Triangulating the War
Yesterday's genius, today's fool, tomorrow's what?

Reading the pages of foreign-policy journals, between the long tracts on Bush's "failures" and neoconservative "arrogance," one encounters mostly predictions of defeat and calls for phased withdrawal — always with resounding criticism of the American "botched" occupation.

Platitudes follow: "We can't just leave now," followed by no real advice on how a fascist society can be jumpstarted into a modern liberal republic. After all, there is no government handbook entitled, "Operation 1A: How to remove a Middle East fascist regime in three weeks, reconstruct the countryside, and hold the first elections in the nation's history — all within two years." Almost all who supported the war now are bailing on the pretext that their version of the reconstruction was not followed: While a three-week war was their idea, a 20-month messy reconstruction was surely someone else's. Yesterday genius is today's fool — and who knows next month if the elections work? Witness Afghanistan where all those who recently said the victory was "lost" to warlords are now suddenly quiet.

Heads You Lose, Tails We Win
Indeed, from the oscillating analyses of Iraq, the following impossible picture often emerges from our intelligentsia. It was a fatal error to disband the Iraqi army. That led to lawlessness and a loss of confidence in the American ability to restore immediate order after Saddam's fall. Yet it was also a fatal error to keep some Baathists in the newly constituted army. They were corrupt and wished reform to fail — witness the Fallujah Brigade that either betrayed us or aided the enemy. So we turned off the Sunnis by disbanding the army — and yet somehow turned off the Shiites by keeping some parts of it.

Massive construction projects were hogged by gargantuan American firms, ensconced in the Green Zone that did not engage either local Iraqi workers or small companies and thus squandered precious good will. Or, indigenous contractors proved irresponsible and unreliable, evidence for why Iraq was in such bad shape to begin with. And when we did put exclusive reliance on them, it ensured only lackadaisical and half-hearted reconstruction.

We also lost hearts and minds by using GPS bombs to obliterate houses full of killers and take out blocks of insurgents. And yet we lost hearts and minds by failing to act decisively and de facto turning over large enclaves to terrorists and Saddamites whom we were afraid to root out. Elections should have been held earlier; no, they must be delayed since they come too soon when the country is still unsecured.

Our helmeted soldiers with sunglasses are holed up in enclaves, don't mingle, and perpetuated the heavy-handed image of snooty occupiers. But leaving the Green Zone is an open invitation to kidnapping and worse. So we are both too well hidden and yet not hidden enough. Embedded media gave us a real-time picture of the fighting. But (if one is conservative) it left open the opportunity for sensationalism on the part of wannabe crusaders, and (if one is liberal) it created too close a psychological bond with the soldiers that impaired objectivity.


posted by Frodgie at 1:47 PM

 

N. Korea willing to talk on nukes

SEOUL — North Korea told a visiting U.S. congressional delegation yesterday that it would return to six-nation talks on its nuclear weapons program and become a "friend" of the United States, hinting at a possible reversal of a decades-old policy of calling America its "sworn enemy."
Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Curt Weldon said North Korea appeared ready to negotiate "in a matter of weeks." He spoke at a press conference in South Korea's capital, Seoul.
Yesterday's overture — while requiring that Washington not vilify North Korean leader Kim Jong-il — was highly unusual. Pyongyang's anti-American propaganda has been whipped into a near-religious fervor, with banners in villages everywhere exhorting North Koreans to prepare for an inevitable war with the "U.S. imperialists."
"The DPRK side expressed its stand that the DPRK would not stand against the U.S. but respect and treat it as a friend unless the latter slanders the former's system and interferes in its internal affairs," said the North's official news agency, KCNA, using the country's official name, Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
North Korean officials stressed the "need to take a future-oriented approach toward improving the bilateral relations," the news agency said.
White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan took a wait-and-see approach to the statement out of Pyongyang.
"We will see by their actions how serious they are. ... We look forward to the next round of talks; we hope they will occur soon," Mr. McClellan told reporters yesterday aboard Air Force One for President Bush's trip to Florida.
Pyongyang's unexpected gesture came shortly after a bipartisan delegation of six American lawmakers concluded talks with senior communist officials in Pyongyang, the capital. Mr. Weldon, vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, called the trip an "overwhelming success."
During their four-day trip, the six congressmen met with North Korea's No. 2 leader, Kim Yong-nam, Foreign Minister Paek Nam-sun and Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye-gwan, who is also the country's chief nuclear negotiator.
Mr. Weldon, who led the delegation, dismissed recent news reports that North Korea began removing leader Kim Jong-il's portraits in Pyongyang. But he said a large billboard he saw during his first trip there in May 2003 was no longer there — a mural showing a North Korean driving a bayonet into an American soldier."
The North Korean leadership told the Americans that the North "would opt for finding a final solution to all the outstanding issues between the two countries, to say nothing of the resumption of the six-party talks and the nuclear issue, if what U.S. congressmen said would be formulated as a policy of the second Bush administration," KCNA said.

posted by Frodgie at 1:34 PM

 

New Palestinian leader Abbas sworn in

RAMALLAH, West Bank (CNN) -- Mahmoud Abbas was sworn in as the Palestinian Authority president Saturday, the day after Israel suspended contact with the Palestinian leadership in the wake of a deadly attack on civilians.

In his acceptance speech, Abbas called for an end to the Israeli occupation. "Our hands are extended to our Israeli partners, but partnership is not by words alone, but by deeds," he said.

He dedicated his victory to his predecessor, the late Yasser Arafat, whom he credited with planting "the first seed of this democratic experience" among Palestinians.

Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, won the election to replace Arafat with more than 62 percent of the vote.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon congratulated Abbas shortly after the election and said he would meet with him in the coming weeks.

The Israeli leader, however, suspended contact with Abbas and the Palestinian Authority on Friday after six Israeli civilians were killed in an attack carried out by Hamas, the Popular Resistance Committees and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a militant offshoot of the Fatah party founded by Arafat. All three groups carry out attacks on civilians.

Abbas was the candidate of the Fatah party.

Sharon severed contact "until real steps are taken against terrorist acts," said one senior official.

Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qorei Saturday denounced the move.

"This is a wrong decision and reflects that Israel is trying to find any excuse to disrupt any serious effort that leads to reviving the peace process and to achieve calm," Qorei said, according to a translation for Reuters news agency.

The attack that prompted Sharon's move happened Thursday. Three Palestinians blew a hole through a door at the Karni crossing that separates Israel and northern Gaza, stormed into the Israeli side and opened fire, killing six Israeli civilians and wounding five others -- two seriously, the Israel Defense Forces said.

Israeli troops shot back, and the three gunmen were killed, the IDF said.

The Israeli military said early Friday it would keep crossing at Karni closed, close the Erez crossing -- the main terminal between Israel and Gaza -- and also keep the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt closed.

"These terminals serve the Palestinian people. You can't expect us to keep them open if our people are being killed," the senior Israeli official said.


posted by Frodgie at 11:28 AM

 

Time for a Nuclear Timeout
Mohamed ElBaradei has the right idea.

Although it went practically unnoticed, last week the White House's least favorite director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, honored President Bush with the highest form of flattery. Building on a proposal the president made nearly a year ago to ban the further spread of unnecessary nuclear factories that can bring nations within days of having a bomb, ElBaradei proposed a five-year international moratorium on the further construction of such plants. This, ElBaradei argued, would be helpful at least to limit what he sees as an unqualified right of states to develop the "full nuclear fuel cycle."

Unfortunately, ElBaradei's premise here is a bit off. There is no unqualified per se right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) for states to make nuclear-weapons-usable fuels. Claiming that all states have such right, moreover, will hardly help in getting them to embrace a moratorium on expanding whatever capacity they already have to make such materials.

But this aside, ElBaradei's proposal complements Bush's own proposal and is hard to find fault with. It certainly tracks economic reality (there is no clear profit right now in building more nuclear fuel-making capacity). It also buys the world time to reevaluate the effectiveness of the current set of nuclear rules (something critically needed after the Dr. A. Q. Khan's proliferation to Libya, Iran, and North Korea of everything one might need to covertly make a bomb). It undermines the legitimacy of trouble states like Iran, who are trying to complete "peaceful" nuclear facilities that could quickly be converted into bomb plants. Finally, it's uncomplicated and involves a minimum of sacrifice: No treaty making is required; all that's needed is to put off spending on unnecessary nuclear projects that are already financial question marks.

In the U.S. there are at least two such ventures. The first is a private-industry scheme to build a large centrifuge enrichment plant in Ohio by the end of the decade. The United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), which took over what were previously U.S. government-owned enrichment operations, wants to upgrade their existing services, which already supply fresh low-enriched reactor fuel to America's 100-odd nuclear power reactors. Because the new centrifuge project is projected to cost the company over $1 billion, stockholders want more information before making the dive. To get this, the company is now pushing to build a much smaller demonstration plant.


posted by Frodgie at 11:01 AM

 

Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Friday rejected a challenge brought by atheist Michael Newdow (search) to stop the invocation prayer at President Bush's second inauguration.

On Thursday, Newdow told U.S. District Judge John Bates that having a minister invoke God in the Jan. 20 ceremony would violate the Constitution by forcing him to accept unwanted religious beliefs.

But one day later, Bates ruled that Newdow wouldn't get far in his legal challenge and noted the absence of a "clearly established violation of the Establishment Clause."

Click here to read the Memorandum Opinion in Newdow v. Bush (FindLaw pdf).

"Moreover," the judge said in the ruling, "the balance of harms here, and particularly the public interest, does not weigh strongly in favor of the injunctive relief Newdow requests, which would require the unprecedented step of an injunction against the president."

The government had asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (search) to dismiss the current lawsuit, saying the invocation had been widely accepted for more than 200 years old.

The court on Friday said it doesn't have the power to order the president not to speak at his own inauguration and the act of ordering the president not to permit an invocation and benediction — which Newdow sought — would be one and the same.

Newdow argued he would be harmed as someone attending the inauguration by being forced to listen to sectarian and specifically, Christian, prayer. The court said that harm is simply too small to warrant its involvement in the matter. Also, the court said Newdow really doesn't have the legal standing to make this request since he sued over inauguration prayers in 2001 and lost that case in two federal courts.

Appearing on FOX News' "Hannity & Colmes" late Friday, Newdow continued to trumpet his cause. He said that reciting prayers at the inauguration violates the rights of atheists because it undermines equality.

"How can you say it's equal to say to some people that they have to listen to other people espouse religious dogma in the name of the government?" he said.

After his first inaugural legal attempt, Newdow became famous in 2002 for his unsuccessful attempt to remove the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

Two ministers delivered Christian invocations at Bush's inaugural ceremony in 2001, and plans call for a minister to do the same before Bush takes the oath of office again next week.

In court this week, Newdow argued that the prayers violate the constitutional ban on the establishment of religion.


posted by Frodgie at 10:46 AM

 

Al Qaeda seeks tie to local gangs

A top al Qaeda lieutenant has met with leaders of a violent Salvadoran criminal gang with roots in Mexico and the United States — including a stronghold in the Washington area — in an effort by the terrorist network to seek help infiltrating the U.S.-Mexico border, law enforcement authorities said. Adnan G. El Shukrijumah, a key al Qaeda cell leader for whom the U.S. government has offered a $5 million reward, was spotted in July in Honduras meeting with leaders of El Salvador's notorious Mara Salvatrucha gang, which immigration officials said has smuggled hundreds of Central and South Americans — mostly gang members — into the United States. Although they are actively involved in alien, drug and weapons smuggling, Mara Salvatrucha members in America also have been tied to numerous killings, robberies, burglaries, carjackings, extortions, rapes and aggravated assaults — including at least seven killings in Virginia and a machete attack on a 16-year-old in Alexandria that severely mutilated his hands. The Salvadoran gang, known to law enforcement authorities as MS-13 because many members identify themselves with tattoos of the number 13, is thought to have established a major smuggling center in Matamoros, Mexico, just south of Brownsville, Texas, from where it has arranged to bring illegal aliens from countries other than Mexico into the United States. Authorities said al Qaeda terrorists hope to take advantage of a lack of detention space within the Department of Homeland Security that has forced immigration officials to release non-Mexican illegal aliens back into the United States, rather than return them to their home countries.
posted by Frodgie at 10:49 AM

 

Iraq's Future

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Iraq is a nation in transition from dictatorship to democracy, and Iraqis are on the move as they try to bring stability and peace to their home.

FOX News' Heather Nauert recently traveled to Iraq to take an in-depth look, not at the violence that still haunts Iraq, but at the steps being taken to restore a more normal life.

Click on the highlighted sections below to read overviews of each of the three parts in the series, and click on the video portions in the box to the right to watch Nauert's reports.

Iraq Moves Ahead

The headlines and pictures from Iraq are grim these days, especially with the surge in violence as the national election approaches. But progress is being made in pockets across the country.

Libraries have expanded, women's centers have cropped up and in a northern city called Irbil, an international airport is opening in the hopes that the region will one day promote tourism.

Iraqis Train to Be Elite Security Fighters

Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds are working together to protect their homeland. And they're trained by American soldiers to do it.

FOX News spent a few days watching the unit train to become part of Iraq's security force, which currently has 120,000 members and a small but growing number of skilled fighters from all parts of the country.

Iraqi Voters Apprehensive but Hopeful

As the January 30 election in Iraq nears, tensions are building and election workers there are scared. Some have been killed.

The interim government admits more attacks are likely as former regime loyalists try to stop the vote from happening. People planning to go to the polls are nervous about security, but election officials say Iraqis are excited about participating.





posted by Frodgie at 10:19 AM

 

Man Arrested After Ricin Found in Home

OCALA, Fla. — A man was arrested after authorities allegedly found the deadly toxin ricin (search) stashed in a cardboard box at his home along with a small cache of weapons, officials said Thursday.

Steven Michael Ekberg (search), 22, faces up to 10 years if convicted of possession of a biological agent.

FBI agents said they didn't believe Ekberg, arrested Wednesday, had any connection with terrorist groups.

There was no explanation for how or why he obtained the ricin.

"The chemical substance is derived from the castor bean, and that's a natural substance. I don't think castor beans are difficult to obtain," said FBI Special Agent Jeff Westcott in Jacksonville.

The suspect's mother, who lives with her son, told reporters that he is "not a bad kid."

"He's not a terrorist," Theresa Ekberg told the Ocala Star-Banner. "Sometimes kids make bad choices. ... That's all I can say."

The sheriff's office was tipped off last week by an informant who alleged Ekberg had been carrying concealed weapons into clubs — and boasted of having ricin in one of several vials and glass tubes he allegedly showed off.

"Ekberg had stated that if the government ever did anything to him, he would take some sort of action," according to a federal criminal complaint.

Ekberg was arrested and released last week for alleged possession of cocaine and violating the concealed weapons law.

A search of his home then revealed a cardboard box with ricin inside, as well as an Uzi-type submachine gun and two semiautomatic rifles, a sheriff's report said.


posted by Frodgie at 10:17 AM

 

The Radical Media at Bushs' Throat Again.....Pathetic.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush says he now sees that tough talk can have an "unintended consequence."

During a round-table interview with reporters from 14 newspapers, the president, who not long ago declined to identify any mistakes he'd made during his first term, expressed misgivings for two of his most famous expressions: "Bring 'em on," in reference to Iraqis attacking U.S. troops, and his vow to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive."

"Sometimes, words have consequences you don't intend them to mean," Bush said Thursday. "'Bring 'em on' is the classic example, when I was really trying to rally the troops and make it clear to them that I fully understood, you know, what a great job they were doing. And those words had an unintended consequence. It kind of, some interpreted it to be defiance in the face of danger. That certainly wasn't the case."

On July 2, 2003, two months after he had declared an end to major combat in Iraq, Bush promised U.S. forces would stay until the creation of a free government there. To those who would attack U.S. forces in an attempt to deter that mission, Bush said, "My answer is, Bring 'em on."

In the week after the September 11 attacks, Bush was asked if he wanted bin Laden, the terrorist leader blamed for the attacks, dead.

"I want justice," Bush said. "And there's an old poster out West, that I recall, that said, 'Wanted, Dead or Alive."'

Recalling that remark, Bush told the reporters: "I can remember getting back to the White House, and Laura said, 'Why did you do that for?' I said, 'Well, it was just an expression that came out. I didn't rehearse it.'

"I don't know if you'd call it a regret, but it certainly is a lesson that a president must be mindful of, that the words that you sometimes say. ... I speak plainly sometimes, but you've got to be mindful of the consequences of the words. So put that down. I don't know if you'd call that a confession, a regret, something."

During his second debate last year with presidential challenger Sen. John Kerry, Bush was asked to name three instances in which he had made a wrong decision. At the time he declined to identify any specific mistakes.

Reporters at Thursday's round-table also asked Bush about the high price tag for his second inaugural celebration and suggestions the $40 million gala, which is being paid for by private donations -- much of it coming from lobbyists and corporations -- be scaled down.

"The inauguration is a great festival of democracy," he said. "People are going to come from all over the country who are celebrating democracy and celebrating my victory, and I'm glad to celebrate with them."


posted by Frodgie at 10:15 AM

 

Prisoners from Iraq's Abu Ghraib escape

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraqi police searched Friday for 28 prisoners from Abu Ghraib who escaped while being transported to another facility in Baghdad, police and U.S. military spokesmen said.

Two police officers may have been involved in Thursday night's escape, Iraqi officials said.

The detainees were aboard a bus from the prison to another Iraqi correctional facility, said Lt. Col. Barry Johnson.

Iraqi police said several detainees had their hands bound with rope.

The inmates loosened the rope and managed to overpower the police and guards. One took an AK-47 assault rifle from a police officer and shot the officer, critically wounding him, police said. Four guards and the bus driver were severely beaten, police said.

Handcuffs and rope were found scattered in the street afterward.

The 38 detainees on the bus initially escaped, but Iraqi police said they captured 10 of them shortly afterward.

A source with the Iraqi Interior Ministry said authorities were investigating the trip because it was odd for prisoners to be moved at night with little security.

Officials said they are questioning the detainees who were recaptured.

Iraqi authorities have set up checkpoints in the area around the Sa'alam neighborhood of western Baghdad where the escape occurred, the Interior Ministry source said.

Of the 28 escapees, two are believed to be Egyptians. The detainees are accused of committing crimes against Iraqis, ranging from murder to theft.


posted by Frodgie at 10:13 AM

 

Prince Charles is refusing to force Harry to visit Auschwitz....I agree.

Prince Charles is refusing to force Harry to visit Auschwitz or make a TV apology for his Nazi fancy dress stunt.

The Prince of Wales is angry that his son is being pilloried for what he regards as a silly but harmless prank and wants to shelter him from further bad publicity. But the outrage over 20-year-old Harry's decision to attend a party in a German soldier's uniform with a swastika armband continues to reverberate around the world.

The royal family's refusal to take further action risks provoking yet more public criticism.

Newspapers and television stations in Israel, Germany, Italy and the US have already condemned Harry as stupid and insensitive. But after a series of meetings with senior officials, Charles made it clear that he would refuse to bow to political pressure from senior British politicians, including Tory leader Michael Howard, who demanded Harry make a personal apology.

Charles told his senior advisers he will not allow his son to be "hung out to dry". One senior official told the Standard: "As far as the Prince is concerned Harry has apologised for his mistake. He has said sorry and that is the end of the matter."

It has been decided that after Clarence House's contrite statement yesterday nothing more would be added and there will be no gesture such as a public trip by Harry to the Auschwitz concentration camp.

The offensiveness of Harry's gaffe was compounded by the timing, which coincides with the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.

This is to be commemorated later this month in a ceremony attended by representatives from around the world.

Britain will be sending European minister Denis Mac-Shane and defence under-secretary Ivor Caplin. The royal family will be represented by Prince Edward.

Mr Howard, who is Jewish, said only a televised apology from Harry would satisfy. He said: "It would be appropriate to hear from him in person. I think it might be appropriate for him to tell us himself just how contrite he is."

Harry, due to start his military training at Sandhurst in May, is said to be "deeply upset" over the reaction.

A senior source said: "There is a feeling that although it was a genuine error and certainly ill-advised he now feels under siege.

"With the benefit of hindsight he knows he was wrong to wear the uniform and the swastika armband but some among his friends feel it has been taken out of all proportion.

"While the Prince of Wales is understandably disappointed with Harry and has made his feelings very clear, he is equally adamant that his son should not be hung out to dry."

It is understood that the Queen has rallied behind her grandson despite the condemnation.


posted by Frodgie at 10:06 AM

 

Atheist lawsuit awaits ruling

A federal judge is scheduled to rule today on a California atheist's lawsuit seeking to bar clergy-led prayer during President Bush's second inauguration next week.
Judge John D. Bates yesterday heard oral arguments in the case during a two-hour hearing before a packed courtroom in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Michael Newdow, the 50-year old Sacramento, Calif., lawyer who filed the suit against President Bush last month, took part in the proceedings by telephone.
Outside the courthouse, representatives of religious groups protested Mr. Newdow's suit. The Rev. Patrick Mahoney, executive director of the Christian Defense Coalition, and the Rev. Rob Schenck, president of the National Clergy Council, held a brief prayer service before the hearing.
They also carried petitions with 22,000 signatures they have collected supporting prayer in the inauguration, saying they will present the documents to the court today. They also plan to give copies to the Presidential Inaugural Committee.
Mr. Newdow pressed his claim that any prayers acknowledging a deity, Christian or otherwise, violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
"The government is coming out and saying, 'OK everybody, while you watch, we are a Christian nation,' " Mr. Newdow said. "It is a declaration to the nation and the world that we are a Christian nation."
Mr. Newdow, a staunch atheist, says this causes him personal injury by making him feel like an "outsider." Repeatedly during yesterday's hearing, he compared prayer during the inauguration to discrimination against blacks.
"This is just as harmful," he said.
Mr. Newdow spent much of his time explaining how this lawsuit differs from one he brought in 2002. That suit was rejected by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco.
He said he did not attend the 2001 inauguration, but plans to attend next week's event, so the prayers will be more forcefully "imposed" on him.

posted by Frodgie at 9:28 AM

 

The War Against World War IV

A Second-Term Retreat?

Will George W. Bush spend the next few years backing down from the ambitious strategy he outlined in the Bush Doctrine for fighting and winning World War IV?

To be sure, Bush himself still calls it the "war on terrorism," and has shied away from giving the name World War IV to the great conflict into which we were plunged by 9/11. (World War III, in this accounting, was the cold war.) Yet he has never hesitated to compare the fight against radical Islamism, and the forces nurturing and arming it, with those earlier struggles against Nazism and Communism. Nor has he flinched from suggesting that achieving victory as the Bush Doctrine defines it may take as long as it took to win World War III (which lasted more than four decades—from the promulgation of the Truman Doctrine in 1947 until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989).

Even more than the Truman Doctrine in its time, the Bush Doctrine was subjected to a ferocious assault by domestic opponents from the moment it was enunciated. Then, when Bush actually started acting on it, the ferocity grew even more intense, finally reaching record levels of vituperation during the presidential campaign. But in defiance of everything that was being thrown at him, and in spite of setbacks in Iraq that posed a serious threat to his reelection, Bush never yielded an inch. Instead of scurrying for protective cover from the assault, he stood out in the open and countered by reaffirming his belief in the soundness of the doctrine as well as his firm intention to stick with it in the years ahead.

Thus, over and over again he said that he would stay the course in Iraq; that he would go on working for the spread of liberty throughout the greater Middle East (and democratic reform as a condition for the establishment of a Palestinian state); that he would continue reserving the right to take preemptive military action against what in his best judgment were gathering dangers to the security of this country; and that he would if necessary do so unilaterally.

Why then, given that he was reelected on this pledge, should a question now be raised about whether he will keep it? And why—more strangely still—should the answer most often be that he is indeed about to renege?

Because, comes the response, whether he likes it or not, and whether he intends to or not, he will simply have no other choice. Either his resolve will be sapped by the knowledge that he lacks the necessary political support to push any further ahead with the Bush Doctrine; or he will be prevented by a certain "law" of democratic politics governing Presidents who win a second term; or he will (as Irving Kristol famously said of liberals who turned into neoconservatives) be mugged by reality.

War and Moral Values

The notion that the Bush Doctrine lacks solid political backing derives from the widely publicized National Election Pool (NEP) exit poll. According to this poll, more voters (22 percent of the sample) were motivated primarily by a concern with moral values than by anything else, and it was among these voters that Bush did best against his Democratic opponent John F. Kerry; and while he also won overwhelmingly among the smaller group (19 percent) who were mainly worried about terrorism, he lost by a correspondingly large margin with the still smaller proportion (15 percent) who chose Iraq as their paramount concern.


posted by Frodgie at 9:35 AM

 

Indonesia denies U.S. pilots use of airspace; carrier leaves

ABOARD THE USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN — The aircraft carrier leading the U.S. military's tsunami relief effort steamed out of Indonesian waters yesterday after the country declined to let the ship's fighter pilots use its airspace for training missions — part of a broad effort by Indonesia to reassert control over its territory.
The USS Abraham Lincoln's diversion, which was not expected to affect aid flights, came as the White House asked the Indonesian government to explain why it appears to be demanding that the U.S. military and other foreign troops providing disaster relief leave the country by the end of March.
"We've seen the reports. ... We'll seek further clarification from Indonesia about what this means," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. "We hope that the government of Indonesia and the military in Indonesia will continue the strong support they have provided to the international relief efforts so far."
The Indonesian government said foreign troops would be out of the country by March 31. "A three-month period is enough, even sooner the better," Indonesian Vice President Jusuf Kalla said Tuesday.
U.S. Marines have scaled back plans to send hundreds of troops ashore to build roads and clear rubble. The two sides reached a compromise in which the Americans agreed not to set up a base camp on Indonesia or carry weapons.
Instead, the Marines — about 2,000 of whom were diverted to tsunami relief from duty in Iraq — will keep a "minimal footprint" in the country, with most returning to ships at night, said Col. Tom Greenwood, commander of the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit.
The moves highlight sensitivities in Indonesia about foreign military forces operating freely in the midst of a decades-old separatist insurgency.
The Indonesian military has warned that areas of tsunami-battered Aceh province might not be safe for aid workers, underscoring its efforts to regain control of the long-troubled region on Sumatra island.
However, the leadership of a rebel movement fighting for independence in Aceh has called for cease-fire talks with the government, a statement today said.
Rebel prime minister Malik Mahmud said in the statement that his men were willing to sit down for discussions with Jakarta to ease fears over the safety of foreign humanitarian workers operating in Aceh.
Aceh is the scene of a decades-old conflict between separatists and government troops, though both sides say they won't carry out attacks during the tsunami emergency.
The Indonesian government traditionally has barred foreigners from visiting Aceh, but relented after the tsunami struck, because there was no other option but to invite foreign troops to deliver aid and set up field hospitals.

posted by Frodgie at 9:20 AM

 

Immigration plan discouraged by GOP lawmakers

President Bush cannot push his guest-worker program for illegal immigrants and new foreign workers and still win reforms to Social Security or the tax code, congressional opponents said yesterday.
"There are a lot of ambitious plans, a lot of necessary reforms that need to take place, but this rush toward amnesty-light should not be one of the priorities," said Rep. J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Republican, who called himself a friend and political ally of the president, but said Mr. Bush's immigration proposal would hurt his broader legislative agenda.
"It would just be sad for the president to tie his shoelaces together right out of the starting block," Mr. Hayworth said.
Mr. Bush, in an interview with editors and reporters of The Washington Times on Tuesday in the Oval Office, said he will put his political muscle into passing a guest-worker program this year and predicted that he would succeed. He also said he will overcome opposition to his immigration plan, Social Security reform and major tax-code changes, just as he did when he won a sizable tax-cut package in 2001.
"You're probably sitting there saying, 'Has the guy bit off more than he can chew?' The answer is, we will work as hard as we can to get as much as we can get done, as quickly as possible," the president said.
Last January, Mr. Bush proposed allowing foreign workers to apply for renewable three-year work permits. Illegal immigrants already in the United States would be eligible and would not have to face the deportation and waiting period before re-entering the country that the law now requires.
But soon after he made his proposal, the president's aides faced tough criticism from Republican lawmakers at a retreat in Philadelphia, and Mr. Bush seemed to put the proposal on the back burner.
Now his renewed focus sounds "petulant," said Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican and head of the House Immigration Reform Caucus.
"It almost looks like it's just simply one of those 'I'll show them' sort of things. It really does," Mr. Tancredo said. "It does look like the fact that his efforts have been stalled by the last Congress — that really put him in sort of a feisty mood. It really does seem that way."
Mr. Tancredo also said it would be a "waste" of political capital for Mr. Bush.

posted by Frodgie at 9:15 AM

 

U.S. Mostly Mum on Musharraf Power Grab

WASHINGTON — Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's (search) potentially explosive announcement last month that he would not step down as military chief and rule his country as a civilian drew barely a whisper from the U.S. media and Washington officials.

The silence, say foreign policy analysts, reveals as much about U.S. policy toward Pakistan since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks as any public remarks could. While U.S. officials may not wish to criticize Musharraf, analysts say it might be a mistake in the long term for the United States to turn a blind eye to Pakistan's military ruler.

"The tensions are between long-term objectives and short-term objectives," said Ashley Tellis, foreign policy scholar at Carnegie Institute for International Peace (search). "Our objective in the short term is to defeat Al Qaeda (search), and we essentially need Musharraf as the head of the army that is assisting us. The long-term objective is to have Pakistan a democracy, meaning you don't want a military chief as head of the country."

Just before the new year, Musharraf, who has held office since taking over in a bloodless military coup in 1999, announced he would not honor a promise he made in 2003. He had pledged to hang up his uniform at the end of 2004 in return for broader constitutional powers allowing him to dissolve Parliament and the prime minister's office at his discretion.


posted by Frodgie at 9:08 AM

 

General: 'Glitch' caused missile defense test failure

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The failure of an interceptor missile to launch during a December test of the Pentagon's soon-to-be-activated missile defense system was caused by a "minor glitch" in its computer software, and the setback will not delay future testing, a senior official said Wednesday.

It was the first time the booster rocket was to be tested with a new and improved "kill vehicle," the device atop the rocket that uses computer codes and sensors to guide itself into the path of an incoming enemy missile. The device "kills" the target by colliding with it.

Air Force Lt. Gen. Henry A. Obering, director of the Missile Defense Agency, said the December 15 test will be redone in mid-February, and additional tests in April, July and September will proceed as planned.

In the meantime, the eight missile interceptors that are now in underground silos in Alaska and California, while not yet kept ready for use around the clock are capable of being activated for use against an actual missile attack against the United States, Obering told reporters.

He said he did not know when the system, which links the interceptor missiles with a network of tracking radars and a command post, would be formally declared ready for use. The Bush administration had made it a goal to activate the system by the end of 2004, citing North Korea as the primary threat to launch a ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States.

Obering said his agency plans to have 18 interceptors in silos by the end of this year.

In the December 15 test, a target missile, a simulated ICBM with a mock warhead was launched without problem from Kodiak, Alaska. But the interceptor that was to fly into the target's path in outer space, destroying it by direct impact, did not launch from its pad at the Ronald Reagan Test Site at Kwajalein Atoll in the central Pacific Ocean.

Offering the first public explanation of what went wrong, Obering said the blame lay with an automated pre-launch check of the communications flow between the interceptor and the main flight control computer. Detecting too many missed messages, the system shut down automatically, as designed.

In response, the Pentagon will increase the pre-launch tolerance for missed messages. Obering said the tolerance level was set too low; increasing it will not risk a flight guidance failure, he said.

"We kind of did this to ourselves," Obering said, by setting the tolerance level so low.

"This has been nothing more than a minor glitch," he added. "Statistically, it's a very rare occurrence and most likely would not happen again."


posted by Frodgie at 9:01 AM

 

Liar, Liar, Now You're Fired

If CNN doesn't hire them, Dan Rather and his producers can always get a job teaching at the Columbia School of Journalism. The Columbia Journalism Review recently defended the CBS report on George Bush using forged National Guard documents with the Tawana Brawley excuse: The documents might be "fake but accurate."
Dan Rather and his crack investigative producer Mary Mapes are still not admitting the documents were fakes. Of course, Dan Rather is still not admitting Kerry lost the election or that a woman named Juanita Broaddrick credibly accused Bill Clinton of rape.

Responding to Bill O'Reilly's question in a May 15, 2001, interview on "The O'Reilly Factor" about why CBS News had mentioned crackpot rumors of George Bush's drug use on air seven times, but the name "Juanita Broaddrick" had never crossed Dan Rather's lips (and was only mentioned twice on all of CBS News), Rather replied: "Juanita Broaddrick, to be perfectly honest, I don't remember all the details of Juanita Broaddrick. But I will say that – and you can castigate me if you like. When the charge has something to do with somebody's private sex life, I would prefer not to run any of it."

If only the press had extended that same courtesy to Mike Tyson! Rape has as much to do with "somebody's private sex life" as Bush's National Guard service does.

Admittedly, Juanita Broaddrick's charge against Clinton – that Bill Clinton raped her so brutally that her clothing was torn and her lip was swollen and bleeding, hence his parting words of "you'd better put some ice on that" – was not a story on the order of Augusta National Golf Course's exclusion of women members. But, unlike the Bush drug-use charge, which remains unsupported to this day, Broaddrick's allegations had been fully corroborated by NBC News – which then refused to air Lisa Myers' report until after Clinton's acquittal in the Senate.

Fortunately for Ms. Mapes, Rather also described Bill Clinton as "honest," explaining to O'Reilly, "I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things." This must have come as great comfort to Mapes, as she based an entire story about Bush's outrageous behavior in the National Guard on one Lt. Col. Bill Burkett.

Among the issues that might have raised questions about relying on Burkett as your source before accusing a sitting president of having disobeyed direct military orders are:

Burkett had a long-standing grudge against the National Guard for failing to pay for his medical treatment for a rare tropical disease he claims he contracted during Guard service in Panama.

He blamed Bush, who was governor at the time, for the Guard's denial of medical benefits because, as everyone knows, the Texas governor's main job is processing medical claims from former National Guard members.

After leaving the Guard, Burkett suffered a nervous breakdown and was hospitalized for depression.

At the meeting where he was supposed to give Mapes the National Guard documents, Burkett brought "two binders full of depositions and other documents that were apparently from his litigation with the National Guard over health benefits" – apparently he forgot the two shoeboxes full of UFO photos he'd collected over the years.
posted by Frodgie at 8:25 AM

 

Iran may resume uranium enrichment

TEHRAN: Iran may resume uranium enrichment – which can be used to make atomic bombs – in March if talks with the European Union fail to yield satisfactory progress, a senior Iranian security official says.

If the talks go well, Hossein Mousavian told Reuters that Tehran was prepared to extend until June the enrichment freeze it began in late November in an effort to disprove US accusations it is seeking nuclear weapons.

"The outcome of the talks will have a great impact on Iran's decision," said Mousavian, a member of Iran's nuclear negotiating team with the EU and head of the foreign policy committee on the Supreme National Security Council.

"If the talks end without any result, March itself could be the date for resuming enrichment.

"I am optimistic that we will reach an agreement on the objective guarantees by June and I believe this period is sufficient for reaching a mutual understanding," he added, explaining suspension would continue throughout these talks.

Tehran has consistently said its freeze on nuclear work was voluntary and would last only a matter of months. But the possibility enrichment could resume as soon as March is likely to concern Washington, which has given only lukewarm support to the EU initiative to engage with the Islamic state.

Iran denies seeking nuclear weapons but agreed to freeze sensitive atomic work, including uranium enrichment, last year to avoid referral to the United Nations Security Council, where it could have faced economic sanctions.

Led by Britain, Germany and France, the EU is trying to persuade Iran to give up work that could be used to make atomic warheads in return for a package of incentives including trade deals and help with a civilian nuclear programme.


posted by Frodgie at 8:12 AM

 

How to define success in the war on terror

What is success?"

So asked a senior federal law-enforcement official at a recent meeting I attended in Washington, D.C. The context was the war on terrorism.

This was not a rhetorical question. The official was mulling over how to measure success in the counter-terror war. He seemed uncertain and appeared to be seeking an answer for himself.

What he did know, however, was that whatever success may be in such a war, domestic law enforcement — by itself, in any case — was not enough.

One significant difficulty is that the culture of law enforcement does not lend itself neatly to dealing with strategic-intelligence issues. Long having been rewarded for "cracking" individual cases and presenting glossy press conferences, law enforcement has been confounded by a murky environment in which to "catch them in the act" is not only extraordinarily difficult, but can also represent a fatally late failure.

To deter terrorists from launching attacks is better than catching them in the act, but as the official asked, "How do we know whether what we do has a deterrence effect?" In other words, how do we know if our homeland-security measures actually deterred attacks — for there have been none since 9/11 — or have the terrorists merely been waiting and preparing for the "right moment" to strike again?

In the absence of hard, measurable data, the official considered the effects of our protective efforts to be marginal at best — psychologically reassuring to the public at large, perhaps, but not particularly central to the core issue of combating terrorists.

So preemption has been offered as the more-effective solution. Since passive, defensive measures alone cannot possibly protect against every single terrorist attack, taking the fight to the terrorists before they can carry out their plans has become more attractive and acceptable.

But even preemption has limits. Preemption can take a long time, requires considerable military-economic resources and is often politically very divisive both inside and outside the United States. Even when the right conditions are met, we cannot pursue every terrorist cell, sanctuary and state sponsor without exhausting our vast, but ultimately limited, resources. Whereas homeland security offers a short-term measure, preemption serves, at best, as a medium-term response to terrorism.


posted by Frodgie at 8:00 AM

 

Bush Vows to Push Immigration Proposal....It's About Time.....

WASHINGTON — President Bush (search) is vowing to push ahead with his proposal to grant temporary work visas (search) to some illegal immigrants despite opposition from his conservative base.

"Look, whether or not you agree with the solution or not, we have a problem in America when you've got 8 million undocumented workers here," he told The Washington Times in an interview for Wednesday's editions.

"I believe the president has got to set big agenda items and solve big problems," the president said. "Obviously, we're going to have to work on it, just like Social Security (search). This will require the expenditure of capital."

He said the "solution is not instantaneous citizenship" but "something more rational than that."

The president expressed confidence that he can persuade Congress to move on his immigration bill, despite opposition from some in his own party.

Bush's plan, outlined a year ago, would grant temporary work visas to foreign workers as long as U.S. workers cannot or do not want to fill the job.

Critics say this would encourage more people to cross the Mexican border illegally to obtain work.

Insisting his plan is not an amnesty, Bush described the current situation as a "bureaucratic nightmare."


posted by Frodgie at 7:50 AM

 

'We cannot become Republican clones'....You are a long way from that Ted. Really.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrats should have talked more directly about fundamental values and ideals in last year's presidential campaign, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy said, outlining an agenda aimed at moving the party and the nation forward.

In remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday to the National Press Club, Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, said Democrats must do a better job speaking about the principles they believe in and that have guided the party.

"We cannot move our party or our nation forward under pale colors and timid voices," said Kennedy, who has served 42 years in the Senate. "We cannot become Republican clones. If we do, we will lose again, and deserve to lose."

But at the same time, Kennedy said Democratic Sen. John Kerry's narrow election loss also showed that the party must "recognize issues of deep conscience in policy positions we take." Referring to abortion, he said Democrats should not yield on a woman's right to choose, but should also acknowledge that "we are a better society when abortions are rare."

Kennedy's speech came as Democrats -- divided and battered by the second bitter presidential defeat in a row -- continue to wrangle over their party's direction.

Ever since Kerry's loss -- and GOP's gains in both the House and Senate -- Democrats have been chewing over their inability to connect with enough voters to wrest the Oval Office from a president weakened by a faltering economy and increasingly unpopular war in Iraq.

And they have debated how to compete with Republicans for the support of social conservatives whose votes may have been swayed by hot button family values issues like abortion, religion and gay marriage.

Some pundits have called for the party to get back to its liberal roots and take back the moral high ground, where the GOP has successfully gained traction. But others have recalled Bill Clinton's success in taking a centrist approach to the White House.


posted by Frodgie at 7:46 AM

 

When Is Speeding Appropriate?

WASHINGTON -- On any given road, at any given time, the posted speed limit might be wildly dangerous -- or completely absurd. So how fast (or slowly) should we drive?

An interstate highway with a posted maximum of 65 mph might be perfectly safe to travel at 75 or 80 mph on a clear summer -- but treacherous at 45 mph in January, after a heavy snow. Common sense tells us the posted limit of 65 mph is too low in the first instance -- and a recipe for a wreck in the second. Most of us therefore continually adjust our speed to match conditions -- without having to be told and no matter what some sign by the side of the road happens to say. We notch it down when it's necessary -- and ignore the posted maximum when it's obviously safe to do so.

But whether we get a ticket or not typically depends solely on a number pulled out of a hat -- not whether the speed we happened to be driving at that moment was safe given the conditions.

This is the single biggest flaw with speed enforcement in our country. It is random and arbitrary; it's definitely (and obviously) not based on promoting safe driving. If it were, otherwise safe and sane drivers wouldn't be in constant jeopardy of receiving expensive "speeding" tickets and insurance surcharges. Instead, it's based on a cynical dragnet-style approach that leaves judgment by the wayside, with a fixation on enforcing what amount to "technical fouls" rather than genuinely dangerous driving. The system as it exists also creates an entirely unnecessary adversarial relationship between the motoring public and law enforcement -- which has come to be viewed by great swaths of the public as little better than armed tax collectors whose object is to "harass and collect."

CLEARLY, THERE IS SOMETHING wrong with the way speed limits are enforced when almost all of us -- from soccer moms to businessman Bobs -- are routinely in violation of them. Either that or a majority of us are simply reckless daredevils with a cavalier attitude toward death and a sociopathic indifference toward the safety of our fellow man. That is both insulting and palpably untrue. In other walks of life, most of us have no trouble obeying the law and behaving in a safe, responsible manner toward others. Why? Because the laws are reasonable, and we understand the difference between right and wrong. Can it be possible that we ditch our judgment and sense of right and wrong when we get into our cars? Is it possible to be rational, considerate, and respectful in other areas of life -- but transformed into reckless, irresponsible loons by our motor vehicles? Or are the laws themselves simply unreasonable, lacking common sense and arbitrary -- and therefore unworthy of our respect?

All evidence points to the latter. The mere act of traveling faster than a posted limit, as such, has absolutely no correlation with a higher risk of being involved in an accident. If that were not the case, then we should have seen a substantial uptick in motor vehicle fatalities after 1995, when Congress finally abandoned the Nixon-era 55-mph National Maximum Speed Limit and gave states the authority to set higher maximums -- which most of them did. Today, most highways have speed limits set at 60, 65, 70 or even 75 mph -- with no corresponding increase in highway deaths.

The old saw, "speed kills" should be re-stated: It is inappropriate speed that kills -- and that is quite a different thing.

posted by Frodgie at 7:42 AM

 

Bush-neocon parting of the ways?

Last Thursday, word spread across Washington that U.S. trade rep Robert Zoellick would become Condi Rice's No. 2 at State.

This was followed by word that State's super-hawk, John Bolton, whom neoconservatives had touted for No. 2, would be leaving "for the private sector."


In a Friday Washington Post piece, "Wolf at the Door," Al Kamen reported the "buzz" that Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz had gone to see the president to tell him Wolfowitz would be leaving Defense. Wolfowitz hastily denied the report.

Friday's Washington Times carried a report that neocon Stephen Cambone, Rumsfeld's intelligence chief, "is thinking about private-sector employment."

The neoconservative hour may be coming to an end in the Bush era. Reason: The cakewalk war they plotted long before 9-11, on which their dreams of Middle East empire and reputations hang, has gone awry.

A year ago, Gen. John Abizaid said he faced 5,000 insurgents. He has now raised that to 20,000, though U.S. forces have killed and captured thousands of enemy in the last year. Iraqi intelligence chief Gen. Abdullah al-Shahwani now claims enemy fighters may number 30,000.

Call them Baathists, Sadaamites, jihadis, insurgents ... they have shown a disposition to fight – despite their inferiority in armor and weapons – that our Iraqi allies have not. And they appear to have an ample supply of men willing to give their lives in suicide bombings.

While the Iraqi army and police have fought often and suffered much, they have yet to show the same aggressiveness as the insurgents. Rarely does one read of our Iraqi allies initiating an attack. In Mosul, 80 percent of the Iraqi police deserted or defected under fire. America may not be losing this war, but we are not winning it, with three times as many enemy attacks every day now as a year ago.

Elections are now three weeks away. But Lt. Gen. Thomas Metz, U.S. ground commander, says four provinces – including Baghdad – are still unsafe for voting. And Rumsfeld is sending retired Gen. Gary Luck to Iraq to conduct an "open-ended review" of U.S. war policy.

Dissent in the U.S. establishment is growing louder. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser to George H.W. Bush, fears the elections, by giving the Shia majority dominance of Iraqi politics, could lead to "incipient civil war." Scowcroft thinks America's best bet may be to turn Iraq over to the United Nations or NATO, whose presence might be less detested and inflammatory than our own.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, seems even more pessimistic: "I do not think we can stay in Iraq in the fashion we are now in. ... If it cannot be changed drastically, it should be terminated." Brzezinski estimates it would take 500,000 troops, $500 billion and resumption of the draft to pacify Iraq.

Indeed, if there are 30,000 enemy fighters in Iraq, the United States, with 150,000 troops in country, lacks the forces to defeat them. By the old measure of guerrilla war, a defender needs a 10-to-one advantage.

If the insurgents can put 10,000 more fighters into the field, we would then need 400,000 troops to defeat them. It is difficult to believe President Bush intends any such commitment.

Thus, all now depends on the Iraqis – for it is, after all, their country and future. But, while the Shia and Kurds may be willing to fight for a government that empowers the Shia and gives Kurds the autonomy they have long sought, why should Sunnis fight for a regime that dispossesses them of the position and power they have held since Ottoman days?


posted by Frodgie at 7:37 AM

 

Search for Banned Arms In Iraq Ended Last Month

The hunt for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in Iraq has come to an end nearly two years after President Bush ordered U.S. troops to disarm Saddam Hussein. The top CIA weapons hunter is home, and analysts are back at Langley.

In interviews, officials who served with the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) said the violence in Iraq, coupled with a lack of new information, led them to fold up the effort shortly before Christmas.

Duty In Iraq
We want to give you the opportunity to show firsthand what it is like to live and work in Iraq.

Four months after Charles A. Duelfer, who led the weapons hunt in 2004, submitted an interim report to Congress that contradicted nearly every prewar assertion about Iraq made by top Bush administration officials, a senior intelligence official said the findings will stand as the ISG's final conclusions and will be published this spring.

President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials asserted before the U.S. invasion in March 2003 that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, had chemical and biological weapons, and maintained links to al Qaeda affiliates to whom it might give such weapons to use against the United States.

Bush has expressed disappointment that no weapons or weapons programs were found, but the White House has been reluctant to call off the hunt, holding out the possibility that weapons were moved out of Iraq before the war or are well hidden somewhere inside the country. But the intelligence official said that possibility is very small.

Duelfer is back in Washington, finishing some addenda to his September report before it is reprinted.

"There's no particular news in them, just some odds and ends," the intelligence official said. The Government Printing Office will publish it in book form, the official said.

The CIA declined to authorize any official involved in the weapons search to speak on the record for this story. The intelligence official offered an authoritative account of the status of the hunt on the condition of anonymity. The agency did confirm that Duelfer is wrapping up his work and will not be replaced in Baghdad.

The ISG, established to search for weapons but now enmeshed in counterinsurgency work, remains under Pentagon command and is being led by Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Joseph McMenamin.

Intelligence officials said there is little left for the ISG to investigate because Duelfer's last report answered as many outstanding questions as possible. The ISG has interviewed every person it could find connected to programs that ended more than 10 years ago, and every suspected site within Iraq has been fully searched, or stripped bare by insurgents and thieves, according to several people involved in the weapons hunt.

Satellite photos show that entire facilities have been dismantled, possibly by scrap dealers who sold off parts and equipment to buyers around the world.


posted by Frodgie at 7:32 AM

 

Mobile phones tumour risk to young children

CHILDREN under the age of eight should not use mobile phones, parents were advised last night after an authoritative report linked heavy use to ear and brain tumours and concluded that the risks had been underestimated by most scientists.
Professor Sir William Stewart, chairman of the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), said that evidence of potentially harmful effects had become more persuasive over the past five years.

The news prompted calls for phones to carry health warnings and panic in parts of the industry. One British manufacturer immediately suspended a model aimed at four to eight-year-olds.

The number of mobiles in Britain has doubled to 50 million since the first government-sponsored report in 2000. The number of children aged between five and nine using mobiles has increased fivefold in the same period.

In his report, Mobile Phones and Health, Sir William said that four studies have caused concern. One ten-year study in Sweden suggests that heavy mobile users are more prone to non-malignant tumours in the ear and brain while a Dutch study had suggested changes in cognitive function. A German study has hinted at an increase in cancer around base stations, while a project supported by the EU had shown evidence of cell damage from fields typical of those of mobile phones.

"All of these studies have yet to be replicated and are of varying quality but we can't dismiss them out of hand," Sir William said. If there was a health risk - which remained unproven - it would have a greater effect on the young than on older people, he added.

For children aged between 8 and 14, parents had to make their own judgments about the risks and benefits. "I can't believe that for three to eight year-olds they can be readily justified," he said.

David Hart, general secretary of the National Association of Headteachers, called last night for a ban on mobiles in schools.

Mobile phone companies reacted furiously, saying that the report fanned public concern without presenting new research. The youth market is highly lucrative because teenagers are more likely to use video downloads and other services.

The World Health Organisation is preparing to publish an international report, drawing on hundreds of studies conducted over a decade, which many hope will give a definitive judgment on mobile phone safety.

The board's report says that while there is a lack of hard information of damage to health, the approach should be precautionary. Sir William said: "Just because there are 50 million of them out there doesn't mean they are absolutely safe."

One school in the North East has begun using mobile scanners to prevent pupils using mobiles in class. "Outside college hours it is up to parents, but in our care if mobiles are found on children, they are confiscated and returned to the parents," David Riden, vice principal of Tollbar Business and Enterprise College in New Waltham, said.


posted by Frodgie at 7:29 AM

 

The Iraqi "Death Squads" Myth

Take an anonymous Pentagon leak from a "high level military officer," add an appalling lack of knowledge of history, and compound it with ignorance of special warfare tactics. This process describes the article published by Newsweek breathlessly revealing that a "desperate" Defense Secretary Rumsfeld is "considering" employing the "Salvadoran option" to thwart the "growing quagmire" of the Iraq War. This terrible option, reports Newsweek, was used effectively in the counter-guerrilla wars in El Salvador in the early 1980s. It involves U.S. special operations forces leading indigenous "death squads" to root out and kill or capture enemy military and political leaders. In a backs-against-the-wall-with-all-guns-blazing reporting style, the article suggests that, once exercised, this method might win the war but implies that the cost in innocent life could be horrific.

This is utter nonsense.

Let's look at history first. Just what was going on in the early 1980s? The Soviet Union was strong and expanding. Under President Jimmy Carter, the Russians invaded Afghanistan. Carter punished them by canceling the 1980 Olympic Games, the one peaceful event that united all nations every four years. Carter then adroitly destabilized two areas in the world – Iran and Nicaragua – and almost toppled another friend, South Korea. The benefits of his policy in the Persian Gulf began with the hostage crisis and persist with the growing Islamist movement threatening us today. In Central America, the communist Sandinistas, led by the Ortega brothers, stepped into the void created by the toppling of the Somoza regime. They immediately launched and accelerated support for Cuban-inspired communist insurgencies in El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and Costa Rica. The Soviets installed a dictator puppet in Grenada and began to construct airfields to accept high performance military aircraft. The Ortegas discussed acquisition of MiG fighter aircraft. El Salvador was run by an increasingly harsh military dictatorship. Multiple, compounded, failed foreign policy initiatives helped the nation dump Carter in 1980.

After Ronald Reagan defeated Carter, he announced a new, aggressive policy in the region: we would assist these nations resist the incursion of communism and help them achieve democratic status. Such idealism was denigrated by the usual suspects (the Left and the media, but then I repeat myself) as being hypocritical. "How can you support brutal dictators by pretending to export democracy?"

posted by Frodgie at 6:55 AM

 

Nuclear Egypt?

As if North Korean and Ira nian nuclear weapons programs weren't enough, now it seems Egypt may be pursuing the bomb as well.
The evidence isn't conclusive yet. But according to an initial International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) statement last week, several Egyptian scientists conducted unreported nuclear experiments over the past 30 years.

That's reason for concern. Egypt, a signatory to the United Nations' nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT), had promised to swear off nuclear weapons. And, like all treaty members, Cairo is required to supply the IAEA with a written declaration of past nuclear work.

Well, it turns out that Egypt forgot to mention some nuclear activities in its 1982 declaration. And it failed to inform the IAEA about some new work since then, too.

Egypt denies violating the treaty, but the IAEA is analyzing environmental samplings from nuclear facilities near Cairo, looking for evidence of uranium enrichment or plutonium extraction.

Discovery of an Egyptian nuclear program would rattle Middle East peace and stability, further pull the rug out from under teetering U.N. nonproliferation treaties and possibly crumble Egypt's relatively strong relationship with the U.S.

* Nonproliferation: While some pooh-pooh the idea of an Egyptian nuclear program, it really isn't that far-fetched. Pakistan's rogue nuclear scientist, A.Q. Khan, is said to have been in contact with Egypt, and Cairo has had a long-standing ballistic missile relationship with nuclear-capable North Korea.

Also, during a Sino-Egyptian summit two years ago, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak signed a peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement with China. That same year, press reports indicated that China (also nuclear-capable) was helping Egypt mine uranium in the Sinai desert.

Catching another country with its hand in the nuclear cookie-jar will implode the NPT, and put couscous on the face of Mohammed El Baradei, the courtly Egyptian who is seeking an unprecedented (U.S.-opposed) third term as head of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency

* Middle East: Discovery of an Egyptian nuclear program would certainly alarm Israel, which has its own nuclear deterrent. But it would really set off alarm bells for Egypt's other neighbors — Libya and Saudi Arabia.

(Libya is in the process of dismantling its nuclear weapons program, while Saudi Arabia is rumored to be building one.)

Conventional wisdom says that the Egyptian program is aimed at Israel. But the smart money says Cairo may be as concerned about balancing Iran's nuclear weapons program as that of its immediate neighbors — or Israel.

posted by Frodgie at 10:03 AM

 

U.S.: Bin Laden Could Be in Afghanistan

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- Osama bin Laden and other militant leaders could be hiding in eastern Afghanistan, the commander of U.S. forces along a key stretch of the Pakistani border told The Associated Press on Monday.

Col. Gary Cheek, who controls U.S. forces in 16 Afghan provinces, also said Taliban leaders appear to be losing control of a stubborn insurgency, three years after their ouster for harboring the al-Qaida leader.

Forces loyal to Taliban commanders such as Jalaluddin Haqqani, and to renegade warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar still attack U.S. forces near the mountainous Pakistani frontier, and Cheek said the rebel leaders could also be present in his area of responsibility.

"Leaders like Hekmatyar, Haqqani, bin Laden could possibly be in our region, but any information we have on them would be very close-hold (closely guarded) for operational reasons," Cheek told AP by e-mail.

American officials insist there is no let up in the hunt for the al-Qaida leader, who is believed to have escaped Afghan and U.S. forces near the Tora Bora cave complex in eastern Afghanistan in late 2001.

There are now about 18,000 mainly American soldiers in Afghanistan, pursuing militants in the south and east as well as helping the government of President Hamid Karzai to regain control of the war-ravaged country.

Speculation about bin Laden's whereabouts has centered on the border region, particularly areas of Pakistan populated by tribes who share the Taliban's strict interpretation of Islam and where foreign veterans of the 1980s war against Soviet forces in Afghanistan settled.

Pakistan has mounted a series of bloody military operations there, claiming to have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters and that they found no trace of the chief suspect in the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.

American generals and senior diplomats have said recently they have no firm intelligence of where bin Laden is hiding. However, Karzai said last month that bin Laden was "definitely" still in the region.

Cheek said that while insurgents remained a danger to his forces, the number of foreign fighters among them was not "significant."

Moreover, militant activity in the east had been "sporadic over the past six months and does not appear tied to any specific strategy or agenda."

"It would appear that the Taliban in particular may be fragmenting and that its central core of leadership is unable to direct coordinated actions," Cheek said in a written response to an AP reporter's questions. "I would guess that there are a lot of things the Taliban and others want to do, but their ability to do those things are limited."

He said most of the leaders he was tracking are field commanders suspected of attacks and bombings.


posted by Frodgie at 8:01 AM

 

Terrorist aid slammed

JAKARTA, Indonesia — Separatist rebels from the tsunami-struck province of Aceh yesterday deplored the presence of two Muslim terrorist groups helping survivors, saying they were using aid to push a religious agenda.
The Free Aceh Movement (GAM) said in a statement from its government in exile in Stockholm that the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) and the Indonesian Mujahideen Council (MMI), which incudes Laskar Mujahidin, "would squander scarce resources."
The statement branded the two groups as "criminal organizations" and said they were not welcome in Aceh.
"The actions and words of FPI and MMI contradict Islamic teachings and the tolerance and faith of Acehnese Muslims," it said.
The self-styled prime minister of the government in exile, Malik Mahmud, told Reuters news agency that their brand of militant Islam was not acceptable in Aceh, which fought Dutch colonialists and Japan's World War II occupation, and whose campaign is fueled by a centuries-old nationalist movement and not by religion.
"What we don't like is they make people more confused about the situation under the pretext of giving aid, and give their version of Islam, which we think is very radical," he said in a telephone interview from Stockholm.
"They say things like the tsunami happened because Indonesia did not accept Shariah law in Aceh," Mr. Malik said.
More than 150,000 people were killed in the earthquake and ensuing tsunami that hit Aceh and nations throughout the Indian Ocean rim on Dec. 26.
MMI was founded in August 2000 with the avowed aim of promoting the adoption of strict Islamic law in secular Indonesia.
The group's founder is radical cleric Abu Bakar Bashir, the suspected leader of Jemaah Islamiah, which authorities say is part of the al Qaeda network.
The FPI was one of many small militant groups that sprang up after the 1998 fall of former President Suharto and made a splash by attacking nightclubs, brothels and other entertainment venues deemed an affront to Islam.
In a related development, Indonesia's military asked aid groups in tsunami-stricken areas yesterday to create a list of international relief workers — and to report on their movements — claiming the move was needed to protect foreigners.
The request underlined the unease with which Indonesia has faced the growth of the largest aid operation in history, replete with foreign soldiers, civilian humanitarian workers and Muslim terrorist groups in close proximity.
Indonesian authorities have long been wary of foreigners' presence in the tsunami-stricken Aceh province, where separatists have been fighting government troops for more than 20 years. Foreigners were banned from the province at the northern tip of Sumatra island until the earthquake hit Dec. 26, touching off the tsunami.
The MMI includes Laskar Mujahidin, which is known for its ninja-style, black-masked terrorists who have hunted down and killed hundreds of Christians in other parts of Indonesia.
The presence of the Muslim terrorist groups has prompted the United Nations to put its staff on high alert and to hire armed guards to patrol their compounds.
Joel Boutroue, head of the U.N. relief effort in Aceh, said he did not think Indonesia was trying to impede aid efforts with its request for information.

posted by Frodgie at 7:58 AM

 

CBS fires 4; Rather stays on

CBS News yesterday fired three news executives and a producer after an independent investigation found "60 Minutes Wednesday" violated 10 journalistic standards when it used forged documents to attack President Bush's Vietnam-era National Guard service.
Investigators said CBS failed to authenticate the documents and to investigate the background of their source. They also determined that the story was not politically motivated.
"There were lapses every step of the way," CBS Chairman Leslie Moonves said yesterday. "The bottom line is that much of the September 8 broadcast was wrong, incomplete or unfair."
But it was not enough to get CBS News anchor Dan Rather or CBS News President Andrew Heyward fired. Both were involved with airing the story. Mr. Rather, who already has announced he would leave the anchor desk on March 9, personally delivered it. He will remain on staff as an investigative correspondent.
"Dan Rather has already apologized for the segment and taken personal responsibility," Mr. Moonves said. "He voluntarily moved to set a date to step down. ... We believe any further action would be inappropriate."
Mr. Rather did not anchor last night's evening news, which led with a four-minute segment on the investigation.
The investigation — ordered by CBS executives on Sept. 22 and supervised by former U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and former Associated Press President Louis Boccardi — denied partisan interests but criticized CBS' failure to question the credibility of the documents.
"The panel cannot conclude that a political agenda at '60 Minutes Wednesday' drove either the timing of the airing of the segment or its content," they noted in the 224-page investigation. They concluded a "competitive rush" led to the mistakes.
The story was broadcast two months before President Bush was re-elected, prompting some Republican lawmakers to say it was a hatchet job on Mr. Bush meant to sway voters in the close presidential race.

posted by Frodgie at 7:56 AM

 

Three Killed, 21 Missing in California Mudslide

LOS ANGELES — Rain lashed water-logged California again early Tuesday, hampering efforts to find survivors buried under a mud slide in a coastal community and prompting hundreds to flee a mountain town before a rain-engorged lake spills over a dam.

A succession of storms, which have brought heavy snow to parts of Northern California and astonishing amounts of rain to the south, was blamed for the deaths of at least 12 people, turning normally mild Southern California into a giant flood zone.

The storm was forecast to taper off late Tuesday or early Wednesday.

In La Conchita (search), a small community of houses wedged onto a spit of land between the hills south of Santa Barbara and the Pacific Ocean, a massive mudslide Monday killed three people, injured eight and left at least 21 unaccounted for.

Some of those 21 potential victims may have been out of town, but firefighters were certain at least some were trapped in the 15 homes that were crushed under a pile of mud 30 feet high, said Keith Mashburn, the Ventura County Fire Department's (search) chief investigator.

Rescuers resumed their search before daybreak Tuesday when they detected what appeared to be slight movement in the mud and debris.


posted by Frodgie at 7:54 AM

 

In GOP, resistance on Social Security
Few share Bush's sense of urgency, appetite for battle

Many Republicans are expressing reservations about the political wisdom of President Bush's vision for restructuring Social Security, as the White House today intensifies its campaign to restructure the entitlement program for the retired and disabled.

Bush, who relishes challenging the conventional wisdoms of Washington, has privately counseled Republicans that partially privatizing Social Security will be a boon for the GOP and has urged skeptics to hold fire until he builds a public case for change. But several influential Republicans are warning that Bush's plan could backfire on the party in next year's elections, especially if the plan includes cuts in benefits.

Little enthusiasm for overhaul
Most alarming to White House officials, some congressional Republicans are panning the president's plan — even before it is unveiled. "Why stir up a political hornet's nest .... when there is no urgency?" said Rep. Rob Simmons (Conn.), who represents a competitive district. "When does the program go belly up? 2042. I will be dead by then."

• Democrats united in plans to block top Bush initiatives
• Two issues may deeply divide next Congress

Simmons said there is no way he will support Bush's idea of allowing younger Americans to divert some of their payroll taxes into private accounts, especially when there are more pressing needs, such as shoring up Medicare and providing armor to U.S. troops in Iraq.

Rep. Jack Kingston (Ga.), a member of the GOP leadership, said 15 to 20 House Republicans agree with Simmons, although others say the number is closer to 40. "Just convincing our guys not to be timid is going to be a big struggle," he said. "It's going to take a lot of convincing," which he said can be done.

"The politics of this are brutal," one senior GOP leadership aide said, adding that the White House has yet to convince most House members that the "third rail" of American politics is somehow safe.


posted by Frodgie at 7:48 AM

 

Circle Squared
Iran, Iraq, Syria.

Last week, Alhurra — an Arabic-language television station that is funded by our government — broadcast a taped interview with a terrorist named Moayad Ahmed Yasseen, the leader of Jaish Muhammad (Muhammad's Army). He was captured nearly two months ago in Fallujah during the liberation of the city.

Yasseen had been a colonel in Saddam's Army, so he was a fighter of some importance. He told Alhurra that two other former Iraqi military officers belonging to his group were sent "to Iran in April or May, where they met a number of Iranian intelligence officials." He said they also met with Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and were provided with money, weapons, "and, as far as I know, even car bombs" for Jaish Muhammad.

Yasseen also said he was told by Saddam himself, after the liberation of Iraq in the spring of 2003, to cross into Syria and meet with a Syrian intelligence officer to ask for money and weapons.

So here we have a high-ranking member of the "insurgency," a textbook case of the sort of Saddam loyalist said to compose the bulk of those fighting against the Coalition. And what does he tell us? He tells us that he has been working closely with Iran and Syria, and that this close working relationship was directed by Saddam. Moreover, his organization, Jaish Muhammad, is an ally of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, himself a longtime resident of Tehran.

In other words, while there are certainly plenty of Saddam loyalists among the terrorists fighting against us, they are receiving support from Damascus and Tehran. Yasseen's testimony is one of the first bits of intelligence from the Fallujah campaign to reach the public. If we had truly investigative journalists out there, they would be all over this story, which is only one of many that came out of Fallujah. About a month ago, a letter from an Army officer who had fought in Fallujah circulated on the net, and, like Yasseen's tape, it helps dispel some of the myths clouding our strategic vision.

"In Fallujah," we learn, "the enemy had a military-type planning system...Some of the fighters were wearing body armor and Kevlar, just like we do. Soldiers took fire from heavy machine guns (.50 cal) and came across the dead bodies of fighters from Chechnya, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Afghanistan, and so on. No, this was not just a city of pi**ed off Iraqis, mad at the Coalition for forcing Saddam out of power. It was a city full of people from all over the Middle East whose sole mission in life was to kill Americans. Problem for them is that they were in the wrong city in November 2004."

We killed more than a thousand terrorists in Fallujah, and nearly an equal number surrendered, many of whom provided our military with useful information. Presumably Yasseen's information has been exploited before letting the Syrians and Iranians know that he has told us all about them.

posted by Frodgie at 7:07 AM

 

Why the new 'moderate' leader of the 'Palestinians' may well be more dangerous than Arafat

There's some puzzlement about Mahmoud Abbas, the new chairman of the Palestinian Authority. Does he accept Israel's existence or want to destroy it?

Matthew Kalman of Canada's Globe and Mail discerns "an apparent campaign flip-flop" in this regard. A Jewish Exponent story is titled "He Wants It Both Ways: Palestinian front-runner: Anti-terror, but pro-'return'." An Australia Broadcast Corporation title acknowledges its mystification, writing that "Abbas's election tactics confuse analysts."

The media dwell on the same apparent contradiction: one moment Abbas demands that Palestinian terrorists stop their attacks on Israel and the next he (literally) embraces them, calling them "heroes fighting for freedom." Also, he talks of both stopping the violence and of the "right of return" for over 4 million Palestinians to Israel, a well-known way of calling indirectly for the elimination of the Jewish state.

What gives?

Actually, there is no contradiction. By insisting on a "right of return," Abbas signals that he, like Yasir Arafat and most Palestinians, intends to undo the events of 1948; that he rejects the very legitimacy of a Jewish state and will strive for its disappearance. But he differs from Arafat in being able to imagine more than one way of achieving this goal.

No matter what the circumstances, Arafat persisted from 1965 to 2004 to rely on terrorism. He never took seriously his many agreements with Israel, seeing these rather as a means to enhance his ability to murder Israelis. Arafat's diplomacy culminated in September 2000 with the unleashing of his terror war against Israel; then, no matter how evident its failure, it went on until his death in November 2004.

In contrast, Abbas publicly recognized in September 2002 that terror had come to harm Palestinians more than Israel. Intended to prompt demoralization and flight from Israel, this tactic in fact brought together a hitherto fractured body politic, while nearly destroying the Palestinian Authority and prostrating its population. Abbas correctly concluded that "it was a mistake to use arms during the Intifada and to carry out attacks inside Israel."

Abbas shows tactical flexibility. Unlike Arafat, who could never let go of the terrorist tool that had brought him wealth, power, and glory, Abbas sees the situation more cogently. If stopping the violence against Israel best serves his goal of eliminating the sovereign Jewish state, that is his program.

He no more accepts what he so charmingly the other day called the "Zionist enemy" any more than Arafat did (or Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad), but he is open to a multiplicity of means to destroy it. As he announced after his electoral victory this week, "the lesser jihad [holy war] is over and the greater jihad is ahead." The form of jihad must change from violent to non-violent, but the jihad continues.



posted by Frodgie at 7:05 AM

 

U.N. Audits Show Repeated Oil-for-Food Woes

NEW YORK — Audits of the troubled U.N. Oil-for-Food program show a systemic failure by the United Nations to adequately oversee the program, resulting in contractors overcharging millions of dollars.

Released a day earlier than expected, the audits show that senior U.N. officials were repeatedly warned that the multi-billion dollar program was awash with corruption, a review of the Oil-for-Food (search) documents shows.

The audits, which were carried out from 1996 to 2003 by an internal U.N. watchdog, the Office of Internal Oversight Services (search), have been a source of contention between the United Nations and members of Congress examining allegations of corruption in the humanitarian program.

They were released as part of investigation being conducted by Paul Volcker (search), the former Federal Reserve chairman tapped by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to run an independent probe. Later this month, Volcker is expected to release an interim report about the program.

The panel Volcker leads mostly praised the U.N. auditors, but noted that they did not focus on administration from U.N. headquarters and on oil-purchase and humanitarian-aid contracts — the areas where outside investigators have focused.


posted by Frodgie at 10:29 AM

 

Abbas declared victor in Palestinian election

RAMALLAH, West Bank (CNN) -- Mahmoud Abbas was officially declared the winner of the Palestinian Authority's presidential election Monday, positioning him to succeed Yasser Arafat in a new era that could lead to an independent Palestinian state.

Abbas faces tremendous challenges as the new Palestinian leader, including continued Palestinian-Israeli violence and the stalled Mideast peace process.

The former Palestinian prime minister said during the campaign that he wanted to meet soon with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to discuss the resumption of peace negotiations.

The official election body, the Palestinian Central Elections Commission, said Monday that provisional poll results showed Abbas garnering 62.3 percent of the vote.

Abbas' principal opponent, Mustafa Barghouti, had 19.8 percent of the vote.

Abbas had declared victory late Sunday after exit polls gave him a commanding lead over his rivals.

Abbas dedicated his win to "my brother," a reference to the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, and to Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.

"There is a difficult mission ahead -- to build our state, to achieve security for our people, to provide a good life for our people, to give our prisoners freedom, our fugitives a life in dignity, to reach our goal of an independent state," Abbas said.

Israel is prepared to make "all the necessary adjustments" to work with Abbas, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said.

"The main challenge is still ahead for him," Olmert said. "Will he fight against the terrorists? Will he try to stop this bloody, violent war against the state of Israel? This is the main question. This is what interests us."

President Bush said: "This is a historic day for the Palestinian people and for the people of the Middle East." (Full story)

The elections commission called the election results provisional because of a large number of complaints and doubts about the accuracy of the voter registry, but regional and international leaders praised Sunday's balloting as paving new ground in the Arab world.


posted by Frodgie at 10:26 AM

 

Torture and the terror war

Are members of al-Qaida entitled to Geneva Convention protections for POWs? Are Taliban fighters and Iraqi insurgents entitled to those protections, by which soldiers are to give name, rank and serial number, but never to be abused to force them to reveal military secrets?

As Alberto Gonzales is discovering, these are not just legal issues. The Geneva Conventions are international law. They are rules for the conduct of war, agreed to by civilized nations, that assumed wars would be fought between armies whose soldiers would respect these rules.

Under the Geneva Conventions, however, soldiers who fight out of uniform or commit atrocities – i.e., murder prisoners or target and kill noncombatants – may be sent before firing squads.

Wehrmacht soldiers who penetrated American lines in the Battle of the Bulge by wearing U.S. Army uniforms hastily shed them to fight in German uniforms – or else they could have been shot when captured. OSS agents, dropped behind enemy lines to kill German pilots and Nazi collaborators, knew they were not entitled to the same protections as 82nd Airborne troops dropped behind German lines on D-Day.

Here we come to America's dilemma. While the Afghan and Iraqi soldiers who fought the U.S. invasions are surely entitled to Geneva Convention protections for POWs, what of al-Qaida? What of the jihadis and foreign fighters who kidnap and behead aid workers?

What of Iraqis who plant roadside explosives or enlist in security forces to plant bombs in U.S. Army mess halls? Are they also entitled to the Geneva Convention protections of wartime soldiers?

In America, serial murderers Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy were accorded constitutional protections, not only against abuse, but against self-incrimination. Both received trial by jury. Both were guaranteed a taxpayer-subsidized legal defense.

Should we – because it is the American way of justice – extend such constitutional protections to al-Qaida terrorists caught on U.S. soil?

Should we extend Geneva Convention protections to all captured insurgents? Can we win a war on terror if we fight by Geneva rules, while our enemy fights by the Maoist rules of people's war, which condone terror and murder, and encourage guerrillas to fight out of uniform and kill the enemy anywhere, any time, any way?

In World War II, FDR did not hesitate to execute, after secret trials, six German saboteurs caught on U.S. soil, though they had not killed a single American or exploded a single bomb. They were saboteurs, out of uniform behind American lines, and under the rules of warfare, we had every right to execute them. And we did.

Have we the same right to execute terrorists who come here to massacre civilians as we did those Nazi saboteurs?

Apparently, while the Geneva Conventions permit us to execute captured al-Qaida, we may not inflict pain on them to force them to reveal secrets that might prevent another 9-11?

Because we find torture abhorrent and degrading, and do not want it used on our soldiers, we adhere to proscriptions against it in international law. But if we are to win this war on terror, we must at least tell al-Qaida this: If you are caught on U.S. soil, bent on slaughtering innocent Americans, you have no more rights than those German saboteurs, and we will execute you, speedily, after military trials.

With Iraqi insurgents, we face the problem the British Army faced in Ireland from 1919 to 1921 and the French faced in Algeria from 1954 to 1962. In Ireland's war of independence, IRA "flying squads" of gunmen attacked British troops, then melted away into a supportive population. British veterans of the Western Front, not knowing how to find and fight such an enemy, engaged in reprisals against Irish civilians. Thus, Britain lost the Irish people, and Ireland, forever.

In Algeria, terror attacks on French soldiers and civilians brought in Gen. Massu's "paras," who tortured terror suspects for information to eradicate the FLN. Thus was the Battle of Algiers won – and Algeria lost.



posted by Frodgie at 9:54 AM

 

Presidents-Warming Up

Jan. 17 issue - Four years ago George W. Bush used to call him "the shadow" and promised a fresh start by pledging to "uphold the honor and dignity" of the presidency. He even joked to late-night TV's David Letterman that one of his top 10 priorities in the White House would be to give the Oval Office "one heck of a scrubbing."

But when President Bush welcomed Bill Clinton into that same office last week, those barbs were ancient history. After Clinton remarked how much he liked the new Oval Office rug, Bush encouraged him to praise his interior designer—Laura. (He did.) Over lunch with the president's father, the compliments flowed the other way. When Bush 41 inquired whether Chelsea Clinton had marriage plans, Bush 43 declared how impressed he was with the former president's daughter.

For two men at opposite ends of the political spectrum, the relationship between the 43rd and 42nd presidents has grown surprisingly warm and personal over the last six months. Clinton endorsed Bush's approach to the tsunami catastrophe, defending him against criticism about his initial response as well as raising cash alongside the president's father. Friends and aides say the two men enjoy each other's company and, as fellow pros, respect each other's political talents.

The rapid thaw started with the unveiling of Clinton's official portrait in the White House in June, when Bush told his speechwriters he wanted to deliver something "very praiseworthy, warm, funny and short." During Clinton's recent health crisis, Bush called twice to share what one of the former president's aides called "good, funny conversations." And in November, at the opening of Clinton's presidential library in Little Rock, Ark., both the president and his father delivered praise that Clinton reveled in. Clinton even pulled aside Karl Rove, the architect of Bush's election success, to congratulate him.

While aides on both sides say there's still a political chasm between the two presidents, they also point to a common style: both are Southern politicians who love to woo crowds, and whose qualities were underestimated by Washington's establishment. There's also Bush's future membership in one of the smallest elites on the planet: the ex-presidents' club. "And they're members of an even more exclusive club—the two-termers," noted one senior administration official. "To go back to the people for affirmation and be there for eight years puts them in a different class." Bush's aides said the president is already thinking of his own presidential- library plans as well as his own role after 2008, as another relatively young ex-president.


posted by Frodgie at 9:49 AM

 

Domestic Strategery

MAYBE WE SHOULDN'T WORRY. President Bush is bravely pushing ahead to introduce personal investment accounts in Social Security and to save the system from insolvency. This is political turf where others, including President Reagan, have feared to tread. And Bush is poised to press later this year for an overhaul of the tax system, making it simpler and producing--we hope anyway--lower rates and a broader tax base. So he is living up to his reputation for dismissing lesser issues as "smallball" and saving his time and political muscle for more significant matters. In his second term, Bush told new members of Congress last week, he intends "to confront problems, not pass them on."

Why, then, are we a bit anxious about the president and his daring domestic agenda? It's certainly conservative enough. The problem is that the White House seems, at times and perhaps inadvertently, to be headed toward undermining its chances of bringing the agenda to fruition. We say this based not only on a few hints or evasions by White House officials, but also on several of Bush's strategic decisions about how he's going to deal with Congress this year on taxes, Social Security, and the budget deficit.

Let's start with taxes. The crown jewels of the president's first term were his tax cuts on individual income, capital gains, and dividends. They lifted the economy out of recession. Without them, Bush probably wouldn't have been reelected. The obvious next step is to make these cuts permanent. The president sought congressional approval
of this last year but came up short in the Senate. Now Senate Republicans have a bigger margin. Why not try to lock in the tax cuts as soon as possible? The White House has balked. While Bush's budget proposal for 2006 will assume the tax cuts are permanent, that's not the same as actually enacting them as such. But the White House has its reasons. One is that making the cuts permanent might undercut its bargaining power in the battles over Social Security and tax reform. Our worry, however, is the signal this sends to Democrats and financial markets that the Bush tax cuts could be negotiable, that the president might give up some of the cuts to achieve other goals. That would be a mistake--one worth worrying about.

On Social Security reform, our chief worry is getting it through Congress. The president was barely able to cajole enough House Republicans into supporting a Medicare prescription drug benefit in 2003 when he argued it was needed for his reelection. He no longer has that argument. What could doom Social Security reform is increasing payroll taxes. Bush says he won't do that. But neither he nor his aides have ruled out raising the ceiling on income subject to payroll taxation, currently at $87,900. The president says he refuses to "negotiate with himself" on the precise terms of Social Security legislation. Thus he's been "deliberately mushy" on the tax ceiling, an aide says.

In an otherwise attractive compromise on Social Security, a small hike in the ceiling--to, say, $92,700--may be acceptable. But anything more than that is likely to drive away House Republicans and kill reform. The pressure to raise the ceiling much higher will be enormous. AARP wants a $140,000 cap (with no investment accounts). Republican senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has proposed $200,000. Let's be clear about one thing: Raising the ceiling constitutes a tax increase. Bush's record in resisting tax hikes has been exemplary. Still, we worry.


posted by Frodgie at 9:38 AM