplomats said it was also a clear signal to the UN that its force in the area was of limited importance since it had failed to disarm Hezbollah fighters or protect the border since Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000.

Israel's message to the West was clear: either put up or shut up. Israel does not want the UN to take command of the forces, especially after the pathetic performance of UNIFIL's command over the past six years. (They also don't want to have to lock up their daughters, or force the Lebanese to do the same.) If France and the rest of the European peanut gallery want to demand cease fires, then let them stick their own troops in the region and try suppressing Hezbollah themselves. If they don't have the stomach for it, then they can shut the hell up and let Israel fight its own war.

NATO should take Israel's offer and send a real fighting force into southern Lebanon, and assist the Lebanese in building their army to take over the task. In fact, they can look to the east to see how it's done. The US has done a remarkable job in building an Iraqi army and security force, and NATO can use that as a model for Lebanon.

Faster, please, in the words of one of my favorite columnists. In fact, now.

What Desperate People Do When They're Irrelevant

Keith Olbermann keeps solidifying his position as most overblown twerp on television. At a critic's breakfast yesterday, Olbermann fired off a Nazi salute while impersonating the man who trounces him in the ratings:

MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann used a Saturday morning breakfast session at the Television Critics Association press tour to fire yet another shot at Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly, holding up an O’Reilly mask while raising his right arm in a Nazi salute to mock his on-air rival.

“It’s just so much fun,” said the host of Countdown with Keith Olbermann when questioned about why he pursues his on-air rivalry with O’Reilly.

I have never been an O'Reilly fan from the early days of "Inside Edition" to his current rise to the top at Fox. In my opinion, his show often displays all of the characteristics of how television makes politics unpleasant. It doesn't get as bad as the old "Crossfire" show before Jon Stewart's on-air ridicule rightly killed it, but the crosstalk and personal venom at times gets too tiresome. I almost never watch it unless someone I know will be appearing.

However, O'Reilly at least has talent and intelligence, even if I don't care for his style. Olbermann has been insufferable since his days at KNBC in Los Angeles as a sportscaster. His pretentious pontificating and snarky delivery appealed to the same crowd that loves Jim Rome (before Jim Everett knocked Rome on his ass for calling him "Chrissy"), and apparently share the same intellect- and taste-free approach to television. Olbermann's schtick was bad enough at ESPN, but since his transformation into a political reporter, viewers have finally discovered that his ego far outweighs his intellect -- and have left MS-NBC in droves.

This latest stunt demonstrates once more why ESPN improved by subtraction when he left in an apparent huff. Olbermann may think that calling people Nazis makes him hip and relevant, but all it proves is that (a) Olbermann has no clue about real Nazis, (b) Olbermann doesn't give a damn about anybody but himself, and (c) Olbermann can't compete fairly with O'Reilly and has to resort to tasteless stunts like this to get attention.

He's an aging frat-boy with a failing GPA, and it's getting worse all the time. (via Polipundit)

UPDATE: More at Olbermann Watch. Be sure to read through the comments, too.

One correction: O'Reilly's show was "Inside Edition", not "A Current Affair", which was its main competition. However, Olbermann was a sportscaster on KNBC, not KTLA.

Not Learning To Quit While Behind

Dennis Hastert still hasn't learned when to quit. The House speaker told Fox News Sunday that he may appeal an order by a federal judge that allows the FBI to begin a review of records seized through a search warrant from Rep. William Jefferson's office:

House Speaker Dennis Hastert said Sunday he may challenge a judge's order allowing FBI agents to examine documents seized at a Louisiana congressman's Capitol Hill office in a bribery probe.

Hastert said he believed Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., was "in big trouble" and that the House would not be joining in support of Jefferson himself. But he said the House separately might seek to make clear its position that the Justice Department cannot randomly and wantonly search lawmakers' offices.

"The gentleman from Louisiana is in big trouble, as far as I'm concerned. And we're not trying to protect him," said Hastert, R-Ill.

"But there has to be a procedure for the Justice Department to come in and start just searching any congressman's office," he said. "We may take a fine line depending on how the negotiations are. There is a constitutional division there that we have to protect."

Who is Hastert trying to kid? The "constitutional division" doesn't exist. The FBI attempted to subpoena the records from Jefferson, which would have eliminated the need to conduct the search. Jefferson and the House counsel decided to defy the subpoena. After nine months of fruitless negotiation, the FBI requested and received a search warrant from a federal judge to seize the records instead. The records seized do not relate to legislative work but to financial records in a bribery investigation.

The judge in question ruled that the FBI's execution of the search warrant violated no law and certainly did not damage the Constitution. Judge Thomas Hogan wrote that Hastert and Jefferson sought to turn Capitol Hill into a "sanctuary" for criminal activity. Apparently Hastert still doesn't comprehend the rather clear language in Hogan's ruling:

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

Why does Hastert remain so determined to fight this through the federal appellate courts? Does he really believe that a federal judge on any level will rule that the FBI does not have the right to execute a search warrant on a Congressional office -- when that warrant has the approval of a federal judge? Does Hastert expect the judiciary to suddenly declare its entire branch subservient to Congress? If Hastert wins, a federal court would have to rule that federal judges have no authority to approve search warrants except through "procedures" that Congress would define for itself, making Capitol Hill the only place where a duly executed legal order has no weight.

Balderdash -- and dangerous balderdash at that.

Will someone please explain to Dennis Hastert that the only privilege granted to Congress is that contained within the Constitution, which in this case does not apply, and outside of that they get no special relief from the same laws that apply to the rest of us? And do it soon, because Hastert has become an embarrassment in his zeal to create a haven for bribe-takers on Capitol Hill. Otherwise, Republicans in Congress should begin to consider some special "procedures" that will remove him as Speaker in the next session, if not sooner.

ACLU To Fred Phelps' Rescue

We have yet another reason to despise the American Civil Liberties Union. They have decided to act on behalf of the "Reverend" Fred Phelps and his gang of gay-baiting haters, claiming that a Missouri law that bans picketers at military funerals violates their right to free speech:

A Kansas church group that protests at military funerals nationwide filed suit in federal court, saying a Missouri law banning such picketing infringes on religious freedom and free speech.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit Friday in the U.S. District Court in Jefferson City, Mo., on behalf of the fundamentalist Westboro Baptist Church, which has outraged mourning communities by picketing service members' funerals with signs condemning homosexuality. ...

The law bans picketing and protests "in front of or about" any location where a funeral is held, from an hour before it begins until an hour after it ends. Offenders can face fines and jail time.

A number of other state laws and a federal law, signed in May by President Bush, bar such protests within a certain distance of a cemetery or funeral.

In the lawsuit, the ACLU says the Missouri law tries to limit protesters' free speech based on the content of their message. It is asking the court to declare the ban unconstitutional and to issue an injunction to keep it from being enforced, which would allow the group to resume picketing.

Missouri says that it will "not ... acquiesce to anything they're asking for," which means that the ACLU will get the fight they've helped pick. The law, however, appears reasonable and within the bounds of the First Amendment. It does not ban picketing altogether, nor does it make any distinction based on message. The law balances the right of speech with the maintenance of the peace for military funerals -- and the government can make the case that the state has an interest in protecting such events from being exploited by disinterested third parties. Missouri set specific limits to the ban, including reasonable distances and time apart from the funeral.

Phelps and his band of protestors are despicable creatures. Their bile-filled rants and signs have no business at anyone's funeral, let alone those who have fallen in service of their nation. People with souls would understand that the family and friends of the dead need to have these final moments with their loved ones and not have that stolen from them by ghouls who want to get media attention for their mindless hatred. That anyone would defend these practices amazes me. That the ACLU has decided to champion their cause, unfortunately, does not.

Defenders of the ACLU will proclaim this as proof of their dedication to free speech, but that's nonsense. The ACLU does not take every case that has free-speech implications, let alone Constitutional issues. Fred Phelps could get a lawyer on his own; the ACLU and its donors have no obligation to assist him in mocking the loss of family members at funerals. The ACLU has put itself on par with these soulless freaks, and their donors should take note that their money now supports the Phelps traveling hate show.

UPDATE: The Florida Masochist says I'm being inconsistent -- and he has a point. I did argue against similar legislation earlier as an infringement on free speech. The lawsuit may turn out to have a point. However, the ACLU still does not need to take this case; it doesn't take every free-speech case that comes along, and their support of the Phelps crowd is despicable. Let Fred Phelps find his own lawyer; his kids could handle the case pro bono.

American Imperialism In Europe!

The evidence of American imperialism showed in Europe today, in Britain and France -- but in sports rather than politics. Tiger Woods won his second straight British Open, the first player to do so in over twenty years:

Tiger Woods had an answer for everyone Sunday on another methodical march to victory in the British Open.

One month after missing the cut for the first time in a major, Woods was ruthless as ever on the brown-baked links of Royal Liverpool, making three straight birdies to turn away a spirited challenge by Chris DiMarco and win golf's oldest championship for the second straight year.

Unlike in previous victories, his challenger actually pressed him all the way to the end. He lost two strokes off a thiree-stroke lead on the back nine as DeMarco played an excellent round, but in the end Tiger pushed him away. The victory is Tiger's first major since the death of his father, and Tiger allowed himself a rare emotional outburst when he sank the final putt.

The Tour de France gave another American an opportunity to shine today. Floyd Landis made it eight straight for the Americans in the premier cycling race, surprising the field after the end of the seven-year dominance of Lance Armstrong:

The highs and lows of Floyd Landis' nail-biter of a bike race ended without a hitch Sunday as he won the Tour de France and kept cycling's most prestigious title in American hands for the eighth straight year.

The 30-year-old Landis, pedaling with an injured hip, cruised to victory on the cobblestones of the Champs-Elysees, a day after regaining the leader's yellow jersey and building an insurmountable lead in the final time trial. ...

"I'm proud and happy for Floyd," said Armstrong, who watched the finish on TV from a luxurious hotel room near the Champs-Elysees. "He proved he was the strongest, everybody wrote him off."

Congratulations to both of our countrymen, and a round of thanks to the people of Britain and France for hosting the tournaments.

Many Ways Of Saying 'No'

The veto record of George Bush -- an extraordinarily short one -- gets analyzed in the New York Times today, which points out that Bush has not vetoed bills before because he had little cause to do so. Instead, the Times focuses on the rather nuanced manner in which Bush has managed to avoid vetoing legislation from a Congress completely controlled by his own party:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt rejected or failed to sign 635 bills during his 12 years in office, using his veto power to keep Congress — run by his fellow Democrats — subservient. Harry S. Truman vetoed 250 bills; Dwight D. Eisenhower, 181. Bill Clinton used one of 37 vetoes to reject a law banning a particular type of abortion.

But until last week, when President Bush vetoed a bill to expand federally supported embryonic stem cell research, the incumbent president — a man who has taken an especially aggressive approach to expanding executive authority — left the veto power untouched.

Conventional wisdom holds that Mr. Bush went more than five years without exercising his veto power simply because he did not have to: the Republicans who control Congress gave him everything he wanted.

That is, for the most part, true. But Mr. Bush has also found ways of exercising control over (or circumventing) Congress without using the veto. When Mr. Bush wanted to empower federal authorities to monitor the international communications of suspected terrorists, he did so by issuing a secret executive order, avoiding a possible legislative battle — and the potential veto that might go along with it.

And when Congress last year passed a legislative amendment barring cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of detainees in American custody, Mr. Bush — who had threatened a veto but ultimately backed down — tacked a “signing statement” onto the measure, asserting that he could interpret the amendment as he deemed fit with his constitutional authority as commander in chief.

Most people lose sight of the relationship that Bush has with Congress, one that does not apply to any of the presidents mentioned above. Except for eighteen months when Jumpin' Jim Jeffords threw a bare majority of the Senate to the Democrats, Republicans have controlled both chambers of Congress for his entire presidency. Bush has had the opportunity to craft compromises within his own party that avoided the necessity to veto legislation. Roosevelt had to deal with a Congress that mistrusted his expansion of federal power (both GOP and Democats), and FDR proved them correct when he attempted to stack the Supreme Court. Truman dealt with a Congress in transition, while Ike had a solidly Democratic Congress for his entire stay in the White House. Bill Clinton had a Republican Congress, and still only issued 37 vetoes in eight years.

When one party controls both elected branches, the voters expect them to cooperate to enact their agenda. The Republicans have largely done just that, and Bush has not used the veto pen. He prefers to work behind the scenes, publicly threatening vetoes (as the Times points out, on 141 different occasions) and using that leverage to get the compromise he wants. That is the mark of a successful partnership, at least in political terms, although the results are certainly open to a lot of criticism.

The TImes also brings up the "signing statements" as a dodge around vetoes, but those statements mean nothing legally. Bush isn't the first president to use these, and all they do is record his state of mind when he signs the legislation. If he gets challenged on it in court, the White House can use this in the same manner that Congress uses the record of the debate in order to show state of mind. It doesn't let the President ignore the law any more than a non-binding resolution from Congress forces anyone to a specific action.

One bill that doesn't get mentioned by the Times is the BCRA. That's the one bill that should have received a veto for its attack on the Constitution. Had Bush vetoed that, no one would have made much out of the bill he vetoed this week.

UPDATE: A couple of corrections: Eisenhower did have a Republican Congress for the first two years, but a Democratic Congress in the other six years of his presidency. Bill Clinton had a Democratic House in his first two years, but lost that in the 1994 landslide that brought the Republicans into control for the first time since ... Eisenhower!

Israel: We'll Take NATO

Israel has indicated that it will accept a new multinational screening force in Lebanon to keep Hezbollah off of Israel's border, but wants NATO-commanded forces for the task. Whether or not NATO -- and by extension the United States -- decides to take job is another question entirely:

Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz said Sunday that Israel would accept a temporary international force, preferably headed by NATO, deployed along the Lebanese border to keep Hizbullah guerrillas away from Israel, according to officials in Peretz's office.

"Israel's goal is to see the Lebanese army deployed along the border with Israel, but we understand that we are taking about a weak army and that in the midterm period Israel will have to accept a multinational force," he said according to his office.

Peretz made the comments during a closed meeting with visiting German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier. ...

Israel has made clear that any agreement in Lebanon would have to be based on a release of the captive Israeli soldiers, an implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1559 that calls for a disarming of Hizbullah, deploying Lebanese army troops along the border with Israel, and the extension of Lebanese sovereignty throughout the country.

Israel has also expressed a willingness to consider various ideas for the positioning of a multinational force in southern Lebanon for a limited period to augment the Lebanese army - an idea that will surely be raised at the Rome conference. The details of this force still need to be worked out.

Israel cannot hope to completely destroy Hezbollah, and really wants a solution that keeps them from sitting within rocket range of Israel. UNIFIL turned out to be a complete disaster, enabling terrorism instead of stopping it and creating the conditions on the ground that started this war. Any new multinational force would have to pledge to attack Hezbollah positions and disarm Hezbollah terrorists in the buffer zone, or else its worth will be the same as UNIFIL.

That's the reason that Israel appears ready to accept a cease-fire and temporary multinational force without the UN's involvement in military decisions. NATO actually fought against the warring factions in the Balkans, instead of standing around while Serbs committed atrocities as in Srebrenica, as the UN forces did. Peretz will not entrust the security of the northern border to UNIFIL again; he wants the buffer zone enforced, not just watched.

Israel has taken a very pragmatic view of victory, in this sense. Many pundits opined that Israel could only achieve victory in this war if they killed every terrorist in Lebanon. That makes as much sense as if we defined victory in our war as the death of every Islamofascist terrorist. We didn't kill all the Nazis in World War II, but we beat the hell out of them anyway and rendered them incapable of harming us or their neighbors again. Israel understands the difference, which is why the Washington Post reports this morning that Israel has little angst over the continuance of Hezbollah as an unarmed political entity:

The United States, Israel, the United Nations and the European Union have reluctantly concluded that despite punishing military attacks, Hezbollah is likely to survive as a political player in Lebanon, and Israel now says it is willing to accept the organization if it sheds its military wing and abandons extremism, according to several key officials.

"To the extent that it remains a political group, it will be acceptable to Israel," Israeli Ambassador Daniel Ayalon said yesterday in the strongest sign to date that the Israelis are rethinking the scope and ultimate goals of the campaign. "A political group means a party that is engaged in the political system in Lebanon, but without terrorism capabilities and fighting capabilities. That will be acceptable to Israel." ...

In the long term, the United States and Israel hope that Hezbollah is discredited or marginalized politically, too; Lebanon and the Arab world hold it responsible for the July 12 cross-border raid and kidnappings of two soldiers that sparked the punishing Israeli response and widespread destruction, officials say.

And that is where victory lies, because Hezbollah cannot survive long as a political group. What are the politics of Hezbollah, after all? They preach hate and war in a country sick of both. If the Lebanese could have disarmed them after the ejection of Syria, they would have done so. Sheikh Nasrallah knows that the only way Hezbollah can keep its momentum is to conduct terrorist operations on both sides of the border. Without guns, they are bullies and rockthrowers, and little more.

Even more, a disarmed Hezbollah seriously damages Syria, even more so than Iran. Without its Hezbollah proxy, the Syrians can put little pressure on Israel. They lost the strategic Golan Heights (and want them back), which means that without coming through Lebanon, the Syrians have no easy way to attack Israel when the next war breaks out. Any action Damascus takes has to come directly and openly from the Syrians, rather than the stupid raid and abduction operation they apparently endorsed. More importantly, they lose political influence in Beirut and leverage over the Lebanese government, further isolating Syria in the region. A real multinational force, prepared to do battle with provocateurs, would isolate them much further.

Israel has a clear definition of victory: ejection of Hezbollah from southern Lebanon and stripping them of their arms. If NATO can do that, then the Israelis will be glad to see it. They don't want another UNIFIL and will be most unlikely to accept one.

Can Syria Be Saved?

The Bush administration may try to rescue Syria from its ties to the Iranians, according to a New York Times report out today, in part by convincing them to quit supporting the Iranian proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon. Condoleezza Rice will meet with the Saudis to attempt such a strategy in the coming days, as the Saudis have just as much eagerness to rid the region of Hezbollah and Iranian influence in general:

As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice heads to Israel on Sunday, Bush administration officials say they recognize Syria is central to any plans to resolve the crisis in the Middle East, and they are seeking ways to peel Syria away from its alliance of convenience with Iran.

In interviews, senior administration officials said they had no plans right now to resume direct talks with the Syrian government. President Bush recalled his ambassador to Syria, Margaret Scobey, after the assassination of Rafik Hariri, a former Lebanese prime minister, in February 2005. Since then, America’s contacts with Damascus have been few, and the administration has imposed an array of sanctions on Syria’s government and banks, and frozen the assets of Syrian officials implicated in Mr. Hariri’s killing.

But officials said this week that they were at the beginning stages of a plan to encourage Saudi Arabia and Egypt to make the case to the Syrians that they must turn against Hezbollah. With the crisis at such a pivotal stage, officials who are involved in the delicate negotiations to end it agreed to speak about their expectations only if they were not quoted by name.

David Sanger and Helene Cooper note that this plan has a lot of obstacles in its path, first and foremost the obvious benefit to Israel. It also may encourage Syria to exercise more hegemony in Lebanon, a trend we do not want to prompt back into existence. Sanger and Cooper do not mention the Golan Heights, a continual source of outrage for the Syrians, who want the land back; the Israelis refuse until Syria stops funding and supporting terrorist groups and comes to terms with Israel.

One obstacle doesn't appear in the Times' analysis, and that will be the question of who makes the decision. At the outbreak of hostilities, Bashar Assad disappeared from public view and policy statements came from Ba'ath Party leadership instead -- a very unsettling development in a dictatorship. That usually indicates a power struggle. Assad did finally emerge last Thursday to issue a call for a cease-fire, a somewhat less aggressive statement than that of the earlier Ba'athist pledge to come to the aid of Hezbollah if the Israelis attacked in force. The Syrians moved a division to the border early on, but have done nothing since.

One could conclude that Assad got pushed aside by a more war-hungry Ba'athist leadership, which then lost face after the Arab League roundly criticized Hezbollah instead of Israel, a singular event in the region's history. Assad may then have taken the reins again to take the more moderate path and come in line with his Arab neighbors, all of whom appeared rather angry with Damascus and Teheran over the eruption of war. If true, then the Saudis and the US have to determine who is running the show in Syria. Is it Assad, or is it a cabal of power brokers in the Party?

The Saudis have their own reasons for assisting the US on this mission. They do not want a pan-Islamism run by a non-Arab nation, and Iran obviously has pushed this confrontation to put itself at the head of the Muslim community. None of the predominantly Sunni governments in the region want a Shi'ite government assuming control of the region, either, as they consider Shi'a to be unstable and messianic, among other less-than-admirable qualities. This conflict predates Israel by more than a millenium; the Zionists take a back seat to this long-running internecine feud.

But can the Saudis and Egyptians convince Syria to cut off Hezbollah? The answer may lie in the fall of Iraq. Iraq had long been the best ally to Syria in the region, with its powerful army and its similar governmental style. The long border shared between the two nations allowed for plenty of resupply to the Assad regime. Even when relations became strained between Baghdad and Damascus, Saddam knew that Syria was the point country against the Israelis and best placed to provide assistance to Palestinian terrorist groups.

Now, however, Syria has no resupply routes, thanks to the bad relations they have with Jordan and Saudi Arabia after Assad aligned himself with Teheran. If Syria gets pulled into a war, he has no reliable lines of communication with those who would arm his forces. Geography will work against Syria in a way that it never has in any previous conflict, and Assad's ties to Iran will keep other Arab nations from doing much to alleviate it.

If Assad is still in power, the Saudis and the Egyptians might -- might -- convince him to let go of Hezbollah. If not, then this meeting will produce nothing of substance.

UPDATE: Be sure to read Dale's information in the comments. He makes some great points about the Allawi Shi'a, a minority, holding power over the Sunni majority, a fact I forgot when I wrote this post. It's the reverse of what we saw in Iraq. However, the two Ba'athist groups were not the blood enemies Dale intimates; after all, Syria ran a lot of banned material into Iraq during the sanctions regime, and the Iraqi Ba'athists have found a home to run their insurgency in Syria.

Hamas Ready To Give In?

According to Haaretz, Hamas wants to cut its losses and get out of the current war. Reportedly unhappy with Hezbollah's amplification of Israeli rage, local Hamas leadership has agreed in principle to return Gilad Shalit now for consideration of future releases of Palestinian prisoners, and will agree to a mutual cease-fire to seal the deal:

Senior Fatah sources in Gaza said on Saturday Hamas is ready to accept a deal that involves freeing abducted soldier Gilad Shalit, a joint cease-fire and an end to IDF actions in the Gaza Strip.

What is not clear is whether Khaled Meshal, the Hamas leader in Damascus, will sanction the Egyptian-brokered deal.

The initiative, proposed by Egypt and discussed by Palestinian leaders in Gaza in the last few days, consists of freeing Gilad Shalit, a joint cease-fire and the cessation of the IDF's assassinations in the Gaza Strip and freeing Palestinian prisoners later on.

The deal also includes understandings to set up a national unity government.

This expands on the reporting from yesterday, which only discussed a unilateral cease-fire. This represents a major concession from Hamas and an acceptance of the Israeli refusal to release prisoners in exchange for hostages. Olmert's military incursion and refusals to negotiate have finally made it clear that Israel has changed its policy in that regard.

It also appears to open a split between worldwide Hamas leadership based in Damascus and Hamas in the territories. Khaled Mashaal wanted no negotiation on the demands set at the beginning by his people; he wanted a lopsided prisoner swap to undermine Olmert. Instead, Olmert called his bluff, and Mashaal's the one who may lose a substantial amount of influence as a result.

Hamas does get one key concession from this deal, but from Fatah, not Israel. Ismail Haniyeh has tried to get Fatah and Mahmoud Abbas to join a unity government in order to allow for better foreign relations. Most Western countries refuse to send aid to Hamas, and the Palestinian economy had collapsed even before the Gaza incursion. Haniyeh got Abbas to agree to the new government, and that could mean a restoration of aid from Europe and possibly the US.

If this plays out as reported, Olmert will have won one war of nerves. He will then be able to concentrate forces on Hezbollah currently used in Gaza and have more leverage to win the other war as well. (via TMV)