Monday, October 17. 2005
A Hang-Tough Nation, by Mortimer B. Zuckerman (Summarized by the Presidents Conference Daily Alert)
-The fact is there are radicals out there who want to kill us all - any American, men, women, and children. This culture of death was not created by intervention in Iraq. Iraq may have sharpened the resentments of some radical Islamists and given them a new excuse, but there was no Iraq war in 1993, when they first tried to blow up the World Trade Center, nor before 9/11, when they did blow it up. The attack on the USS Cole took place after U.S. forces contributed to the NATO-led operation in Kosovo that saved the lives of many, many Muslims.
-The exploding torrent of Muslim energy, something not seen in 500 years, is being fueled by billions of petrodollars coming out of Saudi Arabia in support of an aggressive anti-Western religious teaching called Wahhabism. And it's spreading not just to other Muslim countries but also to the disaffected among the Muslim communities in Europe who can be trained on the Internet in almost every aspect of terrorism.
-The Senate Foreign Relations Committee suggests that there is a very high probability (70%) of a successful terrorist attack within the next ten years with weapons of mass destruction, and the very sober former secretary of defense, William Perry, puts the odds of a nuclear attack in the next five years at 50%.
-The president spoke none too soon in his recent speech emphasizing that Iraq has now become the central front in the war on terrorism and restating our larger purposes there. His assertion that we cannot afford to falter, as we have faltered in previous conflicts when the going got tough, is dead-on. Pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq too soon would be the equivalent of rocket fuel for the Islamofascists. Iraq would become the new Afghanistan, a safe base from which to launch attacks on us and wage a war against nonradical Muslim governments.
From the New York Times:
On the Khobar Towers investigation, Mr. Freeh asserted that when evidence was developed linking Iran to the attack, the Clinton administration appeared uninterested. He said the initial response of Mr. Clinton's national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger, was, "Who knows about this?" followed by a dismissive assessment of the evidence as "Well, that's hearsay"....Once an Iranian link emerged, Mr. Freeh maintained, the Clinton administration handled it poorly. "Talk about ineptness and compromising an investigation," he said. "The president of the United States writes a letter to the Iranian president in 1999, a letter that says: 'We think you may be involved in the murder of our 19 Americans at Khobar. Please help us or you won't get better trade assistance or foreign relations by the United States.' They never told me they were writing that letter."
He said that while the letter was supposed to have gone to President Mohammed Khatami, "it was misdelivered."
"It was delivered to the spiritual leader, who went berserk," Mr. Freeh said. "It compromised the Saudis, because it was clear from the letter that the Saudis had told us about the Iranians."
Citing the striking differences in the versions of events told by Mr. Freeh and Mr. Clinton and his supporters, Mr. Russert asked Mr. Freeh if he would be willing to debate Mr. Berger on his program.
Mr. Freeh replied, "Absolutely."
Mr. Berger could not be reached for comment.
From Ma'ariv:
Maj.-Gen. Aharon Zeevi (Farkash), the head of Israeli Military Intelligence, said in an interview: "We are not a high priority [for al-Qaeda], but our prioritization for them is increasing. From al-Qaeda's standpoint we are dividing the Muslim world."
"Look at the circle that is tightening around us. Attacks in Turkey, Taba, Sharm el-Sheikh, Katyushas in Jordan."
"We know that activists from the global jihad, about ten, infiltrated Gaza from Sinai during the story we had with Philadelphi. They will link up with those who are in the uprising in Gaza. It is a real threat."
"They came from the group hiding out in Jabal Halal [in Sinai] and were involved with others in the attacks in Sinai. In Jabal Halal a military-grade weapons base has been created, that Egypt has been unable to eliminate."
From the New York Times:
Gaza now seems more like a street-corner society, with the various security forces only more sophisticated varieties of the militant gangs that have their base in neighborhoods, refugee camps and hamullas [clans or tribes].
The hamullas are again so powerful in Gaza that rival security forces seek to buy their loyalty with money and weapons, while hamullas seek to ensure that their members are represented in all crucial groups, including the militants of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and of course Fatah, which is supposed to be the bulwark of the Palestinian Authority...."The police, the courts, the security services don't solve a single problem. If you go to them and say, 'Someone stole my house,' they don't even open a file."
Sunday, October 16. 2005
Israel Wants Assad 'Bloodied, Not Beaten'
While Israel has complained bitterly for months that Syria is actively aiding and abetting terrorism both from Lebanon and inside Israel, it is not interested in seeing Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime fall, a senior diplomatic official said Saturday night.
The official said Israel was concerned that if Assad were to be toppled as a result of international isolation and pressure, this could unleash a civil war and the type of chaos similar to that now taking place in Iraq, which could spill over to Israel's northern border.
?Infighting, chaos and civil war in Syria, like that taking place in Iraq, is not necessarily beneficial to Israel,? the official said. On the other hand, the official said Assad's collapse could lead to the emergence of a pro-Western and Western-backed leader in the same mold as Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) who would likely have difficulty asserting his authority.
In this case, the official said, Israel might then come under considerable international pressure to ?prop him up? by entering into negotiations with him over the Golan Heights. ?An Abu Mazen on Israel's northern border is not necessarily in our interests,? he said.
Israel was interested in Syria changing its behavior, but not necessarily its regime, the official said. It is stunning that this official could have learned nothing from the absolute failure of left-wing ideas such as believing that terrorists could have their behavior changed by outside pressure. Oslo, for example, was based on an utterly wrong prediction that terrorists would impose strongman rule that would lead to a crackdown on Hamas without democratic restraints to action such as " Bagatz [the Supreme Court] or B'tselem [a leading human rights group]", as the late Prime Minister Rabin would frequently say.
It is worth noting that Israel's government is a coalition of forces who is often paralyzed by the internally competing forces. The unnamed official in the above article is almost certaily a leftist. Note that later in the same article, Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, an ideological conservative, expressed support for Syrian regime change based on his agreement with the Bush Arab democracy project:
"Our interest is to tell the world that Syria is implicated up to its neck in terrorism, a terrorism that is directed not just against Israel but against coalition forces in Iraq,? he said. ?And this is why it is in the interest of the entire world that there is another state in Syria, one that is freer and more democratic." The utter miscalculation of the above-named official is evidenced by the watershed event announced today:
Afghanistan 'to Open Ties with Israel'
While Afghanistan is not the first country to forge diplomatic relations with Israel, it appears to the first "true" one. The others were pragmatic tactics of hostile countries whose ultimate goal is still to undermine Israel.
Here's the AP Headline:
Bush Teleconference With Soldiers Staged
Here's the response of one of the participants, who wrote about it on his blog:
Speaking with President Bush
Yesterday, I was chosen to be among a small group of soldiers assigned to the 42ID?s Task Force Liberty that would speak to President Bush, our Commander-in-Chief. The interview went well, but I would like to respond to what most of the mass-media has dubbed as, ?A Staged Event.?
First of all, we were told that we would be speaking with the President of the United States, our Commander-in-Chief, President Bush, so I believe that it would have been totally irresponsible for us NOT to prepare some ideas, facts or comments that we wanted to share with the President.
We were given an idea as to what topics he may discuss with us, but it?s the President of the United States; He will choose which way his conversation with us may go.
We practiced passing the microphone around to one another, so we wouldn?t choke someone on live TV. We had an idea as to who we thought should answer what types of questions, unless President Bush called on one of us specifically.
President Bush told us, during his closing, that the American people were behind us. I know that we are fighting here, not only to preserve our own freedoms, but to establish those same freedoms for the people of Iraq. It makes my stomach ache to think that we are helping to preserve free speech in the US, while the media uses that freedom to try to RIP DOWN the President and our morale, as US Soldiers. They seem to be enjoying the fact that they are tearing the country apart. Worthless!
The question I was most asked while I was home on leave in June was, ?So...What?s REALLY going on over there?? Does that not tell you something?! Who has confidence in the media to tell the WHOLE STORY? It?s like they WANT this to turn into another Vietnam. I hate to break it to them, but it?s not.
Tomorrow morning, the Iraqi people will vote on their constitution. The success of our mission or the mission of the Iraqi security forces is not defined by the outcome of that vote. If the people of Iraq vote this constitution down, that only means that the FREE, DEMOCRATIC PROCESS is at work in Iraq. They are learning to voice their opinions in the polling stations, not through violence. If it is voted down, they will have the chance to draft an even better version; One that may better serve the people of Iraq. This is up to them. It is history in the making and I will not let the media or anyone else (who has not spent more than two weeks here) tell me otherwise. I have been here for almost a year. I have seen the progress made in so many ways from January?s elections to this referendum. Don?t tell me what the Iraqi people can or can?t do. They will tell you with their VOTES! Just prior to the Today Show's airing of a segment accusing that the Bush event was staged, the Today Show was caught staging a news shot of its own. Michelle Kosinski was trying to dramatize heavy Northeast rains by paddling in a canoe. Just as the cameras went live, however, people came walking by, revealing that the water was only 4-6 inches deep. 
Friday, October 14. 2005
Thatcher Reveals her Doubts Over Basis for Iraq War
Dozens of sites are taking this story seriously. An example on the left is Timothy Noah of Slate, who has added Thatcher to the " Bush Abandonment Watch". An example on the right is Et Tu, Iron Lady?
On the face of it, this is ridiculous. Here are some facts that should cause extraordinary skepticism:
1. The alleged quote sounds suspiciously close to far-left talking points:
The former chairman of the Arts Council of Great Britain, Lord Palumbo, who lunched with Mrs. T six months ago, told me recently what she said when he asked her if, given the intelligence at the time, she would have made the decision to invade Iraq. "I was a scientist before I was a politician, Peter," she told him carefully. "And as a scientist I know you need facts, evidence and proof -- and then you check, recheck and check again. The fact was that there were no facts, there was no evidence, and there was no proof. As a politician the most serious decision you can take is to commit your armed services to war from which they may not return." 2. The allegation is that Thatcher was asked whether she still supported the war and then delivered an anti-Bush diatribe. The implication is that her answer was "no."
3. The quote is second-hand, after transmission by two leftists. Tina Brown, in the same column upon which the Independent story is based, said Supreme Court nominee Miers poses a risk of getting a "stem-cell-banning, abortion-denying, Bible-thumping presidential sycophant." She also has a history of outrageous claims such as blaming the closing of her magazine on 9/11. Lord Palumbo appears to support anti-Bush propaganda as well. Here is his name on the list of sponsors of the lefist group "Torture Care" on a report alleging:
In both the War against Terror and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the torture of prisoners has been widespread....puncture the lie that some of the techniques used in places like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay don't really amount to torture. Serendipitously, his name appears next to today's anti-American Nobel Laureate Harold Pinter.
4. The article claims that Thatcher's office "did not dispute her reported remarks" (probably because the article was written in a rush and there was not enough time for her secretary to check with the 80-year old Thatcher). Her office, however, confirmed her strong endorsement of the Iraq war and her long-standing positions on it.
5. Those long-standing positions are not subtle. No one made the argument more candidly than Thatcher that Saddam should be deposed militarily because of his nuclear and chemical capabilities. Here is an article she published in the New York Times saying exactly that:
The third phase is to deal with those hostile states that support terrorism and seek to acquire or trade in weapons of mass destruction. We have gotten into the habit of calling them "rogue" states....The most notorious rogue is, without doubt, Saddam Hussein ? proof if ever we needed it that yesterday's unfinished business becomes tomorrow's headache. Saddam Hussein will never comply with the conditions we demand of him. His aim is, in fact, quite clear: to develop weapons of mass destruction so as to challenge us with impunity.
How and when, not whether, to remove him are the only important questions. Again, solving this problem will demand the best available intelligence. It will require, as in Aghanistan, the mobilization of internal resistance. It will probably also involve a massive use of force. America's allies, above all Britain, should extend strong support to President Bush in the decisions he makes on Iraq. Here is a similar speech she delivered in America six years prior saying essentially the same thing:
Compare this hubris with the failure to act effectively against the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the means to deliver them....Given the intellectual climate in the West today, it is probably unrealistic to expect military intervention to remove the source of the threat, as for example against North Korea - except perhaps when the offender invites us to do so by invading a small neighboring country [i.e. Kuwait]. Even then, as we now know, our success in destroying Saddam's nuclear and chemical weapons capability was limited.
And we cannot be sure that the efforts by inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Authority to prevent Saddam putting civil nuclear power to military uses have been any more successful; indeed, we may reasonably suspect that they have not....
The Soviet collapse has also aggravated the single most awesome threat of modern times: the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These weapons - and the ability to develop and deliver them - are today acquired by middle-income countries with modest populations such as Iraq 6. This fits into a pattern of flimsy anti-Bush claims seized upon by the news media (such as this week's allegation that was immediately denied by all concerned).
Thursday, October 13. 2005
This is a must-read for both Jews and non-Jews as well who are curious about tonight's holiday or Hollywood's fascination with Kabbalah. Rabbi Aaron presents an uncommonly mature conception of Judaism to complete beginners as well as advanced yeshiva students. His on-line articles can be found here. His must-read books are here.
Wednesday, October 12. 2005
Yet another hysterical Katrina news story was contradicted by the facts today. Note the anti-Bush implication of the final line:
The Toxic Timebomb in New Orleans
While the human and economic toll of Hurricane Katrina continues to rise, a toxic mix of dead bodies, human waste and chemicals now poses a new threat to the devastated city of New Orleans.
As the city began pumping the filthy water back into Lake Pontchartrain, Mayor Ray Nagin warned residents to brace themselves for ugly scenes as the foul water revealed its horrific secrets.
"It's going to be awful. It's going to wake the nation up again," said Nagin, who has suggested that 10,000 may have died in his city alone.
Already, more and more bodies are appearing, floating in the water, or pointed out by people being rescued from their homes....Bush has so far resisted calls for an independent inquiry Here's the truth, after it "finally got its boots on":
Floodwater Not as Toxic As Feared, Experts Say
The floodwater that covered New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina was not unusually toxic and was "typical of storm water runoff in the region," according to a study published yesterday"....What it most looks like is the storm water that is present in New Orleans every time it rains," said John H. Pardue, an environmental engineer at Louisiana State University See also:
Katrina Spawned Plague of Misinformation
Why so Many Journalists Painted an Exaggerated Picture of the Situation in New Orleans
Update: Reports of New Orleans Anarchy Wildly Exaggerated
Reports of New Orleans Anarchy Wildly Exaggerated
Daniel Pipes is one of the most respected scholars of the Middle East. Today's column on Bush's anti-terror speech is a must-read, with remarkable similarities to my post from last week:
IRIS: Bush has needed to explain the Global Jihad for too long.
Pipes: I repeatedly called on the president to start a third era by acknowledging that the war is against radical Islam.
IRIS: He described the threat as ideological in nature and went beyond the nebulous "war on terror" to identify it as Islamism.
Pipes: The detailed texture of Bush?s speech transforms the official American understanding of who the enemy is, moving it from the superficial and inadequate notion of ?terrorism? to the far deeper concept of ?Islamic radicalism.?
IRIS: The West's lack of clarity has hampered its ability to fight.
Pipes: I...criticized the notion of making war on a military tactic, finding this euphemistic, inaccurate, and obstructive
IRIS: It was the first time a number of the following critical elements were included, and certainly the only time the case was presented in such a comprehensive way.
Pipes: the third era truly began on Oct. 6 with Bush?s speech...He not only gave several names to the force behind terrorism...but he provided ample details
IRIS: their goal is the building of a massive empire
Pipes: Defined its ultimate goal: ?to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world.?
Senior Hamas Terrorist Caught after a Decade on Wanted List
Most people of good understand the need for targeted assassinations against terrorists like this man. Why, then, is capital punishment off-limits? He will now spend the rest of his life propagating Islamism to those most willing to murder when released.
Jail is not a deterrent for Islamists. They avoid it because it is less ideal than having unrestricted operational flexibility. But it has its advantages. Most people, particularly in poor countries, do not have the luxury of taking time off from earning a living to focus on ideological pursuits. Prison is like a college campus in that Islamists no longer have to waste time earning a living and can focus exclusively on spreading jihad by recruiting, networking, ideological development and training in an environment filled with their colleagues and most desirable prospects. It often requires time and severance of family ties to develop someone ideologically to the point where he is willing to be a suicide bomber. Prison is currently a nearly ideal catalyst for jihad, whereas we believe it to be a constraint.
Updates:
Mar. 8: UK Terror Suspects to Get Laptops
Oct. 23, 2007: Jail ‘Hardening’ Terror Convicts
Mar. 1, 2006: Militant Support Grows in Mideast Prisons
Jan. 31, 2006: al-Qaeda Gang Runs UK Prison
Dec. 18, 2005: Bali Bomb Ringleader Recruits for Jihad on Death Row
One Islamist wrote 18 books where cell phones and laptops are common
See also:
Radical Indoctrination in the U.S. Prisons
California Prison Jihadis Converted to Islam in Jail
Islamists and Incarceration: Prisons Prove to be Prime Recruiting Grounds
Muslims Comprise 70% of the French Prison Population
North Caucasian Prisons Becoming Wahhabi Schools
Arabic Words Go Free in Jails
|
