Recently in GWOT Category

John Hinderaker has posted the entire opening remarks of Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona at yet another House hearing where the subject of torture is being demagogued by the left. It was excellent. Go read it all, but here's a sample:

Severe interrogations are rarely used. CIA Director Michael Hayden has confirmed that despite the incessant hysteria by a few, the water boarding technique, for example, has only been used on three high-level captured terrorists, the very worst of the worst of our terrorist enemies.

Director Hayden suspended the practice of water boarding by CIA agents in 2006. Before the suspension, he confirmed that his agency water boarded 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaida and Abdullah Hem Nashiri (ph), and each for approximately one minute.

But who are these people, Mr. Chairman? When the terrorist Zubaida, a logistics chief of Al Qaida, was captured, he and two other men were caught building a bomb. A soldering gun that was used to make the bomb was still hot on the table, along with the building plans for a school.

Rep. Franks is being generous - the incessant hysteria has been by much more than a few, and so successful (thanks to a sympathetic media) that large parts of the population believe that torture has been in widespread continuous use and still continues today. Still, the remarks as a whole are the best example of placing this issue in perspective I've seen.

George Bush is well on his way to becoming the most powerful lame-duck ever.

New suggested mottos for Harry Reid's Senate:

• "I guess when you're all about surrender, any surrender will do."

• "When you can't be with the surrender you want, honey - love the surrender you're with." (works as a theme song as well)

• "It's not about giving up while you're ahead - it's just about giving up."

• "You don't go to the Senate floor with the surrender you want - you go to the Senate floor with the surrender you have."

• "If at first you don't succeed, give up, give up, again."

If you want to send an inspirational Christmas gift to your favorite Democrat Senator, this would be a good place to start.

Update: 0 for 2 on a sunny December Friday.

Sigh. But it all seemed so... so real:

Seriously, though, opinion of this seems to be all over the map, judging by the talking heads I saw on the tube last night. And sadly, too much of it appears to be centered around whether this looks good or bad for the Administration or others.

Me, I'm more concerned about making damn sure we're right before it's too late.

Is that too much to ask?

H/T LGF.

Via AP/Yahoo:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Police fired tear gas and clubbed thousands of lawyers protesting President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's decision to impose emergency rule, as Western allies threatened to review aid to the troubled Muslim nation.

If that happened over here folks would be cheering.

Just sayin'.

Now that campaign rhetoric is no longer necessary, they can stop pretending:

WASHINGTON - Legislation aimed at President Bush's once-secret program for wiretapping U.S.-foreign phone calls and computer traffic of suspected terrorists without warrants shows all the signs of not moving ahead, notwithstanding President Bush's request this week that a lame-duck Congress give it to him.

Senate Democrats, emboldened by Election Day wins that put them in control of Congress as of January, say they would rather wait until next year to look at the issue. "I can't say that we won't do it, but there's no guarantee that we're going spend a lot of time on controversial measures," Democratic Whip Richard Durbin of Illinois said Thursday.

In Senate parlance, that means no.

Of course, we knew this all along, didn't we? Indeed, rather than risk accidentally finding out what the terrorists are up to, the Democrats would rather follow Conyer's dream of endless investigations and impeachment:

Indeed, rather than move to authorize the program, Democrats said they would push in January to investigate how the program had been run and would seek legislation to restrict or ban outright the use of wiretaps without warrants.

Representative John Conyers Jr., the Michigan Democrat who is all but assured of taking over the House Judiciary Committee, has been one of the fiercest critics of the program and some other counterterrorism operations, saying he considers them abusive and potentially illegal infringements on civil liberties.

The shedding of such tears for the trampled rights of terrorists in far-away countries is because they care, folks. They care.

Update: To those in unwrapped territory eagerly anticipating that the new Congress will sate their hate-driven lust for presidential blood, the operative word is "Joyous".

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh said Friday he would step down as Palestinian prime minister if that would persuade the West to lift debilitating economic sanctions.

Now if he can convince the rest of his pals to join him, we might have something.

The Johnstown Tribune-Democrat weighed in yesterday with their thoughts on the Murtha - Irey Congressional race, and it's not pretty (H/T Irey campaign). Unlike the NYT editorial endorsing Lamont, this one actually talks about the candidate they endorse - and they have little nice to say about him besides approving of his "cut and run" war stance. Emphasis added:

On his famous love for pork:

While we endorse the local congressman in his re-election bid, we fear the spending spree that might result from a shift in power...

On his smearing of the troops, which has made him very unpopular with the military:

We would also urge Murtha to sit down with area veterans who clearly have different views on the Iraq conflict than he does.

On his alignment with the moonbat wing of the Democratic Party:

We are frightened by Murtha’s willingness to align himself with California Democrat Nancy Pelosi. Clearly, Murtha is hoping that relationship paves the way for his ascension to a position of higher power in the House. But we don’t believe our region’s values match well with Pelosi’s, and we don’t see much good coming for the 12th district – even if the relationship benefits the congressman.

Beyond that, Murtha has endeared himself to liberals on both coasts – raising money for his allies in California, New England and elsewhere. We hope he can keep these “friends” and their spending ways in check if the Democrats retake the House.

They even acknowlege how corrupt he is, hoping he can restrain his urges:

But we urge him to remain faithful to his fiscally and socially conservative western Pennsylvania roots – even if it costs him in personal gain and national influence.

Read the whole editorial. It's painfully clear what the Tribune-Democrat is saying here - "Murtha sucks, but vote for him anyway 'cause he's a Democrat."

The Tribune-Democrat's editorial staff has surely reached new lows when their bias toward the left causes them to endorse a candidate whom they acknowlege is unsuitable in most ways. Do they really believe the voters in Johnstown are dense enough to buy it?

Update: Those troops that Murtha rushes to condemn have a few thoughts about cutting and running (H/T Captain's Quarters). The Tribune-Democrat is right, the troops simply don't agree with Murtha.

A major milestone in Iraqi history is reached as its most barbaric and murderous leader receives justice - Saddam Hussein has been sentenced to hang by the neck until dead for his crimes against humanity. He deserves worse, IMO.

Via AP/Yahoo:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Saddam Hussein was convicted and sentenced Sunday to hang for crimes against humanity in the 1982 killings of 148 people in a single town, as the ousted leader, trembling and defiant, shouted "God is great!"

As he, his half brother and another senior official in his regime were convicted and sentenced to death, Saddam yelled out, "Long live the people and death to their enemies. Long live the glorious nation, and death to its enemies!"

Some feared the verdicts could intensify Iraq's sectarian violence after a trial that stretched over nine months in 39 sessions and ended nearly 3 1/2 months ago. Clashes immediately broke out Sunday in north Baghdad's heavily Sunni Azamiyah district. Elsewhere in the capital, celebratory gunfire rang out.

"This government will be responsible for the consequences, with the deaths of hundreds, thousands or even hundreds of thousands, whose blood will be shed," Salih al-Mutlaq, a Sunni political leader, told the al-Arabiya satellite television station.

Saddam and his seven co-defendants were on trial for a wave of revenge killings carried out in the city of Dujail following a 1982 assassination attempt on the former dictator. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Islamic Dawa party, then an underground opposition, has claimed responsibility for organizing the attempt on Saddam's life.

In the streets of Dujail, a Tigris River city of 84,000, people celebrated and burned pictures of their former tormentor as the verdict was read.

The death sentences automatically go to a nine-judge appeals panel, which has unlimited time to review the case. If the verdicts and sentences are upheld, the executions must be carried out within 30 days.

A court official told The Associated Press that the appeals process was likely to take three to four weeks once the formal paperwork was submitted.

During Sunday's hearing, Saddam initially refused the chief judge's order to rise; two bailiffs pulled the ousted ruler to his feet and he remained standing through the sentencing, sometimes wagging his finger at the judge.

On FNN, they're reporting lots of celebrating. Below is a picture of celebrating in Sadr city:

This is people protesting against the verdit Tikrit.

But remember, this isn't over. We'll see more of Saddam as the appeal plays out.

Here's something that tickled me:

Before the session began, one of Saddam's lawyers, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, was ejected from the courtroom after handing the judge a memorandum in which he called the trial a travesty.

Chief Judge Raouf Abdul-Rahman pointed to Clark and said in English, "Get out."

Others blogging about the verdict:

Stop the ACLU
Hot Air
Gateway Pundit
Patterico
Blue Crab Boulevard
Polipundit
Ankle Biting Pundits
The Wide Awakes
Iowa Voice
Mary Katharine Ham
Junkyard Blog
Flopping Aces
Ed Driscoll
Tim Blair
Pajamas Media
Sister Toldjah
Captain's Quarters

H/T to KnightHawk for this chilling view of how terrorist leaders are viewing the prospects of a Democratic Party win next week:

Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, said the Democrats' talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel "proud."

"As Arabs and Muslims we feel proud of this talk," he told WND. "Very proud from the great successes of the Iraqi resistance. This success that brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal."

Nancy Pelosi recently suggested on "60 Minutes" that the insurgency would stop if only we left. Not so, say the terrorists:

WND read Pelosi's remarks to the terror leaders, who unanimously rejected her contention an American withdrawal would end the insurgency.

Islamic Jihad's Saadi, laughing, stated, "There is no chance that the resistance will stop."

He said an American withdrawal from Iraq would "prove the resistance is the most important tool and that this tool works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United States."

Once shown that their tactics are a success, what incentive would they have to stop? Why would a winning team throw away their playbook?

If the left wins, it will be a victory indeed - if you're a terrorist.

The question is whether Beijing will fall for it:

SEOUL, South Korea - North Korean leader Kim Jong Il expressed regret about his country's nuclear test to a Chinese delegation and said Pyongyang would return to international nuclear talks if Washington backs off a campaign to financially isolate the country, a South Korean newspaper reported Friday.

"If the U.S. makes a concession to some degree, we will also make a concession to some degree, whether it be bilateral talks or six-party talks," Kim was quoted as telling a Chinese envoy, the mass-circulation Chosun Ilbo reported, citing a diplomatic source in China.

Kim told the Chinese delegation that "he is sorry about the nuclear test," the newspaper reported.

Standard fare for NK - "if only those mean Americans will get off my back, we can talk" is a familiar tune.

I hope China shows some resolve this time. The sanctions should be lifted after he de-nukes, not before. Otherwise he'll just keep playing games.

Via AP/Yahoo:

BEIRUT, Lebanon - The United Nations has decided to remove unarmed observers from their posts along the Israeli-Lebanese border, moving them in with the peacekeeping force in the area, a spokesman said Friday. The decision came three days after one of the posts of the observer force, known as UNTSO, was destroyed by an Israeli airstrike earlier this week, killing four.

Unfortunately, this means Hezbollah will increase reliance on women and children as shields of choice.

is being discussed in a series of posts starting today by the always excellent Kit Jarrell of Euphoric Reality. This is not only the must read of the day, but the rest of the series as it gets posted should be watched for as well:

Now imagine that you are sitting in an 8×8 cell, as are seven of your brothers, waiting to find out if your promise to remain faithful will in fact result in your death–not in a hail of enemy fire, not in the blinding explosion of a terrorist’s bomb, but by the sterile needle of a lethal injection, administered by the very country you spent your adult life defending. You have been shackled, wearing a label that says “PVD”: potentially violent and dangerous. You have been here for over a month now, in solitary confinement for almost 24 hours a day, with nothing to do but pray that someone stands up for you, just as you did for them. But hope is dwindling. Your military attorneys don’t have time to help you, and your civilian attorneys are being denied access to evidence that would prove you’re innocent–no autopsy of the man they say you murdered in cold blood, no witnesses, nothing.

Kit also provides links for those who wish to help - also recommended.

It matters little if you believe these men innocent or guilty - they deserve to be treated fairly by the military justice system, and by all indication, they haven't been.

I would also recommend writing to your elected officials in Congress. Unless, of course, you live in Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District, where your representative is likely in his favorite rocking chair knitting nooses instead of flags. Those folks should write to someone else's Representative instead.

Via AP/Yahoo:

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

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

As I've said before, this is where issues surrounding the program need to be addressed. Sniping and calls for censure resolutions only serve to display the abject stupidity and opportunism of those who have been using the issue solely for political gain.

More later.

From this morning's AP coverage of the video of the two mutilated soldiers:

It said that as soon as fighters heard of the rape-slaying, "they kept their anger to themselves and didn't spread the news, but were determined to avenge their sister's honor."

The 4:39 minute video shows two bloodied bodies in torn military uniforms lying near a curb on a bridge over a canal. One of them, partially naked, has been decapitated and his chest cut open. The other's face is bruised, the jaw apparently broken, and his leg has long gashes. Fighters are shown turning the bodies over and lifting the head of the decapitated man.

I don't know about you, but when I see this, I have a hard time thinking of those that did it as "fighters".

If you have any doubts about what kind of people our troops face in Iraq and elsewhere.

If you have any doubts about why we have to stay and finish the job.

If you have any doubts about why it's so important to help the middle east join the 21st century.

Don't go unless you can handle extremely graphic images. There are plenty of warnings, please read and heed.

Although if it were up to me I'd make this required watching for nearly every adult in the U.S.

H/T Little Green Footballs.

That's the title of a post yesterday from Captain Ed about a proposal to arm insurgents under the presumption that they would take on Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Here's a little from the USA Today article it's based on:

BAGHDAD — Iraq's government is studying a request from some local insurgent leaders to supply them with weapons so they can turn on the heavily armed foreign fighters who were once their allies, according to two Iraqi lawmakers.

Leaders claiming to represent about 11 insurgent groups asked for weapons to fight foreign al-Qaeda elements in Iraq, said Haider al-Ibadi, a Shiite lawmaker and member of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa Party.

"They want to take part in the war against terrorists," said al-Ibadi, who supports the proposal. "They claim they could wipe out the terrorists and work with the government."

Captain Ed, notably, thinks it's a bad idea:

Still, it sounds too cute. They want arms to fight the terrorists. If the native insurgents want that, they should have enlisted in the Iraqi Army. These groups could simply provide the Iraqi Army with their intel and let the government handle the problem.

Frankly, I think it's worse than a bad idea. And based on the offer being made public, (certainly AQI has access to the news) something about this story doesn't smell right. I see three possibilities:

A) If the offer is genuine, then Haider al-Ibadi is either stupid or has sold out the insurgents. AQI isn't likely to trust these 11 groups enough to let them get close now that the offer is public. Indeed, they'll change their hiding places now, making the insugent's intel useless. And the insurgents themselves will now become targets of AQI.

B) The second possibility is that the offer was extended just so that the insurgents can re-supply their dwindling weapons caches. Unless AQI was in on the scam, it may have backfired as the insurgents may fall from AQI's good graces due to the offer being made public.

C) The third possibility is that there was no offer at all. The Iraqi government introduced a bogus proposal to drive a wedge between the insurgents and AQI. This could force the insurgents to be more cooperative in the bargaining efforts, and maybe bring more of the groups to the table.

The scenario in the article doesn't work at face value. Insurgents not only have intel, they have it because they are the ones giving shelter to AQI (who else would?). The terrorists are far more ruthless than the insurgency, and I'm sure the local fighters have a healthy respect (read: fear) of that fact. I can't imagine that any of them would offer up AQI without demanding secrecy.

So the real question, then, is why did the Iraqi government give this to the press? This has to be either a blunder or a ruse.

Via AP/Yahoo:

MOSCOW - President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday ordered Russia's special services to hunt down and "destroy" the killers of four Russian diplomats in Iraq, the Kremlin said.

Nikolai Patrushev, the head of the Federal Security Service — the main successor to the Soviet KGB — later said that everything would be done to ensure that the killers "do not escape from responsibility," the Interfax news agency reported.

"The president has ordered the special forces to take all necessary measures to find and destroy the criminals who killed Russian diplomats in Iraq," the Kremlin press service said in a brief statement.

This is good news - the terrorists in Iraq have historically received a different reaction from taking and/or killing non-US hostages.

Putin has a somewhat different intelligence footprint in Iraq stemming from a long involvement there, and they're chummy with some of the factions that have regarded us in a chilly fashion. If there's a minimum amout of coordination, it's likely that Russia's more active role in hunting down Al Qaeda in Iraq will benefit our mission as well.

This would be a terrific time for Condi and/or Bush to make a few phone calls.

One of the left talking points of late has been the notion that the NYT disclosure didn't harm national security because it didn't include the most intimate operational details of the program. Besides, they say, the terrorists aren't that dumb - they know we're trying to track the money flow of terrorism.

Damage to the program, however, needs to be assessed not in terms of what the terrorists knew or assumed prior to its disclosure. The real damage will be from decreased cooperation from the participants in the program.

Early this week, the administration was on the phone reassuring allies of the importance of keeping the program running. But now that the program is common knowledge, objectors are coming out in droves. In Belgium, SWIFT is under fire:

June 28 (Bloomberg) -- The Belgian government has ordered an investigation into the decision by Belgium-based cooperative Swift to provide bank-transfer data to the U.S. government as part of President George W. Bush's efforts to fight terrorism.

Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt's office said today it asked intelligence and security officials to determine ``if the interests of certain Belgian nationals were possibly affected and if Belgian law was respected.'' The office also said in today's e-mailed statement that it is trying to ascertain whether Belgian oversight needs ``adaptations.''

And as many as 32 governments are also being challenged by a UK based civil liberties group:

BRUSSELS, June 27 — A human rights group in London said today that it had lodged formal complaints in 32 countries against the Brussels-based banking consortium known as Swift, contending that it violated European and Asian data protection rules by providing the United States with confidential information about international money transfers.

Simon Davies, director of Privacy International, said the organization filed the complaints in the hope of halting what it called "illegal transfers" of private information by Swift, whose full name is the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications.

The complaints were filed in all 25 member nations of the European Union, plus Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Norway and Iceland. The group said it also filed a complaint in the semiautonomous Chinese territory of Hong Kong.

"Swift appears to have violated data protection rules in Europe by making these transfers without the consent of the individuals involved, and without the approval of European judicial or administrative authorities," Mr. Davies said. "The scale of the operation, involving millions of records, places this disclosure in the realm of a fishing exercise rather than a legally authorized investigation."

There can be no doubt that the result of all this activity will be reduced participation in and cooperation for US-led anti-terrorism intelligence efforts. That's the real nature of the damage.

Update: Captain Ed feels the program may be over. Could be, but I think it's a safe bet that if it continues it will no longer be of much use.

This revelation from Bill Keller as to who the White House supposedly asked to intervene on the lastest exposure of secret anti-terror programs.

Are you ready?

Jack Murtha.

Yeah, the one and only.

Keller insists that "not all of them urged us not to publish". Bryan at Hot Air deduces that Murtha was the odd man out.

If this is the case, Murtha has some big-time 'splainin to do. But don't count on the NYT to tell us - Keller doesn't mind publishing national security related secrets, but considers his conversation with Murtha to be confidential.

The NYT is exposing yet another classified program (H/T Polipundit):

WASHINGTON, June 22 — Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials.

The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database.

Viewed by the Bush administration as a vital tool, the program has played a hidden role in domestic and foreign terrorism investigations since 2001 and helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia, the officials said.

The program, run out of the Central Intelligence Agency and overseen by the Treasury Department, "has provided us with a unique and powerful window into the operations of terrorist networks and is, without doubt, a legal and proper use of our authorities," Stuart Levey, an under secretary at the Treasury Department, said in an interview on Thursday.

The program is grounded in part on the president's emergency economic powers, Mr. Levey said, and multiple safeguards have been imposed to protect against any unwarranted searches of Americans' records.

Similar to other programs, expect the Democrats to start yelling loudly about this just before we find out that a number of them had been briefed and raised no objection.

Will Feingold dust off his resolution calling for Congress to ignore Article III of the Constitution?

I'll have more on this later. But in the meantime, I've started the countdown for the reflexive and robotic automatic declaration that it's illegal from the left blogosphere.

10... 9... 8...

Update (8:50am EST): First entry is this breathless headline at the Huffington Post: "Bank Data Secretly Reviewed By Bush Admin. Without Warrants Or Subpoenas..." - here's a screenshot:

Yet the NYT article that Arianna links to says subpoenas were indeed issued:

Indeed, the cooperative's executives voiced early concerns about legal and corporate liability, officials said, and the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control began issuing broad subpoenas for the cooperative's records related to terrorism. One official said the subpoenas were intended to give Swift some legal protection.

I suppose reading the article was too much to ask.

I was too tired to blog about this last night. Maybe a good thing, as the original story, which was kinda thin, has been updated several times:

MIAMI - Inside a city warehouse, authorities believe, a group was hatching the early stages of a widespread terror plot — one that targeted Chicago's Sears Tower, an FBI office in Miami and other U.S. buildings.

On Thursday, authorities swarmed the warehouse in Miami's Liberty City area, removed a metal door with a blowtorch and arrested seven people, a federal law enforcement official said. Authorities in Washington and Miami were expected to release more details in separate news conferences Friday morning.

I hope the news conferences fill some of the holes, because there seems to be conflicting stories about their makeup and motivation. First, there's this:

The law enforcement official told The Associated Press the seven were mainly Americans with no apparent ties to al-Qaida or other foreign terrorist organizations. He spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to pre-empt the news conferences.

But CNN quotes a different law enforcement official:

Law enforcement sources told CNN that some of the suspects are members of a radical Muslim group and that at least one had taken "an al Qaeda oath." They had carried out surveillance on the Sears Tower and FBI building in Miami, the sources said.

Then there's this from the AP story linked above:

Residents living near the warehouse said the men taken into custody described themselves as Muslims and had tried to recruit young people to join their group.

She said she talked to one of the men about a month ago. "They seemed brainwashed," she said. "They said they had given their lives to Allah."

But later in the story a supposed member of the group is quoted:

A man who called himself Brother Corey and claimed to be a member of the group told CNN late Thursday that the individuals worship at the building and call themselves the "Seas of David."

He dismissed any suggestion that the men were contemplating violence. "We are peaceful," he said. He added that the group studies the Bible and has "soldiers" in Chicago but is not a terrorist organization.

So until more light is shed on the situation we apparently have a group of Bible-studying Muslims who have no ties to a terrorist group they've pledged allegiance to.

This doesn't compute at all. Maybe I need more coffee...

Today promises to be another big day for Republicans as the Democrats attempt a repeat of last week's Iraq debate:

WASHINGTON - Fierce election-year debate on Iraq spilled over into a second week on Capitol Hill with Senate Democrats lining up behind a proposal to start U.S. troop withdrawals this year and Republicans chastising them for espousing a "cut-and-run" strategy.

The Republicans are standing firm, as they should:

"Let me be clear: Retreat is not a solution," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. "Cutting and running is bad policy that threatens our national security and poses unacceptable risks to Americans."

Democrats seem to think that keeping our word to the Iraqi government is a bad idea for a very anti-liberal reason:

"The administration's policy to date, that we'll be there for as long as Iraq needs us, will result in Iraq's depending on us longer," said Levin, top-ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. "Three-and-a-half years into the conflict, we should tell the Iraqis that the American security blanket is not permanent."

Would that they applied the same logic to their beloved entitlement programs here at home.

In a weird deja vu kind of way, Senator Kerry wants to ressurect his proposal from last week for yet another overwhelming defeat:

It would require the administration to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq by July 1, 2007, leaving in place only U.S. troops essential to training Iraqi security forces, conducting counterterrorism operations and protecting U.S. personnel and facilities.

Also joining Kerry is Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold (who doesn't support the war but supports nearly 86% of the constitution). I guess they felt left out last week.

Ultimately, today's debate in the Senate should prove to be a positive for Republicans as Democrats line up once again to show their lack of resolve on security issues.

I'm sure over the course of this week there will be lots of pixels devoted to the shameful defeatist posturing of Rep. John Murtha yesterday on Meet the Press. Indeed, there already has. Today's Wall Street Journal has a terrific twofer on the politics of cut 'n run^TM and the war in general.

The first, Iraq and Congress, says of Murtha:

As for Mr. Murtha's proposal that U.S. forces should redeploy to some nearby part of the Middle East, this is merely a disguise for what everyone would understand was a defeat in Iraq. Anyone who doubts it should merely listen to Mr. Murtha, who said again yesterday on NBC's Meet the Press that "We can't win a war like this." It's more accurate to say that our troops have a harder time winning a war with political leaders as inconstant as Mr. Murtha, who voted to commit U.S. troops but now lacks the will to finish the job.

Certainly Rep. Murtha deserves the credit for being the loudest of those who would abandon Iraq and prove to the world that the United States can't be counted on to keep its word. And who could blame him? After all, what use is our integrity as a nation when the Majority Leader post is on the line? And the thrust of his message should not be mistaken by anyone, considering the ill-chosen comparison to Beirut or Somalia, both of which cost the US dearly by emboldening the ideology and strategy of Al-Qaeda.

It simply cannot be other than raw stupidity to repeatedly claim a need to "change directions" and offer only examples that abandoned friends and contributed greatly to 9/11. Murtha would have us take that route again, once and for all eliminating any measure of trust that might be placed in us by a nation in need.

But Murtha isn't alone - he has the backing of an opportunistic party so hell-bent on regaining power that they eagerly anticipate our nation's failure so that they can cynically sweep in and pick up the pieces. Nancy Pelosi referred to the war as a "grotesque mistake" recently. I wonder how the groups in Iraq most subject to the murderous whims of Saddam Hussein feel about the suggestion that their plight under Saddam was just fine by Nancy, and any attempt to liberate them was a "mistake"? Her political posturing fails to consider that the real mistakes have already been judged by history:

Most terrorism experts are agreed that the precipitous withdrawal from both places emboldened our enemies by convincing them the U.S. could always be made to back down in any conflict. Not repeating those mistakes may be reason enough to stay the course in Iraq.

It would be foolhardy to believe otherwise. Surrender in Iraq would be Al-Qaeda's greatest victory - not only would it embolden Bin Laden to plan more attacks, it would make his recruiting far easier.

Now Dianne Feinstein wants to followup the spectacular failure of the Kerry plan last week with a repeat of the surrender-based politics that have worked so well for the Democrats Republicans of late. Good. Let them bring it up every week if they want - right up to the mid-term elections. Let them ask the American people if our national integrity has any value at all.

Via AP/Yahoo:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - An umbrella group that includes al-Qaida in Iraq claimed in a Web statement Monday that it had kidnapped two U.S. soldiers reported missing south of Baghdad. There was no immediate confirmation that the statement was credible, although it appeared on a Web site often used by al-Qaida-linked groups.

U.S. officials have said they were trying to confirm whether the missing soldiers were kidnapped.

If true, at least the missing soldiers are alive, and there's a chance of rescuing them. We're keeping our fingers crossed and praying for the best.

And the liberals are seething, claiming this to be a political stunt.

They don't look very happy, do they?

WASHINGTON - The House on Friday handily rejected a timetable for pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq, culminating a fiercely partisan debate between Republicans and Democrats feeling the public's apprehension about war and the onrushing midterm campaign season.

In a 256-153 vote that mirrored the position taken by the Senate earlier, the GOP-led House approved a nonbinding resolution that praises U.S. troops, labels the Iraq war part of the larger global fight against terrorism and says an "arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment" of troops is not in the national interest.

**snip**

Democrats denounced the debate and vote as a politically motivated charade, and most, including Pelosi, voted against the measure.

It appears to me that Murtha and his pals are now mired in an intractable war. He was there for the wrong reasons and has mismanaged it terribly. Indeed, this is a war that he cannot win, and made worse by the fact that many in his own party don't support the cut 'n run^TM strategy and are apparently now engaged in a civil war within the Democratic Party. Maybe it's time for Murtha to re-deploy back to Pennsylvania.

Political stunt? You bet it was. Democrats have had free reign to run from channel to channel crying "Time frame! We need a time frame! Bring 'em home now!" while ducking the harder question of what it means to advocate abandoning those we've sworn to help. A long-running dishonest stunt by the Democrats for cheap political points.

They'll find it harder to earn those points now.

Or at least that's the plan (H/T Protein Wisdom):

Marine may call Murtha as witness

A criminal defense attorney for a Marine under investigation in the Haditha killings says he will call a senior Democratic congressman as a trial witness, if his client is charged, to find out who told the lawmaker that U.S. troops are guilty of cold-blooded murder.

Attorney Neal A. Puckett told The Washington Times that Gen. Michael Hagee, the Marine commandant, briefed Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, on the Nov. 19 killings of 24 Iraqis in the town north of Baghdad. Mr. Murtha later told reporters that the Marines were guilty of killing the civilians in "cold blood." Mr. Murtha said he based his statement on Marine commanders, whom he did not identify.

Mr. Puckett said such public comments from a congressman via senior Marines amount to "unlawful command influence." He said potential Marine jurors could be biased by the knowledge that their commandant, the Corps' top officer, thinks the Haditha Marines are guilty.

"Congressman Murtha will be one of the first witnesses I call to the witness stand," Mr. Puckett said yesterday.

Mr. Puckett represents Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, an eight-year Marine who was a key participant in the Haditha operations that resulted in the 24 civilian deaths.

I don't know if the claim of unlawful command influence will have any traction - but somebody in the command structure thought these Marines were guilty. And the choice of Murtha as a recipient of the leak shows malice as it should have been predictable what would be done with it.

But the fact is that we don't yet know what the truth is regarding Haditha. I'm hoping they're innocent, but recognize that it could go the way of those who hope that they're guilty. If you're reading this and saying "but I don't hope they're guilty - I just know they are" then you're being dishonest. You can't know any more than I can since the facts haven't all been revealed. Only a fool driven by more emotion than brains could reach a conclusion of innocence or guilt on the public facts as they currently stand.

So if you believe they're guilty, it's not fact, but hope alone that drives you, and I don't have it in me to even pity you.

Murtha has hope, too. Political gain seems like such a petty motive, doesn't it? But his reprehensable act cuts both ways - if there is something that the Marines should be brought to justice for, Murtha and his informant may have given them the tools to avoid it. If they're innocent, they'll never be able to remove the stain that's been smeared on them.

That's not something to be proud of, folks. Why don't some of you "hopefuls" tell me again how courageous and patriotic Murtha is - OK?

Update (5:00pm EST): Okay, okay - I had a change of heart on the drive home from work. "Patriotism" is overused nowadays anyway - just like "integrity". Both are terrific concepts, but the application of each changes dramatically depending on perspective.

So in all fairness, it's entirely possible that Murtha believes that selling out a few Marines to achieve his party's and his own objectives is beneficial to the country, therefore, patriotic. You know, kinda like that woman down in Texas who claimed that the only way to save her kids was to drown them. So, in that spirit, the last paragraph of this post is corrected to read:

That's not something to be proud of, folks. Why don't some of you "hopefuls" tell me again how Murtha did the right thing - OK?

There. I feel so much better now.

Via Washington Post

More ink equals more blood, claim two economists who say that newspaper coverage of terrorist incidents leads directly to more attacks.

It's a macabre example of win-win in what economists call a "common-interest game," say Bruno S. Frey of the University of Zurich and Dominic Rohner of Cambridge University.

"Both the media and terrorists benefit from terrorist incidents," their study contends. Terrorists get free publicity for themselves and their cause. The media, meanwhile, make money "as reports of terror attacks increase newspaper sales and the number of television viewers."

The researchers counted direct references to terrorism between 1998 and 2005 in the New York Times and Neue Zuercher Zeitung, a respected Swiss newspaper. They also collected data on terrorist attacks around the world during that period. Using a statistical procedure called the Granger Causality Test, they attempted to determine whether more coverage directly led to more attacks.

The results, they said, were unequivocal: Coverage caused more attacks, and attacks caused more coverage -- a mutually beneficial spiral of death that they say has increased because of a heightened interest in terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001.

I'd like to see a similar study factoring in the anti-war statements by certain politicians and former presidents. The suggested fix:

One partial solution: Deny groups publicity by not publicly naming the attackers, Frey said. But won't they become known anyway through informal channels such as the Internet?

Not necessarily, Frey said. "Many experiences show us that in virtually all cases several groups claimed responsibility for a particular terrorist act. I would like the same rule that obtains within a country: Nobody can be called a criminal -- in our case a terrorist -- if this has not been established by a court of law."

I think being even more stupidly PC is not a good answer - the media already glorifies terrorists by refusing to call them what they are. Not naming the terrorist groups responsible might be a good start, though. I think short and unembelished coverage would help as well. "Terrorists killed XX people in an attack in the country of XXXXXX" without the usual 15 paragraphs of historical data (which often looks like a "greatest hits" collection), political analysis and quotes from anti-war politicians might help. Much of that stuff would be fine in a separate story.

Nothing, however, will ever completely sever the link between the media and terrorism. But more responsible coverage might serve to embolden the terrorists a little less.

Added thoughts: It occurred that someone might miscontrue my post as advocating censorship. Far from it - the extra analysis tacked on to every terrorist attack story is amply covered elsewhere and I'm not suggesting that coverage cease. I'd just like to see the acts of terrorism get a more matter-of-fact treatment. Publish all the other stuff separately, though.

Today's first sighting - AP:

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon Thursday confirmed that 2,500 U.S. troops have died in the Iraq war since it began more than three years ago. The grim milestone was announced just hours before the House was to begin a symbolic election-year debate over the war, with Republicans rallying against calls by some Democrats to set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

I take back the nice remarks.

Via AP/Yahoo, more indication of success in Iraq:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - American and Iraqi forces have carried out 452 raids since last week's killing of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and 104 insurgents were killed during those actions, the U.S. military said Thursday.

Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, said the raids were carried out nationwide and led to the discovery of 28 significant arms caches.

He said 255 of the raids were joint operations, while 143 were carried out by Iraqi forces alone. The raids also resulted in the captures of 759 "anti-Iraqi elements."

In other words, we're doing very well. I expect Murtha to make a statement soon congratulating our military's success. Don't you?

Update (10:00am EST): Meanwhile, AL-Reuters does it's best to put on a sunny spin on it for the left:

Military deaths in Iraq hit 2,500

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The number of U.S. military deaths in Iraq has reached 2,500, the Pentagon said on Thursday, more than three years into a conflict that finds U.S.-led forces locked in a struggle with a resilient Sunni Arab insurgency.

If they hadn't included the above number, one could read the rest of the article and easily assume it was much higher.

This wound up flying under the radar due to other news:

DETROIT -- The Bush administration argued in U.S. District Court in Detroit on Monday that it cannot defend itself against accusations that a domestic spying program is illegal and unconstitutional because details of the program would be revealed, rendering it ineffective and jeopardizing national security.

"The president has decided that the program is necessary to protect and defend the United States of America against a terrorist attack by the al-Qaida network, which has already killed thousands of Americans," Anthony Coppolino, a lawyer for the Department of Justice said in the nation's first court hearing on the spying program.

"Without evidence that goes to the heart of the matter, the president's claims cannot be addressed."

The domestic surveillance program -- in which the National Security Agency taps telephone calls between United States and other countries -- is being challenged by a host of lawyers, academicians, journalists, advocates for civil liberties and Nazih Hassan, a Lebanese immigrant who lives in Ypsilanti. They all asked U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor to order a halt to the spying.

One of the major issues is the "standing" required to bring suit. The ACLU lawyer, Ann Beeson:

Beeson said her clients have had to discontinue making or receiving overseas calls out of fear the government is intercepting private conversations protected by the First and Fourth amendments and other federal laws.

The problem the left has in this case is that they lack a victim - so they have to cynically argue that their clients "fear" the government. None of them can claim any direct harm. I see their argument as backwards. Sue the government with zero evidence, and demand a fishing expedition to force the government to prove they didn't do it.

Under that kind of reasoning, I should be able to sign on to any class action suit against a drug company over side effects. When asked for proof that I used the medication in question, I should be able to respond, "Make the drug company prove I didn't use it." It would also work for discrimination suits as well.

The next hearing is on July 10.

Further reflection (9:20am EST): It also seems that if these people "fear" their calls being intercepted, perhaps the NYT, DNC, and the ACLU itself deserve the blame. After all, the non-stop dishonest branding of the program as something that it's not (illegal widespead domestic spying with Americans as primary targets) by the ACLU, the media, and the left has been intended to instill fear for political gain.

Well, the autopsy report has been released - and there are no surprises:

Col. Steve Jones, command surgeon for Multinational Forces, said an autopsy concluded that al-Zarqawi died from serious injuries to his lungs. An FBI test positively identified al-Zarqawi's remains.

Of course, that won't stop the conspiracy nuts from making all sorts of wild claims. If I see an especially imaginative one I'll link to it later.

Meanwhile, al Qaeda has chosen a successor to Zarqawi:

"The shura council of al Qaeda in Iraq unanimously agreed on Sheikh Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, to be a successor to Sheikh Abu Musab al-Zarqawi," said a statement signed by al Qaeda and posted on a Web site frequently used by Islamist militants.

I assume they didn't release an org chart to go along with the announcement.

Doin' what they do best!

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Flush with intelligence, the U.S. military moved quickly Friday to take advantage of the power vacuum left by the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, carrying out nearly 40 raids in an effort to stop his terror network from regrouping.

I see this as have a cascade effect, at least in the short term. As these raids yield even more actionable intel, I see us causing major damage to the terrorist networks in Iraq. It will take time for what's left to regroup - months, perhaps.

That's valuable time for the Iraqi military to spend training and standing up instead of dodging bombs and bullets at recruiting stations.

That's valuable time to repair infrastructure - and for a change, faster than it's being sabataged.

That's valuable time for the new government to make progress instead of stamping out fires.

Yes, I'm pinning a lot of hopes on this in a week when nearly everyone is expressing caution. And the current effort by the troops could cease bearing fruit rapidly. But somehow I sense that there is a turning point being approached.

And I'm normally a pessimist.

That's the assessment from Jo's Cafe after Nick Berg’s father was interviewed on Fox News this morning about al-Zarqawi's death. TB also saw it, unfortunately I did not.

Apparently he claims that al-Zarqawi didn't kill his son, in spite of the video tape of the gruesome act.

Naturally, Mr. Berg blames Bush.

I hope someone recorded this. And I'm considering starting an office pool guessing the first time a major name Democrat calls al-Zarqawi's (and the 7 or so people who were with him) death a "massacre".

Via AP/Yahoo:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida's leader in Iraq who led a bloody campaign of suicide bombings and kidnappings, has been killed in an air raid north of Baghdad — a major victory in the U.S.-led war in Iraq and the broader war on terror. Iraq's prime minister and U.S. officials said his identity was confirmed by fingerprints and a first-hand look at his face.

The announcement came six days after the Jordanian-born terror leader appeared in a videotape, railing against Shiites in Iraq and saying militias are raping women and killing Sunnis and the community must fight back.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said al-Zarqawi was killed along with seven aides Wednesday evening in a house 30 miles northeast of Baghdad in the volatile province of Diyala, just east of the provincial capital of Baqouba, al-Maliki said.

"Today, al-Zarqawi was eliminated," al-Maliki told a news conference, drawing loud applause from reporters as he was flanked by U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and U.S. Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

Al-Maliki said the air strike was the result of intelligence reports provided to Iraqi security forces by residents in the area, and U.S. forces acted on the information.

"Those who disrupt the course of life, like al-Zarqawi, will have a tragic end," he said.

He also warned those who follow the militant's lead that "whenever there is a new al-Zarqawi, we will kill him."

"This is a message for all those who embrace violence, killing and destruction to stop and to (retreat) before it's too late," he said. "It is an open battle with all those who incite sectarianism."

Khalilzad added "the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a huge success for Iraq and the international war on terror." He also gave a thumbs up and said it was a good day for the United States.

Casey said the hunt for al-Zarqawi began in the area two weeks ago, and al-Zarqawi's body was identified by fingerprints and facial recognition.

I promise not to get too excited about this just yet. If the story holds up as the day progresses, this is indeed great news - although I'm sure a large number of folks on a certain side of the blogosphere will spend their day telling us how it doesn't matter...

Update (5:50 AM EST): Oil falls below $70 on death of al Qaeda's Zarqawi

I expect a cascade of good news related to this - provided Ben Bernanke can keep his mouth shut.

Added: I wonder how long before someone tries to spin this as a war crime?

Via AP/Yahoo:

CAIRO, Egypt - Osama bin Laden purportedly said in an audio tape Tuesday that Zacarias Moussaoui — the only person convicted in the U.S. for the Sept. 11 attacks — had nothing to do with the operation.

"He had no connection at all with Sept. 11," the speaker, claiming to be bin Laden, said in the tape posted on the Internet.

"I am the one in charge of the 19 brothers and I never assigned brother Zacarias to be with them in that mission," he said, referring to the 19 hijackers.

This could be an attempt to embarrass the administration - weak psychological warfare from the king of terrorists. Regardless, UBL does acknowlege that Moussaoui wasn't here on a vacation:

"Since Zacarias Moussaoui was still learning how to fly, he wasn't No. 20 in the group, as your government has claimed," bin Laden said. "It knows this very well," he added.

Maybe Moussaoui was removed from the group because he couldn't get through his training in time? Or was he in the lineup for a later operation? Regardless, Bin Laden's characterization reveals enough to know that "brother" Moussaoui was a) active in al-Qaida and b) up to no good.

This time from USA Today:

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

Three cheers to President Bush for coming out rapidly on this:

"Our intelligence activities strictly target al-Qaida and their known affiliates," Bush said. "We are not mining or trolling through the personal lives of innocent Americans."

From the description in the USA Today article, this appears to be a companion program - in other words, meant to be a ready resource for other efforts. For example, if the Terrorist Surveilance Program bags an Al-Qaida operative coordinating with an accomplice in the US, the NSA can use the database to rapidly pinpoint other potential operatives, and using FISA warrants, maybe identify an entire cell. This could be crucial in stopping a plot in the execution phase, and could potentially save lots of lives.

But the question everyone will be asking: "Is It Legal?" Unknown. It appears that personal data is not collected, just phone numbers. I'm sure there will be lots of analysis over the next few days. I'll also note that it's refreshing to see one of the anti-constitution crowd refrain from a knee-jerk declaration that it's illegal.

Of course, that's the exception on the left right now. Huffington Post's headline is typical of the breathless assertations coming from outer moonbattia - "Bush Admin. Spying On Tens Of Millions Of Americans...". Read the comments - it appears that most of the readers didn't even bother to read the story. Many of the posts assume that this program is for listening to calls instead of simply recording phone numbers.

Another issue for me is why we can't stop these leaks. There are whistleblower procedures for the intelligence community, and until someone actually tries them you can't convince me that they had no other choice but the newspapers. These leaks, at least so far, have been engineered to only serve a polical goal and the leakers need to be prosecuted.

More as the story develops - in the meantime, there are several good places to go for more - Michelle Malkin has a good roundup, and John over at Powerline is always worth checking. Also Allahpundit is on the case.

As expected:

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema quickly rejected a motion the confessed al-Qaida conspirator filed Monday to withdraw his guilty plea and get a new trial.

After learning of comments made by jurors, Moussaoui figured that they were rubes who could have been convinced to set him free. Nice try, said Judge Brinkema:

At sentencing, Brinkema told him he could not appeal the conviction he got when he pleaded guilty in April 2005. "You waived that right," she said. She said Moussaoui could appeal the life term but "I believe it would be an act of futility."

On Monday, Brinkema said federal rules prohibit withdrawing a guilty plea after sentencing so his request must be rejected.

Good.

Via AP/Reuters:

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - The movie salesman was selling jihad to the converted.

The buyers thronging his stall on the sidelines of a late-night rally in the Pakistani capital belonged to a crowd organized by a sectarian Sunni Muslim group.

"This is the latest video of the beheadings," he told his customers, as they pored over titles including "Slaughter of Americans in Iraq," "Slaughter of Traitors in Afghanistan" and "Taliban Celebrations."

Apparently this is popular entertainment in Pakistan. Nice, huh?

Kat at News, Views, 'n Opinions posts a poem.

I'm not much into poetry, but this one I liked.

Thanks, Kat.

Several thoughts, in no particular order:

See Them Run, See Them Hide Dept: Turnout was light because Feingold frightens the hell out of his fellow Dems. They know the program is legal, and had no basis to suggest otherwise since the beginning. But it was a PR dream come true - since the program is classified they could attack the President repeatedly in the press knowing the administration could do little to defend itself. Feingold brought the fun to a complete stop by moving the issue from partisan hackery to action - with the exception of Pat "leaky" Leahy, they don't want to be seen in the same room with him.

A typical disconnected blog post on the hearings from Christy Hardin Smith at firedoglake:

"I’m just feeling a bit disgusted at the lack of participation by Senators on both sides of the aisle on this, who have decided to put short-term political considerations above concerns for the long-term welfare of our Constitutional Republic."

Actually, they put both their long and short-term political goals ahead of Russ Feingold's short-term political goals - it's a not a subtle difference.

What Russ taught us today dept: If your arguments are really thin, supplement them with quotes from extremist lefties like Glenn Greenwald. Glenn should sell a few more of his Bush-bashing books when they come out as a result. I suggest that it's not enough payment, though. I don't know what Greenwald's reputation as a "litigator" was before, but supporting a lunatic-fringe idea like bypassing the judicial branch in favor of having guilt assigned by legislative decree can't have helped much.

By the way, why "litigator" and not "attorney" or "lawyer"? Kinda reminds me of a Major I knew in the Air Force who responded poorly to the label "pilot" - "I'm an aviator", he would retort to those that dared to suggest he belonged to the same club as those that merely flew airplanes.

A Short Bus Full of Questions Dept: While I noticed that AJ Strata had posted a long review of the House Judicial Committee' questions from the Republicans, I noted that he didn't do one for the Dems' questions. I haven't searched, but the usual places I go didn't do one either. So I took a longer look at them myself, and figured out why. Here's a few examples - most of the questions seem fall into the same mold as the following:

Other than the President, what individuals at the White House are briefed on the program, and how often are they briefed?

Classified information is passed out on a need-to-know basis. When I worked with classified stuff in the military, the list of those people with a need-to-know was treated as sensitive as well. Why? Well, If I wanted classified info, but knew I would never get access to the storage area on my own, the next best thing would be to get a list of who can, so that I could exploit one or two of them to get it for me. And besides, the question has no bearing on whether the program is legal.

Does anyone independent of the NSA check persons in the US whose phone calls or emails are searched or seized to make sure that they are not being targeted based on their political opinions?

The way this is phrased makes it a "yes" or "no" type of question. Go ahead and try it - answer both ways to the core portion of the question and see what you could do with this in a political ad. It's a sick parody of Perry Mason - "Answer yes or no, Mr. Jones - after you murdered your wife, did you eat lunch?" Oh, and the question has nothing to do with the overall legality of the program.

When was the last time you supplied any Member of the House Judiciary Committee or any Committee of the Congress a copy of such minimization procedures?

Don't these people have google? And what does this have to do with the legality of the program?

Once the NSA decides to monitor the communications of a person in the United States, do they also target and monitor the communications of any person in the United States who communicates with the original target? If so, does someone first determine whether the second target is knowingly conspiring with a foreign terrorist?

More framing from the Perry Mason Wanna-bes.

How many hours and dollars have been spent searching or seizing the phone calls or emails of people in the US, and how much of this has been spent on people who have never been charged with any crime?

More fishing for soundbites to place in attack ads, and asking for classified material (budgets for classified programs are also classified. If you have to ask why, you most likely lack the ability to understand the answer.). A two-fer!

To be fair, there are some relevant questions in the document, but far too many are like the above.

Can't We take Them At Face Value For A Change? Dept: Lots of hay was made over the differing conclusions made in two articles about the former FISA judges who testified wednesday (here and here). Lots of blogs jumped in with their interpretations of the judges' comments to support one article or another as being right (examples here and here). Since the judges were clear that they weren't going to comment on the legality of the program, why can't we just point out that both articles were wrong, and avoid over-parsing the testimony to look for something that was clearly out of context in regard to the legality issue?

We All Have Our Reasons Dept: Although most of the left's support for the Feingold Censure Resolution is undoubtedly driven by BDS, I've discovered that some on the left may have different reasons. From Jane Hamsher:

"With with the help of the DNC field organizers and the campaign of leading Democrat Russ Feingold, 65 people to show up and pushed back against the ads that the fearful, desperate GOP has been running in Wisconsin upbraiding the handsome, manly and brave Feingold for wanting to censure the admitted criminal actions of George W. Bush."

John Dean is Irrelevant Dept: What possible contribution could John Dean make to the debate on the NSA? It appears to me that his only contribution is to bolster the left's smear tactic of comparing Bush to Nixon. But this is nothing new - after all, the comparisons of the Iraq war to Viet Nam started before the war did.

Moussaoui finally got a chance to speak with permission at his trial:

ALEXANDRIA, Va. - Al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui testified Monday that he and would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid were supposed to hijack a fifth airplane on Sept. 11, 2001, and fly it into the White House.

Moussaoui's testimony on his own behalf stunned the courtroom as he disclosed details he had never revealed before. It was in stark contrast to Moussaoui's previous statements in which he said the White House attack was to come later if the United States refused to release a radical Egyptian sheik imprisoned on earlier terrorist convictions.

Moussaoui testified Monday he lied to investigators when arrested in August 2001 because he wanted to let the attacks of Sept. 11 go forward.

Read the whole article from AP/Yahoo. Decency prevents me from making some of the obvious comments that you'll soon be reading on other blogs.

One of the big stories of the week has been the case of Abdul Rahman, the fellow who has been threatened with death as a punishment for the crime of converting from one religion to another. Michelle Malkin has been the leading edge of blogospheric coverage on this story, her latest is here.

I can't remember where I saw it (I'll look later and update), but I read a lefty comment saying that we're doing it backwards in the middle east - we should be changing the culture first, rather than changing governments first and hoping it leads to a changed culture. This is a good example of the flaws in that argument. Had we not changed the government in Afghanistan, no one in the west would have heard about Rahman or others like him that were routinely executed for these types of "crimes" under Taliban rule.

As a direct result of what the US did in Afghanistan, the international community is now placing pressure on the Afghan government to end this backward and barbaric style of justice. Changing the culture, I suspect, would have taken far longer and cost many more lives.

Judge Feingold appears to have laid an egg, and he's none too happy with his Dem cohorts:

"I'm concerned about the approach Democrats are taking, which is too often cowering," he said.

Uh... We've been telling you that for a while, Russ. And he's 100% right on the next point:

"I'm amazed at Democrats ... cowering with this president's numbers so low," Feingold said.

I'm surspised, too. After all, kicking this president when he's down has been their stock in trade. I guess their gratuitous political posturing at the expense of the American people has garnered enough negative attention that they're thinking twice about the level of disingenuousity they publicly display.

But the Dem's real cowering this week is from the media:

Next in the Senate TV gallery came Schumer. An aide hung up a poster showing a port. The senator called the ports situation "extremely troubling." The aide hung up a poster of an Exxon cartoon. "Obscene profits," decreed Schumer, equally passionately.

CNN's Henry asked the Feingold question. Schumer ended the news conference.

And all of this begs the question of the week: How many Democrats does it take to make Sen. Feingold look foolish?

Having failed miserably to get much political milage out of the NSA "domestic" wiretapping issue, Russ Feingold joins John Conyers as poster child for what's wrong with today's Democratic Party and the level (or lack) of civility in DC:

WASHINGTON - A liberal Democrat and potential White House contender is proposing censuring President Bush for authorizing domestic eavesdropping, saying the White House misled Americans about its legality.

"The president has broken the law and, in some way, he must be held accountable," Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., told The Associated Press in an interview.

A censure resolution, which simply would scold the president, has been used just once in U.S. history — against Andrew Jackson in 1834.

The text of the resolution isn't yet available, here's a "fact" sheet and press release from Feingold's office.

Since there are no real consequences associated with censure other than bad press for the President, the intent is crystal-clear. This is yet another cheap grand-standing effort to score political points. But this continues to highlight the secondary gift the NSA program has brought us (the first was increased protection from terrorism) - it gives the Democrats another opportunity to be themselves (as opposed to what they claim to be) and they deliver in bulk.

Disrepect the conviction (and sentencing) of a killer? No problem for liberals, as long as the killer is a lefty, or doing so scores points among their base. But when it comes to Bush (and the rest of the right), well... Lets skip any sane semblance of a fair trial or even a fair hearing. Announce that he's GUILTY - GUILTY - GUILTY of this crime and that crime without the mess or risk of involving the courts. After all, they have the MSM to repeat their baseless charges ad nauseum with nary an opposing viewpoint. Repetition in the press makes for transforming Joe and Jane Ordinary into liberal voters, they figure. After all, how many Americans believe Bush lied about WMD even though it's been proven to five nines that he didn't?

But the NSA flap showed us a different side of the electorate. The media, well coached by liberal talking points, disengenuously uses labels such as "domestic spying", "domestic eavesdropping", and "domestic wiretapping" trying to dredge up images of entire offices full of machine-like political operatives scrutinizing your phone conversation with Grandma for any hint of anti-American or anti-administration sentiment in the apple pie recipe she just gave you. Democrat politicians got lots of air time mischaracterizing it as "spying on ordinary American citizens", avoiding the inconvenient fact that the program was about finding out what the bad guys overseas were up to. The majority of the public, not surprisingly, didn't buy it. In fact, it turns out that they actually want someone using every means available to protect us from the next terrorist attack, and saw through the veil of partisanship being presented them. The over-the-top rhetoric of the Democrats, in large part, swung the pendulum of opinion toward the President. After all, in the week following the NYT story, the loudest voices of the left about the supposed legality of the program were from those that knew the least about it.

So Russ now proposes the final gasp of an issue that displays the hatred of the left toward this President nearly as well as the basement play-acting impeachment hearings. That it will fail is a given, but that's not the purpose. Reasonable heads will prevail, and the Dems will use it to frame Congressional Republicans in the upcoming election as [gasp] Bush supporters.

But this will fail as well. The public supports Bush on this one, and will likely support any sane politician who voted down an attempt to label a national security matter as criminal without the benefit of a disinterested review. Indeed, most folks take a dim view of sidestepping the courts, and there's a strong likelihood that this will backfire on the Democrats. There's a grim irony in their wanting to sidestep judicial review in order to punish a President who they claim is doing the same.

In spite of the conspiritorial views of many on the left, there's a good reason that impeachment hasn't been a serious possibility. There's just no proof that a crime has been committed. If such proof were offered, Republicans would do the right thing and the public would support it. If you could convince me, I would support it.

Labeling an act as illegal prior to knowing any facts isn't enough. Grandstanding to score political points doesn't do it either. And pandering to your base even in light of evidence that you were wrong ("Bush Lied", for example) just helps us win elections.

On second thought, just keep it up. You're doing just fine. We're scared. Have a nice day.

Via AP/Yahoo:

ALEXANDRIA, Va. - A federal judge ruled Tuesday that confessed al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui will not be in the courtroom for jury selection at his upcoming death-penalty trial, after Moussaoui again defied the judge at a pretrial hearing.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said her main reason for holding Tuesday's hearing was to determine "how Mr. Moussaoui plans to behave ... whether you plan to remain quiet ... or whether you plan to make speeches."

The 37-year-old Frenchman of Moroccan descent, who pleaded guilty last April to conspiring with al-Qaida to use aircraft to target U.S. buildings, then walked to the lectern and pulled out what appeared to be a handwritten speech. "You have been trying to organize my death for four years," Moussaoui told the judge.

He launched into yet another effort to disavow his court-appointed lawyers and in the process offered diatribes against President Bush and the French people.

At various points in a rambling speech, he called Bush "a crusader" who was "launching a new campaign of revenge against terrorists."

Despite his French citizenship, he said in heavily French-accented English: "I'm not French .... I stand here as a Muslim only. I do not stand here with a nation of homosexual crusaders."

As Brinkema repeatedly tried to quiet him, Moussaoui complained that for four years she had denied him an opportunity to explain his objections to the defense lawyers. "Today is my day," he plunged on. "If I can't make sure that those people are not going to represent me I know that I am dead."

He then referred to his three attorneys as a "federal lawyer," a "KKK" (Ku Klux Klan) and a "geisha."

Brinkema sternly broke in: "I'm not going to permit you to use a federal courtroom to malign your lawyers."

Without raising his voice, Moussaoui responded, "You own everything — the defense, the judge, the attack (prosecutors). I am al-Qaida. I am your sworn enemy."

To which Brinkema responded: "Mr. Moussaoui, you are the biggest enemy of yourself."

She asked again if he would remain quiet or leave. "I'm going to leave," he responded. He gathered his papers, leaving his text behind. "This is for you."

"God curse you and America," Moussaoui said as he left the courtroom. He was wearing a white knit cap and a green prison jumpsuit with "prisoner" in white block letters on the back.

Brinkema ruled that Moussaoui had forfeited his right to be present and will have to watch jury selection on closed circuit television from his cell at the courthouse.

If there are doubts that he's involved in 9/11, Moussaoui is working hard to remove them. I bet it's going to be a short trial.

that I posted today. TB saw it and asked the obvious question that I missed:

"Are they bragging or complaining?"

Well, they don't look very happy...

It appears to me that yesterday's hearing didn't accomplish much unless you're a politician trying to get face time in front of a camera. Even that didn't pan out very well for Senators Kennedy and Durbin, who found pajama-clad journalist Paul Mirengoff from Powerline to be an unexpected surprise. Thumbs up to Paul!

Enjoy it while you can, though. Many liberal politicians routinely avoid reporters from Fox News. I expect most bloggers, especially those associated with sleepwear, to be treated in a similar fashion soon enough.

- Back to the hearings. Future hearings will be non-productive as well. Republicans who believe the President acted within the law are unlikely to change many minds.

Democrats in congress, by and large, also believe that the President acted lawfully. Before you argue, please recall that not one has asked that the program be stopped, and don't forget that several leading Democrats were briefed regularly on the program but raised no fuss until the NYT story gave them a political windfall.

The damage isn't going to be critical, though, as long as the Democrats continue to blunt the attack with their own stupidity. Dems who are helping the Republicans fall into two categories - the first being the aforementioned Dems who were briefed regularly but didn't raise a fuss or ask that the program be discontinued. This stands in stark contrast to the sudden breathless assertions that the President broke the law. Even if the MSM hasn't highlighted the anomoly, lots of the public have noticed.

The other category of Democrats are in far greater abundance - these are the ones who complain they weren't briefed, and yet still contend they have enough information to declare "Bush Broke The Law!" in no uncertain terms. If you want quality partisan hackery, look no further. Working from the Howard Dean book of schizophrenic politics should have consequences. If they're so sure that the program is illegal, let them argue it in court. Without discovery. After all, "Bush broke the law".

And while we're at it, why have hearings at all? If Kennedy and Durbin already know the answers, why would they need to ask questions?

Hearings aside, the NSA thing will continue to be difficult for the Republicans. This is for two reasons:

1. The issue involves complex legal concepts not easy for the public to understand, and some of it falls into murky gaps and overlaps of law. And none of the President's or AG's explanations make for good sound bites.

2. Unfortunately, the whole darn thing is classified. This has made the explanations from the right seem strained and easy for the left to paint as evasive.

No, hearings aren't the answer here. The only way to put this matter to bed is to have a court decide - and soon.

The violent protests engineered by Islamic leaders continues again today. Here's a short photo round-up of the manufactured outrage:

In Pakistan, journalists use the cartoon protest to engage in a little gratuitous antisemitism:

Meanwhile, I've noticed a trend in the signage used. Either the leaders of the protests have become concerned that they're not helping their cause with threats of a European 9/11, of the media are now focusing on more moderate slogans:

Here are some more Pakistani "Journalists" protesting free speech by burning a cartoonist in effigy:

In Bethlehem, Palestinians protest the cartoons by burning an American flag:

As the initial rage dies down, the hard core get creative. Here's a Palestinian man spitting benzine onto a burning Danish flag:

In Tehran, a boy shows that the indoctrination didn't take as he gives up the protest to play with a toy horse:

Also in Iran, a protester shoots for drama:

And this man trying to climb the Danish embassy fence is a member of the clergy:

Bangladesh can now be added to the list of countries with protests. Fewer signs about cartoons here, more about hate:

Also added is Egypt:

In London, Omar Khayam (the man pictured below dressed as a suicide bomber in front of the Danish embassy) was arrested today for violating his parole, and is being sent back to prison. There has to be a lesson in here somewhere...

Previous:

Kofi speaks out on cartoon unrest
Danish Imams responsible for more deaths
What are you having for dinner tonight?
Validation of cartoons spreads
Syria: It's Denmark's Fault
If the cartoon fits...An Interesting Contrast For You
"Extremists... prove the cartoonists right"

Via Bloomberg:

Feb. 6 (Bloomberg) -- UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said violence triggered by the publication of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad isn't justified and called on Muslims to refrain from more attacks on Nordic diplomatic missions after protests in Lebanon, Syria and other Islamic nations.

Well, that should do it. Protest over. Annan also feels that heaping false adulation on Muslims could work:

Muslims should accept the apology given by the newspaper and act in the "true spirit of a religion famed for its values of mercy and compassion," Annan said in his statement, according to the UN.

Ah, yes - the mercy and compassion of sharia law...

During the violence incited by the Danish clerics' "Tour of Hatred 2006", Afghanistan holds claim to the latest victims:

KABUL, Afghanistan - Afghan security forces opened fire on demonstrators Monday, leaving at least four dead, as increasingly violent protests erupted around the world over published caricatures of Islam's Prophet Muhammad. European and Muslim politicians pleaded for calm.

The worst of the violence was outside Bagram, the main U.S. base in Afghanistan, with Afghan police firing on some 2,000 protesters as they tried to break into the heavily guarded facility, said Kabir Ahmed, the local government chief.

I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the Danish clerics and Islam in general. It couldn't be clearer that these so-called "clerics" are happy to use their own as cannon fodder in their lust for power and conquest.

This might actually go under the radar today considering the NSA hearing and the cartoon war news:

Moussaoui Removed From Court for Outburst

ALEXANDRIA, Va. - Proclaiming "I am al-Qaida," Zacarias Moussaoui was escorted from a federal courtroom in Alexandria on Monday at the outset of jury selection in his terrorist conspiracy trial. As he was removed by federal marshals, he shouted, "This trial is a circus."

The acknowledged al-Qaida conspirator, often a volatile figure in the courtroom, got almost immediately into an argument with U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema, demanding "I want to be heard" and saying of his lawyers, "These people do not represent me."

He left with his hands on his head, offering no resistance.

Remember that he already pled guilty to six conspiracy counts. The jury being selected is to ponder the applicability of the death penalty. The sentencing trial is scheduled for March 6 and is expected to last as long as a month.

The validation of the cartoon's stereotypes continues and spreads to other countries. Today, it's Indonesia:

Iraq:

Jordan:

India:

Afganistan:

Thailand:

and Iran:

I'll have more later this morning.

In an earlier post, I opined that the violence is the fault of Islam and it's seeming unwillingness to encourage it's people to act in a civil fashion. The Syrian press government doesn't agree with me:

Syria blamed Denmark for the protests, criticizing the Scandinavian nation for refusing to apologize for the caricatures of Islam's holiest figure.

"(Denmark's) government was able to avoid reaching this point ... simply through an apology" as requested by Arab and Muslim diplomats, state-run daily Al-Thawra said in an editorial Sunday.

Hmmm... Maybe this isn't so hard to sort out after all...

And then there's this:

"Insulting the prophet was unacceptable, resentful, and a sign of barbarism," Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said, adding that Tehran planned to take further action.

No, Hamid. These are signs of barbarism:

(H/T to Michelle Malkin for the photo)

Update (1:00 PM): More examples of barbarism (H/T Michelle Malkin).

Two steps back:

LYON, France - A man considered a mastermind of the USS Cole bombing that killed 17 sailors in a Yemeni port in 2000 was among 23 people who escaped from a Yemen prison last week, Interpol said Sunday.

The international police agency issued an "urgent global security alert" for those who escaped Friday from the prison via a tunnel. It called the escapees "dangerous individuals."

A Yemen security official announced the escape of convicted al-Qaida members Friday but did not provide details.

Interpol said in a statement that at least 13 of the 23 escapees were convicted al-Qaida fighters, who escaped via a 140-yard-long tunnel "dug by the prisoners and co-conspirators outside."

Yemeni officials confirmed to Interpol that a man considered a mastermind of the Cole attack, identified as Jamal al-Badawi, was among those who escaped.

Al-Badawi was among those sentenced to death in September 2004 for plotting the USS Cole attack. Two suicide bombers blew up an explosives-laden boat next to the destroyer as it refueled in the Yemeni port of Aden on Oct. 12, 2000.

Another of the 23 escapees was identified as Fawaz Yahya al-Rabeiee, considered by Interpol to be one of those responsible for a 2002 attack on the French tanker Limburg off Yemen's coast. That attack killed a Bulgarian crew member and spilled 90,000 barrels of oil into the Gulf of Aden.

I'm curious how an effort to dig a 140-yard long tunnel could go unnoticed - you simply don't dig a tunnel this long in a day.

Unfortunately, I'm sure we're going to see these folks again as they rejoin their old pals. It's just a matter of time.

That's the take of French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy on the violent demonstrations over the Danish cartoons:

"I am totally shocked and find it unacceptable that -- because there have been caricatures in the West -- extremists can burn flags or take fundamentalist or extremist positions which would prove the cartoonists right," he told LCI television.

Indeed. It's interesting to see Europe struggling with multiculturalism, after years of claiming superiority in this area. But it also highlights the dangers of multiculturalism to every nation - many European nations are now deciding whether to shift their national values with the introduction of each new immigrant.

We've been struggling with the same issues over here, to the point that we actually ignore immigration laws in some cities so that illegal immigrants feel safe applying for college grants and food stamps. But there is at least one major difference in the conflict here and that being waged across the Atlantic.

Our response to the pressures of multiculturalism has been timidity and appeasement in the face of protests, lawsuits, and media pressure. Europe, on the other hand, is threatened with violence for it's offence of publishing a few cartoons. And surprisingly, there are a few in the European media willing to fight back.

But the cultural clash has grave consequences stemming directly from the larger conflict between Islam and the rest of the world:

Early Friday, Palestinian militants threw a bomb at a French cultural center in Gaza City, and many Palestinians began boycotting European goods, especially those from Denmark.

"Whoever defames our prophet should be executed," said Ismail Hassan, 37, a tailor who marched through the pouring rain along with hundreds of others in the West Bank city of Ramallah.

"Bin Laden our beloved, Denmark must be blown up," protesters in Ramallah chanted.

In mosques throughout Palestinian cities, clerics condemned the cartoons. An imam at the Omari Mosque in Gaza City told 9,000 worshippers that those behind the drawings should have their heads cut off.

"If they want a war of religions, we are ready," Hassan Sharaf, an imam in Nablus, said in his sermon.

About 10,000 demonstrators, including gunmen from the Islamic militant group Hamas firing in the air, marched through Gaza City to the Palestinian legislature, where they climbed on the roof, waving green Hamas banners.

"We are ready to redeem you with our souls and our blood our beloved prophet," they chanted. "Down, Down Denmark."

Religion of peace indeed. But while Europe's press is taking the high road, European governments are taking the traditional liberal tack of appeasement. I hope Europe realizes that it's liberal tendancies toward appeasement will ill serve them in this era. The behavior they reinforce will be used again, with perhaps consequences closer to home.

The muslims interviewed in the media would have you believe that this is about respect. Respect, though, is earned - and not through threats of violence. Respect is not earned by burning flags, or firing weapons into the air. Respect is not earned by holding a sign calling for a second holocaust.

When a government chooses to make religion it's cornerstone, it opens itself up to political critisism on that cornerstone. Since muslims can't draw a distinction between religion and politics, it can hardly expect westerners to do so either.

It's been said by many before, and it's worth saying again - when Islam cleans it's own house of the rampant killing in the name of Mohamed, maybe there will be some reason to protest the stereotypes depicted in the Danish cartoons. Until then, blaming others for the stereotypes that they themselves have reinforced deserves contempt.

(Originally posted 12:26 PM EST, updates below)
A supposed audio tape of Bin Laden was aired on Al Jazeera today:

CAIRO, Egypt - Al-Jazeera on Thursday broadcast portions of an audiotape purportedly from Osama bin Laden, saying al-Qaida is making preparations for attacks in the United States but offering a possible truce to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan.

The voice on the tape said heightened security in the United States is not the reason there have been no attacks there since the Sept. 11, 2001, suicide hijackings.

Instead, the reason is "because there are operations that need preparations," he said.

"The delay in similar operations happening in America has not been because of failure to break through your security measures. But the operations are happening in Baghdad and you will see them here at home the minute they are through (with preparations), with God's permission," he said.

"We do not mind offering you a long-term truce with fair conditions that we adhere to," he said. "We are a nation that God has forbidden to lie and cheat. So both sides can enjoy security and stability under this truce so we can build Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been destroyed in this war. There is no shame in this solution, which prevents the wasting of billions of dollars that have gone to those with influence and merchants of war in America."

The speaker did not give conditions for a truce in the excerpts aired by Al-Jazeera.

Hmmm. If we let you have Afganistan and Iraq, you'll leave us alone. Sorry, but that's an old plan. The left thought it up long ago.

Just a question: If we were really doing poorly in Iraq, if we were really doing poorly in the GWOT, would Bin Laden really be asking for a truce?

Or maybe it's because he's afraid of France.

Update (6:05 PM EST) and bump: The full transcript is here (via Powerline). Here's a taste - Osama on torture:

Jihad is continuing, praise be to God, despite all the repressive measures the US army and its agents take to the point where there is no significant difference between these crimes and those of Saddam.

These crimes include the raping of women and taking them hostage instead of their husbands. There is no power but in God.

The torturing of men has reached the point of using chemical acids and electric drills in their joints. If they become desperate with them, they put the drill on their heads until death.

If you like, read the humanitarian reports on the atrocities and crimes in the prisons of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

I agree with John over at Powerline:

"It doesn't take a genius to see that things are going very badly for bin Laden and al Qaeda. Where does he turn for hope? To American opinion polls--which, of course, he reads very selectively. Still, think how encouraging it must be to him to read about calls for withdrawal from Iraq by Congressmen like Jack Murtha. It's hard to see much daylight between Murtha's position and bin Laden's: we're losing in Iraq; the American people are tired of the conflict; Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists; and al Qaeda is less likely to attack us if we just give up and go home."

It's remarkable how similar Bin Ladin's tape is to the anti-war crowd's rhetoric. I wonder how long it will be before:

1. Cindy Sheehan (or her pal George Galloway) uses quotes from the tape in a moonbatty diatribe
2. A promenant liberal takes the power drill allegation seriously and starts using it as a smear against the administration?

Shouldn't be long - and I'll let you know when it happens.

Nancy issued this statement today:

"When I learned that the National Security Agency had been authorized to conduct the activities that President Bush referred to in his December 17 radio address, I expressed my strong concerns in a classified letter to the Administration and later verbally.

"Today, in an effort to shed light on my concerns, I requested that the director of National Intelligence quickly declassify my letter and the Administration's response to it and make them both available to the public.

"The president must have the best possible intelligence to protect the American people. That intelligence, however, must be produced in a manner consistent with our Constitution and our laws, and in a manner that reflects our values as a nation to protect the American people and our freedoms."

Of course, terrorists need good intel, too. And if Nancy and Howie have their way, they'll get it.

Careful how closely you follow Howard, Nancy. If he stops suddenly...

I knew Howie couldn't stay sidelined for long - and the NSA flap was just too tempting for him to ignore:

I got a spamogram from the DNC today (click to view). In it, Dean is asking for signatures to a FOIA request for - oh, I think I'll let him say it:

"According to reports, political appointees in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel wrote still-classified legal opinions laying out the supposed justification for this program.

"I have asked our General Counsel to draft a Freedom of Information Act request for the relevant legal opinions and memos written by that office. Since the program's existence is no longer a secret, these memos should be released..."

So parts of a secret program is illegally leaked to the press, and Dean thinks that more of it should be made available to our enemies?

What a maroon....

Of course I've been following the story - Michelle Malkin, as usual, has been an invaluable addition to the news feeds and television reporting. I've stayed out of posting on it, with the exception of this about the reason for the sudden urgency at the New York Times.

It's not that I'm disinterested. Far from it. But I'm not a lawyer, or a constitutional scholar. I'm just a humble teacher. And the conversation very quickly centered on the legal aspects of the issue, and little else. So I've held back.

Now, the talking heads are starting to repeat themselves, and the media is turning to the more emotional aspects of the story. Case in point, Barbara Boxer's inquiry of legal scholars about whether the President has committed an impeachable offense:

"On December 16, along with the rest of America, I learned that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge. President Bush underscored his support for this action in his press conference today."

"...Unchecked surveillance of American citizens is troubling to both me and many of my constituents. I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter as soon as possible."

I'm not going to fisk this, even though she deserves it. Others will no doubt do so. No, I only quoted Sen. Boxer to illustrate the tone that I expect to spead over the next few weeks as the Dems take up their limp, non-violent swords over this, the latest battle cry from the BDS afflicted. Maybe I'll dismantle it later. Right now, I'm writing this to express my view.

It's mentioned frequently by politicians and pundits that we live in a nation of laws. Although it's stupid of them to repeat this so much (most other nations have laws too), it's also true. Laws represent boundaries - much the same as the fence that many of you had to restrict your movements as a toddler, or the edge of your yard (along with your Mother's voice) if you had no fence.

It appears from the discussions on the talking head circuit that there are indeed some gray areas here. If the President exploits those gray areas to further the mission of national security, I'm for it.

As the President of the United States, I expect George Bush to respect and follow our laws. But as the man responsible for protecting our country (which includes my family), I expect him to be bold enough to test the absolute limits of those laws. Bush gets no award for being a shrinking violet in my view. I expect him to walk all the way to the edge of the yard, not slow down or stop when 5 or 10 feet away. If there are gray areas, I expect him to occasionally stick his toes over that gray area - if it saves American lives, it's worth the risk.

Actually, I don't expect it. I demand it. There's just too much at stake.

As for the gray areas - If the laws weren't sufficiently clear, the President doesn't deserve impeachment for testing them. Rather than arbitrarily draw a fresh line where politicians and scholars alike couldn't agree on before, then apply it to the President after the fact, Congress needs to take a look at the ambiguity of it's own product. And take corrective action.

And as for those who have known about this for months, took no action, and now express shock over the President's "illegal" actions (like Reid, Rockefeller, Pelosi, etc.)- I'm sure there's a legal term for someone who witnesses a "crime" and does nothing (which would have continued had their inaction not been exposed). If they want to press the issue, I hope someone makes room for them in the hearing schedule. At the low altitude table.

Last night the President made yet another forceful speech. I especially liked the way he framed the choice as victory or defeat. This is the proper way to view it – there’s no gray area here.

What I didn’t like was the way Bush took responsibility for the war. Not that he shouldn’t – he is the President, and as such should take responsibility. But the way he framed it was entirely wrong, exposing a disturbing memory loss in the White House. Glenn Reynolds wrote:

Why did he do that? Because he thinks we're winning, and he wants credit. By November 2006, and especially November 2008, he thinks that'll be obvious, and he wants to lay down his marker now on what he believed -- and what the other side did. That's my guess, anyway.

That may very well be, but I still feel it was a grave error to frame the decision for the war around WMDs alone. This simply shores up the false accusations of the left. And it’s exactly why Sen. Reid is applauding the President’s candor, even though it's nothing of the sort.

Bush should have reminded the public that there were many more reasons for going to war in Iraq. And he should have done by using the text of the resolution that gave him the authority to do so.

The Democrats have framed WMDs as the sole reason for far too long. The administration should be getting more specific in answering the left’s increasingly disingenuous and shrill rhetoric, not pandering to it.

For other opinions, try here.

From a press release by the Florida Democratic Party:

"With the President's latest PR campaign clearly failing, Republicans like Jeff Miller are now cherry-picking Governor Dean's words just like they cherry-picked the pre-war intelligence."

Hmm. Let's see what Jeff Miller said, shall we?

“Yesterday, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee said our troops can’t win in Iraq. Howard Dean effectively signaled to insurgents and terrorists everywhere that his party was ready to wave the white flag in the War on Terror.

For the sake of political gains, Dean’s Party has chosen to trivialize the sacrifices our men and women in uniform have made in Iraq. His Party has gone from attacking the liberation of Iraq, to attacking the Bush Administration, to attacking the Armed Services of this country and saying they cannot win.

Howard Dean’s comments were a direct attack on the morale of our military and border on treasonous.

Regardless of your opinions on Iraq, it is wrong to attack the capabilities of our military for the purposes of political gain. I call on Mr. Dean to resign as chairman of the Democratic National Committee.”

Just as a reminder, this is what Rep. Miller supposedly "cherry-picked":

"Iraq is a catastrophe for America and Americans will leave, it will only be a matter of time.

"I say to Bush: You entered Iraq with lies, you will lose Iraq and lie about it and you will leave with the pretext that you have completed your mission ... America only has to decide on the number of (troops) it wishes to lose before withdrawing."

Oops - I'm sorry. That was Al Zawahri. Maybe it was:

"...Iraq can not be won militarily."

Oops - Sorry again. That was Mothra. Here it is:

"We should follow the lead of Congressman John Murtha"

Sorry again - that was Nancy Pelosi. Lets try again:

the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."

"I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."

Maybe the Florida Dems are right - Rep. Miller did cherry-pick. But Miller wasn't incorrect, just incomplete. It was wrong for him to paint Dean's remarks as out of step with the rest of the party - increasingly, it's becoming the unified party message. A message of defeatism, surrender, and hopelessness.

Via Yahoo/Al-Reuters, Al Qaeda's number two guy is insisting that Osama Bin Ladin is still in charge:

"I bring a message of joy to all Muslims and mujahideen that al Qaeda is spreading, expanding and strengthening. Its prince Sheikh Osama bin Laden is still leading its jihad (holy war)," he said in a video interview aired on an Islamist Web site.

It's getting increasingly difficult to determine who is writing the talking points, and who is simply repeating them, as Al Zawahri appears to be channeling Howard Dean:

Zawahri said the United States had suffered a defeat in Iraq and it was only a matter of time before it pulled out its troops.

"Iraq is a catastrophe for America and Americans will leave, it will only be a matter of time.

"I say to Bush: You entered Iraq with lies, you will lose Iraq and lie about it and you will leave with the pretext that you have completed your mission ... America only has to decide on the number of (troops) it wishes to lose before withdrawing."

I hope Howard is proud of himself.

Updated: Klause corrects me - Al Zawahri's statement does indeed pre-date Howard's. Thanks, Klause - good catch!

The point is still valid, though. And it's been pointed out by others, many times, the uncanny similarity between the talking points of the left and the rhetoric of the terrorists. Howard really needs to pull his head out and ask himself if he really wants to throw in with a bunch of murderous thugs before he opens his mouth.

No matter how you support the terrorists, it's still support.

Whether you support them directly by undermining our nation's mission in Iraq.

Or indirectly by supporting others who give aid and comfort to our enemies.

It's still support. And there's a special phrase just for the kind of anti-American sub-human Howard has proven himself to be. But I promised not to use it here.

H/T Michelle Malkin, who has a terrific roundup of opinion on this.

Update: Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert weighs in:

"We should all be grateful that Governor Dean is not General Dean. Rather than standing by our troops who are fighting the War on Terror, Howard Dean has made it clear the Democratic Party sides with those who wish to surrender.

"This type of rhetoric for political gain is irresponsible. But even worse, it sends the wrong message to our troops who are fighting terrorism on the front lines and to the millions of Iraqis who are days away from another landmark accomplishment in their march towards freedom. We must take the fight to the terrorists in Iraq, rather than fight them here. I urge Governor Dean and the Democratic party to put away their negative and harmful political rhetoric."

Well said, Mr Speaker.

Update 2: RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman being interviewed on the same radio station that Howard Dean used as a urinal yesterday (emphasis mine):

"It's fairly extraordinary. I can't remember any time in history where the leader of a national party, one of our 2 national parties, predicted that America would lose a war we were engaged in. I think it sends the wrong message to our troops, the wrong message to the enemy, the wrong message to the Iraqi people just 10 days before the election."

"...You think about it, this isn't anything new. Just this past weekend on Sunday, John Kerry talked about American troops engaged in terroristic and other activity, terrorizing kids and children. He talked about we've already seen Nancy Pelosi embrace a retreat and defeat strategy...you have the Democratic nominee in '04, Democratic national chairman, lead Democrat in the House, have all now come out embrace a retreat and defeat strategy while our country is at war."

Host: "Well I actually asked him about that. I mean, I think that Murtha is the one that started it. Nancy Pelosi is now agreeing with it, that we should have these troops, and they're using the word redeployed within 6 months. Howard Dean won't go there. He says he wants it to happen within 2 years. So, if anything, the Democrats seem to be undecided about, you know, about agreeing on a time frame here. And do you think that it's wrong from its get-go to have any sort of a time frame at all or should there be?"

Ken Mehlman: "...here's why a time frame is a mistake.... If you tell the enemy when you're going to stop fighting, then the enemy knows when it needs to hold out (UI). If you want the Iraqi people to risk their lives, run for office (UI) vote in this election (UI) 10 days and do the things they're doing, if they know that after a given period, they're going to be abandoned to Zarqawi, they're much less likely to do it. You want the enemy to understand that there is no alternative but to air their grievances at the political process, then obviously, again, giving them a time frame is a mistake. Imagine if we had said to Hitler in 1942 that in 2 years we're going to pull out of Europe. Hitler would not have been, would not have ended his war. Hitler would not have surrendered. Germany would not have surrendered."

"It is always a mistake when you're fighting an implacable foe tell them the point at which you're going to stop fighting."

---

Ken Mehlman: "But think about it. Why would (UI) national party say America can't win a war while its troops are engaged in that war?"...

---

Host: "Well I think what's interesting also to add here, Ken, is that John Kerry also came out after the President's speech the other day and what he said was we don't want to redeploy; we don't want to get the troops; we just want to have a time frame for victory. So, again, in the Democratic party itself, there are varying answers. I want to throw this at you because Howard Dean brought this up yesterday, that 80 percent of the Iraqis want us out. And I asked him what is the source of that? Who exactly did the survey? Who did the poll and who exactly did they ask? And he didn't have an answer. Have you seen this poll that shows that 80 percent of the Iraqis want us out?"

Ken Mehlman: "No, not at all. I've seen polling that shows something very different, in fact, and that is that Iraqis increasingly understand and believe that they need (UI) their country is heading in the right, not the wrong, direction. They're optimistic about the future in a way they haven't been. ... Fundamentally it comes down to this. Do you believe this (UI) in the war on terror is victory versus defeat has a huge consequence for American security? Answer is unquestionably yes."

Wow, this feels like a flashback:

Russia Confirms Sale of Missiles to Iran

Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov didn't give details. But Russian media have said that Moscow agreed in November to sell $1 billion worth of weapons to Iran, including up to 30 Tor-M1 missile systems over the next two years.

"A contract for the delivery of air defense Tor missiles to Iran has indeed been signed," Ivanov was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency.

Sigh. I guess we're back to fighting the Russians by proxy. Of course, it never really ended, did it?

The trial for Saddam has adjourned until Tuesday. Todays session was marked by repeated outbursts by defendants and the entire defense team walking out of the courtroom for a brief time. In one of Saddam's outbursts, he indicated how well he knows his future:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Saddam Hussein told the judge at his trial Monday that "I am not afraid of execution" during an unruly court session in which the first witness took the stand and testified that the former president's agents carried out random arrests, torture and killings.

And he issued a threat to the judge:

At one point, Saddam appeared to threaten the judge, saying: "When the revolution of the heroic Iraq arrives, you will be held accountable."

Chief Judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin replied: "This is an insult to the court. We are searching for the truth."

As long as we're there, that revolution will never happen. However, if Pelosi and Mothra get their way...

I think I may have lost the office pool on how quickly the defence would pull another stunt to delay Saddam Hussein's trial:

Saddam's Defense Team Walks Out of Court

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Saddam Hussein's defense team walked out of the courtroom Monday shortly after the former leader's trial resumed because the judge refused to allow former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark to challenge the tribunal's legitimacy in an address to the court.

Yes, that's right - we have world renowned terrorist supporter Ramsey Clark to thank. Frankly, I wish the press would dump the "former U.S. Attorney General" handle. It gives the impression that he's acting as an American, and I think his actions are about as anti-American as it gets.

The trial is supposed to continue with appointed lawyers, though:

Clark said he needed only two minutes to present his argument. But Chief Judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin said the tribunal had been established under the law by an elected Iraqi government and that only Saddam's chief lawyer could address the hearing.

Amin said the defense should submit its motion in writing and warned that if the defense walked out then the court would appoint replacement lawyers.

We'll see. The way this has gone so far, I expect a full week's worth of testimony to be completed by June.

Update: From Al-Reuter's version of the story:

In theory, if Saddam's lawyers do not return, the court can appoint its own lawyers to defend him, a move that would likely anger the former president even more.

Well. We wouldn't want to make him mad now, would we? Additionally, it appears that Terrorist Supporter Ramsey Clarke was the architect of today's walk-out stunt:

"I just need two minutes," Clark stood up and told judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin sternly. "If I don't get two minutes we will walk out," the 77-year-old said in his southern drawl.

Moments later, as the court erupted into shouting, Clark looked at Saddam's chief lawyer, Iraqi Khalil al-Dulaimi, and said: "Let's walk out."

Update 2: The AP story linked above has completely changed to this:

Court Reverses Ruling in Saddam Trial

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The court in the Saddam Hussein trial allowed former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark and another foreign defense lawyer to address the session Monday, reversing a ruling that had led the defense to walk out.

After a 90-minute recess, Chief Judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin allowed Clark and ex-Qatari Justice Minister Najib al-Nueimi to speak on the questions of the legitimacy of the tribunal and safety of the lawyers.

"Reconciliation is essential," Clark told the court. "This trial can divide or heal. Unless it is seen as absolutely fair, and fair in fact, it will divide rather than reconcile Iraq."

At that point the judge reminded Clark that he was to speak only about the security guarantees for the defense lawyers — two of whom have been assassinated since the trial began Oct. 19.

Clark then said all parties were entitled to protection and the measures offered to protect the defense and their families were "absurd." Clark said that without such protection, the judicial system would collapse.

Al-Nueimi then spoke about the legitimacy issue, arguing that court is not independent and was in fact set up under the U.S.-led occupation rather than by a legal Iraqi government. He said the language of the statute was unchanged from that promulgated by the former top U.S. administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, and was therefore "illegitimate."

If you don't like the way the trial is going, wait a few minutes...

Welcome, Balanced News Blog readers! Feel free to look around while you're here.

Well, the Trollop of Turkeys won't be getting arrested in Texas tomorrow - but all her moonbatty friends will (emphasis mine):

Texas Anti-War Protesters Still Determined

CRAWFORD, Texas - War protesters say they are determined to demonstrate outside President Bush's ranch during the Thanksgiving holiday despite the arrests of a dozen people on Wednesday.

The group had pitched six tents along the road in defiance of new local bans on roadside camping and parking. Many in the group held up signs, including one that said "Give me liberty or give me a ditch."

Give me liberty or give me a ditch?!?!?!? What happened to "Power to the People"? A couple of these nuts wanted to play-pretend to be just like the Matron of Moonbats:

More than two dozen McLennan County sheriff's deputies arrived and asked if they wanted to walk out on their own or be carried. Two chose to be carried.

And we also had a verified sighting of the hypocritical yellow-crested chicken dove:

A dozen others left after deputies warned them they would be arrested.

Just as in earlier protests, some had no reason to be there other than to recapture the drum-banging, flower in the gun barrel, dope-smokin', unbathed days of their fabulously misspent youth:

Among them was Daniel Ellsberg, the former Defense Department official who leaked the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam war, who estimated it was his 70th arrest for various protests since the 1970s.

Whew - Cindy was right! Getting arrested must really be addictive.

"Those of us who finally saw through the Vietnam war saw through this war, and all the actions that were necessary to end the Vietnam war will be necessary here," Ellsberg said Wednesday. "I think the American people will get us out of this (war)."

That's right, Danny. Americans are working very hard to get us out of this war. Let's see, there are the Army-Americans, the Marine-Americans, the Navy-Americans, and the Air Force-Americans. They're working very, very hard to get us out of the war the right way - by winning.

But alas, the Mistress of Missing was nowhere to be found. Apparently, she had a family emergency back in festive and ditchless California. No word on when she would reprise her role as the Doll of Ditches. She just said "soon".

My bet - she won't show up on Thanksgiving day, possibly due to the little-known fact that hippies have trouble getting the turkey just right.

In San Fransisco, they must be worried about the toll collectors for the Golden Gate Bridge:

SAN FRANCISCO (AFP) - Toll collectors at San Francisco's landmark Golden Gate Bridge have been issued body armor to guard against armed bandits.

"We did a review of safety procedures and added this tool to the toll box for collectors," bridge authority spokeswoman Mary Currie said Tuesday. "This is really the right thing to do."

I'm not so sure Ms. Curry's heart is really in it, though:

"The folks that are wearing them are pleased to have that added psychological edge," said Curry.

Hmmm - next time I need a psychological edge - like when TB and I can't agree on what channel to watch - I'll know what to wear.

The media is in full attack mode.

From Vice President Cheney's speech today:

"My remarks today concern national security, in particular the war on terror and the Iraq front in that war. Several days ago, I commented briefly on some recent statements that have been made by some members of Congress about Iraq. Within hours of my speech, a report went out on the wires under the headline, "Cheney says war critics 'dishonest,' 'reprehensible.'"

"One thing I've learned in the last five years is that when you're Vice President, you're lucky if your speeches get any attention at all. But I do have a quarrel with that headline, and it's important to make this point at the outset. I do not believe it is wrong to criticize the war on terror or any aspect thereof. Disagreement, argument, and debate are the essence of democracy, and none of us should want it any other way."

From minutes later at AP/Yahoo: Cheney Lashes Out at Bush's Iraq Critics

CBS News: Cheney Takes Aim At War Critics

New York Times: Cheney Assails Critics but Says Debate on Iraq Is Healthy (I guess they listened to half of it)

ABC News subtitle: Cheney Punches Back at Critics of Bush's Iraq Policies Calling Some 'Dishonest and Reprehensible'

Reuters: Cheney shifts attack on war critics

"Vice President Dick Cheney denied on Monday that the administration was trying to stifle dissent by lashing out at Iraq war critics" (Nevermind that it's true that the administration never tried to stifle dissent, Cheney evidently has to "deny" it)

Indy Channel (Indianapolis Channel 6): Cheney Sends Mixed Messages To War Critics

WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney said there's nothing wrong with dissent or debate on the war in Iraq or on anything else, but then proceeded to lash out at senators who accuse the administration of deliberately deceiving the American people on pre-war intelligence. (They just don't get it, do they?)

Democratic Underground: "Bush tortures Bat Boy!"

More as they come in...

News 8 (Austin): Cheney renews attack on war critics, defends debate on war

Brisbane Courier-Mail (just to add an international flavor): Cheney slams Iraq war critics

UPI: Cheney takes swipe at Iraq critics

L.A. Times: Cheney Blasts Iraq War Critics

Terrance Hunt, AP's White House Correspondant apparently thinks so:

Bush Lowers Temperature of Iraq War Debate

BEIJING - After fiercely defending his Iraq policy across Asia, President Bush abruptly toned down his attack on war critics Sunday and said there was nothing unpatriotic about opposing his strategy.

"People should feel comfortable about expressing their opinions about Iraq," Bush said, three days after agreeing with Vice President Dick Cheney that the critics were "reprehensible."

The president also praised Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., as "a fine man" and a strong supporter of the military despite the congressman's call for troop withdrawal as soon as possible.

The suggestion that the President has somehow changed his tone on the Iraq war debate is a specious assertion by Mr. Hunt. Each and every time Bush has spoken on the topic, he has acknowleged that disagreement with his policies wasn't a problem, but being dishonest about it was. This is even illustrated later in the same article through a quote fom the President:

"This is not an issue of who's patriotic and who's not patriotic," he said. "It's an issue of an honest, open debate about the way forward in Iraq."

Of course, if the media were more responsible in their reporting, President Bush wouldn't have to address his critics at all.

If this pans out, it will be the best news for Iraq in many months:

Breaking: Zarqawi Killed?

Via Little Green Footballs.

Update: From the always witty LGF commenters: "Will the eulogy be given by George Galloway?"

Howard Dean, responding to the Murtha controversy, sent a letter to Democrats yesterday defending the former Marine. What's in it is fairly ordinary for this type of communication from Dean, lots and lots of mud-slinging against the Republicans. What's notable is what he doesn't include - there's not a word about what the fuss was really all about. Here's Dean's masterpiece of illusion in its entirety:

Dear Friend,

I want to tell you about John Murtha. He's a Democratic Congressman from Pennsylvania. He's also a combat veteran and retired Marine Corps colonel.

Murtha spent 37 years in Marine Corps, earned the Bronze Star, two purple hearts, the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, and the Navy Distinguished Service Medal. And for the last thirty years he's been one of the most respected voices in Congress on military issues -- universally respected by Democrats, Republicans and military brass alike.

Until now.

Republicans have disgraced themselves by viciously attacking John Murtha with such disrespect that not only veterans, but every decent American should be angry.

What did Murtha, a decorated combat veteran, do to draw fire from a White House led by a president and vice president who evaded service in Vietnam? He questioned their management of the war in Iraq. Here's part of what he had to say:

"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region. ...

"For two and a half years, I have been concerned about the U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns with the Administration and the Pentagon and have spoken out in public about my concerns. The main reason for going to war has been discredited. ...

"I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the War. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support.

Shameless Republicans immediately went on the attack. Dick Cheney, who has said that he had "other priorities" and collected 5 deferments while people like Murtha served in Vietnam, called Murtha's comments "irresponsible" and regretted that "the president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone." The White House spokesman, who has also never worn the uniform, pronounced himself "baffled" that Murtha, who volunteered for two wars, wanted to "surrender to the terrorists". A Republican Congressman said Murtha and others "basically are giving aid and comfort to the enemy".

Shame on them. Every one of us -- right now -- needs to let Jack Murtha know that we respect his service, respect his leadership, and respect his right to speak the truth. This man has spent his life serving us. The very least each one of us can do is let him know that no matter what dishonorable smear campaign Republicans wage we will be there with him.

Send Congressman Murtha a note telling him that you will not be silent while he is attacked:

http://www.democrats.org/shameonthem

I will deliver your message to him personally, along with my own thanks for his service to our country and his continuing courage in the face of threats.

Lies and manipulation characterized the Republican case for war, and lies and manipulation have been the primary weapon against anyone who questions their failed leadership.

First it was Senator Max Cleland, who left limbs in Vietnam, being savagely attacked in 2002. Then John Kerry, who received three purple hearts, being smeared in 2004. The history of this war has shown that Republicans value political posturing more than the service of America's veterans.

Republicans don't want a serious debate about Iraq because they know the American people are simply not with them. They cannot respond to the substance of Murtha's criticism -- or any criticism -- because they are wrong.

Jack Murtha is already fighting back. When told of Cheney's comments he reminded people where Cheney was while he was in Vietnam: "I like guys who got five deferments and have never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

But Jack can't beat this back alone. Show him that Americans know that Republicans should be ashamed of themselves:

http://www.democrats.org/shameonthem

Enough is enough -- we cannot allow another veteran to be smeared by George Bush's cronies.

Thank you for taking a stand.

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

What he fails to pass on to the rank and file is the part of Murtha's statement that got everyone riled up - the part about immediate withdrawal:

"This is the immediate redeployment of American forces because they have become the target," said Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., one of Congress' most hawkish Democrats.

"To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces."

"I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy."

Not everyone follows the news as closely as the average blogger, and I'm sure that many Democrats had not heard the whole of Murtha's statement, if any of it at all. Obviously Dean was trying to capitalize on it by omitting key facts which would have revealed the true nature of Murtha's "Cut and Run" message.

All this from Howie, who in the letter says:

Lies and manipulation characterized the Republican case for war, and lies and manipulation have been the primary weapon against anyone who questions their failed leadership.

Yet it's Howie using lies and manipulation to sway the voting public once again.

Via Little Green Footballs - The Hen of Hand-Wringing's new book comes out Wednesday! Charles adds:

Will these speeches include the one where she called Iraqi insurgents “freedom fighters?” Or her anti-Israel statements?

Don’t count on it.

All her journal entries will be included:

Now those journal entries are in her book, “Not One More Mother’s Child,” to be released Wednesday. The paperback also contains some of her speeches to peace groups earlier this year, letters to politicians and writings since leaving Crawford.

You know your star has really fallen when the first release of your book is in paperback.

In an answer to Representative Murtha's call to pull out of Iraq immediately:

WASHINGTON - House Republicans, seeing an opportunity, maneuvered for a quick vote and swift rejection Friday of a Democratic lawmaker's call for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq.

"We want to make sure that we support our troops that are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. "We will not retreat."

The bill is very short and sweet:

House Republicans planned to put to a vote — and reject — their own resolution that simply says: "It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

This is a smart move - it forces the Democrats to put up or shut up on their posture regarding the war. If they vote yes, those Democrats will have given the GOP more ammunition to use in the current pushback campaign from the White House.

If they vote no, then they have exposed themselves to even more criticism on their recent posturing. It will be difficult for such Democrats to continue to pander to their anti-war base.

This should be interesting.

Update 1: Kos thinks the Democrats should cut and run from the vote. I think that would still be illustrative to the nature of the Democrat's hypocritical position.

Update 2: John Hinderaker: "Notwithstanding the media's breathless heralding of each liberal politician who comes out against continuation of the war, a substantial majority of House members will vote to reject the call for surrender. That's good, as our service personnel deserve the assurance that our government continues to stand behind their mission."

Ace of Spades: "Brilliant."

Jason Smith at GOP Bloggers: "Let's dispense with the public flogging of our troops' efforts and put it to a vote."

Rick Edwards at PowerPundit: "When the Democrats cry that holding them accountable for their words is "challenging their patriotism," as a number of them are doing on the House floor now, you know that they understand that their position is weakening."

Sister Toldjah: "The House isn’t playing around. It’s time to put up or shut up for the cut and run wing of the Democratic party."

Democratic Underground: Cleveland eaten by Batboy!

The Political Teen: "The Republicans have called Murtha’s bluff and boy has it paid off."

Kender at Stop the ACLU: "The Dems, railing constantly about the War in Iraq, have found themselves backed into a corner by the House Republicans, who finally tired of all the lies and rhetoric and have decided to vote regarding whether we should pullout of Iraq or not."

Euphoric Reality is live-blogging the vote. That's where I'm hanging out - Come and join us!

Very interesting: Murtha Acquaintaince Speaks Out

Update 3: (9:50 P.M. EST) Amazing. We went out to dinner and they're still at it when we get back. Democrats apparently have been foaming at the mouth with anger over being forced to act like adults and put their money where their mouths are. More later...

Via U.S. Newswire, a press release from "Stop Torture Now" (part of the Center for Theology and Social Analysis) about a weird event they're having in North Carolina:

Peace Activists to Deliver 'Indictment' Friday

On Friday morning, Nov. 18, a group of a dozen peace activists will deliver an "indictment" against the owners of Aero Contractors, charging them with conspiracy to commit torture in violation of United States law, the United Nations Convention against Torture, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The "indictment" also cites former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director George Tenet and present CIA Director Porter J. Goss, for violations of the same laws and treaties.

The event is happening at the Johnston County Airport in Smithfield. If all this sounds familiar, it is. Johnston Co. Airport and Aero Contractors were outed by the New York Times back in may. I hope the folks at the NYT are proud of themselves. (Via PowerLine)

The phony "indictment" being delivered by Stop Torture Now is available as a PDF here. I'm not a lawyer - any out there that care to look at it for me?

Interesting that the media and the left are still infatuated with Plamegate when here is a real covert operation that has been harmed through the compromise by NYT and it's sources. Unreal.

Cindy is hitting new lows. In her delusional world, any nutbag conspiracy theory and false accusation was always a fair straw of hope for her to grasp. And we can at least grant her the attribute of consistancy in her fantasy quest. She's been consistantly wrong from the very beginning.

Her message, however flawed, was guaranteed to have traction with certain groups. We've all seen who's been showing up at her protests - communists, socialists, racists, and the hard-core tinfoil hat factions. Her lack of honesty and sincerity have been transparent to mainstream America, which is why even the leftist media have abandoned her for greener pastures.

So having failed to be embraced by anyone with common sense, I guess nobody should be surprised when, in her desperation, she reaches further and further into the outrageous to get attention. For example, in an especially cynical Huffington Post entry, the Windbag of Woe attacks the President's mother:

Open Letter to George's Mama

Dear Barbara,

On April 04, 2004, your oldest child killed my oldest child, Casey Austin Sheehan.

Did you teach George to use his words and not his violence to solve problems? It doesn't appear so. Did you teach him that killing other people for profits and oil is ALWAYS wrong? Obviously you did not. I also used to wash my children's mouth out with soap on the rare occasion that they lied…did you do that to George? Can you do it now?

No comments from me this time. I want yours. Let me know what you think about "Mother Sheehan" attacking other Moms.

Well, the Femme of Felonious Fake Fatality didn't go to the big house:

They were each ordered to pay $75 in fines and court costs, but Sheehan's lawyer said he plans to appeal the verdict.

No word yet on whether she paid the fine. If she did pay it, doesn't that take away any moral standing to utter the word "liar" about others?

"We weren't demonstrating," Sheehan told reporters after the trial.

Snort. Chuckle. At least U.S. District Magistrate Judge Alan Kay saw right through that crap:

"They were consciously violating the law for publicizing their case," Kay said.

And since the Debutante of Derision loves the limelight so much, she's taking her show on the road again. This time, in Europe!

Hundreds of potential witticisms are swirling around in my head. But this one kinda writes itself.

In response to President Bush's recent drive to correct the vicious smears of the left, Peace Action is having a hatred fest tonight in Washington, D.C.

Speakers for the event include U.S. Representatives Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Barney Frank (D-MA), Danny Davis (D-IL), Hilda Solis (D-CA), Bob Filner (D-CA), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Gwen Moore (D-WI), Sam Farr (D-CA), other Congressmembers, Kevin Martin, Executive Director of Peace Action and Paul Kawika Martin, Peace Action's Political Director.

I'm bettin' the "other" Congressmembers don't include any "R"s.

I just don't get the mindset that drives people full of hate and denial of the truth to spend time with others full of hate and denial of the truth in order to share misery, pain, and gloom with each other for the goal of enhancing their own misery, pain, and gloom. What a terrible waste of time.

Oh, and the reason that Peace Action is hosting this unhappy event?

WHY: "While the President calls the peace movement 'irresponsible,' the polls show the American public hungers for a more responsible policy in Iraq. For 2006, Peace Action supports those candidates with foreign policies based on international cooperation and human rights," stated Paul Kawika Martin, Peace Action's Political Director.

Well, actually, he didn't say the peace movement was irresponsible, Paul. He said that it's "deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began". But I guess you missed that part of the speech. In other words, it's OK to be for peace. Just don't levy spurious charges against the administration in order to achieve it. You know, Paul, President Bush may not have been talking about you at all.

Lets take a look at your website and see:

"...no more Americans shall die because of Bush’s lie!"

"...the Bush administration fixed facts to support their foregone conclusions and unilateralist ambitions."

"Bush stood there before god, country and the world and lied his ass off. On Veteran’s Day, by lying about the intelligence, again, Bush dishonored the over 2000 service people who he sent to die."

Oops. Oh my, Paul. I guess he was talking about you after all.

Update: Welcome Michelle Malkin Readers! And special thanks to Lorie Byrd!

Update 2: Welcome Myopic Zeal Readers! Thanks, Eric!

Update 3: Welcome Ex-Donkey Blog Readers - No garlic needed here! Cheers, Gary!

I found a link in the comments of this post at Blackfive yesterday that alerted me to a particularly disgusting act being waged by college professors calling themselves "Replacements Needed". They have been putting up posters on utility poles and other places with disturbing images on them. I have a few examples below the fold. (WARNING - graphic and disturbing images). Their website is here.

The commenter on Blackfive (his name is Brad Torgersen) has been waging a one man war against the filth being spread by "Replacements Needed", and you can find his website here. Please visit Brad's site and send him an email telling him how terrific his efforts are. Here are a few of the posters he has placed over the top of the moonbat filth:

Remember to drop Brad an email if you appreciate his efforts.

Via AP/Yahoo:

"Turns out, we were wrong," Stephen Hadley told "Late Edition" on CNN. "But I think the point that needs to be emphasized ... allegations now that the president somehow manipulated intelligence, somehow misled the American people, are flat wrong."

Republican lawmakers and other officials who appeared on Sunday news shows echoed Bush's Veterans Day speech in which he defended his decision to invade Iraq.

And John McCain is chipping in as well:

Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., said Democrats have a right to criticize the war but that it was disingenuous to claim that Bush lied about intelligence to justify it.

"Every intelligence agency in the world, including the Russians, the French ... all reached the same conclusion," McCain said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Regardless of the President's late awakening, you should have been doing this all along. But, better late than never, so thumbs up, guys.

Yesterday, President Bush said:

"The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America’s will."

Today, conservatives are still celebrating that the President finally stood up to the vile smear attacks the left have levied against him. However, there's one group who could not (or would not) hear a word of it. The left. Here's Henry Waxman's take from today:

"There are many unanswered questions about why the Bush Administration led the nation into war in Iraq. Why did the President and his top advisors make literally hundreds of misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq? Were these honest mistakes, as the President insists, or was the intelligence deliberately twisted, as mounting evidence would indicate?"

Howard Dean:

"The fact remains that pre-war intelligence was manipulated and cherry-picked. Instead of trying to pass the buck to members of Congress, who like so many Americans were willing to trust their Commander-in-Chief, the President should tell the truth to our troops and their families about how they were sent to war."

Harry Reid called the president's comments a return to what Reid calls "his old playbook of discredited rhetoric about the war on terror."

Edward Kennedy says it is "regrettable" that the president is attacking those "who seek the truth" about how intelligence was manipulated before the war.

Nancy Pelosi says it is "never appropriate" to try to play politics with war or with veterans. She says the president is doing "a disservice" to U.S. troops and the nation by trying to silence those asking questions about putting U.S. forces in harm's way.

Oddly, Dianne Feinstein seems almost reasonable when placed against the backdrop of the above smearmongers. No mean feat, considering I've never found her to be reasonable before:

``If I knew then what I know now, I never would have voted that way,'' Feinstein said. ``I'm pretty good about trying to do my homework. . . . This was the first vote of its type for me, so it was a very big vote. And I was convinced that there was an imminent threat.''

At least she admits to supporting the war, something most of the left now runs away from.

It's obvious the President has to continue what he began Friday, and aggressively so. The left is so driven by hate that truth no longer means anything. All that matters is defeating Bush at any cost. They will continue to repeat the lies again and again depending on the persuasive power of repetition to drive the public toward untrue conclusions about the Iraq war.

Bush not only needs to push back hard and often, he needs to take the fight beyond words. Re-release the portions of the intelligence committee's report showing that the left is wrong. Scour the documents from the lead-up to the war and release those that prove that the administration didn't mislead or lie. I know lots of that stuff is classified, but surely there are lots that are no longer sensitive.

The media can't be counted on to help. The president's speech has already been relegated to the talking head shows on cable, blogs, and the op/ed pages, while the left's relentless smear campaign is still front page news. The President needs to learn a new skill - public relations. Failure to do so harms the GWOT and the effort in Iraq every bit as much as the dishonesty shown by the left does.

That was shouted by Jordanians in response to yesterday's attacks on 3 hotels in Amman. Additionally:

State television said a second rally was planned in the Red Sea port of Aqaba, where attackers using Katyusha rockets narrowly missed a U.S. ship and killed a Jordanian soldier in August.

This is good news. The only way we will win the GWOT is for the Islamic street to clean its own house. Public revulsion at the horrific crimes of the terrorists is a healthy and refreshing start. Let's hope it spreads.

The situation in France is improving - that is, if you call nearly 500 vehicles burned an improvement.

It appears that bribes and increased socialism has worked - for the rioters. Same as addressing a child's angry tantrum with toys or candy, the "disaffected youths" have learned how successful these tactics are with the French government. If it worked once, it will work again - so expect more riots, burning, and thuggery in the future.

Update (9:50 EST): Looks like thugs in Belgium have paid attention.

From Al-Reuters:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A lawyer for one of Saddam Hussein's co-defendants was to be buried on Wednesday amid concern that the killing undermines the credibility of the former president's trial for crimes against humanity.

If you'll recall, Saddam's lawyers blamed the Iraqi government for the killing:

Saddam's main lawyer, Khalil al-Dulaimi, blamed the government for Tuesday's attack, telling Al-Jazeera television that the shooting was carried by "an armed group using government vehicles."

Like I said before, this is just a delay tactic. It flies in the face of reason to believe that the Iraqi government would jeopardize the credibility of Saddam's trial. There are enough crimes committed by Hussein and his pals to keep them in jail through trial after trial until they die of old age even if they never get a conviction.

But the trials are important for Iraq's efforts to stand up as a democracy. More delays would harm that effort. Hopefully they'll get past this episode quickly and get back to delivering the justice that the Iraqi people (and the rest of the world as well) deserve.

Via AP/Yahoo, apparently the extra police and curfews are having little effect on the rioters:

Rioters ignored the extraordinary security measures, which began Wednesday, as they looted and burned two superstores, set fire to a newspaper office and paralyzed France's second largest city's subway system with a gasoline bomb.

Meanwhile, the French government continues to spin in circles:

Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, tacitly acknowledging that France has failed to live up to its egalitarian ideals, reached out to the heavily immigrant suburbs where the rioting began. He said France must make a priority of working against the discrimination that feeds the frustration of youths made to feel that they do not belong in France.

"We must be lucid: The Republic is at a moment of truth," Villepin told parliament. "The effectiveness of our integration model is in question." He called the riots "a warning" and "an appeal."

There are some signs that the violence may have peaked and is declining:

"The intensity of this violence is on the way down," National Police Chief Michel Gaudin said, citing fewer attacks on public buildings and fewer direct clashes between youths and police. He said rioting was reported in 226 towns across France, compared to nearly 300 the night before.

If this is indeed the turning point, as I expected, expect the violence to die down quickly. Absolutely none of the underlying problems will be addressed, and these thugs will organize to commit organized Al-Qaeda - style attacks. This isn't going away anytime soon.

Via AP/Yahoo:

Another Saddam Co-Defendant's Lawyer Slain

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Three gunmen in a speeding car killed a lawyer for a co-defendant in Saddam Hussein's trial and wounded another Tuesday in Baghdad, a member of the defense team and police said. It was the second assassination of a Saddam defense team lawyer in less than a month.

Saddam's lawyers are blaming it on the Iraqi Government:

Saddam's main lawyer, Khalil al-Dulaimi, blamed the government for Tuesday's attack, telling Al-Jazeera television that the shooting was carried by "an armed group using government vehicles."

"The aim of these organized attacks is to scare Arab and foreign lawyers," al-Dulaimi said. "We call upon the international community, on top of them the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to send an investigative committee because the situation is unbearable."

I can't imagine that he really believes it - it's just a good excuse to introduce more delays into the trial.

Via AP/Yahoo:

French to Impose Curfews, Deploy Forces

You'd think they would have thought of this a few days ago...

While most of the news seems focused on other topics, the troops keep doing their job. And doing it very well, by all indications. Example:

Al-Qaida in Iraq, meanwhile, warned the Iraqi government Monday to halt the offensive against Husaybah, a market town along the Euphrates River about 200 miles northwest of Baghdad, within 24 hours or see "the earth ... shake beneath their feet."

"Let them know that the price will be very heavy," al-Qaida said in a statement posted on an Islamist Web site. Its authenticity could not be confirmed.

While some on the left will no doubt take this as a sign that our presence is causing terrorism, I take it as a sign that the terrorists are worried. And that means we are winning.

Last Wednesday, Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, called for "wiping Israel off the map".

On the same day, Al Jazeera asked, If Israel has nukes, why can’t the rest?

This AP article has some interesting figures on the number of dead in Iraq - not Americans, but civilians killed by suicide bombers:

In the six months since Iraq's government took office, suicide bombers have struck nearly 200 times, killing at least one-third of the more than 3,902 Iraqis slain in war-related violence since April 28, according to an Associated Press count.

The overwhelming majority of those killed between April 28 and Oct. 28 died in insurgent attacks, suicide or otherwise. Of these, 1,128 were security personnel and 2,774 — or two-thirds — were civilians, according to the count drawn from daily reports from Iraqi government officials, hospitals and the U.S. government. Insurgent deaths were not part of the AP tally.

The anti-war crowd would have you believe that the majority of civilian deaths are caused by American Forces. They're wrong. Also, note to AP - they're terrorists. Insurgents don't blow themselves up in crowds of civilians.

Unusual for an AP piece, there's actually some good news:

Amid the unremitting violence, the new Iraqi government has written the country's constitution, held a nationwide referendum on the document, and is now preparing for Dec. 15 elections for a new government.

There are nonetheless small signs that Iraq's government is succeeding in rebuilding the country with the help of coalition forces. The electricity supply has risen steadily since April, from 3,390 megawatts to 4,117 megawatts in October — although well below the goal of 6,000 megawatts, which was to have been reached by July 2004, according to a Brookings Institution count.

And the number of Iraqis who have telephone access has risen to 4.5 million, compared with an estimated prewar level of 833,000, Brookings reported.

"We have seen Iraqi-elected leaders grow into their positions, becoming more confident, visible and forceful," Maj. Gen. Joseph J. Taluto, commander of the 42nd Infantry Division and Task Force Liberty, said Friday. "They have taken on more and more responsibility for solving problems; in other words, Iraqi solutions to Iraqi issues."

Fact is, we're getting the job done. Maybe slower than most would like, but even AP can no longer hide it. There's no quagmire. If we were to remove our troops now, as the anti-war left desires, all of the progress will be lost. Iraq will fall into anarchy and eventually be taken over by the radical Islamofascists. If that happens, 3902 will seem like a small number indeed. And that's why we have to finish the job.

There's great hope for the future. But not if we cut and run.

If you haven't heard about the new grave-dancing commercial from MoveOn.org, Michelle Malkin has the link here.

I don't know if it's a coordinated effort, but another one has sprung up here from a bunch called Operation "Truth". It's about as you might expect, with lots of gratuitous images of flag-draped coffins. I thought the emphasis on the word "dead" was interesting.

It's obvious that these ghouls have been tracking the numbers and carefully planning so that they could exploit the memories of these heroes for cheap partisan political gain.

Rightwingsparkle has some must read reflections on the war. And this as well.

Shame on the troll that posted first in her comments section.

I didn't get to see the President's speech yesterday, but I did read the transcript. I was heartened to hear him strenghen (at least outwardly) the administration's stance against Syria and Iran. Both countries continue to hamper our efforts in Iraq, it would be beneficial if Syria and Iran could be pressured into stopping their support of the terrorists without having to challenge either militarily.

Still, I wish he would more directly challenge the Islamic community as a whole to join the fight against terror. Winning the GWOT would be ever so much easier if Islam would clean its own house.