About Me

Name:
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Reaction To The State Of The Union, And Urging Colleagues To Join The Pledge

As promised, I'm going to deliver our thoughts regarding the president's State of the Union speech. But before I go into that, I'd like to address some of the e-mails that came in overnight about Marcie's job last night live-blogging the event.

First off, yes a couple of quotes weren't exactly as they were stated by the president. That's what happenes when she's trying to listen to the speech, and she has me in the other ear, so if there's any blame to be passed around on that one, lay off of her and focus on me. I thought I was giving her a hand by noting the quotes fromt he president that were important. Secondly, yes, she dropped quoting him for the most part, and focused on one sentence summarizations with regard to his comments because she simply could not keep up. Third, there was no commentary or analysis by her, except at the end because the goal was to record the event for posterity. Analysis falls to me, which I'm about to begin.

There are numerous reactions in the blogosphere to the speech. Some are good, and some aren't so good. Personally, we agree the pseech was pretty good. Yes the president brought up programs he'd like to enact, laws he'd like renewed, and reform he'd like to see happen. We all knew that there would be foreign and domestic acknowledgement of things the US must do, and things we'd like to see happen. Of course, as a Constitutional conservative, I've got some problems with more than one program he brought up, but that's moot right now.

The crux of the speech came in the second half, when he was talking about the war. I wish he would've contrasted what must be done, and what the Democratrs wanted to do. Make it, quite literally, a put-up-or-shut-up moment for the Democrats. Either they are with the president, and the nation, in the continued prosecution of this war, or they're going to take the side of the other retreatists that have reared their ugly heads, like John Warner, Gordon Smith, and Susan Collins.

And whether those on the Left like it, we're not leaving Iraq until the job is finished. The president is going to get his chance to try this new strategy, and provided the Iraqis abide by their word--no more protection for the militias, the extremists, and others trying to tear the country apart--this strategy should work. We do agree with him that the military must be expanded, though we don't agree with the number. 92,000 is too little. We need more. When World War II was going on, over 30 million men from the United States were under arms to fight back Nazism, Japanese Imperialism, and Italian Fascism. We face an enemy now that wants us destroyed just as much as the Axis powers did, and we have just over one million men under arms now. The military definitely needs to be larger, and while we are in a 21st Century world on the 21st Century battlefield, we'd be happier if more than 92,000 men were added to the ranks.

And there is no argument on this issue. This war is the most important turning point in our history, and we can't afford to withdraw from the field of battle--regardless of where that battlefield is. Thus, I'm brought to a very serious subject that was highlighted by Hugh Hewitt today that is important to us, as voters and bloggers. As I pointed out above, several GOP senators are moving forward with a resolution that will not only tie the hands of the president, but force a retreat from this fight. This can't be allowed to happen. So, people are applying pressure in the right spot, thanks to him and NZ Bear. We understand the gravity of a retreat, and when the president's own party begins to turn on him, it's time that the party stands up, and prepares for the beatdown of the century.

Marcie and I are on board with the NRSC Pledge and we urge our friends, colleagues, and fellow bloggers to jump on board. The pledge is, as follows:

If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encouragement to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution. Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution.

Jump on board and take the pledge. Call Sen. McConnell's office at (202) 224-2541. Urge him to mount a filibuster of the Warner/Biden resolution, and kill this move by the retreatists before it's too late. If that line is busy, call the Capitol switchboard at (202) 225-3121. And don't stop with Sen. McConnell. Get on the phones to as many senators as you can, and urge them to stop this resolution in it's tracks. Don't let the handful of cowards in the Senate who don't have the stomach to see this war through win the day. We can't afford to let them win. And remind them that if this happens, the contributions are gone. To the NRSC, to the RNC, and to their own campaigns. This issue goes beyond party lines, but the Republicans are going to suffer for their transgression if they idly by and don't take action to stand firm with the president and the nation.

Publius II

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Live-blogging the State of the Union Address

I will be live-blogging the president's State of the Union speech tonight. I know that Thomas wanted to be a part of this, but as our readers saw first thing this morning, he was dealing with his restlessness last night, and did not get much sleep. He will be listening to it (four ears are better than two), and he will be taking notes that I can refer to later, but he is mentally spent right now.

I will not touch on every little issue, but I will take note, below, of the big topics that he touches on. A little historical note here: George Washington gave the first State of the Union address in the provincial Capitol of New York City in 1790. Thomas Jefferson discontinued the practice of actually addressing the Congres; choosing rather to write them a letter because he believed the practice to be too similar to England's, and comparable to the monarchy there.

In 1913, President Woodrow Wilson reestablished the formal address to Congress, and many presidents (the bulk of them in the latter 20th Century) sent a written copy to Congress ahead of time, in addition to addressing Congress, and the nation (with the advent of television) directly.

This is President Bush's sixth State of the Union address, and it is slated to run approximately one hour, starting at 7 p.m. Arizona Time. And that is where I will begin. I will be watching the opening moments, and preparing the first update at that time. In addition, this marks the first time that President Bush will have a Democrat sitting directly behin him in Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Jim Webb has been chosen to give the Democrat response to the president's address.

Lead-Up--First Lady Laura Bush has arrived, in red. Attorney General Gonzales is the man with the short straw--for security purposes--who is not present amongst his cabinet.

7:00--Members of the Supreme Court and the Cabinet arrive, prompting punditry in the foreground. The speech was slated at 40 mins. without applause.

7:09 --"Madame Speaker, the President of the United States."

The president arrives to a traditional, standing ovation. He is wearing his signature blue tie; one that we have seen before for other SOTU speeches.

7:12--Pelosi strikes the gavel, and introduces President Bush. (I wonder how hard that was for her!) The president has acknowledged history by noting that this is the first time that the Speaker is female. And he adds fuel to the fire by being humble, and honoring Speaker Pelosi. (That had to hurt.) The president brings up Sen. Johnson, and Rep. Norwood, encourgaing the body to pray for their safe recovery and return to Congress.

7:15--He opens with a congratulatory greeting to the incoming Democrats.

"We're not the first to come here with a government divided." In short, time to put aside the differences, and work together. We have heard this before. And the economy is up first. 7.2 million new jobs. 41st month of straight prosperity.

Keep things moving forward "not with more government, but with more enterprise."

"Balance the federal budget."

"We can do so without raising taxes."

"We need spending discipline in Wasington, DC."

"I will submit a budget that reduces the deficit in half in the next 5 years."

"Cut the number of earmarks, at least in half, by the end of this session."

"Fix Medicare and Medicaid, and save Social Security."

7:21--Education; "Minority students are closing the gap."

"Give local leaders the chance to help failing schools."

"We must increase fuinds for students who struggle."

"I urge congress to reauthoorize this good law."

7:23--Health Care; "A standard tax deduction for health care."

"Changing the tax code is a vital step for making health care more affordable to Americans."

Federal help for state-sponsored health care initiatives. Need to expand healh savings accounts. Protect good doctors from junk lawsuits with medical lawsuit reform (read: tort reform).

7:27--Immigration; (This, next to Iraq will be a biggie in the speech) Pushing the guest worker program, AGAIN. Enforce immigration laws at the worksite; no excuse for violating the law with the tools provided. Need to emphasize "melting pot," and encourages assimilation.

"Without Amnesty."

Pass comprehensive immigration reform.

7:29--Energy; Stating we need to find a way around oil, and pushing alternative sources. Invest in new methods of producing ethanol. Proposes a reduction in energy consumption (gasoline) 20% in the next 10 years. It will cut our oil imports by 75% from the Middle East.

7:33--Justice; Pushing the judicial issue again, and he is calling the Senate out on their obstruction.

"Give them a prompt up-or-down vote on the senate floor."

7:34--National Security; "The horrors of that September morning was just a glimpse."

"To win the war on terror, we must take the fight to the enemy."

We have stayed on the offense. No sanctuary, easy movement, and free-flowing money is over. We don't know the extents of our efforts, but we know a bit, and he is listing off what we DID thwart.

7:37--"America's still a nation at war."

This war won't end until THEIR vision is fulfilled. (He knoes the people fighting us--Sunnis--which Silvestre Reyes did not.)

"They want to overthrow moderate governments." They are trying to force our retreat. Quotes al-Zarqawi to emphasize his point.

"These men are not given idle words." He also notes the Shias, and he focuses on Iran and their interference.

"I wish I could report to you that they have given up; they have not." Vowing to protect the American people with any and all means at his disposal.

7:40--"This war is more than a clash of arms." He is focusing on the ideology of our enemy, and again, making the case. Unfortunately, it has a bit of a PC-mindset.

"For the sake of our own security, we must" help those in the Middle East. A desire for liberty in the broader Middle East.

7:42--He is talking about Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iraq--all choosing democratically, their leaders and constitutions. He cites the Iraq votes, and there is applause.

"The enemy watched these scenes, adjusted their tactics, and struck back."

He cites the Syrian involvement in Lebanon, cites the retaliation from the Taliban, and touches on the Al-Askari mosque bombing.

"It is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is a war we must win."

"The Iraqi government must stop the sectarian violence in their capital." Our troops surge will help the Iraqis secure the citiies, and work with the Iraqi military in training.

"People in Iraq want to live in peace." Iraq pledging to go after the radicals.

7:47--Iraq placing benchmarks for us to leave, and giving oil revenues to the people.

"For all this to happen, Baghdad must be secure."

"We have weighed all the options...This porvides the best chance for success." He cited Iran again, in our retreat, and Iraq's defeat.

"For America, this is a nightmare scenario; for the enemy, this is the objective."

"Nothing is more important in our history than victory in the Middle East ..."

7:49--"This is where matters stand tonight in the here and now."

"You did not vote for failure." We are pursuing a new strategy in Iraq, and he urges EVERYONE to give it a chance.

"The war on terror is a generational struggle." He is proposing a special advisory council on the war, made up of leaders from Congress. He is proposing an uptick in the military numbers by 92,000 in the next fove years.

"Design and establish a civilian volunteer reserve corps."

7:52--Citing UN multinational force in Iraq, and other worldwide coalition members. He has tossed down the gauntlet on Iran--No nuclear weapons. Now he is bringing up the possible Palestinian state. NATO is working against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

"Pursuing intensive diplomacy" against North Korea. Wants to awaken the world to the plight of Darfur.

7:54--Hunger, poverty, and disease in the world; fighting HIV/AIDS in Africa. And now we lapse into recognizing a variety of people in the gallery that have had success in the United States. (Not that this is a bad thing to do, but it is noted in every SOTU address President Bush has given.)

I do apologize to readers that read this. There are likely some typos (sorry, he was talking pretty fast), and all of the quotes may not be precise, but they are close. With one half of my brain in one ear, and the other attached to the radio listening to the address, this was not easy. Thomas will probably follow this up tomorrow with a post breaking down this address.

Marcie

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Strikes In Lebanon: Hezbollah Can't Win The Day, and The People Won't Let Them

 On my way out the door after about two hours of sleep broken up over six hours, and I see that the not-so-natives are restless in Lebanon:

Hezbollah-led protesters paralyzed Lebanon Tuesday by burning tires and cars on major thoroughfares in and around the capital to enforce a general strike that aims to topple the government.

Clustering in small groups to man the blazing roadblocks, opposition supporters escalated their nearly two-month protest. Commuters were stranded and silence hung over many commercial districts amid reports of scattered violence.

Police said seven people suffered gunshot wounds in disturbances between supporters of the guerrilla group and pro-government activists in central and northern Lebanon. Michel Aoun, a senior opposition leader, told Al-Arabiya television that the wounded were all members of the opposition.

Police and troops deployed in the thousands across the country worked to open roads, sometimes negotiating with protesters, but refraining from using force. In some instances, the military separated the opposition and government supporters, who scuffled and hurled rocks and insults.
Hezbollah chief Sheik Hassan Nasrallah and other opposition leaders called the strike, which was backed by labor unions. Prime Minister Fuad Saniora and his supporters urged citizens to ignore the call, a move endorsed by banking associations and business leaders.

Soldiers and firefighters moved in to remove the obstacles clogging streets, but black clouds could be seen billowing into the air around the capital and on major highways in testament to their limited success.

More antics from Syrian-backed Hezbollah in trying to topple the legitimate government of Lebanon. Kind of makes you sick to your stomach that the people of Lebanon have to keep dealing with these animals. Since 1967, they've had to deal withg Syrian interference in their government. They've had to deal with a Hezbo0llah presence there since the 1980s. And now, Hezbollah is pushing even harder.

Hezbollah, likely acting on Assad's orders, is doing it's best to bring down the government in Lebanon, which caps months of shenanigans from these terrorist thugs. I can't believe that people are accepting Hezbollah as a political faction rather than their true demeanor; that being a murdering, instigating terrorist faction.

Syria won't rest until Assad's boys can move back into Lebanon, despite an order fromt he UN to remain out of Lebanese affairs, including it's government. They're doing everything they can to bring down Siniora's government. And I doubt that it'll work. Things are going to go badly for Assad's forces in Lebanon. The UNIFIL forces in southern Lebanon may be oblivious to the obvious, but the people of Lebanon won't stand for more of Assad's continued interference. Thgis won't last much longer. Not the strike, per se, but rather the idea that Assad can keep this garbage up.

Publius II


UPDATE: Thomas is at work, so giving this up date falls to me before I head out to school. They may not wish to see Hezbollah win, but based on this report it appears that appears to be the case unless something drastic happens. The problems in Lebanon are heating up. Hugh Hewitt poits to a Haaretz report that gives us the view that Thomas touched on precisely. This is no ordinary strike. This is a veiled coup attempt:

At least 60 people were wounded Tuesday in clashes during a Lebanese general strike called by the Hezbollah-led opposition in a bid to topple Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's Western-backed government.

Lebanon's anti-Syrian majority leaders Tuesday accused the opposition of staging a "coup" against the government by blocking major roads.

Thousands of protesters blocked main roads in Beirut and around the country with rubble and burning tires as the strike began.

"This is a coup d'etat. This is a revolt in all sense of the word," Christian leader Samir Geagea told the Lebanese television station LBCI.

Among the wounded were five government supporters, one of whom sustained serious injuries, in a gunfight with opposition followers in northern Lebanon, security sources said.

They said members of the pro-government Future movement and the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP) exchanged fire in the village of Halba.

In the ancient Christian town of Byblos, three people were wounded when a gunman fired on protesters, security sources said. Soldiers arrested the gunman and seized weapons from his house.

Two protesters were wounded in a similar shooting in Batroun, and a member of a pro-Syrian opposition group was seriously wounded in an incident near the mountain village of Sofar.

In other demonstrations across Lebanon, some scuffles broke out between protesters and pro-government loyalists, especially in Christian areas.The strike escalates a campaign by the Hezbollah-led opposition to dislodge the pro-Western government, install a new unity administration and hold early parliamentary elections.

Protesters in Beirut, north, south and east Lebanon took to the streets at around 6 A.M. and began blocking roads. Smoke from burning tires billowed over the capital.

Hezbollah organizers, their faces covered in black masks, prowled on motorcycles, walkie-talkies clamped to their mouths.

With things reaching a breaking point, I feel it is time the US did something here. The administration claims that they are "invested" in the Siniora government, and yet how can we stand by and not lift a finger to help. And yes, it must be us and other Western nations that step it. This cannot be left to the United Nations, which is little more than an umpire trying to get between two major league managers here. Besides, their peacekeepers refuse to enage the Hezbollah terrorists.

The United States pledged that it would be there for Lebanaon should the going get tough. That is now occurring. And the world is watching to see what we are willing to do. Will we stand idly by, and allow a terrorist group to bring down the legal, legitimate ruling government? Or will we step in, back Syria and Hezbollah down, and protect an ally? Whether the world knows it or not, Lebanon is now an ally of ours. We have invested in this nation since Siniora became prime minister. We were one of the voices in the chorus calling for Assad's head when Hariri was assassinated. And if Lebanon should fall to Hezbollah (and by default, Bashir Assad and Syria), then it will be a blow to the US. And that defeat would be almost as costly as a loss in Iraq.

Marcie

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Give Berger His Polygraph Already: Justice Department Reluctant To Act

 I despise being an insomniac. I couldn't sleep, and decided it was time to get up, and exercise the mind a bit. Color me ticked when I saw this post from Michelle Malkin that highlights a FOX News story regarding Sandy Berger. Actually, the story revolves around the fact that Berger, in his plea deal to avoid jail for his theft of National Archives documents, agreed to take a polygraph test, and as yet, Justice hasn't pushed the issue. That is an irritating point for the 18 lawmakers demanding the test be administered:

The Justice Department should administer a polygraph test to former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger to find out what documents he took from the National Archives in 2002 and 2003, Rep. Tom Davis wrote in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales dated Monday.

Davis, ranking Republican on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, is leading a group of 18 lawmakers who say the Justice Department has been "remarkably incurious" about Berger's decision to remove documents relating to the Sept. 11 commission's inquiry into his role in helping prevent terror attacks during the Clinton administration.

"It is extraordinarily important that the Justice Department avail itself of its rights under the plea agreement and administer a polygraph examination to Mr. Berger to question him about the extent of his thievery. This may be the only way for anyone to know whether Mr. Berger denied the 9/11 commission and the public the complete account of the Clinton administration's actions or inactions during the lead up to the terrorist attacks on the United States," Davis wrote.

The letter was signed by all Republican members of Congress.

Berger admitted to taking documents on two of the four occasions he went to the National Archives to bone up on his responses for the Sept. 11 commission on his inquiry into how intelligence and law enforcement communities failed to prevent the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States. He said he hid some of them at a construction site near the archives building in Washington.

Now before the Left goes off on a tangent that this is some Republican contrived witchhunt, I'd like to remind them that Berger agreed to the test. That was part of the deal so that Justice could find out exactly the documents he pilfered. These people--the members of Congress demanding answers--have a right to make this call. They want to know what Berger prevented the 9-11 Commission from seeing or knowing about.

This theft wasn't an absent-minded mistake, as Berger claimed. It was a calculated effort to remove documents of vital importance to the 9-11 Commission regarding the Clinton Administration's handling of terrorism efforts post-Millenium Bomber plot. We know that the documents deal witrh the Millenium After Action Report because the NARA investigation stated this fact. They had suspicions that he was removing documents, and set him up to catch his thievery. They marked and catalogued the documents they handed him, and after he left they checked their records. Byu NARA's own statements, these documents deal with the MAAR.

What, exactly, the value of those documents provide has yet to be determined because Berger hasn't told anyone. Hence the demand for a lie detector test. That's why it was part of the plea deal, and that's what these lawmakers want to see. And I can understand their irritation with Justice on this matter. For the last couple of years, Justice should have moved on a number of possible cases, including the prosectuion of NY Times editor Bill Keller, and reporters James Risen and Eric Lightblau for blowing not one, not two, but THREE classified government programs used as tools against terrorism.

It should be noted that in the currently ongoing AIPAC case, the judge dismissed the defenses claim that those charged were engaged in an act of speech, and therefore couldn't be prosecuted. The judge killed that argument, and cleared the way for the prosecution of the Times people, but Justice hasn't moved on that either. They still have an investigation going on regarding who leaked the information. It's dirt simple guys. Put those three on the stand, and get their source. If they choose to clam up, I hope they enjoy jail. National security isn't a game, and Justice seems to be treating it that way.

Get Berger's @$$ in Justice, hook him up, and start grilling him. I hope this letter causes Justice to pull it's thumb out of it's collective butt, and start acting. If ANY OTHER person had not adhered to the terms of their plea agreement, they'd be behind bars. Get this test over with, or put Berger where he belongs--in jail.

Publius II

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Iran Balks At Pledge To Cooperate With Inspectors

 Last week, Thomas noted that Iran was going to let IAEA inspectors in to monitor their nuclear facilities. Then, he stated that this was purely for PR reasons; an effort to persuade their critics that they were, indeed, cooperating. That does not appear to be the case today as they barred thirty-eight IAEA inspectors from entering Iran:

Iran has barred entry to 38 inspectors from the watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency after hardliners demanded retaliation for U.N. sanctions imposed on Tehran last month, officials said on Monday.

The IAEA confirmed Iranian word of the ban but said this would not handicap its monitoring of a plant where Iran plans soon to expand from experimental into industrial-scale output of nuclear fuel in defiance of a U.N. Security Council resolution.

Iran's ISNA news agency said the move was a "first step" in limiting cooperation with the IAEA in line with a demand made by the hardline parliament after the Council agreed the sanctions. ...

..."Iran has decided not to give entry permission to 38 inspectors from the IAEA and has announced this limitation to the IAEA officially," the head of parliament's Foreign Affairs and National Security Commission, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, said.

"The nationality of those who were barred is not the main basis for us," he told ISNA, without elaborating.

Do not say that we did not warn people. We knew that these sorts of games would be played. Iran has no intention of ending it's program. Indeed, such inflammatory rhetoric is still emanating from Tehran:

Iran's nuclear program seeks first-strike capability against Israel, a leading strategist said.

The Israeli strategist and former intelligence officer said Iran believes it could destroy the Jewish state with one nuclear weapon.

"Iranians believe that it holds, may hold, a first strike capability against Israel once it has a nuclear capability," said Shmuel Bar, director of studies at the Institute of Police and Strategy.

Iran believes "that Israel is a one-bomb country, one bomb from the point-of-view of the receiving side; that the U.S. would not intervene against Iran under such conditions; and all of that with apocalyptic zeal may result in actual use of nuclear weapons," he said.

Tehran can deny that they are not working on a bomb, but their rhetoric tells a much different story. And given President Ahmadinejad's passion for an "end-times final battle" with Zionism, the world is correct in suspecting that Iran is lying about it's nuclear program. It would be a fool's notion to venture supposition to the contrary at this point.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Christopher Hitchens On Mark Steyn

 Christopher Hitchens has written a recent piece that talks about Mark Steyn, and his book America Alone: The End Of The World As We Know It, of which Marcie and I wrote a review for last year. And we still stand by our assessment of it. It is definitely one of those books people must read.

Mr. Hitchens did not exactly review the book, at least not in the way that we did, but he did have a few things to say about it. The key 'graphs are below:

In the prologue to his new book, America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It, Mark Steyn sarcastically alludes to two people whom, in different ways, I know well. The first is novelist Martin Amis, ridiculed by Steyn for worrying about environmental apocalypse when the threat to civilization is obviously Islamism; the second is Jack Straw, formerly Tony Blair’s foreign secretary, mocked for the soft and conciliatory line he took over the affair of the Danish cartoons. The dazzling fiction writer and the pedestrian social-democratic politician are for Steyn dual exemplars of his book’s main concern: the general apathy and surrender of the West in the face of a determined assault from a religious ideology, or an ideological religion, afflicted by no sickly doubt about what it wants or by any scruples about how to get it.

I might quibble about Steyn’s assessment—Amis has written brilliantly about Mohammed Atta’s death cult, for example, while Jack Straw made one of the best presentations to the UN of the case for liberating Iraq. But it’s more useful to point out two things that have happened between the writing of this admirably tough-minded book and its publication. Jack Straw, now the leader of the House of Commons, made a speech in his northern English constituency in October, in which he said that he could no longer tolerate Muslim women who came to his office wearing veils. The speech catalyzed a long-postponed debate not just on the veil but on the refusal of assimilation that it symbolizes. It seems to have swung the Labour Party into a much firmer position against what I call one-way multiculturalism. Prime Minister Tony Blair confirmed the shift with a December speech emphasizing the “duty” of immigrants to assimilate to British values. ...

... I know both of these men to be profoundly humanistic and open-minded. Straw has defended the rights of immigrants all his life and loyally represents a constituency with a large Asian population. Amis has rebuked me several times in print for supporting the intervention in Iraq, the casualties of which have become horrifying to him. Even five years ago, it would have been unthinkable to picture either man making critical comments about Islamic dress, let alone using terms such as “deportation.” Mark Steyn’s book is essentially a challenge to the bien-pensants among us: an insistence that we recognize an extraordinary threat and thus the possible need for extraordinary responses. He need not pose as if he were the only one with the courage to think in this way. ...

... Nor can there be much doubt that the awareness of demography as a potential weapon originates with the Islamists themselves. Anybody who, like me, has publicly criticized Islamism gets used to the accusation that he has “insulted a billion Muslims.” A vague but definite threat underlies this absurd charge, and in parts of Europe it already intimidates politicians. Gilles Kepel, the French scholar of Islam, once told me that when he lectures in North Africa his listeners often ask how many Muslims live in France. If he replies that he believes the official figures to be mostly correct, scornful laughter erupts. The true figure, his listeners say, is much higher. France is on its way to becoming part of the dar-al-Islam. It is leaving the dar-al-Harb (“House of War”), but without a fight. Steyn has no difficulty producing equally minatory public statements from Islamist triumphalists. And, because his argument is exponential, it creates an impression of something unstoppable.

Yet Steyn makes the same mistake as did the late Oriana Fallaci: considering European Muslim populations as one. Islam is as fissile as any other religion (as Iraq reminds us). Little binds a Somali to a Turk or an Iranian or an Algerian, and considerable friction exists among immigrant Muslim groups in many European countries. Moreover, many Muslims actually have come to Europe for the advertised purposes—seeking asylum and to build a better life. A young Afghan man, murdered in the assault on the London subway system in July 2005, had fled to England from the Taliban, which had murdered most of his family. Muslim women often demand the protection of the authorities against forced marriage and other cruelties. These are all points of difference, and also of possible resistance to Euro-sharia. ...

...This is not to deny Steyn’s salient point that demography and cultural masochism, especially in combination, are handing a bloodless victory to the forces of Islamization. His gift for the illustrative anecdote and the revealing quotation is evident, and if more people have woken up to the Islamist menace since he began writing about it, then the credit is partly his. Muslims in one part of England demand the demolition of an ancient statue of a wild boar, and in another part of England make plots to blow up airports, buses, and subway trains. The two threats are not identical. But they are connected, and Steyn attempts to tease out the filiations with the saving tactic of wit.

I still think—or should I say hope?—that the sheer operatic insanity of September 11 set back the Islamist project of a “soft” conquest of host countries, Muslim countries included. Up until 9/11, the Talibanization of Pakistan—including the placement of al-Qaida sympathizers within its nuclear program—proceeded fairly smoothly. Official Pakistani support for Muslim gangsters operating in Afghanistan, Kashmir, and India went relatively unpunished. Saudi funds discreetly advanced the Wahhabist program, through madrassa-building and a network of Islamic banking, across the globe. In the West, Muslim demands for greater recognition and special treatment had become an accepted part of the politically correct agenda. Some denounced me as cynical for saying at the time that Osama bin Laden had done us a favor by disclosing the nature and urgency of the Islamist threat, but I still think I was right. Both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have had to trim their sails a bit. The Taliban will at least never be able to retake power by stealth or as a result of our inattention. Millions have become aware of the danger—including millions of Shi’a Muslims who now see the ideology of bin Laden and Zarqawi as a menace to their survival. Groups and cells that might have gotten away with murder have wound up unmasked and shut down, from Berlin to Casablanca.

Of course, these have not been the only consequences of September 11 and its aftermath. Islamist suicide-terrorism has mutated into new shapes and adopted fresh grievances as a result of the mobilization against it. Liberalism has found even more convoluted means of blaming itself for the attack upon it. But at least the long period of somnambulism is over, and the opportunity now exists for antibodies to form against the infection.

We respect Mr. Hitchens, and his insight. Yes, the man is a former Trotskyist, and he's an atheist. However, as this war progresses, the old adage about "there are no atheists in a foxhole" comes to mind. Regardless of his beliefs in the past, and even those held now, Mr. Hitchens is neither berating Mr. Steyn or endorsing him. In this piece, I believe, he's simply pointing out an aerror or two--in HIS opinion--of Mr. Steyn's excellent book. He doesn't come out and say that the book is wrong (not in the way that former members of the Carter Center have told President Carter that he's wrong), but rather he offers up a couple glimpses of hope in Europe.

Yes, Jack Straw has inflamed Muslims in Britain with his statements, but his opinions are rooted in truth and fact. The UK won't cave to pressure from Muslims to inject shari'a law into their legal system. The Muslims will assimilate, or face the consequences of such a refusal. Germany has started to stand up to the Muslims that have emigrated there. Again, no assimilation? Then expect to be forzen out of the general populace. France is the only nation over there, and Mr. Hitchens notes this, that is laying down for the Muslims living in it's poorer areas. To be specific, we followed several stories late last year that involved clashes between French police and Muslims immigrants; they would attack the police, forcing a retreat, and the French government issued orders to avoid the Muslim neighborhoods.

Europe is slowly dying, and Mr. Steyn's point is well-founded. Mr. Hitchens acknowledges that when it comes to Mr. Steyn's observation regarding demographics, he is correct. Europe has decided to embrace the dead-weight idea that the population boom had to end. They are simply not producing a replacement generation. As long as it remains that way, immigrants coming to Europe that do continue to breed will end up becoming the keepers of the continent. Can we say that this was a planned incursion in Europe by Muslims? That this was in their plans all along to outbreed the infidel? Maybe, and maybe not. It might simply be a by-product of their emigration into Europe, and Europe was unprepared to basically play an "arms-race" sort of game when it came to breeding.

I can say I disagree with Mr. Hitchens on a couple of points. But at the same time, there are valid elements in his piece. Either way, this is one I recommend people read. Mr. Hitchens and Mr. Steyn are two pundits that are very much opposed to the militant Islam that is threatening the free world. They just approach it from different viewpoints.

Publius II

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

And The Loons Toss Their Hats Into The Ring

 OK, this is pathetic. I know that we've been waiting for the announcement (Lord knows why there was any doubt) that Hillary's tossed her hat into the 2008 ring, and as she said, she's in to win:

Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton entered the 2008 U.S. presidential race on Saturday with a swipe at President George W. Bush as she capped years of speculation about her White House ambitions.

In a message on her Web site, the former first lady, who aims to become the first woman elected U.S. president, wrote: "I'm in. And I'm in to win."

The second-term U.S. senator from New York is seen as the front-runner among five Democratic hopefuls, including Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who is expected to be her main competitor within the party and whose bid could make him the first black president. Former North Carolina Sen.
John Edwards, the 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee, is another candidate.


As if that weren't enough 2008 election news for today, there's more. New Mexico governor, Bill Richarson, is also in now.

Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M., said Sunday he is taking the first step toward an expected White House run in 2008, offering extensive experience in Washington and the world stage as he seeks to become the first Hispanic president.

"I am taking this step because we have to repair the damage that's been done to our country over the last six years," said Richardson, a former congressman, U.N. ambassador and Energy Department secretary.

"Our reputation in the world is diminished, our economy has languished, and civility and common decency in government has perished," he said in a statement.

He said he had set up an exploratory committee that will allow him to begin raising money and assembling his campaign organization.

"The governor is in it to run for president," spokesman Pahl Shipley said. The formal announcement will come in March after the end of New Mexico's legislative session, he said.

This guy's been living in a Taliban cave with a comment like "our economy has languished" in his official statement. I guess he's missed the fact that the NYSE is running with record highs right now. As of 3 JHanuary 2006, the Dow hasn't dipped below 11,000, and on that day, it nailed a brand new record high of over 12,000. Consumer confidence and spending is up, and the recession that was creeping up on the nation as of March 2000 is gone. The closest we came to slipping back into it was after the attack on 11 September, and stocks did take a tumble. But the tax cuts brought us back, and that was despite all the negativity people projected regarding the cuts.

Point being is the field is starting to widen for the Democrats. Hillary's in it. Obama's running. Edwards still thinks he can be president. Richardson, who I actually predicted back in 2004 would run for 2008, is now in the running. And, of course, our favorite plagarist--Joe Biden-- is back in the mix. So, we have a governor who thinks the nation's in trouble, a two term senator who thinks she's all that, a one term senator that hasn't don diddly-squat since he arrived in DC, a multi-term senator who bowed out back in 2000 when his plagarism came to light, and the former veep candidate from 2004. Wow, there isn't much experience there, is there?

I do hope people remember why we don't look to those from Congress to serve as president. They're compromisers. They don't instill an idea of leadership in the voter. Voters see them as people that will strike deals and bargains to get something done, and more often than not, those deals aren't all they're cracked up to be. Richardson, in my opinion, has the best shot of taking the nomination, but Hillary--ever the wild card int he mix--will use every dirty little trick to gain the upper hand. Let's hope the Democrats still have a killer instinct, and go to whatever lengths necessary to break her down. The feeding frenzy in 2004 was amusing, but they had better not give her a free pass. The press will already be doing enough of that because for some odd reason, they can't seem to get enough of this woman.

We should also remember that is she's elected, her husband is back in the White House, which just simply sounds like a bad punchline to a terrible joke already. But Hillary's not going to hold back. She and her operatives will do what they have to do to get the nomination. I expect a lot of nasty little attacks to come out of her camp. She comes from the same bolt of cloth that Bill does. If you can't beat them, slime them, attack them, and leave them for dead even if they are members of your own party. We'll see what happens in the coming months. But as Michelle says "Let the games begin." I actually prefer Allah's favorite little comment:

"Meaty."

Publius II

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

This Does Not Warm My Heart One Bit ...

 Striking a deal with the devil comes to mind when I see this story from Reuters that tells us a deal has been reached between the Sadrists and the Iraqi government:

The political movement of Iraqi cleric and militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr said it would end a two-month boycott of parliament on Sunday, smoothing over a rift with its Shi'ite allies in the U.S.-backed government.

The political reconciliation with a group viewed with suspicion in Washington came after U.S. forces suffered their third deadliest day in Iraq since the start of war in 2003. Twenty-five U.S. soldiers were killed on Saturday in clashes with gunmen, a helicopter crash and other violence.


The bloody toll came three days before President George W. Bush is expected to use his State of the Union address to Congress to argue again for his plan to send thousands more troops to Iraq, despite opposition from Democrats who now control both houses of the legislature. ...

... The U.S. military blames much of the violence on the Mehdi Army militia of Sadr, whose political movement on Sunday ended the boycott of parliament, soothing a rift with its Shi'ite allies in Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government.

The Sadrists announced a boycott in November to press their demand for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and to protest against a meeting between Maliki and Bush.

"We are ending our boycott of the ministries and the parliament," Bahaa al-Araji, a senior member of the Sadrist group, told a news conference with the ruling Shi'ite Alliance.

The Sadr supporters still want a timetable of our departure. The president still wants troops in Iraq to end the reign of terror that has exploded between Sunnis and Shi'ites. And with this deal I believe we have reached an impasse. The biggest question on my mind right now is since this deal has been reached, does this mean the Iraqi government is going to go back to protecting the militias and al-Sadr?

I do hope that is not the case. As yet, they have not surrendered themselves or their arms. They are still enagaging Iraqi and US forces, which means they are fair game. If they were to surrender their arms, and end this violence, maybe, just maybe, we could believe they were ready to change. Of course this also comes on the heels of a sixteen day offensive by US forces fully engaging the Mahdi Army. And it reeks of the same sort of tactics that other terrorist groups have pulled in the past.

They cry out that they will behave, everyone relaxes their guard while they rearm and rebuild, and within months they are right back at it. Granted, it is not as if the president can force al-Maliki to turn down the deal so we can finish the job. But if the Iraqis are going to accept this, then this must be a carrot-and-stick moment. If they agree to end the violence, lay down their arms, and join the Iraqi government, then I suppose we can accept the Iraqis idea that all will be forgiven. However, if they start back up against us, then all bets are off, and we take them apart using any and all force necessary.

Personally, I am of the opinion that regardless of what deal is struck, al-Sadr and his militia should still be a target. We cannot trust him, especially given his ties to the Ahamdinejad regime in Iran. Al-Sadr has never desired to help Iraq; his only wish was to cause enough strife to topple the government there. And making this deal--with our troops caught in the middle--makes me as nervous as a turkey right before Thanksgiving.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

California Legislature Endorsing And Pushing The Outlawing Of Spanking

 Here we go again. The government is trying to step in and regulate parenting, or so ABC News is reporting:

California parents could face jail and a fine for spanking their young children under legislation a state lawmaker has promised to introduce next week.

Democratic Assemblywoman Sally Lieber said such a law is needed because spanking victimizes helpless children and breeds violence in society.

"I think it's pretty hard to argue you need to beat a child," Lieber said. "Is it OK to whip a 1-year-old or a 6-month-old or a newborn?"

Lieber said her proposal would make spanking, hitting and slapping a child under 4 years old a misdemeanor. Adults could face up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Aides to the assemblywoman said they are still working on a definition for spanking.

Some Republican lawmakers called the idea ridiculous. But Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he may be receptive to it even though he has concerns about how the ban would be enforced.


OK, the most amusing part in this story is the fact that this nutter assemblywoman is working on defining "spanking."Um, DUH! Open handed swat on the butt. Evidently she was raised in a far more nuanced home where the adults argued with the two-year old who was misbehaving rather than giving her a punishment befit a brat. Come to think of it, I can imagine a couple of the brats on Capitol Hill that could use a good spanking.

I'm of the opinion that spanking is something that is an effective tool for discipline. The moment people started declaring this punishment is abuse, and criminalizing it (a la the child calls police on mom and dad over a spanking THEY felt they didn't deserve, thereby getting child protective services involved) we lost control of our kids. Think about it, folks. Look at some the hoodlums running around the neighborhoods, or the schools, and tell me that a good whipping once in a while when they were growing up may not have steered them in a different direction.

I was spanked (repeatedly and deservedly) as a kid. I'll admit it. I was a screw up, and everytime I made a serious mistake, dad was waiting to deliver to me my punishment. You know, I can sit back and think about it now, even joke about it now, but if it hadn't been for his stern discipline, I would be who I am or where I am today. He kept me in line. And even though I call it a beating, it was ANYTHING BUT abuse.

Now, Arnie had better seriously contemplate his decision on this bill. Nuanced or not, parents won't appreciate him usurping their authority in the name of political correctness. And that's what this boils down to. There are parents out there that time-out, and withdrawal of toys and privileges, just don't work for them. Like Robert DeNiro said in The Untouchables, "You can get a lot farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word." Too true. Had time-out been my only punishment, I would have bugged the ever-living heck out of my parents until they let me out. I wouldn't have learned my lesson whatsoever.

And to Ms. Lieber, what idiot in their right mind would spank a 6 month old child? Who? Give me a name. Because at 6 months, the child is still crawling, learning how to walk, and doesn't have any sort of sense of right and wrong yet. They're still formulating that. At 1, the same thing applies. That's the thing with this argument. The Left brings up the most retarded scenarios. For example, my sister has a two year old daughter. She gets a swat on the butt for doing things she knows are wrong. Lying, stealing a cookie, throwing toys, etc. If it's something she hasn't learned yet, then my sister will administer a light swat, tell her no, and make the correction. And she has to be the disciplinarian in the house. Her husband is pretty far away to be administering any sort of punishment. I doubt his arms would reach from Baghdad.

And the idea Ms. Lieber has that this somehow encourages violence is utter insanity. Like I said, I got the beating when I deserved it, and I'm not a violent person. (Of course the Left would have you believe I'm an angry, gun-toting nut, but then again, I think they're all crazy with their nuanced approach to life in general.) Will I defend myself? Absolutely. Will I defend my wife? Brother, you threan her, and I'll remove you from the earth. But that's the thing. My response comes in defense, not offense.

But I have had my fair run-ins with the little thugs who think they're tougher, meaner, and nastier than I am. Thjese hooligans would have probably done a lot better in life had mommy and daddy actually knocked them around a little when they were growing up to make them understand who was the boss. Nowadays, and I kid you not because I've seen it, kids walk all over their parents. I have seen kids, from the age of 2 up to 13 swing at their parents, kick their parents, cuss their parents out, and generally act like little Democrats. (OK, low blow, but have you seen the nutters on Capitol Hill throw temper-tantrums lately?) That didn't fly in my parent's house. You didn't do that. You respected your parents, and obeyed your parents. That kind of an action on my part--being violent towards my parents--would've resulted in something more than a spanking. THEN I would've been beat, and I do mean beat.

While looking over the news for more on this story, I located Captain Ed's site where he, too, is talking about this. While we both located the ABC News story, he located a story from the LA Times that shows that parents in California don't like this idea one iota:

Assemblywoman Sally Lieber hit a nerve when she mused publicly this week about making it illegal for parents to strike children younger than 4.

The Bay Area Democrat hasn't introduced a bill yet, but critical calls and e-mails — including some personal attacks — have flooded her offices since her local newspaper wrote about her intention.

Unbowed, Lieber said she would introduce a bill next week to make California the first state to make the hitting of a toddler or baby a crime. Language was still being drafted, but Lieber was considering making a violation a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in county jail.

"It would get us out of the ridiculous situation of having our law saying there's justifiable beating of children," Lieber said, "in the midst of a society where we say we value children and protect them."

Readers of the San Jose Mercury News blasted the idea — "Although I don't believe in spanking, I sure do not need some media-grubbing politician to tell me how to raise my kids," wrote one — but Lieber said she was confident that she would win Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's support.

In a Mercury News interview Thursday, Schwarzenegger described how as a child he "got smacked about everything" by his father, but has never spanked his own four children. He questioned how such a law could be enforced, but said he understood the desire to "get rid of the physical, the brutal behavior that some parents have."

Answering questions after delivering a healthcare speech Friday to Los Angeles business leaders, Schwarzenegger said he and his wife, Maria Shriver, quickly found that threatening to ground their children to do schoolwork worked well. "We can discipline the kids … without hitting," he said.

Pardon me, but grounding doesn't do diddly. I spent from age thirteen to age eighteen grounded practically the entire collective school years because I just didn't like school. I was bored, and it wasn't challenging me. (One of several reasons why I took up learning new things, and teaching myself new subjects of interest, such as the founding of this nation, the Constitution, and a more detailed look at American History.) I didn't do a lot of my homework, blew off my teachers, etc. Grounding me didn't work as well as a smack on the butt because, quite frankly, I didn't have many friends growing up so being grounded from playing with them wasn't really effective. What was,m in the long run in terms of grounding, was banishment from TV time. But, then again, I evolved into a creature that RARELY watches TV right now. I'd rather be doing work right here, or enjoying a good book. The TV of the mind is far more enjoyable for me than watching some retarded TV show that isn't funny, isn't suspensful, and isn't worth me losing an half-hour or hour of my life I'll never get back.

But hey, like I said, different strokes for different folks. Were this a bill designed to really nail abusive parents, I'd be all for it. Abuse, to me, is a parent that grabs a belt, or doubles up their fist, and goes after the kid not with the intent of disciplining them, but rather hurting them. That, to me, is the difference. My parents NEVER wanted to hurt me (though the butt did sting a little from time to time; a reminder to be sure), nor does my sister try to intentionally hurt her daughter. I have friends who have kids, and they never try to hurt them. The goal is discipline. For them, enforcing that in their home means you get a swat on the butt. If I ever saw anyone I know of personally go after their kid with a fist, with the intent to hurt them, we'd have problems. That I don't endorse, and I'd expect common-sense individuals to know the difference.

It's clear to me that Ms. Lieber doesn't fit into that category. And it's a distinct possibility that neither does the Governator, if he's considering signing this legislation.

Publius II

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

An Apology To Our Readers

Ah, the day is finally drawing to a close. Normally, Saturdays are reserved for the work around the house we have to do, but today was different. Today was spent away from home. After a nice, peaceful lunch at a local restaurant, Thomas and I ventured to the Barrett-Jackson auction to enjoy looking at some classic cars. And we witnessed the event of the night as Ron Pratt, of Chandler, broke the auction's record for the most expensive car ever sold there. The car in question would be Thomas's personal dream machine. A 1966 Shelby Cobra. The "Supersnake" edition was owned by Carroll Shelby himself, and his personal ride sold for a whopping five million dollars. So, after a fun-filled day we are finally home.

Which brings me to the business at hand, and this does fall to me as it was my mistake. On Thursday I put up this post regarding legislation in the Senate. The Ethics Reform package the Senate was deliberating on contained a section that I was led to believe would have forced bloggers who had over five hundred readers to register with the government should they actively endorse a candidate running for office. Now, as a soon-to-be law student I forgot one of the first rules about information: READ IT ALL FIRST. Rather than doing so, I skimmed over Section 220, and saw what I thought was literally an attempt by our government to curtail our freedom of speech.

What I have discovered after a couple of well-written pieces by noted bloggers (the latter of which did not identify us by name) is that they were right and I was wrong. The bill--the section in question--would not have demanded such measures.

This has retaught the lesson of reading and understanding things before posting about them. Had I read the section, in its entirety, instead of skimming over it, I would have seen that Section 220 DID NOT call for that at all. So I retract whatr I posted on Thursday, and I am issuing an apology to our readers for unintentionally misleading them. It was not my intention to mislead anyone. I thought I was doing a service rather than formenting hysterics. This will not happen in the future from Thomas or I. I do apologize vehemently.

Marcie

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Al-Sadr's Voice Arrested In Baghdad

We got our hands on al-Sadr's top aide in a raid during our new Baghdad offensive, but al-Maliki spouted off over the raid, and al-Sadr's people are demanding his release:

U.S. and Iraqi forces arrested one of Muqtada al-Sadr's top aides today in Baghdad, his office said, as pressure increased on the radical Shi'ite cleric's militia ahead of a planned security crackdown in the capital.

An adviser to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, however, denied the government knew in advance about the raid, in which Sheik Abdul-Hadi al-Darraji was captured, and said the detention was not part of the new operation aimed at quelling Baghdad's sectarian violence.

"There was no coordination with the Iraqi political leadership, and this arrest was not part of the new security plan," the adviser, Sadiq al-Rikabi, told Al Arabiya television. "Coordination with the Iraqi political leadership is needed before conducting such operations that draw popular reactions."

His comments reflected the differences between the United States and Iraq's Shi'ite-dominated government on how to deal with the Shi'ite militias that have been blamed for much of the recent violence, particularly the killings that have left dozens of tortured and bullet-riddled bodies daily in Baghdad and elsewhere.

The raid came as Defense Secretary Robert Gates began his second trip to Iraq in less than a month, arriving in the southern city of Basra to consult with British and other allied commanders.

Sheik al-Darraji was captured, and his guard was killed in a raid on a mosque complex in eastern Baghdad, according to senior officials with the cleric's movement.

The U.S. military said special Iraqi army forces operating with coalition advisers captured a high-level illegal armed group leader in Baladiyat, an eastern neighborhood near Sheik al-Sadr's stronghold. It said the main suspect was involved in the kidnapping, torture and murder of civilians as well as the assassination of Iraqi security forces and government officials.

However, Sheik al-Sadr's office said Sheik al-Darraji was the movement's media director in Baghdad and demanded his immediate release.

"We strongly condemn this cowardly act," said Sheik Abdul-Zahra al-Suweiadi, a senior al-Sadr aide in Baghdad.

Sheik al-Sadr said in an interview with an Italian newspaper published today that the crackdown already had begun and that 400 of his men had been arrested, confirming an earlier statement by Mr. al-Maliki. La Repubblica also quoted the cleric as saying he fears for his life and stays constantly on the move.

Al-Maliki knew we were done playing games. He was put on notice and told that we were going after the militias. That includes the key members of the Mahdi Army, and that means that this guy is among the targets. He's affectionately referred to as "Al-Sadr's Mouth" (think the Mouth of Sauron, only less ugly and wearing a turban), and has done quite a job stirring up the Mahdi Army supporters. He was on our list, and we wanted him very badly. And as for the calls of his return, I think not. He's an enemy of the US and of the Iraqi government.

And al-Maliki can file his complaints, but his whining line sounds like he's trying to hedge on his promise to quit protecting them. Yes, we should coordinate with the Iraqi government, but we coordinated with the Iraqi forces, which is who helped us on the raid. Politics doesn't belong on the battlefield. That's what hurting the attemtps to curb this violence.

Al-Maliki ought to be thanking us. We have the Mahdi forces on the run--looking for cover--and many are trying to bug out of Baghdad. Thus far, the new offensive is working. But we still have a few that are dragging their feet. We're not going to stick around forever there, and we're tired of having to handcuff our soldiers. We're going to do this with or without the help of the Iraqis. If the Iraqis really don't want our help to quell this violence, then that's fine with me. We'll pack up our bags, and leave. If they want us to stay, and help them, then they need to actually contribute something. Whining, and demanding they be notified of raids aren't contributions. Those are road blocks.

Publius II

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

North Korea & The US Reach An Agreement

One of the bigger stories breaking over ther wires today is that North Korea appears to have reached an agreement with us over their nuclear program:

North Korea has expressed interest in a U.S.-backed proposal that it suspend its nuclear program and allow U.N. inspectors to verify the suspension as an initial step toward dismantling its nuclear capabilities, diplomats said yesterday.

During three days of talks in Berlin that ended yesterday, North Korea's chief negotiator, Kim Gye-gwan, asked his U.S. counterpart, Christopher R. Hill, what the United States would be willing to do if the North turned off its nuclear reactor. A U.S. response, if any, was not made public.

North Korea's foreign ministry today called the Hill-Kim talks "sincere and positive."

In the upbeat assessment, the communist state said the talks yielded "a certain agreement," but it declined to elaborate on the nature of the dialogue.

The ministry said the talks were held in a "sincere atmosphere." Its comments appeared in a statement released by the country's official Korean Central News Agency.

A certain agreement, but no one wants to elaborate. You nervous now? I am because I know hoe this game has been played. If we stick to our end of the agreement, and we all return to the six-nation talks, North Korea will throw a hissy fit, and walk away, again. While this sounds promising, until they return to six-nation talks I'm just not going to be convinced. And I'm not going to relax on this until there is an agreement.

Pyonyang got their five minutes of fame with the Uniyted States. They seem awfully upbeat, but if this were a good deal, wouldn't both sides be crowing about this? And with the sanctions that were applied to North Korea, they hay have finally had to cave. But to save face, they're outting up the facade. I do think the sancations have severely hurt Kim, and he realizes that if he wants to hold onto his power, he had to make concessions. He's not broken by any means, but he realizes he's been painted into a corner. Pressure from the US and the other nations involved in the talks have succeeded in forcing Kim to capitulate.

We'll see what happens when the six-nation talks resume. Like I said, we've seen this game played, so I'm not holding my breath on the results from those talks.

Publius II

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Harry Reid Wants Bloggers Registered

 Leave it to some thin-skinned senator to introduce legislation to register bloggers with the government:

(Hat-Tip: To Professor Reynolds)

S.1 has been introduced in the Senate as "lobbying reform" -- which in this case means "First Amendment infringements." An amendment has been attached, which requires
registration of bloggers with more than 500 readers, and who comment on policy issues. Violation would be a criminal offense.

I looked it up on the Library of Congress webpage (which is essentially unlinkable) and have attached section 220 in extended remarks, below. As the bill is reported, it appears to cover any "paid" grassroots lobbying, that reaches more than 500 people. But a blogger who receives contributions might be classed as a "paid" grassroots type. It looks like Congress wants to keep an eye on annoying people like
Porkbusters. It may be significant that S.1 was introduced by Harry Reid, one of the Kings of Pork.

Of Arms And The Law has the bill details that applies to us. PLEASE, go read it because this is a clear measure to silence any critics of the government, like us and other bloggers. Professor Reynolds also notes that with the push to bring the so-called "fairness doctrine" back, this is definitely a move to quash our freedom of speech.

For those that believe this is a smart move, you are nuts. The Framers assembled the First Amendment to protect our right to dissent against the government. Too many liberally-minded people have overextended the right to "freedom of speech." It does not apply to pornography, unwillingly taxpayer-funded obscene art, or even the ability for us to say as many four-letter, colorful metaphors as we wish.

The First Amendment, and every aspect of it, deals with the freedom for us to engage in political speech. READ the First Amendment, and you will see that each provision deals with how we can interact with our government, and what we can do to criticize it when we feel that they are out of line.

Now, here is some details about S.1. S.1 is the Senate's ethics reform package, and Section 220 specifically details the efforts that will be gone through to register, track, and oversee blogs affected by this legislation. It is sponsored by Sen. Harry Reid, which Of Arms And The Law notes that he is one of the biggest porkers on Capitol Hill. But what is more telling are the co-sponsors. The following list is of the co-sponsors of the bill, and we might want to take note of these people. A few of them are pretty big porkers themselves:

Maria Cantwell-WA
Richard Durbin-IL
Frank Lautenberg-NJ
JoeLieberman-CT (Independent caucusing with Democrats)
Barbara Mikulski-MD
Chuck Schumer-NY
Jim Webb-VA
Sherrod Brown-OH
Dianne Feinstein-CA
Patrick Leahy-VT
Robert Menendez-NJ
Ken Salazar-CO
Debbie Stabenow-MI
Robert Bennett-UT
Mitch McConnell-KY
Susan Collins-ME
Trent Lott-TN

Now, we are not surprised to see the list of Democrats involved in this bill. The Republicans, on the other hand, does surprise us as Mitch McConnell is on the list. And while this is ethics reform, which is desperately needed in Congress, Section 220 either needs to be amended, or removed. Blogs and grass-roots movements should not be registered with the government unless they fall into certain categories, as Swift Boat Vets For Truth did in 2004. They were a non-profit group that was registered with the government, and rightly so. They were directly involved in the election, and efforts to undermine John Kerry.

But other groups, such as Porkbusters, are not politically active in the realm that would directly affect ethics reform. The sole goal of Porkbusters is to point out the pork-barrel spedning in Washington, and the ineffective waste of taxpayer money on projects the the federal government should not be funding.

But to target blogs because they may have 500 readers is pure stupidity. I guess the Senate forgot about the efforts of Bill Frist in the last Congress to have blogs legally classified as media outlets, granting them First Amendment protections as such. If we are to be registered, and targeted, why not the New York Times or the Chicago Tribune?

This bill needs to be amended, and Section 220 needs to be removed. Get on the phones--202-225-3121 and raise some heck over this. Stop these people from trying to quash our right to criticize these people, and our right to know what they are doing up on the Hill.

Marcie

UPDATE: WELCOME Instapundit readers!!!

UPDATE: Welcome Worcester County Freedom Trail readers!!

UPDATE: The Bennett Amendment has passed, and bloggers can breathe a sigh of relief. They will NOT be treated as lobbyists by Congress's new ethics bill.

(Hat-tip: Professor Reynolds)

THE BENNETT AMENDMENT has
passed the Senate, which I believe puts an end -- for the moment -- to worries that bloggers will be treated as lobbyists. Note the party breakdown. (Via Jason Pye).

UPDATE: Professor Bainbridge thinks those worries were
bogus all along.

While we do, indeed, respect our betters, the fact remains that had people not taken notice of this, no one would have known anything about this part of the ethics pacakge. THIS is what it means to be aware of what is going on in Congress.

Oh, and a special note to those who criticized my husband earlier regaridng this issue in the chats: He was correct, and you were wrong. Deal with it. A little research into something goes a long way, and based on what we do know, sen. McConnell's last interview we heard, this topic did not even come up. Not that we are tossing accusations around, but something this constraining to the public should have been brought up by the new Senate Minority Leader, do we not agree?

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Pentagon Manual For Tribunals Sparks More Democrat Whining

 In further legal news, the Pentagon has finally drafted it's guidelines for detainee trials, which should begin sometime this year. The AP story from the Examiner shows that the Democrats are still whining about these tribunals:

According to a copy of the manual obtained by The Associated Press, a terror suspect's defense lawyer cannot reveal classified evidence in the person's defense until the government has a chance to review it.

The manual, sent to Capitol Hill on Thursday and scheduled to be released later by the Pentagon, is intended to track a law passed last fall by Congress restoring President Bush's plans to have special military commissions try terror-war prisoners. Those commissions had been struck down earlier in the year by the Supreme Court.

The Pentagon manual could spark a fresh confrontation between the Bush administration and Congress - now led by Democrats - over the treatment of the nation's terrorism suspects.

Last September, Congress - then led by Republicans - sent Bush a bill granting wide latitude in interrogating and detaining captured enemy combatants. The legislation also prohibited some of the worst abuses of detainees like mutilation and rape, but granted the president leeway to decide which other interrogation techniques are permissible. ...


... The Pentagon manual is aimed at ensuring that enemy combatants - the Bush administration's term for many of the terrorism suspects captured on the battlefield - "are prosecuted before regularly constituted courts affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized by civilized people," according to the document.

As required by law, the manual prohibits statements obtained by torture and "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" as prohibited by the Constitution.

However, the law does allow statements obtained through coercive interrogation techniques if obtained before Dec. 30, 2005, and deemed reliable by a judge.

Nearly 400 detainees suspected of links to al-Qaida and the Taliban are still being held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, while about 380 others have been transferred or released. The Defense Department is currently planning trials for at least 10 suspects.

Democrats have said they would like to revisit detainee legislation and address concerns that the bill gives the president too much latitude interpreting standards set by the Geneva Conventions on prisoner treatment - and may deny detainees legal rights.

Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he planned to scrutinize the manual to ensure that it does not "run afoul" of the Constitution.

"I have not yet seen evidence that the process by which these rules were built or their substance addresses all the questions left open by the legislation. This committee will fulfill its oversight responsibility to make sure this is the case," Skelton said in a written statement.

The Democrats want to revisit the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which Sabrina detailed for our readers last year. The only gripe the Democrats had was that it revoked habeas corpus rights from terrorists. Well, duh! They're not citizens, and they're not entitled to them. But that's why they want to revisit it.

The spin, perpetuated beautifully and transparently by Sen. Skelton, that they're concerned that the detainees won't be treated fairly is pure nonsense. These people were caught on the field of battle, or withint he midst of enemy forces. They're being treated fairly, and the Pentagon's manual demands that. They will get their fair trial, and if their crimes are minor, they may be released because of the amount of time they've already spent in captivity. However, if their crimes are greater, then I really have no problem with locking them away for a long time, or invoking a sentence of death on them.

We've already caught a few that were released a while back int he midst of the enmy on the battlefield, again. So, we'd like to make sure these guys aren't going to head back to keep shooting at us and coalition forces. The only way to do that is to move forward on these tribunals. If innocent, as their attorneys proclaim they are, then they'll be released. If not, well, you roll the dice, you take your chances.

But I'm getting pretty tired with the Democrats standing up on their collective soapbox, proclaiming that the president has exercised powers that aren't his. The Military Commissions Act dealt with the Supreme Court's justified decision that the tribunals couldn't go forward unless Congress approved of them. That's an Article I power the Congress possesses, and the AUMF didn't include the ability to convene such tribunals.The problem was solved by Congress, and now we can move ahead. But the Democratds want to go back and get their way.

I doubt the president would sign any revision of the Commissions Act, especially if the Democrats manage to weasel in the habeas corpus rights to their amended legislation. They need to sit down, shut up, and suck it up. These people down in Gitmo aren't the guys picked up for shoplifting or grand theft auto. These are enemies of the United States. And we should be dealing with them now, not going back and second-guessing whether or not these people should have protections that aren't legally theirs in the first place.

Publius II

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Gonzales Grilled Over The President's Decision Over The NSA Program

 Attorney General Gonzales is taking pops on the chin today over the president's decision to hand control of the NSA's TSP over to the FISC:

Senators demanded details Thursday from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales about new orders putting the government's domestic spying program under court review - and questioned why it took so long to do so.

Meanwhile, the presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said she had no objection to disclosing legal orders and opinions about the program that targets people linked to al-Qaida, but the Bush administration would have to approve release of the information.

Gonzales and National Intelligence Director John Negroponte said it was uncertain whether the court orders and details about the program will be disclosed.

Negroponte, testifying before the House Intelligence Committee, said there may be separation of powers issues involved in turning over information to Congress about the program.

At issue is how the secret panel of judges will consider evidence when approving government requests to monitor suspected al-Qaida agents' phone calls and e-mails between the United States and other countries.

Until last week, the National Security Agency conducted the surveillance without a court warrant. But the Justice Department announced Wednesday that the FISA court, as it is known, began overseeing the program with a Jan. 10 order.

Gonzales, testifying Thursday front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he may not be able to release details of the order.

"Are you saying that you might object to the court giving us a decision that you publicly announced?" committee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., asked. "Are we Alice in Wonderland here?"

Responding, Gonzales said "there is going to be information about operational details about how we're doing this that we want to keep confidential," he said.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., questioned whether the orders give the FISA court a programmatic or blanket authority to approve all wiretapping requests. Although Justice Department attorneys have assured him wiretapping warrants would target individuals, Specter said that "we need to know more on the oversight process."

He also needled Gonzales on why the spying program was only last week put under judicial review after the Bush administration acknowledged its existence, amid a public outcry of criticism, a little over a year ago.

"It is little hard to see why it took so long," said Specter, noting that Republicans lost control of Congress elections last fall that were widely seen as a repudiation of administration policy. "The heavy criticism the president took on the program was very harmful in the political process, and for the reputation of the country," Specter said.

Let's just say that Sen. Leahy does live in Wonderland, as farf as we're concerned, and Sen. Specter seems to have joined him there. The idea that the Judiciary Committee believes that they're in the right to criticize the administration over a perfectly legal program is the very height of asininity. And with both of them jumping up on their soapboxes, we can now see what the president obviously can't. He's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.

That's why we're a little more than tickedover his decision to cede control of the program over to the FISC. Regardless of how he moves on this, he's going to face criticism. He should have just dug his heels in, and stuck to his guns. But instead, he tried to play nice--thinking that if he relinquished the oversight of the program to the foreign intelligence court that the Democrats wouldn't give him H*ll over it. Stupid logic, at best.

As for the covert intelligence the Judiciary Committee is demanding regarding the warrants, it's none of their business. That's a matter for the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, not Judiciary. Their job is to oversee the courts, not the intelligence the courts are privy to. The Judiciary Committee went over this when it came to the Roberts confirmation hearings; they specifically said the committee wouldn't get anything that was deemed sensitive by the administration--both in regard to security and the oath of a lawyer not discussing things regarding their clients.

Furthermore, the oversight that the Judiciary Committee is demanding to know about can't simply be handed over by the FISC. Their requests must go through Justice to ensure nothing extremely sensitive is divulged. What we also have here is a separation of powers issue with regard to intelligence. Sen. Schumer brought up the question of how the warrants will be conducted, whether they will target individuals, or if they'll be broad. Attorney General Gonzales stated for him that because this is now up to the court, it falls to their discretion. But he did state on the record that every level of Constitutional protection is being adhered to, and any infomration unrelated to any terror investigation will be destroyed appropriately.

Quite literally, the president never should have given control up on this program. He and those connected to it had done a superb job of oversight. Had it not been so, the program would have been shut down months ago. And to date, few suits brought in court have even brought up the possible breach in Fourth Amendment protections. Those are ACLU cases, and none of those bringing the suits have been targeted by the program. For them, it's an attempt to constrain the program, and shut it down. It's not about civil liberties for them. It's another axe to grind.

And I think the president is learning a valuable lesson right now. You can't play nice with those hostile to you in Congress. They don't like him, and they're not going to get along. It would have been better to simply keep going along with this program, and left Congress to keep whining about it. But by making his decision, he put this issue back in the forefront of the debate, and it's caused him nothing but grief; grief from the nutters in Congress that don't seem to understand the potency and legality of the program, and grief from his own base because he gave up without a fight, again.

Publius II

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive