Dubya's Choice

[]/\[]/\[]

George W. Bush should decide who best is qualified to serve as his successor in the White House, and should make his opinion known to that candidate and in due course, provide his full and unwavering support for the campaign.

Democrats would be outraged by such a bold decision on the part of the President, even though it has a long and valid presidential precedent. They would claim it plays with the political process, when in fact it would not harm the process one bit, except making clear to Americans how to continue the programs and policies of George W. Bush. And that, in my opinion, would be a serious blow to any Democrat’s hope to grabbing the White House.

The first President, George Washington, made clear that he considered James Monroe something of his protege. It in no way subverted the electoral process, and in these days of popular votes, for Dubya to note whom he likes is no threat to the voice of the people. Also, throughout pesidential history, many Chief Executives have played their preferences or supported the Party’s choice. Dubya’s father enjoyed a healthy margin of victory in 1988, in large part because Ronald Reagan supported him, so that GHWB appeared to be Ronnie’s pick. Before that, in 1964 LBJ enjoyed a landslide victory, in large part because he appeared to JFK’s right-hand man. It’s worth noting that because Reagan did not make his personal preference known ahead of the campaign, he was more or less stuck with the party choice, whom he backed loyally. And because Kennedy never anticipated his demise, he did not make public the choice to kick LBJ off the boat, and so America was misled about what Jack Kennedy wanted.

Ordinarily, there would be small value to pressing to have a President name his personal choice to follow him, but the stakes are extremely high for 2008. The Global War on Terror will be continuing, and in a different aspect. Just as the majority of Americans in 2004 understood that no issue was as important as the War on Terror, they will be looking for the right leadership and direction in 2008 on that same issue. by 2007 it will be necessary, even critical, for Bush to name an individual who is best-qualified to meet that challenge. Personally, I do not doubt for an instant that the best candidate is not the one who knows the Economy best, or the Abortion or even the Court issues best, would ideally be a candidate known for handling pressure and complex issues, someone with direct experience in National Security, and someone who has worked in addressing our relations with other countries in the context of the threat from Global Terrorism. The sole candidate so qualified is Secretary of State (and former National Security Advisor) Condoleeza Rice. If President Bush has someone else in mind, it would be important to know his preference, but this is absolutely an instance where America should know the mind of George W. Bush.

Modern Epidemiology

}{ }{ }{ }{

I’m re-reading Michael Crichton’s “The Andromeda Strain”, and as always I am impressed with Crichton’s ability to explain the force of events, not always in our control.

“The Andromeda Strain” dealt with the unexpected arrival of a strain of a previously unknown organism, one which killed rapidly, and seemed to represent a grave and unstoppable threat. With respect to the plot as Crichton wrote it, I could not help but see the present world political condition in that light. On the one hand, Global Terrorism is a virulent threat to every nation in contact with it, and puts all nations at risk by its nature. To that, the W Doctrine is an antibody (and the Democratic Party is the guy who wants to avoid going to the doctor). On the other, the obviously beneficial effects of free elections in Afghanistan and Iraq are like the reinforcement of an Immune system, making the W Doctrine like a Symbiotic organism which generates healthy blood (as in Free Trade) and cell regeneration (as in the development of democracy-friendly policies in Middle East countries). The people most famous for trying to prevent that healthy existence (Mcdermott, Penn, Moore, Dean, Kennedy, as obvious examples), may best be compared in function to, well, germs.

I wonder how Michael Crichton would write up the next Presidential Elections?

Terrorists Are Morons

[-][-][-][-][-]

OK, it felt good to make that statement. But I put it up there as the title, because it is unfortunately necessary to state so basic a fact as that, since certain people (I will be nice and not say which particular ones) have managed to muddy the picture quite a bit:

”We have to work to understand their anger”

“American has to face its responsibility for these attacks”

“George W. Bush has declared War on Islam”


Uhhhh, no, no, annnnnnd no. We need to kill terrorists and capture them, not play psychiatry games. America has generally done a credible job of advancing human rights and promoting peace and fair play throughout the world, certainly more than any other nation, so blaming us for terrorism aimed at innocents is distinctly obscene and false. And George W. Bush is attacking a few thousand fascist terrorists, not the hundreds of millions of innocent Muslims. But I digress…

Terrorists generally seem to come from two groups; the very rich who have taken up Jihad as a personal pursuit, in many cases as a way to make their name, and the very poor, who are enticed by groups like Hamas with promises that their family will be looked after and they will be given entry directly into Paradise. Fools on both ends. Sure, they’re technically proficient and able to pull off some sophisticated tricks, but that just makes them the Evil version of ‘Rainman’. And they don’t have Hoffman’s charisma, anyway.

Want proof? Let’s look at the scorecard. Let’s start with the poor kids who are suckered into joining up. Do that, and your personal career ends in death or life in prison. Yeah, that’s a plan. And their families? Just look at the refugee camps and the slums in terrorist-controlled regions. The families get a subsistence from the thuggish terror cells, but they are no better off without their young men, than they would have been if they had their child with them to build a future for himself and them. There is a firm history of emigrants who get education and an opportunity, who then are able to come back and help their parents. Not so if junior dies in a flaming car bomb, for which the family gets a small check and a slogan. It’s an obscene lie told to people unable in most cases to find out they’re being fooled into giving up their most precious hope. There is not a single family whose future was made better by having their son murder innocents for a useless political cause.

As for the “leadership” of these groups? Well, you got your choices there, as well. Some choose the heroic martyr route, which is to say they carry out bold and ruthless missions until they get killed themselves, at which time the Cause simply finds another puppet to preach their bile and vomit. Or they play for power and privilege. Looking at the roster of recent terrorists in the news, here’s what we see:

Abu Abbas – captured
Khalid Shiekh Mohammed – captured
Ansar-al-Islam - largely captured
Abu Farraj Al-Libbi , Al Qaeda 3rd-in-Command - captured
Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani - captured
Abu Nidal - captured, now dead
Mullah Mahdi, Deputy to Al-Zarqawi - captured
Abu Anas al-Shami, Deputy to Al-Zarqawi - killed
Husem al-Yemeni, Deputy to Al-Zarqawi - captured
Abu Alghadiya, Al Qaeda official - killed
Khaled al-Harbi, Al Qaeda mission planner - captured
Mohammed Atef, bin Laden lieutenant - killed
Hassan Ghul, bin Laden lieutenant - captured
Abu Zubaydah, bin Laden lieutenant - captured

75% of Al Qaeda’s operatives and leadership - captured or killed

I could go on, but the lesson is clear. Speaking of lessons, here's another datum:

27 Battalions of the new native Iraqi Army - Now fully operational

As for Al-Zarqawi and bin Laden themselves? If they are still alive (which is under debate), they are in hiding and living on the run, never staying in one place too long. At best, they are eating and sleeping poorly, aware that everyone they considered a close associate or friend a few years ago is either dead or in Coalition hands. Sound like a winning plan to you? Fools, all of them.

So, some say, what about “the Cause”? OK, let’s look at that. How has the terrorist way fared in the past, say 50 years?

IRA – Ireland still under the same government, IRA largely wiped out, what’s left is now a political party with complete rejection of terrorist violence.

Hamas, PLO, Hizbollah – Still around, but then so is Israel, no less likely to continue existing or to defend itself than when this all started.

Iraq – Dictatorship removed, support for terrorist groups abolished. Under self-rule and moving towards self-defense.

Afghanistan – Taliban removed, support for terrorist groups abolished. Under self-rule and moving towards self-defense.

Lebanon – Vocal in demanding self-rule and end to occupation by Syrian forces, and also to ending support for terrorist groups.

Saudi Arabia – Held minor elections, could lead to greater effect in democratization.

Iran - Forced to deny its nuclear weapons program and scale back operations. Increasing pressure from young generation for democracy.

Across the board, the terrorist cause and message is being rejected. Flatly, without exception. Only a moron could miss it. And only a moron could defend them instead of backing the Marines and the President, whose resolution is identical and unwavering on this question.

I was asked what I thought about Hell...

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\''

I don’t like writing about Hell, for two basic reasons. First, Hell exists as an Absolute existence, a place and condition which is assigned by God Almighty after a Final Judgment; by definition a mortal being like myself cannot comprehend all there is to know about Hell and the resolution of souls, that would lead to such a consignment. Secondly, I have always found that the focus of a person’s attention can influence their thoughts, words, and actions. In that light, too much attention on Hell is not desirable. That said, there is reason to sort out the question of what Hell is and is not, and to prepare ourselves for what is to come.

While it is never completely wise to generalize, there seem to be four basic views of Hell, to my mind none of them quite satisfactory. The first version comes from the mostly Humanist perspective, to the argument that there is no Hell at all, that Hell comes from misunderstanding or the war against one’s self, and such contentions. To me, that position is faulty for a number of reasons. First, as a person who believes the Bible to be true, the many references to Hell and warnings to guard against ending there are hardly only moral stories or metaphors. Hell is real, and is to be avoided. But for those who do not accept the Bible, there is also the double whammy of consequences and of balance. What I mean is, for good to be rewarded, evil must be punished and vice versa. Therefore, there must be a Hell of some sort for evil doers. Also, it follows that if deeds have meaning, as I contend they do, then there is a consequence for them. If morality is true at all, then there is a consequence for evil, and that means that even if someone suffers no ill effects during their life, something is yet waiting for them. I cannot agree to the claim that there is no Hell.

The second contention is the opposite pole; that Hell is an eternal and terrible place, with no hope of end or solace. Granted, we’re talking about Absolutes, and if Heaven is a place of unending joy and peace and happiness, then Hell must fall to the dregs of existence, but again there are conflicts which must be considered. Revelation, not usually considered a happy book for sinners, notes that Hell itself will be thrown into the Lake of Fire, which certainly seems to indicate an end to the torment. Also, we again come to a question of consequence and balance. Many have questioned the justice in eternal punishment for finite acts, and deliberate torment for what is in many cases unintentional offense. What’s more, it is common sense to many people that if a man kills one person but then refrains from killing again, he is better than the man who kills and kills again. If the punishment for both men was identical, it could hardly be said to be just. I cannot, after thinking it through, accept that this second contention holds up to inspection.

So we move to the third and fourth contentions. The third basically accepts that hell is eternal, but grants differing punishments to those condemned. This is the stuff of Dante’s ‘Inferno’, but it is not really to be found in Scripture. Also, it gets really tricky trying on the one hand to be consistent, yet on the other to say that we should give different people different punishment for what appears to be the same sin. Difficult to accept that one, especially since we are left to sort out why a lighter punishment should be considered the product of a Merciful God, or a Just one, if it is eternal and allows no hope of reconciliation.

That brings me to the fourth case, which is like the third, except that there Hell exists only temporarily. The problem there is again Scriptural; while Revelation says Hell will be thrown into the Lake of Fire, it never says the sinners get out from hell first. And Daniel says, as does Matthew, that the shame and torment will be forever. Ow.

Then there’s the biggy for me. I’ve gotten to know lots of people in my life. Lots of mean, selfish people, but only a few really evil ones. And I’ve gotten to know some good folks, and some are amazingly good, clearly in line with the Lord. But I’ve never yet met anyone who I would say was completely Good, or completely Evil. We all have sins in our lives, though some are small and few, and we all have good in our hearts, so some have tried to bury it. I do not believe that God condones evil, or will allow it into Heaven, or that He will ignore or punish Good. So here’s what I think:

God will separate us, Good from Bad. Not saying the mostly-good people get in with the Good, and the mostly-bad in with the Bad, but that our Good and our Bad will be separated. And we choose which part we want to keep.

Not a perfect answer, but that’s what I think.

Global Terrorism: Refresher (Conclusion)

/[]\/[]\/[]
The fact that it has taken six articles to cover the highlights of Global Terrorism as it exists today, helps illustrate why so few people seem to understand the threat or its resolution. In this conclusion, then, I intend not only to wrap up the review of how we got here, but also what is necessary for us to win.

The collective impetus of 1961-2001 led men like Osama bin Laden to consider the United States just like any previous empire, fat and soft and not willing to fight for anything that was too far, too long, or too difficult. “Paper Tiger” was a phrase used often by the self-proclaimed elite in the Western Media, Academia, and groups like the U.S. Democratic Party, used to justify non-resistance to the violence brought on by the terrorists. Small wonder the terrorists believed it was true.

The success of the Palestine Liberation Organization as an independent group with both capability and volition made Terrorism desirable as a career choice for some. Abu Nidal, Carlos the Jackal, and of course Yassir Arafat are obvious examples of men who spoke for their “cause”, but in fact lined their own pockets ahead of anything else. There is strong reason to believe that the top men in Al Qaeda hoped for the same benefits, made more attractive by blessings from the Wahhabist oligarchy. While State-sponsored terrorism had become unpalatable because of the American presence, there remained a large number of patrons ready to fund a group privately, especially in the hope of chasing Americans away, as they had seen in Beirut, Somalia, and the Sudan.

By the late 1990s, there were essentially four classes of discernable terrorist groups. State-sponsored terrorism (Iran, Iraq, Libya, as examples) had turned some prominent terrorist leaders into politicians and their “cause” into a corporate image. Other groups were reduced to suicide raids, unable to mount a significant military threat (for all the appalling carnage from such raids, suicide attacks consistently fail to change the course of governance and public acclamation for change, whether one counts the Kamikaze attacks on U.S. warships by the Japanese in late World War 2, or such tactics as the IRA used in Belfast or Hamas has used in Israel, or even the Black Hand bombings of the early 1920’s or the Underground movements in the U.S. during the 1960s). Still others enjoyed a measure of success, but only in their locality and specific condition. None of these local groups stood up to any sizable organized force, especially from the U.S. or the U.K. The new lot were the Jihadists, who were much better prepared and motivated to carry out terrorist attacks, especially on targets they considered to be in “their” territory. I say “their” in quotations, because an early trait of the Jihadists was operation in a nation not their homeland, most probably due to a combination of secrecy from the authorities in the target country, and absolute control over the Jihadist’s environment. The Jihadists worked to coordinate the other three groups to support their campaigns. They learned the keys to success for the few terrorists who had managed to survive and flourish; they planned for a series of attacks intended to achieve true unbalancing of the target nation (as worked in Afghanistan), and they began to contact and coordinate with various local groups to mutual goals.

There are six salient elements for a successful international Jihadist group. They are:

1. Money
2. Madrassahs
3. Methodology
4. Munitions
5. Media, and
6. Malice

The early success for Osama bin Laden lay in his ability to arrange and coordinate those six elements. The attacks of September 11, the Bali attacks in 2002, the train bombing in Madrid, the school massacre in Beslan, and the bombings in London were all very well planned and executed, tactically. Yet they were also, on the strategic plane, incredible blunders. Consider these significant events following the attacks:

[] There were no follow-up terrorist attacks after September 11th, March 11th, or July 7th, even though there is clear evidence that Al Qaeda planned such attacks.
[] None of Al Qaeda’s attacks led to a militarily significant change in conditions in AQ’s favor. The 9/11 attacks led to the loss of Afghanistan for the terrorists and their Taliban hosts, and further to the loss of Iraq to the Coalition and pro-democratic forces. The Bali attacks and London bombings hardened British and U.K. resolve to win the fight. And while Spain withdrew their forces from Iraq following the train bombings, this led to no significant change in Coalition strength or success.
[] Al Qaeda was unable to protect their money lines, and most of their most important patrons refused to support them any longer.
[] The U.S.-led Coalition handled the Media far better than Al Qaeda ever expected, enough so that despite constant attempts to portray the U.S. and President Bush in negative light, the Coalition in general and U.S. Marines in particular, are well-respected in the regions under Coalition control. It is not coincidence that almost all Iraqi forces which once opposed the Coalition, have either stopped their opposition to the new Iraqi government, or have actually allied their groups with the new Iraqi police and army in training. Even Al Jazeera has toned down their rhetoric, so that the harshest Anti-American rhetoric regarding the Middle East is usually heard from Vermont and Massachusetts politicians.
[] Public resolution regarding the mission to eradicate Al Qaeda and Global Terrorism is firm, as evidenced not only by the last two American elections, but also by response to the Afghan and Iraqi elections. It is significant that even the most rabid Bush-hater in Washington is forced to concede that U.S. troops should stay in Iraq and “finish the job”. Further, changes in attitudes towards the United States in places like Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and even Iran, demonstrate that in the eyes of the men most aware of the events and their significance, the Americans are clearly winning.
[] Mullahs who once decried the U.S. presence in Iraq, have in large number switched to denouncing Jihadism in Middle East countries, even denouncing the deaths of innocents in the name of Islam. Three years ago, this would have been unthinkable.


A lot of the credit has to be placed in the ledger for George W. Bush. His enemies who once insisted he was mad, a puppet, or incredibly stupid, now say he was able to coast on the work of skilled subordinates (although they fail to note that Bush chose and defended them), that he was playing for political points, mixing a popular war in Afghanistan with the war he wanted in Iraq, or that he was incredibly lucky. In fact, Bush chose to take the Taliban out of Afghanistan in spite of stiff protests and political games by the Left, and he decided to remove Saddam on the evidence, not in the belief that it would be popular, as the polls at the time made it clear that to pursue Saddam would be to put his chances of re-election at risk. Bush chose the difficult road, and on the evidence chose far more wisely than any President in generations. And Al Qaeda has become an unwilling testament to that wisdom, declining from a truly legitimate strategic threat to the United States in 2001 to a force barely able to blow up buses and cars by tricking young men into thinking they are on a reconnaissance mission. The evidence is further supported by the fact that car bombers in the Middle East have been found chained to their steering wheel. The old rhetoric not working, and it’s hard to take the hit knowing it won’t change anything. Kinda makes a young man doubt the promise of all those virgins waiting in Paradise, I’d say.

I mentioned in the first article, that when a threat is understood to be launched against the very foundation of the nation, there is common purpose and resolve in defeating it. Dubya understood that, perhaps at a level less mature people do not develop, but men in the mold of Truman and Churchill do. That said, there is still the question of what needs to be done to win the war. Simply having the upper hand is not nearly enough.

The road, fortunately, has been cleared of many obstacles. The need to stabilize Iraq is obvious, and enjoys a broad consensus. Iran and North Korea will be troublesome at the least, and possibly a genuine crisis for the next Administration. Also, as Al Qaeda begins to understand that it cannot win in its present incarnation, they will be very likely to try to dissolve the organization as it presently exists; this is no surprise, as the existing Al Qaeda was little more than a nameplate for a loose confederation of cells. Rock bands change names with greater impact.

The real issue is what form of reorganization the Jihadist movement will take. The loss of two, going on three, countries to Democracy (and worse, truly Secular government!) is going to sting them badly. Also, the knowledge that Al Qaeda failed in every strategic objective it held is going to make it hard for ObL to get a receptive audience; if he has not been killed already, I should not be surprised if someone arranged a little event in order to make him a martyr for the Jihadist cause – he certainly did not work out well as a general.

The Jihadists are not at all likely to admit they were wrong. Expect them to organize a Khomeini-style rebellion in Saudi Arabia, probably between 2006 and 2008. Kuwait and Egypt are also prime targets for the same sort of action, though with far less assurance of success. The true test will come when young Arab men will have to decide between becoming the next Iraq or the next Iran, with either a dead battleground or a thriving economy to make the difference. Remember that this time, there is no USSR to prevent American assistance if it is requested, and there is no SAVAK to show the SA regime as evil, though they are admittedly corrupt, and the influence of the Madrassahs will help the Jihadists immensely. Also, if the next President is unwilling to take the necessary risks, or lacks the vision of GWB, there is a real possibility that the promise planted now will fail in the heat of an imported civil war. Accordingly, what is needed most is Resolve and clear unwavering support for the U.S. mission, along with full provision for campaigns to bring the Iraqi and Afghan economies up to speed. What else is needed is a Counter-Terror Command, which will coordinate military actions where they are needed, with appropriate requests and reports to the President and the Congress, and which will remain immune from political consideration. Both Republicans and Democrats must agree to a 'hands-off' policy where this Command is concerned. The slot for the CINC-CTCOM should be 4-star, with full authority over the Counter-Terrorism Center for the acquisition, direction, and employment of Intelligence regarding terrorists. Congress should expect semi-annual reports from the CTCOM on progress, obstacles, and costs. The State Department must pursue recruitment into an international Anti-Terrorism Treaty Organization (ATTO), which would replace the old NATO/SEATO-style groups both physically and in direction. The Justice Department needs to develop specific and consistent rules of control to address the custody and treatment of terrorists captured. And not only the Bush Administration, but at least the next three Administrations following his must make clear that the eradication of Global Terrorism is not going to fade away with the change to a new President, regardless of whether the campaign is going well or badly at the time the new POTUS takes office.

There will always be terrorists, make no mistake, just as there are still gangs, carjackings, and murders. But there was a time when Slavery was the normal course in the Western World. No more. There was a time when any ship sailing across an ocean had to fear interception by pirates. No more. There was a time when being non-white or non-male in America meant you couldn’t expect full rights. No more. There was a time when men rode in gangs and burned down houses to intimidate voters and minorities in America. No more. There was a time when terrorists in the Middle East could plan to kill Americans and Europeans by the thousands in hopes of advancing a Jihad. God willing, no more of that, either.

Global Terrorism: Refresher Part 5

/[]\/[]\/[]
The world has changed so drastically in the past generation, yet many people have failed to grasp the meaning of these changes.

The Soviet Union not only no longer controls approximately half the world’s nations, but itself has been dissolved and the Kremlin’s method of governance decried by the very men who now rule Russia.

In 1973, the United States and the Soviet Union came close to using nuclear weapons over Israel. In 1984, an accident in the Soviet Union almost provoked a nuclear launch. Since then, there has not been an incident, even September 11th, which has brought the United States to the threshold of nuclear war.

In 1991, Coalition ground forces, led and commanded by American tank and officers, retook Kuwait in only 3 days of ground operations. In a Politburo meeting in March, a shaken Defense Minister Yazov warned the Kremlin that the Soviet Union had nothing that could possibly match the rebuilt American military.

In the 1994 mid-term elections, Democrats lost 56 House and 8 Senate seats to the Republicans, effectively losing control of Congress for the first time since the Eisenhower Administration, and in the context of the next five elections the GOP continued to gain control in U.S. Government to a point not held since before the 1929 Stock Market Crash.

With the explosion of home computer and internet access has come the rise of blogs, along with Talk Radio and Cable News, collectively known as New Media, and generally acknowledged to be a legitimate political force, sufficient to counter the extant political influence of the Old or Mainstream Media of network television and print news conglomerates.

And in the Middle East, it had slowly begun to dawn on Muslims in general, that A)Israel was not going to be pushed into the Mediterranean Sea anytime soon, and B)No-one was seriously protecting the rights of Palestinians, but rather using their suffering as a pretext for whatever they felt like pursuing.

Not a happy time to be a terrorist, the early Nineties, with all this change in the air, and the terrorist groups of note either fading into a fat retirement like the PLO, or flaming out gloriously like the Islamic Jihad. Fortunately for Global Terrorism, and badly for the world, there came three significant forces into play, symbolized by their figureheads: Bill Clinton, Kofi Annan, and Osama bin Laden.

None of these three men was at all the powerful leader he represented himself to be, but in each case the system was already in place for him to play to his advantage. In respect to Terrorism, Bill Clinton treated it as no more than a nuisance, not even bothering to visit the site of the 1993 World Trade Center attack, and although Clinton deployed the military dozens of times during his two terms, none of them resulted in regime change of a nation or leader hostile to American ideals, or removed a single terrorist group from operation. Kofi Annan was the architect of the now-infamous U.N. Oil-for-Food scandal, which paid bribes to hundreds of United Nations and European officials, while allowing Saddam Hussein access to billions of dollars to use as he pleased, and in its course starving tens of thousands of needy Iraqis, for which Hussein and Annan cruelly and falsely blamed the U.S. Embargo on Iraq. As for bin Laden, his early career in Afghanistan was essentially as a supply source for the mujahadeen, which made him respected but not revered. Needing to feed his ego, bin Laden (rather like Hussein) used Islam for his own purpose, building a group around Taliban and ex-mujahadeen who wanted a new fight once the Russians left. Some went to Chechnya, but bin Laden took others with him back to Saudi Arabia, where they looked to the next natural target: America. Bin Laden didn’t want Israel, because too many other groups were already attacking Israel, and in any case the Israelis were clearly tough and ready. Al Qaeda made its name on soft targets, kidnapping businessmen and bombing movie theaters if Arabs dared to go to the cinema instead of a mosque on Friday. Al Qaeda was suceesful also, because it had learned tactical tricks from other groups. The PLO, for example, had become an umbrella for a number of groups, allowing the organization’s leaders to claim or deny knowledge of actions with complete veracity. Al Qaeda was not one firm organization, but a collective name taken at convenience for actions, and sometimes acting with no claim at all, to practice technique and instill a general unease in a population. Further, as terrorists continued to be treated as criminals, they needed only to provide legal cover to avoid serious repercussions for their actions. When the Khobar barracks blew, as well as the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, bin Laden was sending a test message to the United States. The silence from the White House told him his enemy in Washington was going to be just like his enemy in Moscow had been (bin Laden giving himself an inordinate amount of credit for the Soviet retreat from Afghanistan). Even before the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, then, bin Laden planned to make a name for his umbrella organization, and (he hoped) explode the Western World into chaos and a true Jihad.

(to be concluded in the next article)

Global Terrorism: Refresher Part 4

/[]\/[]\/[]
The Middle East loved the Eighties. Or I should say, the terrorists loved the Eighties. Iran and Iraq were at war with each other, yet both supported terrorist groups. Syria also played the game, as did Libya. It became quite the fashion to send bombers in training to Lebanon, then Southern Europe, especially Italy and Bavaria, the most effective to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan and the most daring to a short mission in Israel. Along the way they built madrassahs everywhere, to recruit and indoctrinate the next generation of sociopaths.

It’s telling to see that the terrorists preferred Soviet or Israeli targets when they wanted to feel effective, and American businessmen when they just wanted a little press. It’s not clear what the Americans did when military forces were attacked, but the world changed when a bomber drove a munition-laden truck into the Marine Barracks in Beirut in 1983, which event caused the U.S. to effectively cede Lebanon to the thugs. From there, terrorists felt that their claims had been proven true; the Americans were just like the Soviets, weak when put to the test, and they rejoiced at the opportunity to establish their control throughout the Mediterranean basin. The timid response from the West German, Italian, and French governments only reinforced this impression.

The air strikes ordered at various times by President Reagan made American military targets relatively less desirable than other options. The terrorists made a pattern clear by choosing softer targets, but ones just as spectacular, as evidenced by the Lockerbie bombing in 1988. Literally dozens of terrorist groups sprang up, and with easy pickings in Europe, International operations became popular, especially with sponsor governments playing the Americans and Soviets against each other.

The focus for the terrorists changed with the arrival of Mikhail Gorbachev to power in Moscow. The wily bureaucrat understood that to play the predictable East vs. West game would be disastrous, especially for the East, with rising tensions just to the South of the Soviet borders. Accordingly, Gorbachev did his best to persuade American assistance in the Middle East, which also suited Reagan’s intentions for the region. Israel received quiet but significant assistance from both the USA and USSR, not for its political stance but as an island of stability in the region. Jordan’s King Hussein, ever savvy, also jumped at the chance to be seen as a force for peace, and the terrorists abruptly saw their welcome revoked in many places, at least publicly.

(to be continued in further articles)

Global Terrorism: Refresher Part 3

/[]\/[]\/[]
After seizing the OPEC conference in 1974, the Palestine Liberation Organization actually began to fade from prominence in terrorist actions. By the end of the Carter Administration, the shape and texture of the Middle East had evolved into something else entirely, though not in a good way. The “wipe out Israel” supergoal of Arab states had been proven all-but-impossible by the stunning results of the 1967 “Six-Day” War, and the chaotic events in the 1973 “Yom Kippur” War. The backlash from the 1972 Olympics massacre had forced most Arab nations to publicly disavow violence as a policy. As a result, new groups sprung up, initially under private sponsorship from influential patrons. This caused concern in the Politburo, as groups which once welcomed Soviet support now voiced an independence of mind the Communists found unsettling. Unsettling enough to approve the invasion of Soviet-leaning Afghanistan in 1979. And unsettling enough in the Middle East, to spur on dissident groups in places like Iran and Iraq, leading to the rise of both Ayatollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein.

Into this mix arrived President Reagan, a man of clear vision and firm ideals, the sort of man to hate murderers of any stripe. And the Soviets freaked. 1981 featured the attempted assassination of President Reagan, which does not appear to have any sort of Soviet connection, but also the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II, which certainly did have Soviet involvement. It was at this time that dozens of new terrorist groups sprang up, operating in both the Middle East and Europe. It’s impossible to say which specific groups were created, trained, and supplied by the Soviets, but KGB documents produced after the fall of the USSR show the effort was coordinated in Moscow. That proved to be a poor investment, indeed.

While many on the Left seek every opportunity to connect the United States with support for terrorists, the truth is that most Islamic terrorists initially got help from the Kremlin. What happened to throw things awry for the Reds, was that these groups quickly learned they were not bound by their word to the Soviets, and many Soviet client states simply took what they got from Moscow, and handed it over to cells that ran operations as a sort of shadow war. The case of Osama bin Laden is a good example; When Osama became angry at the Soviets' occupation of Afghanistan, he began to coordinate delivery of weapons and logistical support to bands of mujahadeen in the hills. This included material acquired (by various means) from the Sudan, Egypt, and Iraq, as well as purchased on the black market (which itself found Soviet small arms and ammunition in good supply). Because his action was not government-sponsored, it had the additional advantage of strong security - only the members knew the connections, and very few indeed understood the cell structure well enough to attack it. The combination of tight control with the use of his enemies' tools against them became the forte' of OBL plans, but they have a limit that bin Laden does not understand. This is a trump card in the hand of Coalition forces, but not the only one.

For here, it's important to understand that bin Laden the religious fascist predated Al Qaeda the religious fascist organization, and that initially, bin Laden and Al Qaeda followed the established road of attacking known targets in known locations, where the enemy was at a severe disadvantage. Even the attack on the U.S.S. Cole fell into that category. The significance of Global Terrorism comes from Media and the Internet.


(to be continued in further articles)

Global Terrorism: Refresher Part 2

/[]\/[]\/[]
At the end of World War 1, many nations studied the war to learn its lessons. The nations so interested naturally included Germany and Japan. One key maxim they carried into their Grand Strategies by 1935, was the absolute need for access to oil. Admiral Yamamoto tried to warn the Regime of Tojo, that if America pursued a long war with Japan, that Japan could not possibly win. The reason Hitler sent Rommel, his best general, to the Middle East, was because he understood that without access to the largest reserves of refined petroleum, the Nazis were doomed. While the Liberal cry of “War for Oil” is misplaced in the present conflict, it has a valid place in the rationale for many other conflicts in the past century.

Josef Stalin has been compared to Adolf Hitler in a number of valid ways, including his murderous hatred of Jews and a paranoid foundation of Geopolitical strategy. Stalin also understood the need for access to oil, but perceived that the Soviet Union would not be well received in most Arab countries. To address this problem, the Politburo developed a three-level plan to insure they would not be cut off from the Middle East. First, the Soviet Union offered agreements to countries which would guarantee delivery of oil products to the USSR as its prime client. Second, the USSR moved military forces into any country it could, such as the 1946 incursion into Iran, which led to a crisis between Stalin and Truman. And third, beginning in the 1950s the USSR began to sponsor groups to destabilize countries under the control or influence of Western powers, such as Indonesia, Algeria, and Egypt. When Nasser came to power in Egypt, this was in part due to Soviet provocations, and the success there fed later initiatives. While the Soviets never controlled the PLO, they did provide money and weapons to the group through indirect channels, hoping to destabilize Israel.

The use of state-sponsored terrorism is not limited to the 20th Century, but what happened with the PLO is distinctive. In 1972, the Black September faction held the Israeli delegation to the Olympics in Munich hostage, but later investigation revealed links to suggest that Black September had been initially trained and supplied by the PLO. This demonstrated the strategy of the PLO, to spread out and influence other groups to both common purpose and to disperse law enforcement efforts (as the anti-terrorism fight was then focused) across different groups. Then, in 1974, the PLO seized the offices where the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was holding a conference, including a number of countries which had sponsored PLO actions in the past. The act was both a test of the PLO’s independence, and a bold move to seize financial independence, and it worked. After a ransom estimated between 100 and 150 million dollars was paid, the PLO was a truly independent player, no less violent but now free to choose its own targets. This established the viability of a stand-alone Global Terrorist organization.

(to be continued in further articles)

Global Terrorism: A Refresher

/[]\/[]\/[]
America is at war. For some reason, that fact gets forgotten a lot by people, but it’s true. And it’s not something we really had a choice in. Sure, we could have left Afghanistan alone, but then if he had, Al Qaeda would still have a whole country in which to recruit, train, and deploy terrorists. And sure, we could have left Saddam alone in Iraq, but his behavior over the years does not suggest to me that he would have stopped supporting terrorists, whatever he did with the WMD known to exist in 1995 and 1998. The War on Terrorism had to start somewhere, and it began not only with responding to 9/11, but with a plan to eradicate the threat of Global Terrorism. Let me be very clear where I stand; Iraq had to be invaded just as much as Afghanistan, and the United States has won not one but a series of stunning victories, apparent only when one matches up the elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, Palestine and Saudi Arabia, with what was available in the past generation, or even the past century, and in some places, ever in History before. The cost in casualities taken by Coalition forces, matched against these victories, is very, very low. Any general from any other place and time than 21st Century USA would have laughed in delight at his good fortune. Instead, American leaders are expected to have prevented any losses at all, as if US soldiers should be expected to never die or suffer serious injury. Frankly, it is obscene for many on the Left to criticize the War as they do, when the casualty records from previous wars are clear testimony to the cost of defending freedom. I have no respect, none, for the men who lie that they “support the troops”, but make no attempt to understand or support their mission or goals.

Global Terrorism is different from terrorism in general. Timothy McVeigh, as foul as his act was, was unable to continue his murders beyond the first attempt. Others are able to act for a longer time, but on a small and personal scale, like a gang which terrorizes a neighborhood. And there is also Regional Terrorism, like the South China Sea pirates who raid freighters and oil rigs, or any number of terrorist groups which fight against the established regime of their country. While they are a threat which needs attention, History shows that small-scale terrorist groups are impossible to wipe out altogether. That is, any individual group might be dissolved if a force focuses on them, but they are often small enough to escape serious attention.

Global Terrorism is more difficult to create and maintain, and it also represents a graver threat. The Palestine Liberation Organization is significant in this respect, because the PLO represents the first significant stand-alone Global Terrorist organization which has survived all attempts up to now to wipe it out. Small wonder Yassir Arafat made it such a priority to tie the PLO to the accepted role of the Palestinian Authority. Compare this to two noteworthy Global Terrorist groups of the past; the Hashishin and the Black Hand. The Hashishin were the infamous assassins for hire in the Middle East during the 11th through 13th Centuries, and the Black Hand were international terrorists active during the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. Both groups were wiped out when a group of nations formed a coalition and sent armed forces to destroy them. Most people are unaware that the creation of the Federal Bureau of Investigation was in large part due to concern about Black Hand bombings against federal judges in the United States. When terrorist groups reach a threshold size and level of violence, the general response is a united determination to oppose them. the present war is the first front in just such a response.

(more to come in successive articles)

The Roberts Head Fake

[][][]

Hugh Hewitt:

“Time will tell, of course, but for all the reasons already stated, I think it will tell that, once again, President Bush was misunderestimated all the way to the political bank.”

Michael Barone:

“Conservatives have been frustrated that over the past 30 years—in which seven of the nine justices have been appointed by Republican presidents—that mainstream has changed little. The confirmation of John Roberts will move the court a significant distance in their direction.”

William Kristol:

“WITH THE SUPREME COURT PICK of John Roberts, George W. Bush rose to the occasion”

Confirm Them:

“to the extent that any American outside the Washington Beltway contemplated what they wanted in a new Supreme Court justice, it’s a safe bet that they would say: 'the best.'

That’s precisely what President Bush has given us with his nomination of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., to be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.”


OK, you get the idea. John Roberts has a lot of support from some pretty high-powered Conservatives, including the one that really counts: George W. Bush. All right, I hear the yakking; what about Souter, what about O’Connor, what about Kennedy? Yep, I know about them, but if you look deeper, you will see some key differences.

First off, let’s not forget the conditions each President faced. Reagan and Bush I had to get their nominees past a Democrat-controlled Senate, which meant they had to pick candidates that not only did not show a clear Conservative paper trail, they ought to have something liberals found a little bit attractive. Also, think about it; knowing what we know about Roberts already, is there anyone here who thinks the Left would have allowed a John Roberts to be confirmed by the Senate as it existed in 1983, 1986, or 1989? Dubya knew the kind of conditions the Senate is in right now, and Roberts was selected by Bush because of those conditions. More on that in a moment.

Next, look at who supported the nominees. In the case of Souter, for instance, the voucher came from John Sununu, mainly. Now, Sununu’s not a bad sort compared to some I can think of, but he’s a New England Republican, which in some aspects is about as reasonable a term as calling someone a New England cowboy; a bit silly. In the case of Roberts, his support comes from a lot of serious Red State/Red Meat Republicans. What’s more, everything we can confirm about Roberts tracks with the perception that he is not only Conservative, but serious about it. More to the point, his work reveals a serious Originalist, which is really what the SCOTUS needs.

Now, back to the context. Personally, I believe the 2000 Presidential Election opened up some eyes on the High Court, and while the Justices keep a lot of things to themselves, it wouldn’t surprise me to find out many years from now that the President got wind of a few things, like a rough idea of who might retire. In an earlier post, I speculated about who might retire and why, but I was hardly the first or the boldest predictor of possible openings. It’s not hard, once one realizes just how long the present Justices have been sitting on the SCOTUS, to realize that a general change of cast is not far off, and since the Democrats are increasingly determined to keep the Senate and the White House in GOP custody, Justices might well be scheduling departures sooner rather than later.

With that in mind, one might wonder why Rehnquist did not resign this summer? Why indeed? The man is entitled to his own counsel, to be sure, and it’s certainly possible that vanity plays its part in chasing the record, but the plain fact is, after this summer there will be three more where President Bush is still in office, and with the Senate looking to stay as Red or Redder than it is now (provided Senator Santorum’s recent verbal gaffes don’t become the common lingua franca by Republicans), it’s not unrealistic to examine the conditions a SCOTUS nominee would face in each of those years. Next summer, of course, is right before the Midterm elections, and if Ginsburg is going to jump, that would be the best time, where she can hope for political pressure to put in a moderate as well. I have already said that I suspect Rehnquist plans to go next summer, and will try to talk Ruth Bader into accompanying him on that last parade. And I wouldn’t be surprised to see as many as three (three!) additional Justices step down in the summer of 2008, although I actually expect just 2 more to go then. But 5 to 6 SCOTUS Justices to be appointed by Dubya in the space of 4 summers would absolutely set off the Screaming Slander Monkey contingent, and clearly the best campaign prepares in advance for that. At that time, it won’t matter who Bush nominates, the Left will be dead set against them, and will throw up a complete and total ‘scorched-earth’ policy of denial and attacks. Strange as it may sound, now is really the only chance for a judge like Roberts to get confirmed, as in the high-pressure environment of addressing simultaneous multiple SCOTUS picks, the Right and Left will each demand a pedigree of absolute confidence. The Left will end up getting nuked, no matter what happens, but will definitely play up some sort of scandal lie (a la Anita Hill) to do what damage they can. The best riposte is to throw them off guard. And this is why Roberts was such a smart choice. If Bush had sent up a ‘moderate’, he’s smart enough to know he’d be throwing away an Ace card. If he had sent up a Luttig or Owens, he would have precipitated just what the Donks expected. Instead, he had the chance to make sure of his choice, and when the time was right, toss in a couple head fakes (word is, Judge Jones’ family was together in Washington when the White House called the conference to announce Bush would name his choice - heh) and give ‘em the curveball. Bush took longer than people think to select Roberts, and I suspect he already has the next few choices ready, with regular updates.

So, the Democrats can’t decide whether or not they want to use their one-bullet filibuster gun now or later. And there’s no reason to think, now I consider it, that so long as he knows what he is getting, that President Bush has any reason or motivation to give the Democrats any chance at all to prepare for the next time. It will happen when it happens, and like a certain speech said: “… at a time of our choosing”.

Amanda Twellman-Dieppa Dead from Hodgkin’s Disease

Readers may recall the plight of Amanda Twellman-Dieppa, who fought to gain access to clinical trials for the experimental drug ‘MDX-60’, which was in phase II clinical trials, and was not planning to take additional patients.

The Medarex company graciously added Amanda to their trials, and hope was high for good results. The treatments began on May 25th.

I am saddened to say that, although the drug did not produce any malignant effects, Amanda contracted pneumonia around the first of July, and passed away the evening of July 19. More information on Amanda's final days may be found here.

Jeffrey King wrote what amounts to a brief and poignant obituary, finishing with an appropriate request:

“Please pray for her family, her friends, and her husband Aaron”


May the Lord indeed provide solace and comfort for the family, and for all such patients who fight for the health and life we so often take for granted.



(thanks to ThreeBadFingers for the information)

The Spy Guys

[--] [--] [--]

If you are reading this in hopes of finding out the latest dirt on the Valerie Wilson/Plame/Joe Wilson/Joe Camel/Karl Rove/Darth Vader angle, you will be disappointed. Sort of, anyway. One thing which has been driving me nuts since this whole thing got running, was the immediate acceptance of the claim that Valerie Plame is, and I quote, an “undercover CIA operative”. Read this carefully, folks – there’s no such thing as an “undercover CIA operative”. Those words were used to make her sound exciting, and are no more grounded in fact than Saddam Hussein’s continuing claims that he is somehow still the rightful President of Iraq. The problem here, is that so many people judge reality by the movies, TV shows, and MainPain Media, that they have lost all real sense of what they’re talking about. So, even if it’s for no one but myself, I’m sorting out who’s who in the world of American spies.

There are fifteen major acknowledged Intelligence agencies and/or organizations in the United States Intelligence Community. They do different things and so hire and train their people in different ways, so for here and now I’m just going to address the Central Intelligence Agency, leaving you with just the quiet reminder that the NSA, DIA, and so on all have different programs and rosters.

So, let’s say you’re in the market for joining an Intelligence Agency, and you’ve settled on the CIA. There are somewhere between 12,000 and 19,000 employees of the Company (as it is known), depending on who you ask. The CIA, like all large companies, uses a standard process for selecting its new hires, and because it is a government office, also forces its applicants to endure the unique and excruciating torture of American Federal Bureaucracy (which may explain why the Communists never got very much success trying to break our guys through duress). And that’s both after and after the recruiters decide whom they want. That’s a point I want to explore further.

Like many corporations, the guy who brings you in from the outside may often have no real decision in where you land, exactly. The CIA likes to hire for three basic classes of employee, plus contractors (whom I will discuss in a moment): Support, Analysis, and Field Officers. What that means in English, is that far and away the largest number of people hired as employees for the CIA will work either at a desk or in a warehouse. That’s because the CIA works to gather, analyze, and report information, especially to and for the President. Officers in the field collect the information, analysts weigh it and report their findings to higher-ups, who package reports for the White House and other agencies. The bulk of the Company, in terms of staffing, resources, and preparation, gets the Field Officers ready with training, briefings, supplies, and support in the field.

Contractors are used by the Company for a number of purposes, including tasks the CIA does not want to be linked to, temporary needs, and for work by people who do not need to have connection to the permanent employees. At its worst, this practice led to contracts with the Mob to try to kill Castro and similar crimes, but also has allowed the Company to operate with a more efficient method. When the Company references Contractors, one of the words that gets used in their talk is ‘operative’. That’s because Contractors can be used in a single operation, but are not field officers. Whether or not Valerie Plame/Wilson was a contractor does not matter for here, because contractors do not have covert protection, nor are they granted special status by the government or by law.

For Valerie Plame/Wilson to have held the sort of protection noted in the press, she would have to have been a field officer, a very specific designation and a distinct minority in the Company. There are, again depending on who you ask, between 3,500 and 6,000 active field officers in the CIA. One reason for the range, is because field officers do not stay active all that long, and they transfer to other divisions of the CIA when they are no longer field officers; a field career of 5 years is long, and so many field officers will become analysts later in their career. From what I see, this appears to track with Ms. Plame/Wilson, especially given her clout to recommend her hubby be sent to Africa. Relatively young field agents have little such influence, and analysts who have never worked anything but a desk also lack that pull. A field officer-turned-analyst, however, would be in a position to call in markers, which is just what Wilson’s Africa trip looks like. And by 2003, remember, Plame/Wilson had already been established as a regular desk-sitter at CIA HQ, making her someone in the field, say, during the Clinton years but not anytime recently. Given the 5-year limit on cover protection, it looks less and less like the leaker broke any laws, no matter who it was.

So, why the frou-for-all? Well, Wilson and Plame/Wilson were both big-time Gore backers, and if anything is clear after the 2000 Presidential Election, it’s that the bigger one was on the Left, the more unhinged one became. I can easily see the Wilson/Plames looking for a way to get even with Dubya, explaining not only Joe Wilson’s lie-fest in 2003 and subsequent book deal, but Valerie Wilson/Plame’s acquiescence to pretending she was a spook in distress, uncovered by that mean old Karl Rove. Setting up enemies was a long-practiced tradition, and even if Valerie was never more than an analyst with connections to important friends, she wanted to play that game very badly. Also, since the CIA earned its reputation long ago as an office willing and eager to play politics to its gain, the Liberal character if the Wilson/Plames was a good fit for the trick intended for Rove, but which now looks likely to hurt no one except Judith Miller.

And diminish, of course, the reputation and security of the real field officers, doing their job while the Wilson/Plames play with cloaks and daggers.

Around the MSM Neighborhood

[[]][[]][[]]

Looking over some of the columns posted on Real Clear Politics this weekend:

* John Podhoretz at the New York Post writes that “these aren't happy political days for George W. Bush”, on what appears to be no better evidence than poll numbers. Permit me to sneer at that; Dubya has always counted his merits on firmer footing, things like addressing real problems and making real changes. What the Media thinks of him has never ranked highly on his scale of concern.

* Amy Sullivan at the Washington Monthly, writes a somewhat lengthy article doubting Hillary’s chances of winning the White House in 2008. At the end of her piece, Sullivan admits, “It's too early for anyone to say with certainty that Hillary Clinton can't win the White House”. She might do well to consider that her analysis of the race, while denying it should be only about Hillary, focused on no other potential Democrat.

* John Deutch (former CIA head) writes in the New York Times, that America’s best strategy in the world is to run away. I thank God every day that such men as Deutch no longer have access to the President’s ear, or make decisions affecting the country’s direction.

* John Tierney in the New York Times writes an amusing and perceptive piece about the brou-haha conjured up by Joe Wilson. The money line reads:

“For now, though, it looks as if this scandal is about a spy who was not endangered, a whistle-blower who did not blow the whistle and was not smeared, and a White House official who has not been fired for a felony that he did not commit. And so far the only victim is a reporter who did not write a story about it.”
He also quotes Monty Python, but you should read the article to get it right in context.

* Returning to the more common, if less realistic, fare of the MSM, we see a piece by Carol Swain in the Washington Post, who sees in the light of the Senate’s meaningless apology the need for an even bigger apology, one which “would all reap enormous national and international rewards from such a goodwill gesture”. Let that be a warning to all writers to steer clear of prescription drugs before engaging in an editorial.

* Leon de Winter for the New York Times, writes a perceptive piece about the high cost of mindless tolerance, observing that the Netherlands tolerated two forces which have all but destroyed it from within: “the cultural and sexual revolution of the 1960's and 70's and the influx of Muslim workers during those years of prosperity.” De Winter observes that the Netherlands could not prevent their incipient disaster, because there “It was simply not acceptable to discuss problems relating to religion and culture.” The East and West Coast elites would do well to note that warning.

* Howard Fineman at Newsweek writes a predictable screed against his nemesis, indeed the nemesis of all political hacks and liars on the Left: Karl Rove. As usual Fineman’s pretensions die a quick death, daylight being intolerant of nonsense and paranoia.

* John Leo, writing for U.S. News and World Report, observes that “[t]he soft and squishy side of the Hollywood mind” is taking over, ruining films and ignoring History.

* And rounding out the review with some good analysis and common sense, Michael Barone at real Clear Politics writes that Joe Wilson is today’s Titus Oates. As is often the case, those who know history will catch the reference, and those who have dived off the deep end beyond recovery have no interest in history or its consequences.

Culture Declares Itself

//////[][][]\\\
I’m reading through two books right now, and while I am not far enough to give a complete review yet about them, though they are both deserving of your attention and consideration. Those two books are “100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (And Al Franken is #37)” by Bernard Goldberg, and “Our Culture, What’s Left of It” by Thoedore Dalrymple. Both Goldberg and Dalrymple note both general and specific incidents and conditions, and make convincing arguments to support their diagnosis of American Culture.

I want to hold off on a longer review of both books because I am still making my way through each of them. But I am far enough into each to recomend them both, to any student curious to understand how how America’s most vicious domestic vandals can make the claims they do, yet choose to live here as citizens. Dalyrmple explains it well in an essay in his book, which essay is titled “What We Have To Lose”:

“[T]hey were more like ancient barbarians who, having overrun and sacked a civilized city, lived in the ruins, because they were still far better than anything they could build themselves.”

Culture declares itself, indelibly and with distinction.

SCOTUS Speculations

[][][]

The wheels go round and round...

By now it’s common knowledge that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is retiring from the Supreme Court, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist is not. Naturally, the rumor mills have hit overdrive, on all sites interested in the High Court, which is to say pretty much everyone.

It occurs to me that a good sense of what to expect, would come from a consideration of what we already know about the Justices. Some of it is bound to be wrong, but in the main we should still get the gist of it.

First, why did O’Connor resign? Her health is certainly not a factor, nor was there any obvious dissatisfaction with her colleagues or the Court’s direction. For all appearances, she seems to be retiring solely because she feels she has done what she wanted, which is fine, except that I don’t buy it.

I am a big fan of the late Roger Zelazny, especially his Chronicles of Amber series. I remember one scene where the family on which the story focuses, and a key dispute where each side has a leader, and the family separates both figuratively and literally according to where they stand. The Court is the same way, led on the Left and Right by Ginsburg and Scalia respectively. Rehnquist is the Chief Justice, but that doesn’t give him the most influence. With all the 5-4 decisions in the past few years, the divide has been fluid and real.

Next up on each team would be Breyer and Souter for the Left, and Thomas and Rehnquist on the Right. That left the final three to swing the calls, Kennedy, Stevens, and of course O’Connor. Those final three most likely think of themselves as Independents in the power balance of the Court, but that doesn’t change their personal tilts. O’Connor, it may be remembered, was a strong Bush supporter in 2000, while Ginsburg was a vocal advocate of Gore, and likely also for Kerry. This suggests to me that O’Connor wanted to give Bush a clear nominee all his own, while Ginsburg will try to hold out to 2009 and 2010 on the hope that a Democrat President will choose her replacement.

This brings us to Rehnquist. If Rehnquist steps down at the same time as O’Connor, expect the RINOs to demand a “balance”, matching a conservative Justice with a “moderate”, meaning weak enough to satisfy the Democrats, as in Souter II. But since Rehnquist says he is not stepping down, then Bush is free to nominate whomever he likes, which hopefully means a Garza or a Brown. Since Bush has not had a nominee before, his nominee will probably pass far more easily than the press realizes, especially with the focus on just one nominee, and since Bush is not going to announce the nominee with any more time than he needs; this is exactly why we have not heard the nominee’s name before - it’s good tactics.

If I had to guess, I have a feeling that Rehnquist will try to tough out the coming session, and will step down next summer. Yes, it will make the Court an issue in the 2006 Elections, but Ginsburg is weaker than she lets on (I suspect), and it is entirely possible that Rehnquist will try to talk her into stepping out with him, which makes it likely that Bush will wait until then to submit Gonzalez, possibly for Chief Justice. The real question is the nominee for the third slot (Ginsberg); will Bush push for a Conservative to replace Ginsberg (who replaced a fairly Conservative Justice in 1993) , or appeal to “moderates” with someone more to their liking (though still likely to be labeled “Hard Right” for political attack value). I’m hoping Bush will play it straight and move the Court to the Originalist lane as much as he can.

Scalia, Breyer, Thomas, Souter, and Kennedy are all in pretty good health and have no plans to go. As for Stevens, I’d expect he’ll do his best to hang on to 2009, in hopes for a Democrat President to follow Bush. If his health allows it, that is.

Driving The Slander-Monkeys From the Temple of Knowledge

[/\][/\][/\]

A couple thousand years ago, an itinerant Rabbi was teaching a message of hope and compassion to the world, not a new message so much as a reminder of the original truth, and a personal lesson by example. It happens, the accounts are written, that this Rabbi came to the Temple in Jerusalem, where he saw merchants exchanging currency for acceptable sorts of coin, and selling various animals for the required sacrifices. It happens, say the stories, that these merchants were not content to perform a necessary service or provide a convenience for pilgrims who did not have the proper accessories for their obeisance to God Almighty; they regularly cheated the people with inferior animals and high fees and dishonest scales. This outraged the Rabbi, who was ordinarily the most peaceful of men, so much so that later when he was murdered, he asked God to forgive his killers. In his rage against this injustice, the Rabbi fashioned a whip out of rope, and he drove the merchants from the temple by force.

This story is an interesting one to me, not only because it tells how Jesus Christ loved Justice, but notes that his actions were not always predictable to the people around him. While Jesus taught a consistent and deep lesson of forgiveness, he also taught about consequences, and the need for Good to oppose Evil.

What does this have to do with a political blog? According to Blogherald, there are now more than 60 million blogs in the world, more than 10 million in the “Anglosphere” (US-Canada-UK-Australia-NZ). I couldn’t find an official count for the number of political blogs, but a quick look on any subject at Technorati shows a continuing explosion there, as well. Lots of opinions, enough to suit any taste. And a lot of them have endured; where the average blog dies out after the initial excitement wears off, there are many political blogs which have survived and grown. Partly, this is due to Dan Rather, whose failed attempt to influence last year’s Presidential Election with forged documents demonstrated the value of all sorts of specialized knowledge websites; the nation learned a new respect for typesetters and military clerks. But also, the continuing prevalence of slander-screaming, lie-flinging dung monkeys shows the deep need for regular sweeps by volunteers in the web world.

In “The Third Wave”, Alvin Toffler explained that the world operates on a basic system of social intercourse, which drives the worth not only of nations but individuals as well. This intercourse is defined by a “wave” of development which drives the character of its identity and growth. The first wave was Agriculture, which greatly improved the production of food and led to the first towns and communities of nations. The second wave was Industry, which greatly improved distribution and trade, significantly improving living standards and driving the natural order through cooperative ventures and alliances. The third wave is Intellectual Property, which opens the door to mutual-gain initiatives and truly symbiotic relationships at almost every conceivable level.

But there are threats to these waves as well. Robber gangs pillaged first-wave towns to take the food they wanted, while monopolies and oligarchies perverted the operation of industrial nations and communities. Today, there are people strongly opposed to the free exchange of ideas and the development of integral associations. What could once be dismissed as Luddites and Flat Earthers, have themselves used the very tools of Intellect to pursue a strategy of conquest against the common good. Rather than correct their views to withstand scholarly scrutiny, they mock scholars to deny them the chance to consider their actions. Rather than adopt constructive and realistic worldviews for their future resolutions, they do their all to smear the lens from gaining a proper context to their intentions and efforts. Rather than cooperate to common gain, they demand the absolute destruction of their enemies, defining as ‘enemy’ anyone who dares to question them or suggest constructive alternatives. They are cunning with words, in the manner of the ‘Newspeak’ and ‘Doublethink’ Orwell warned about more than a half-century ago. They oppose all that must come to bring a better future, and so must be denied the influence they demand, so long as their motives and tactics are destructive and zero-sum. That’s where the blogs come in.

You may notice that in describing these Slander Monkeys, I did not name their political party or any specific identity. This is partly to avoid the distraction of focusing here on one individual or claim, but also because we also carry the responsibility for countering such tactics regardless of who is using them. That is where the MSM collapsed; it no longer can claim to represent the public interest, but each agency and conglomerate does as it pleases, following a self-interest rather than the national priority. I can’t be too harsh on the individuals, I guess, since we all put up with various disappointments in order to continue receiving regular paychecks (itself an issue worth discussing, but for another time), and the slide from committed defender of the truth to Hairspray Flunky can be hard to notice by the person in the descent. Blogs, for the most part, are not only totally controlled by their writer/editor/janitor/programmer, but do not generally provide very much in the way of revenue or influence, so that the blogger is not particularly tempted to sway from his/her original purpose in writing the blog. For good or ill, bloggers tend to maintain their character and integrity. Bad for personal finances, true, but worse for Trolls and Slander Monkeys, because bloggers tend to be quite an idealistic community, determined to shine the light of objective analysis and comparative evidence on just about any claim, and they tend to be rough on posers and rhetorical thugs.

Ideas are more important now than ever before. This is not only because it is so easy to convey an idea around the world, but also because in combination with supporting writers and theorists, an idea can become a movement almost immediately. It is therefore more important than ever before, to sweep away obstacles from the work of honest debate and analysis.

Time for driving the Slander Monkeys from the Temple of Knowledge.

Defending Hollywood?

[][][][][]

Once again, I find myself in that bizarre parallel universe, where I find myself sympathetic to the plight of people who ordinarily should deserve naught but my contempt. Even so, here I go…

One thing which I have seen in many a column and blog, is harsh rebuke for Hollywood for not depicting Arabs and Muslims as terrorists. After all, they say, we all know very well that 99.999999999999% of all the evil done in the world today, is either done by Muslim fanatics, or on the influence and instructions from Karl Rove, depending on your source. Corporate villains and neo-Nazis are just ridiculous caricatures, and it’s well past time to get villains who match the real perpetrators.

Well folks, I have to say I don’t like movies and shows where they try to slam businessmen or the Intelligence community, just because they’ve done it for decades already. But when it comes down to the race and culture of the bad guys, I have to admit that Reality is not really applicable.

I thought about a comprehensive list of movies and the villains chosen, but that would be dry and miss the whole point. So instead, I will just call your attention to 2 movies of note. Both movies involved terrorists operating on American soil, with a determined and heroic movie star to stop them. Both films had big budgets and featured big-time stars, one with Denzel Washington and the other with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Both had all the normal ingredients for a big hit, including the necessary big booms (one even had a nuke) and intense dramatic scores. Neither was a bomb, exactly, but neither did very well at the box office for the caliber of stars and directors they carried, either. Both featured Arab terrorists, accurate in dress, appearance, and mannerisms. And no one I have met, to this day, remembers the villains’ names or their plans in the films “The Siege” or “True Lies”. The villains, as movies go, were flops.

Consider, on the other hand, villains portrayed in the films “Die Hard” and “Swordfish”. Were Hans Gruber or Gabriel Shear believable, or representative of any known terrorist group? No. Did the audience care? No. The smooth, urbane delivery of their lines, even as they killed innocent people, made them very appealing to the audience. The audience, after all, did not buy tickets to see a documentary on the characteristics and methods of the modern terrorist cell, but to see slick people look cool for a couple hours, saying and doing things you do not ordinarily see in your regular day. Seriously, does anybody really believe, for example, that if a woman became a hired assassin, as in “La Femme Nikita”, she’d look half as good as Anne Parillaud does, or that anyone can wear designer clothing and look as good after combat as they do before? If the ‘James Bond’ movies taught us anything, it’s that the desire to willingly suspend our disbelief is very strong.

So, the next time you see a villain on TV or the movies, just remember that Hollywood is not selling the truth, just a product to make money. It’s only when someone like CBS or Michael Moore forgets that they’re selling a slick lie, that it’s necessary to call them out.

Contempt of Courtroom

[[]]--------


Is there anything in America at once so necessary and yet also so useless as a courtroom?

I spent Tuesday sitting in a courtroom. Wasting my day in a courtroom, actually. Without going into details which have nothing to do with this article, and which would violate the reasonable expectation a person has of privacy when they are just an ordinary citizen, my company had occasion to sue a customer who simply stopped paying, and then refused to even talk to us. The customer believed they were not required to pay their debt (incorrect), that they did not have to talk to us when we tried to contact them (correct), that they could refuse to accept the Certified letter (correct), even that they could ignore Sheriff’s deputies serving the Summons (wrong).

This wasn’t the first time in court with this customer. On an earlier occasion, the judge had suggested we arbitrate, and after a couple hours we had hammered out an agreement which seemed fair, giving us full payment eventually and the customer a lot more time. Unfortunately, when the time came for the first scheduled payment, the customer refused to make the payment, again refusing to talk about it with anybody, and the merry-go-round started up again. That was why I was there, sort of. Since I am not a lawyer, I was not privileged to sit at the counsel’s table before the judge, but I had been asked to be there, as a kind of moral support. That’s a long story itself, and not really relevant to the story here.

The real story begins with the fact that this should have been a quick and easy win for us. Although they had been properly served, the Defendant did not show, nor did their attorney. All we needed was to appear before the Judge who would almost certainly grant us a Summary Judgment; the same judge had presided over the first hearing was scheduled to hear this case, and was already none too happy that the Defendant had broken the agreement, and had further resisted being served. All we needed was to show up and show that the Defendant had ignored the Court Summons, and we’d be good to go.

In walked a visiting judge. Oops. A visiting judge changes everything, not the least because we had no way of knowing how he would handle the case. We soon found out and yet we did not know the worst of it.

The visiting judge did not feel that it was necessary to set up the docket in order. That is, he would decide at the end of one case which case he would hear next. As a result, everybody had to sit and wait. I’m sure the judge liked having a packed house, but this also caused problems. As each panel of jurors was seated, people had to move out of rows while the lawyers asked their questions and made their strikes. This might be the moment to mention that, like many other courtrooms, the air conditioning was less than completely effective, and the odor, whether body or that lingering aroma of old public building, gained strength and acridity. The charm of waiting for your case, which actually ended at the security desk where it is now necessary to remove all metal objects, your belt, shoes, and anything else that the machine might decide needs further inspection, had completely died five minutes into the Docket Call.

Because some of the cases involved police officers as witnesses, the Judge then decided that they should go first, in order to free up the officers. If he had said this plainly, we would at least have known we would not have seen our case tried that day, and simply returned at the end for the reset date. But he did not, and so we waited, along with everyone else. I consoled myself somewhat, by observing that since I did not have to wear makeup, I didn’t having to worry about sweat smearing my complexion or putty-colored droplets staining my suit. I was also relieved to confirm that my deodorant works under pressure. But a great chance to finally sort out the mess with our rebellious debtor has to wait for another day, and a whole day was wasted which could have been put to use in the office.

I had time to think about a variety of things while I waited for the slow wheels of Justice to do more than smell bad. This courtroom symbolized so much about the world and nation, it seemed. A number of talented people had no chance to do their work, held back through conditions they could not control, even as dozens of regular people suffered through the same delays. A number of possible solutions were available, but the people who could have put them to use had no desire to even consider them. And this condition is multiplied by the number of courtrooms across the nation, not to even consider the frivolous cases submitted and the absurd maneuvers used by lawyers who knew they could not win on the merits of their case, as well as judges and clerks who impair the court with personal attitudes and bias they carried in from home or prior arguments. Looking at recent rulings, it appears that even Supreme Court Justices are not immune to this prejudice and idiosyncratic. Going to court was never meant to be enjoyable, but the Constitution leads one to suspect the process was meant to be relatively smooth and even-handed; the process over the History of the United States shows that this ideal has always failed miserably in actual practice. Because of the heavy cost in time, work, and money to go to court, bullies of many colors have used the threat of suit to coerce submission from people and groups, and there are persons of great repute (Reverend Jackson, for one notable example) who have made a very comfortable living through the use of legal extortion to fund their lifestyles. The courtroom has become like a secret club, where the unitiated and common people are quickly marked as targets, and lose their money, liberties and rights to canny insiders well-versed in the certain tricks of documents and motions before the bar. This is why the homeowner loses to the developer, and the individual to the corporation; the larger predators have legal staffs prepared, even hungry for this arena, where the rights of ordinary people are not recognized in the practice of litigation. What the Constitution protects in theory, the Court eviscerates in practice. The vicious disinterment of long-held protections, is quickly and automatically followed by the devouring by all who choose their fight using weapons created by the rhetoric of dead languages, and with the absolute abandonment of any principled respect for the Law above appetite. Innocence is quickly raped and destroyed within the stone walls, and if Truth dares to follow in search of her sister, she soon meets the same fate. It is all too appropriate that judges wear black robes, archaic and arcane and unanswerable to people used to daylight. It speaks to the matter that Democrats see no need to change the system which allows for whim to interpret the course of our nation’s very identity and values, while most Republicans recoil at the abuse of power and the revisionist fantasies made fiat upon the land.

It is in that consideration, that I now turn to the fact that our founders gave a third of the power over Government to the courts. Never has the phrase ‘necessary evil’ so aptly applied to a group, nor has ever so small a number of men thought it meet to hold power so long as they please without consultation and moral balance. Anyone can sue an ordinary person for any reason, yet justice is not assured in any case. And yet government, which surely errs in occasion and instance, is inviolate in most cases from accountability, and when action is allowed, it is at such delay and cost that the individuals originally wronged have no hope of resolution in any foreseeable time frame. Where once it was considered meet to grant freedom up to the point where it infringed on another person’s freedom, we now see cities and states deciding acceptable conduct, even in private homes. It is generally illegal not to wear your seat belt, even though such a decision hurts no one else. In some cities, it is now illegal to smoke in your own business, even if the public has no access and it offends no one working there. It is now illegal in some cities for parents to teach their cultural values to their children, if those values are considered unacceptable by the City Council. You can be sued not only for things you might have done, but even now for things you never did, if the court agrees that you might be likely to do them in the future, or if your facility is used by someone who chooses to commit a crime. You can be punished for having a home in an area which the City would like to develop for greater tax revenue, even to the point of losing your home to be replaced by a private business. You can be held responsible for actions taken by people with whom you have never had any contact, if you appear to share similar genetic traits, and your children can be denied access to certain state facilities and schools, if they are not the right color of skin. All of these have been affirmed by court actions at many levels, and there is no process in the works to restrain the courts from these and further arrogance.

I certainly recognize the value and necessity of the court system. There must be recourse to wrong, however poorly the system works, and the very notion of tying judges directly to the political process, with regular replacement by whatever party is in power and no doubt introducing the ubiquitous PACs into things as well, makes my skin crawl. Yet for all the good which is done, it appalls me to see the evil so largely unrecognized, to say nothing of unaddressed. I ask again, therefore: Is there anything in America at once so necessary and yet also so useless as a courtroom?

The Political Lessons of Nakatomi Plaza

***

I became a Bruce Willis fan when I first saw 'Die Hard'. I never saw him in “Moonlighting”, but in the action movie he captured my imagination. Sadly, the other ‘Die Hard’ movies weren’t as good, although I couldn’t help but notice the unspoken battle between Bruce and Hollywood in them.

All three ‘Die Hard’ movies had to deal with terrorists of a sort, and Hollywood addressed them much as they do terrorists today. In ‘Die Hard’, the terrorists turned out to be pretty ordinary thieves, just bolder and more bloody than most. In ‘Die Hard II’, the villains were dealing in drugs, and had a few bad soldiers working for them (I noticed how Hollywood tried to imply that all soldiers lean this way, though even in the movie they were never more than a small number), and in ‘Die Hard III’, the bad guy simply wanted vengeance. Hollywood’s stock answer to terrorists in all three movies was to consider them criminals, who needed to be arrested and brought to trial. But in the actual way the movies played out, more realistic and effective lessons were shown:

[] The terrorists, whether bandits, mercenaries, or simple psychotics, did not obligingly follow the rules. In fact, they made merry mayhem by forcing the authorities to follow rules, while they themselves did just as they pleased;

[] John McClane never agreed to those rules, and while it made him unpopular with the various authorities, he always saved the day (and lots of innocents), by the simple plan of killing the bad guys every chance he got, any way he could.

[] The media in the movies was just as oblivious to the facts as they are in the Real World.

I also recall another lesson from ‘Die Hard’; whichever side has Fred Thompson working for it, comes out on top.

The Coming Fall

[][][]

I was driving home with my daughter Friday afternoon, listening to the Hugh Hewitt show on the radio. I made the mistake of not paying attention to his guest as they discussed the SCOTUS situation. After covering the usual run of who on the High Court besides O’Connor might resign, who Bush should consider, and whom he likes the most, Hugh’s guest pointed out the reason why the Democrats will not like the outcome, no matter what happens; the last meaningful ally of the Democratic Party may well leave them behind, rendering their fate absolute.

During the opening salvoes fired from Right and Left about whom will or should be nominated, it has struck me again how completely hypocritical the Democrats and their press are being, especially when their conduct regarding Clinton’s appointment philosophy is considered. It’s no surprise, to be sure, but the absolute hysteria from the Left, even before a nominee is known, is clearly being generated by a deep-seated fear, one held by all Liberals. The simple explanation can be stated as the last wing in the halls of American Power is changing management, and no matter whom George W. Bush nominates, that shadow will continue to fall on the Left.

Televised hearings regarding Supreme Court nominees began in 1982. Since then, President Reagan named Justice Rehnquist as Chief Justice (he was appointed an Associated Justice by President Nixon in 1972), and appointed Justices O’Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy as Associate Justices. Judge Robert Bork was viciously slandered during his hearings in 1987, and the Democrats’ tactic of innuendo and character assassination became recognized.

George H.W. Bush appointed Associate Justices Souter and Thomas. The Democrats tried their same slash-and-hate tactics again, but failed in both cases.

President Clinton nominated Judges Ginsberg and Breyer, both of whom sailed through their hearings. Democrats who pretend that “both sides do it” when confronted with their behavior, cannot produce evidence that supports such a lie. In the age of New Media, the clear divide between Republican methods of reviewing the work of a judge, and the Democrats’ established trail of slander and polarized definitions won’t be hidden the way it was in years past.

But to the point; During the days of FDR and LBJ, the Democrats enjoyed heavy majorities in Congress, especially the Senate. This meant that a nominee had to appeal to the Liberal and Union sentiment to be confirmed, and even Republican Presidents knew this. While President Reagan had the charisma to go over the heads of Congress to the American people for a cause or candidate, the beating of Bork by the Left showed the limit to his power. As Democratic control receded in the Senate, it became clear that a more Conservative Judge would get a more Conservative hearing. This is why the Democrats resorted to the filibuster during W’s first term; they had no other effective weapons in their arsenal.

Whatever one thinks of the the ‘Gang of 14’, one effect of the deal they made was that when the Democrats break the deal, as they surely will, the vote on the nominee will be validated that much more effectively. And it is hard to imagine this Senate denying any nominee submitted by Bush, especially with the keen mind of Fred Thompson checking the selection.

The near future is not bright for the Democrats. The House and Senate have been trending Republican for a long time now, and show no signs of turning Left. While a Democrat might be elected President in 2008 or 2012, the increasingly Conservative Senate will not allow another Ginsburg, especially given the behavior of the Democrats in past nominations. Consider how this atmosphere affects the likely career decisions of the remaining Justices. Of the other eight, 2 have been noted for health problems in the past years, and another (Stevens) is 85 years old. Still another is said to be intent on leaving the court while he is still young enough to enjoy his retirement. Bearing in mind that no new Justices have been added to the High Court since 1994, it is not at all unreasonable to believe that President George W. Bush will appoint at least three Justices, and possibly as many as five, before he leaves office. It is entirely possible that even with a disappointment, the Supreme Court after 2008 will be distinctly Originalist. With everything else that has happened in the past eleven years, that would be the worst nightmare in the mind of Democrat strategists.

This fall will be refreshing for the country, but a cold wind indeed for the Left.

The Minstrels and Jesters of Media 2005

[]/\[]

I was watching "60 Minutes II", for no better reason than boredom, and I noticed they were going after Enron again. Ken Lay was the supposed focus, but as I watched, I noticed the show had little interest in the real facts of the case, but were essentially just retelling a story the Liberal network finds comforting; a myth of a world where businessmen are always greedy and only the Old Media reporters shine as knight defenders of the Truth. The usual fare from CBS these days. I noticed during the show as well, that the show presented supposition as fact, and speculation in place of evidence. Fine, as long as you are not fooled into thinking you're getting real information.

That's where the Old Media is these days; unable to defend its positions as real news, many programs simply abandon the pretense and tell whatever stories they would like to believe. When I recall the firestorms of protest when the Tiffany Network tried to slander Ronald Reagan, and again when Dan Rather's attempt to manipulate the Presidential Election with papers he knew (or should have known) were forgeries, I sense the dismay which must have filled the boardroom in New York, as they realized that even their favorite targets were to be denied them.

The New Media is enjoying a growth surge, as blogs and websites of many flavors enjoy the rush of both new creative inspiration and the cusp of trend and fashion. But there is a social order there as well; many of the leading blogs were designed and managed by established names from the Old Media, and many of the most successful blogs focused not so much on information or scholarly analysis, but on various measures of entertainment. A glance at the leading blogs reveal the following breakdown; of the Top 20 blogs by traffic, 8 are Political Commentary, 4 are Gossip, 3 are pure Rants, 2 are News Review, and one each are Parodies, Variety, and about Gadgets. That is, they each have developed a core audience and a style which the readers find entertaining.

Story-telling is not dead, and the bards have simply changed instruments.