LFTC - Letter From The Capitol

Index 11/30/07

3 posts: (1) Acronym Creep--The Home Front; (2) Rumsfeld Churchill Lecture: A Call to Action--The Home Front; (3) Sudanese Islam Meets a Teddy Bear--Us v. Them.

Acronym Creep

All of us are familiar with NIMBY: Not In My Back Yard.  Pundit-reporter John Fund reminds me of another one I had forgotten, BANANA, as in: Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody.  The subject came up in last Saturday's (Wall Street) Journal Editorial Report during a depressing discussion of the decrepitude of America's air traffic control system, which will not, on present timing, be overhauled completely until...2025.  Air passengers, take a hike!!!  It's good for you.

Rumsfeld's Churchill Lecture: A Call to Action

Words of wisdom from the former SecDef:

PATH TO VICTORY

Refashioning Institutions for the 21st Century

Remarks by Donald H. Rumsfeld at the Claremont Institute's 20th Annual Dinner in Honor of Sir Winston Churchill, November 17, 2007.

This past year has certainly provided ample entertainment for those interested in politics. The activities of Congress and the unexpected blessing of an extra year of presidential campaigning fill our newspapers, televisions, and blogs. The problem is that this entertainment tends to focus on the petty and the personal, and seems to avoid a serious discussion of the emerging challenges our country and the next president, Republican or Democrat, will face in the coming four years. This evening I want to talk a bit about some of those challenges in this still young and uncertain century.

The statesman we honor this evening knew a thing or two about challenges. He also knew something about the capacity of the people of the United States to overcome them. In 1946, Winston Churchill traveled halfway across the continent with President Harry Truman to Fulton, Missouri - in America's heartland - to warn of an unpleasant truth: that the great burdens of leadership in a new, emerging struggle with the Soviet Union would fall to the United States.

It is instructive to recall that Churchill's "Iron Curtain" remarks were roundly condemned as needlessly provocative in certain important quarters. Stalin declared Churchill a "warmonger," who, like Hitler, sought to impose a "racist," "imperialist" agenda. U.S. Secretary of State James Byrnes and his undersecretary, Dean Acheson, refused to attend an event in Churchill's honor some days after the speech. The Chicago Sun called Churchill a "blinded aristocrat... marching to the world's most ghastly war."

Only nine months prior to his remarks at Fulton - even before guns had fallen silent in the Pacific - British voters, weary of war, had unceremoniously ousted their great leader from office. After six years of conflict, millions of Europeans were left impoverished. Americans mourned the 300,000 of our own who perished on the battlefields of Europe and North Africa, and on the islands of the Pacific. Recovery from the recent war - not confrontation in a new war - was the desire and indeed, the imperative of the day.

Thoughtful people do not relish the prospect of conflict. Indeed, Americans have assumed the responsibilities of global leadership more reluctantly than any people in history. Today is no different. But the challenges and threats in clear view now - in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and elsewhere - cannot be ignored, wished away, or turned from any more today than in 1946.

Again the United States and her allies in the free world are engaged in a struggle that will likely test the patience and resolve of free people for many years, if not decades to come.

Ours is a globe speckled with violent extremists, rogue regimes, ungoverned areas, weapon proliferators, and aspiring despots seeking to turn democratic nations into personal fiefdoms. And on that note, one can't help but applaud King Juan Carlos of Spain for his recent blunt advice to Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. One would think that the damage being done in Venezuela would be of interest to our country. The constitution of Venezuela is being torn up piece by piece, yet how little we hear about it in the press.

Today's emerging threats create a new array of problems - problems considerably more complex and less predictable than during the bipolar period of the Cold War. In the 21st century, the lines between nation-states and non-state entities, secular and religious groups, and sectarian factions can blur. Unlike the Cold War, these enemies are not a part of any formal pact, alliance or axis. They do not possess traditional armies, navies or air forces capable of winning even a single battle against the most formidable fighting force the world has ever seen - the United States military.

We have entered a period in which those seeking to engage the United States wisely avoid direct military conflict, and instead resort to asymmetric warfare and irregular conflict - through proxies, terrorist attacks against soft targets, and most certainly cyber warfare. Though U.S. generals on the ground have seen some positive signs recently, they advise that by providing arms to sectarian proxies, Iran has been working to destabilize a newly democratic Iraq. And should the Iranian regime obtain a nuclear weapon, most would probably agree that it could inject a dangerous instability into the region.

This is a time in which warfare is being waged in the realms of space and cyberspace. In China, the recent test of an anti-satellite missile has shown that our network of satellites could be vulnerable to an attack that could cripple both U.S. military and civilian communications. Small bands of organized hackers earlier this year demonstrated by their attacks on Estonia, that the governments and financial institutions of advanced nations can be paralyzed through cyber attacks.

These enemies have learned a crucial lesson about warfare in the 21st century - a lesson others seem slow in understanding. Today's conflicts are not only won on the battlefield, but through the use of websites and blogs, over the airwaves and on the front pages of our newspapers. Through skillful propaganda operations, the enemy successfully leverages their asymmetric attacks to encourage potential recruits to join their violent cause and to try to convince those of us in free nations to give in to hopelessness, self-doubt and despair.

Their decentralized networks have been able to effectively employ the tools of the Information Age, while the U.S. government remains ponderous, muscle-bound and unable to respond in real time to the deceits of these enemies.

To succeed in this first struggle of the 21st century, we will need fresh thinking and capabilities well beyond the Defense Department. If free people are to meet the challenges posed by what will be a long struggle against violent extremists, we will need all elements of national power, private as well as public - diplomatic, economic, as well as intelligence and military to work in concert. We will need to rethink and rearrange our domestic and global institutions designed for the Industrial Age to better suit the Information Age.

The United States cannot fashion effective approaches to challenges of the 21st century alone. The threats to global security - weapons proliferation, terrorism, drugs, trafficking in persons, to name a few - cannot be solved by any single nation. Responsible free nations will need to come to grips with the new and unfamiliar and, and with the U.S., develop new approaches that are effective, congenial to our domestic audiences, and mutually reinforcing.

Fashioning global strategies and institutions for the new and unfamiliar is, after all, what defines statesmanship. In the first years of the Cold War, Winston Churchill and President Harry Truman, persuaded their skeptical publics that the threat posed by the Soviet Union would require bold leadership, new institutions and broad international support. For Truman's part, within months of Churchill's speech at Fulton, his administration sponsored the Marshall Plan, promulgated the Truman Doctrine, developed the strategy of containment, and led in fashioning the institutions necessary for the free world to prevail against Communism.

At home, the Truman administration reached across the aisle to Senator Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan and other Republicans to create the Department of Defense, Radio Free Europe, the CIA, the National Security Council. Globally, Truman and his administration built an international consensus and worked with our allies to fashion the United Nations, NATO, the World Bank, and the IMF, to mention a few.

But nothing is forever. However valuable in the past, the institutions of the post-World War II period - Industrial Age institutions - have not adapted sufficiently to keep pace with the decentralized networks of the thinking enemies we face today, now well into the Information Age.

As the Goldwater-Nichols legislation of 1986 helped moved the branches of the U.S. military toward joint warfighting, the broader federal government may well need a similarly ambitious transformation of non-defense institutions and cultures.

A few examples of how current U.S. governmental arrangements fall short. The old distinctions between war, peace, intelligence, diplomacy, and reconstruction - and the corresponding roles of the various government departments and agencies - simply do not reflect current needs. The U.S. military cannot lose a battle, but it cannot alone win the war, absent significant non-military support and skill sets. We may need to adjust federal promotion policies and training priorities to create a deployable cadre of international experts in police, justice, border patrols, education, diplomacy, agriculture, and economics that can be available as needed.

The president and the executive branch currently lack the authority and the flexibility to select the most appropriate instrument of government for a given challenge, region or country. Separate budgets, jealously guarded by dozens of turf-conscious Congressional subcommittees, do not permit Executive agencies and departments the flexibility needed to achieve unity of action.

The current federal budget cycle requires three years for a program to be developed, proposed, authorized, funded and executed. A world that moves that slowly is long a thing of the past.

Internationally, instead of relying solely on institutions that deal only with governments - USAID, the IMF, and World Bank - more agile, market-oriented financial approaches will need to be fashioned to help needy people move into the global economy. For example, through micro-loans, opportunity can - and is - being delivered directly to individuals, thereby bypassing the corruption seemingly so prevalent in the governments of poorer nations.

Recall what Churchill told the audience at Fulton about the United Nations: He said, "We must make sure that its work is fruitful, that it is a reality and not a sham, that it is a force for action, and not merely a frothing of words." I am afraid that a "force for action" is not a phrase that leaps to mind when thinking of the U.N. today. It is an institution where Sudan is elected to the Human Rights Commission; Iran is elected vice-chairman of the Disarmament Commission; Syria is elected vice president of the IAEA Committee; and Zimbabwe is elected to the Sustainable Development Commission.

Think of it! Such an institution can hardly be seen by objective observers as taking itself seriously. How fortunate we have been to have John Bolton serve as our ambassador there.

To assist in this problem, we should work with NATO to expand its role, encouraging relationships with other like-thinking countries. We should encourage NATO to develop linkages with other like-thinking nations such as Australia, Singapore, Japan, and South Korea that. A global alliance of free and responsible nations could better focus collective action against the very real and growing threats to the nation-state system.

As we consider ways in which our country and the free world might best tackle the challenges of this first struggle of the 21st century, a dose of humility is in order. There is no "roadmap" to lead decision makers to certain success. There is no "how to guidebook" to tell leaders a sure path ahead. The choices they face are complex and multidimensional.

Ours are new and daunting challenges, to be sure. But danger and uncertainty are not new to the American people. When Churchill spoke at Fulton in 1946 at the dawn of the nuclear age, a nation fatigued from war did not give in to despair. Nor did the deadliness of new atomic weapons weaken America's resolve.

By the visionary leadership of a president and a former prime minister, a sense of urgency was rekindled in our country and among our allies in those early days of the Cold War. President Truman, the architect of the Cold War institutions that endure to this day, knew that the burdens of global leadership would be difficult and costly. Recall that President Truman led troops into a conflict on the Korea Peninsula from which 36,000 Americans never returned home. President Truman's approval rating fell to 24 percent - the lowest in history.

I remember being in South Korea a few years ago, and looking out over the lights of the city of Seoul at night. A young journalist walked up to me with a microphone. She said, "The South Korean parliament is currently debating whether to send South Korean troops to Iraq. Why in the world should young Korean people go halfway around the world to fight and possibly die?"

South Korea has the same people and resources as North Korea. Yet today South Korea is one of the most successful economies on the face of the earth. It is a success because of its free people and free economic system. And so I told the journalist, "Why should young Americans have come to South Korea, halfway around the world, to fight and potentially die fifty years ago? The answer is that you only need to look out the window." South Korea is fortunate that the United States and a coalition of willing nations fought on the Korean Peninsula - for South Korea's freedom - some 50 years ago.

The great statesman we honor tonight understood that leadership was not for the meek or faint of heart. He knew that there were bound to be tough decisions, mistakes and setbacks. Even when the outlook was the bleakest, as at the Dardanelles in World War I and at Dunkirk in World War II, Churchill was not deterred by his many critics in the press or by the vocal opposition and political opportunists in the Parliament.

It is, to be sure, easy to give in to the pessimism and cynicism of the day - to sit on the sidelines and criticize. It seems that in today's society, it can even be fashionable to blame ourselves. But, contending that America and her allies are the source of the world's problems - that it is America that has brought terrorist attacks on our country - is as reckless and ill-founded today as it has been in the past.

The decision facing America and the world's democracies in the months and years ahead is the choice between acknowledging the determination of those who choose to be our enemies and treating them as they have chosen to be treated - or leaving them free to fight another day, at any place and time of their choosing.

It is the choice between rearranging our domestic and international institutions to meet the threats of the 21st century, or thinking we can safely drift along and leave those tough challenges for future generations.

It has always been tempting to seek a path of least resistance. But leadership is not about doing what is easy or what is popular. It is about doing what is right - even when it is hard. Especially when it's hard.

Victory in our current struggle is by no means assured. Victory is to be earned by a people who believe that theirs is a nation worth defending and theirs is a cause worth advancing.

These enemies believe that Americans will give up and give in. Indeed, they are counting on it. But they underestimate the steel of the American people and the dedication of thousands who have stepped forward, raised their hands, and volunteered for military service. These young men and women make up the best trained, best equipped, and most experienced military force in history. They understand the difficulty of the mission they have been assigned, and they are tackling that mission with skill, dedication and patriotism. We should be forever grateful for their spirit and courage, for their sacrifice, and for the sacrifice of their families.

If there is any doubt of our country's ability to muster the resolve and the grit that will be necessary to defeat our enemies, one only need to look to the American men and women in uniform. As we observed on Veteran's Day earlier this week, America has persevered over the decades because of those Americans of conviction who served in generations past.

I have no doubt but that this generation will persevere as well, never forgetting that the great sweep of human history is for freedom - and that we are on freedom's side.

Sudanese Islam Meets a Teddy Bear

A British teacher in Sudan who allowed her 7-year-old charges to name a teddy bear "Muhammad" faces 40 lashes  for, you guessed it, "insulting Islam."  Sudan is resisting international calls for less Draconian sanction.  Asked about the proposed punishment, the National Organization of Women declined to take a position.  N.O.W. must still be too busy worrying about wife-beating epidemics on Super Bowl Sunday.

Index 11/29/07

2 posts: (1) Annapolis: America Fleeced; Israel Flogged--Us v. Them; (2) UN 2008: Cleaning House?--Turtle Bay Tortoise.

Annapolis Appeasement: Fleecing America; Flogging Israel

This week's Annapolis "peace" parley--coming, with a rich irony not appreciated by the main sponsors--in week marking the 60th anniversary of the UN vote partitioning Palestine (November 29, 1947)--is the latest Charlie Brown (US), Lucy (Palestinians) and the football (real peace) episode in what is becoming a term's-end ritual for lame duck Presidents.  The objective is a final negotiated peace accord on all outstanding issues by the end of 2008, a date chosen, it seems, to comport with the American Presidential succession calendar--and the Israeli one as well.  Negotiations are to begin December 12, and on the 17th Tony Blair will preside over a donors' conference--for the Palestinians, of course, not Israel.  This means, for purposes of this exercise, we twist Israel's arm to get Israel to offer tangible, irrevocable concessions (land, sovereignty over Jerusalem), in return for intangible, revocable promises (peace) from the Palestinians.  Hudson Institute President Herb London captures this negative dynamic neatly.

Symbolic of the administration's confusion is inviting Syria to the confab.  WSJ editor Bret Stephens dissects this imbecility, noting that Condi is following in the path of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose idiot trip to Syria in 2006 enraged 43.  Syria wants to pick up brownie points while it pursues its two main Mideast projects (neither of which, Stephens notes, is recovery of the Golan Heights): (a) undermining Lebanese democracy; (b) restarting its WMD program with North Korean help.  As to the first, Syria has been assassinating liberal journalists and politicians who oppose its aims, stonewalling the investigation into Rafik Hariri's 2005 assassination (Syria's deed, which sparked the increasingly endangered Cedar Revolution), and infiltrating Sunni cells into Palestinian camps (which led to violence in 2007).  Meanwhile, Iran funds land buys in the south and east of Lebanon, to create an Islamist mini-state within Lebanon.  Re WMD, the AP reports that North Korean technicians are back on the job inside Syria, giving chemical warhead lessons to their Syrian pupils.  Hamas, for its part, held a one-day counter-conference, along with Islamic Jihad (the Egyptian terror group from which al-Qaeda number two Ayman al-Zawahiri came), denouncing, in advance, any possible Palestinian concessions as (what else?) "a surrender of Palestinian rights."  Hudson scholar Metrav Wurmser further details the reaction from Hamas, and the threat it poses to Mideast peace.

Ralph Peters, as always, cuts to the chase.  Arab countries profit from Arab-Israeli unrest, which enables them to direct the animosity of their populations outside their borders.  The other Arabs hate the Palestinians, which is why hardly a peep was heard in the Arab world when King Hussein, in Black September 1970, launched his offensive on the East Bank of the Jordan River, killing thousands of Palestinians driving thousands more, and their leaders, into Lebanon (where they destabilized the country and opened the door for Syrian's 1975 annexation of Lebanon).  When Kuwait expelled 300,000 Palestinians after the Gulf War, no Arab state uttered a peep of protest.

Peters points out something else missed by most observers, something a soldier would see: The typical Palestinian youth today has lived all his life being indoctrinated in jihadism and parading around with a Kalashnikov.  To such folks, who are utterly unqualified to do any real job except clean toilets, the "glam" of toting a rifle and scaring unarmed folks tops any thrill they can get holding a menial job at a pittance-level wage.  Instead, they live off the foreign aid scraps they get from their kleptocratic-thug terror-regime, and get to shoot people and intimidate journalists.

Bernard Lewis writes that only the Palestinians among the world's post-1945 refugee migrations were made wards of the UN and the "international community."  The (predictable) result: a Palestinian polity mired in poverty, tyranny and the kind of welfare-excess that breeds fundamental disconnect from the realities of modern society and the world economy.

This is what Oslo and other agreements have done.  Arafat took power in a rigged election--moderate challengers were either killed or otherwise scared off from running--in 1996 (that farce was blessed, naturally, by Jimmy Carter).  Palestinians had completed a generation under Israeli rule which saw above-average economic growth, gainful employment--for many, inside Israel (where they were learning the skills needed for a modern economy)-- and a jump in life expectancy from 47 to 70.  Thus, Israel's rule was viewed positively by many Palestinians as of 1996, with a 78 percent approval rating, albeit it seems that hardly any journalist managed to find any of these people to interview at the time.  All this has now gone by the wayside, replaced by a.pathological, hyper-bellicized collective proto-national psyche.

In 1993, at Oslo, Israeli traded land (West Bank) for lies (peace).  During the Clinton years Israeli made further concessions, most notably at Wye in 1998 (Hebron), and by withdrawing from southern Lebanon in May 2000.  Then, Ehud Barak offered Arafat, at Camp David that July, everything, including shared sovereignty over Temple Mount, save an open-ended Palestinian multi-generational right-of-return (a privilege no other refugee population has ever gotten), that would have guaranteed extinction of the Jewish State within one generation.  Arafat then unleashed, that September, the astonishingly barbarous suicide-bombing campaign, which Arafat's own communications minister later acknowledged had been planned since May--before Camp David, long before Ariel Sharon's September visit to Temple Mount (itself negotiated with the Palestinians in advance).  So Israel traded, in effect, land for suicide bombers.  Finally, in 2005, Israel withdrew unilaterally from Gaza.  For which magnanimity Israel reaped 2,000 rockets fired from Gaza into southern Israel since then, election of explicitly terrorist Hamas 5 months later, and a war in the north 11 months later, with Hezbollah (backed by Syria and Iran).  Land for rockets, what a concept!

Diplomatic negotiations like Annapolis have an inherent asymmetrical dynamic.  If a broker (US) has a stake in a positive outcome, it pressures the more pliable party (Israel) to concede to the less pliable (guess whom?).  This will prove the case in 43's last year.  The effect will be to reward the Palestinians despite 7 years of a barbaric terror campaign for which the leaders enlisted children to commit suicide, and kill other children.  Instead of being permanently penalized for such barbarism, the Palestinians will have virtually every country in the world leaning on Israel to give them a deal at least as insanely generous as the offer Ehud Barak made in 2000.  Remember (the US chooses not too), most of the world happily attended the UN-sponsored Durban hate-fest just before 9/11, and would be equally happy to see Israel disappear.

Worse, suppose a final agreement is signed, in which Israel retreats to the Green Line (to the 1949 cease-fire lines, after the 1948 war Arabs launched to destroy the nascent Jewish State).  As a result, what never had been legally-recognized boundaries (only Britain and Pakistan--Britain's 1947 creation--ever legally recognized Jordan's annexation of the West Bank in 1950), would become legal boundaries under international law.  Deep-sixed forever would be the formulation in UN Security Council Resolution 242 (adopted November 1967), which called for Israel to withdraw from occupied territory to "secure and recognized" boundaries, which everyone knew (Arab lies then and later on notwithstanding) meant Israel withdrawing from less than all the territory Israel took in 1967 (a war started not by Israel's air-strike on Egypt on June 5, but by Egypt's having already blockaded the Straits of Tiran, Israel's sole water egress to the south).  So "secure"--which in 1967 meant leaving Israel with some of the territory it annexed in 1967--would be thrown out the window.  Arab mendacity of forty years would be irrevocably codified into international law.

Which will convey the following message to the Palestinians: Terror pays.  But won't Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas clearly, officially, recognize Israel's right to exist as a sovereign state?  Not if he wants to live more than 5 minutes.  And if he did, the Palestinians could repudiate such recognition later, while keeping the land Israel ceded.  Further confirmation of the essential unreality if Annapolis is that a follow-up confab is reportedly slated to take place in, of all places, Russia--yes,  Russia, whose KGB-trained leader has been in America's face for two years, whose technicians are helping Iran's nuclear program, who supplied Iran and Syria with advanced conventional weaponry, and whose country's  anti-Semitism drove more than one million Jews to emigrate to Israel in the past twenty years.  Why not hold a third session in Ramallah?  Gaza?  Osama's lair?  On CNN/YouTube in a town-hall meeting format?

Is "peace through terror" a winning formula to end the Arab-Israeli conflict?  The questions that matter re Annapolis are two: What intangible, revocable promises, if made by the Palestinians, will they actually keep?  On the record, none.  The second question is: If Israel once again makes tangible, irrevocable concessions, having in the past 14 years gotten land for lies (1993), land for suicide bombers (2000) and land for rockets (2005), what will they get in return this time?  Were I 43, let alone Israel's PM, I'd not be too curious.

UN 2008: Cleaning House?

Claudia Rosett, whose truth-telling continues to be one of the UN's worst PR nightmares, informs us that the panjandrums at Turtle Bay have declared 2008 the Year of Sanitation.  Ms. Rosett suggests that they start by cleaning house at the UN itself, rather than elsewhere.  LFTC publishes this item on the 60th anniversary of the UN Palestine Partition Plan, a day when UN members dispense with more trash-talk verbiage than perhaps any other calendar day of the year.  Time for a song!

"Splish, Splash, the UN Needs a Bath"
(to the Bobby Darin 1958 hit, "Splish, Splash")

Splish, splash, the UN needs a Bath
Every single day and night
Not just  a scrubbin' in the tub
Pretending ev'rything is alright

(Delegates' Chorus)
Well, we step out on First
Where our stretch limos wait
We take off for "Scores"
Where we pick up our dates
And then, splish, splash, we have a champagne bash
We charge it to for'aid, and we hide the change in cash

We were a splishin' and a-splashin'
Scammin'and skimmin'
Reelin' all the cash in
In the pink we're swimmin'!

Copyright John C. Wohlstetter 2007

Oh, there is a proper title for the UN in 2008: Looking at the Chinese calendar (after all, China sits as a Permanent Member of the Security Council) we find that 1945, the year the UN was created, was the Year of the Rooster--which suits the pretensions of many Secretary-Generals to strut in full plumage on the world stage; 2003, the year the UN sandbagged us over Iraq (as in 1991, when the UN helped save Saddam's tail), was the Year of the Goat; and 2008, the UN's self-proclaimed Year of Sanitation, is on the Chinese calendar the Year of the...(yes!) RAT.

Index 11/28/07

4 posts: (1) Iran Appeasement: Blaming America--Weenie Watch; (2) France: Showdown--Weenie Watch; (3) Iraq: Negotiated Alliance?--Us v. Them; (4) UK: Health Care Model for US?--Weenie Watch.

Iran Appeasement: Blaming America

Columnist Anne Applebaum is one of the better writers on the Washington Post roster.  She usually can be counted upon to produce substance and, not infrequently, a touch of irony or wit.  Her Nov. 20 column is thus a great disappointment.  She says that success in Iraq no longer matters, because our blundering into Iraq and our stumbling when there has alienated the world community and ruined our alliances.  Worse, she says, is that we will never get support on Iran because of this, not only no support for a preventive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, but even on the question of whether Iran intends to build nuclear weapons.

Begin with the latter: Iran's has  nuclear weapons program.  short of a mushroom cloud, we have all the evidence we need: more than two decades of deception, catching them with weapons design sketches and active efforts to conceal their program.  As commercial nuclear power programs are completely legal under the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty, any country engaged in concealment can thus be presumed to be pursuing weapons.  We will never have courtroom evidence, until an explosion takes place.  The country is, like Iraq, too big to search from top to bottom, even were the IAEA's chief inspector, Muhammad el-Baradei, not openly in favor of an Iranian bomb, but actively helping conceal evidence (documented definitively in John's Bolton's great book, Surrender is Not an Option).  A "national pride" explanation should convince no one.

Re Iraq, how history is rewritten.  We went in there after a 17th UN resolution calling upon Saddam to disarm and for Saddam--not us--to prove compliance, passed, and Saddam continued to diddle us.  The 18th resolution was blocked by France, whom we declined to give a permanent veto over U.S. foreign policy.  The following things are not America's fault: (1) election in 2002 of two corrupt, deeply anti-American hacks, Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder, the latter winning on an explicitly anti-US tilt; (2) France & Germany sucking up to Iran for commercial gain; (3) Russia aiding Iran's nuclear and military programs; (4) European hypocrisy--criticizing us over Guantanamo, when preventive detention of criminal (let alone terror) suspects is a feature of European systems, which give defendants far less rights then the U.S. does.  France decries our use of force without Security Council approval?  France has intervened more than three dozen times in post-colonial Africa, without ever asking the UN for approval.

And had we continued with sanctions against Iraq, as food was diverted by Saddam, and oil money flowed into Saddam's--and European and UN--pockets, the world community supposedly on our side would have continued to press for lifting them, and to blame America for starving Iraqi children.

Are we at fault in some measure?  Of course.  But in 2002 had voters elected Nicholas Sarkozy in France (he did not run) and Angela Merkel (nor did she) or Edmond Stoiber (who did) in Germany, would we have had the debacle over Iraq?  Hardly.  As for Iran, the Europeans calculate that an Iranian nuke will either hit America, which will survive, or Israel, which cannot survive.  The former, Europe would blame on us, due to Iraq; the latter, Europe would blame on Israel, whose disappearance most European elites would not miss at all.

Enough, ENOUGH, about how America's mistakes caused our alliances to crumble.  An alliance that cannot withstand Iraq is an alliance worth not much.

France: Showdown

Newsweek pundit Fareed Zakharia sees a "new French revolution" in the person of Nicholas Sarkozy and the current showdown with France's obstreperous unions.  Since FZ posted his column a police incident involving Muslim youth in Paris suburbs has touched off a wave of violence in those suburbs.  The latest bulletin informs us that firearms are being used by the rioters, and that it is more violent than in 2005, with the triggering incident being similar: two Muslim youths getting themselves killed, in 2005 fleeing police, and in 2007 speeding on a motorcycle and crashing into a police car.  The Interior Minister who in November 2005 called the Muslim rioters "scum" is now France's President.

This is Sarkozy's MOMENT.  It is not so much like President Reagan's showdown with air-traffic controllers in 1981, which did not involve violence.  Rather, it echoes the frontal challenge against Margaret Thatcher launched by coal miner union leader Arthur Scargill in 1984.  Scargill, an outright Communist, vowed to bring Maggie down, as the miners had brought down Edward Heath in 1974.  Reagan prevailed, as did Maggie.  Reagan wasn't prepared, but improvised successfully.  Thatcher was--she had years to get ready, whereas Reagan had been in office 8 months.

Sarkozy is apparently prepared, albeit he had much less time than Thatcher--his 7 months to date parallel Reagan's 8.  Sarkozy appears to have the nerve to win this one, and he has the French public behind him.  The result could change the landscape of French politics, much for the better.  It's "Le Showdown" at OK Corral Parisienne, so, the big question is: Who, pace Kirk Douglas, plays Le Medicin (Doc) Holliday?

Iraq: Negotiated Alliance?

The New York Sun reports on the upcoming talks between the US & Iraqi governments on a formal end to the US occupation and draw-down of US troops, plus, encouragingly, an alliance between the US & Iraq.  The last item is key.  There is a big difference in a postwar outcome with no US presence, and one with a modest one (as in South Korea) and an alliance going forward.  Indeed, there is now a far better rationale for US troops stationed in Iraq than in South Korea, which has a strong military and can defend itself, augmented by US air power.  Stay tuned.

UK: Health Care Model for US?

The London Daily Telegraph has reports on the care (or, more properly, the lack of care) received by Alzheimer's patients and maternity patients under the National Health Service.  Neglect or poor care, conflicting or absence of advice, decrepit facilities, you name it, they have it.  The government-driven health plans percolating among Democrats are Euro-socialist in orientation.  These reports offer clues as to what is in store here if the Democrats win in 2008 and enact their "health care reforms" into law.

Index 11/27/07

4 posts: (1) A Patriot's Letter for Iraq--and to America--The Home Front; (2) "Redacted": Hollywood  Rejected--Class & Crass; (3) 2008: Judges, the Stealth Issue--The Home Front; (4) Campaigning, Chavez Style--Us v. Them.

A Patriot's Letter for Iraq--and to America

Herewith a letter from a true patriot and distinguished veteran, re Iraq, published Monday in the Washington Post, that says it all for where we are now, and should go:

Building on the Gains in Iraq

 

Editor

The Washington Post

 

There is an old story about a football coach who was desperate to cut his losses in the fourth quarter.  He sent in a new quarterback with simple instructions:  1st play run around the left; 2nd play run around the right; 3rd play run it up the middle; and 4th play punt.  On the first play around the left end, they made 5 yards; on the second play around the right they gained another 8 yards;  the third play up the middle went for a solid twelve yards; now deep into enemy territory, on the fourth play they punted.

 

That's the problem with an artificial timeline:  it ignores the situation on the ground.  We are now in the latter part of the fourth quarter in Iraq and there are many people in positions of leadership who want us to punt.  This ignores the fact that the troops under GEN Dave Petraeus have performed magnificently over the last six months and scored solid gains, not just in Baghdad, but throughout much of Iraq.  Military doctrine is to exploit success, not run from it. 

 

While it is true that there is no purely military solution in Iraq, the military situation on the ground can and must set the stage for working out the required political solution.  The current Iraqi government has been slow to act toward such a top down solution, to be sure.  On the other hand, the same grass roots progress that has made much of our military effort successful may yet yield a bottom up political solution as the Iraqi people tire of the insurgency. 

 

We owe it to our troops, the less than 1 percent of the American people who have made and continue to make sacrifices in this war, and especially to the thousands of killed and wounded, to give victory a chance.

 

Alan B. Salisbury

McLean

 

The writer is a retired Army brigadier general

"Redacted": Hollywood Rejected

Americans ignored Hollywood heavyweight Brian DePalma's "Redacted," his anti-war movie that about US soldiers raping and killing a teenage Iraqi girl and killing her family too.  DePalma thought he would "educate" his countrymen about how the war "really" is, and generate massive antiwar protest.  An NY Post story tallies just how successful he has been: In its 15-theater opening weekend it drew 3,000 viewers, who spent $25,568 to see it.  That amount probably doesn't cover DePalma's typical palatial hotel plus stretch limo for one weekend.  Bill O'Reilly has a "Patriots & Pinheads"  segment at the end of most of his shows.  DePalma would need a brain transplant to rise to the level of pinhead.  Congratulations, American movie-goers!

2008: Judges: the Stealth Issue

Terry Eastland writes in the Weekly Standard about the sleeper issue for 2008: the President's power to nominate federal judges.  Presidents on average appoint one federal jurist per week throughout their terms.  Reagan appointed 379 in 8 years, Bush Sr. 192 in 4 years, and Bill Clinton 372 in his two terms.  Bush 43 has fared less well, due to hard-core Democratic opposition, with 292 in 7 years. a number that extrapolates to 334 in 8, some 10 percent less than Reagan and Clinton.  But Democrats will stonewall harder in 2008, so Bush will wind up with even fewer.  Bush has had 5 nominees confirmed this year; the same number in 2008 would make for 10 in his final two years, compared to last two-year figures of 44 for Carter, 17 for Reagan, 20 for Bush 41 and 15 for Clinton.  The next President will thus appoint some 200 judges, if past, pre-43, numbers hold, and perhaps even more given the larger number of bench vacancies due to Democratic stonewalling of 43's nominees.

There are 678 federal district judges, 167 appeals judges plus the 9 Supremes, 854 in all.  They are dwarfed by the 9,200 state judges who sit on courts of "general jurisdiction" (excludes specialty courts like probate), but have disproportionate importance because they adjudicate federal laws that pre-empt conflicting state laws, and federal constitutional cases whose outcome trumps contrary state constitutional rulings.

Republicans do well when judges are a campaign issue, because "strict constructionist" is a buzz-phrase voters latch onto, as meaning not a runaway liberal judge of the kind that free violent felons by promiscuously finding violations of due process, etc.  (New York City denizens of a certain age ruefully recall Judge Bruce Wright--"turn-'em-loose Bruce" during the 1960s and 1970s.)  However, voters tend not to focus on judges unless a Supreme vacancy occurs close to the election, or a highly-charged confirmation hearing creates issues.  The Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas nominations offer recent examples.  At this writing, no vacancy appears likely in 2008--especially as to the Court's liberals, who have no intention of giving 43 a chance to name another Justice, and thus possibly create a conservative majority on the High Court.

Activists on both political sides have most in mind a possible reversal of the abortion case, Roe v. Wade.  I think a reversal unlikely, as neither Justice Alito not Chief Justice Roberts are givens to vote to overturn.  Their view of stare decisis ("let the decision stand") allows for upholding mistaken precedent if repeatedly re-affirmed.  Roe has been re-affirmed about 40 times.  This did the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist vote in 2000 to uphold Miranda v. Arizona, the custodial confessions case, despite his personal view that the decision was bad.  Time, subsequent Court cases and societal adjustment among law enforcement and the public created, in Rehnquist's view, a settled expectation of Miranda as part of the fabric of criminal procedure.  I believe that Alito and Roberts are both potential candidates to repeat this stance in a frontal challenge to Roe.

In the event, what should concern conservatives most of all is entrenchment of a liberal voting bloc on the High Court for terror and war cases, which can severely impede our ability to fight militant Islam and WMD terrorism.  One WMD catastrophe, and Roe will be put into perspective.

Campaigning, Chavez Style

Venezuelan thug-dictator Hugo Chavez faces a December 2 referendum on whether he can run for President without limit.  Chavez makes clear how he views opponents, worthy of praise for candor, if nothing else.  Anyone who opposes his bid is a "traitor, a true traitor": "He's against me, against the revolution and against the people."  That's tellin' 'em, Hugo!

Index 11/26/07

3 posts: (1) Australian Election: Exit True Friend; Enter Question Mark--Weenie Watch; (2) A "No Thanksgiving" Campaign Finance Bill From Congress--The Home Front; (3) New York: Bloomberg's Finest--The Ap & the Cap.

Australian Election: Exit True Friend; Enter Question Mark

Australian PM-Elect Kevin Rudd promises amicable relations with the US, and coming from a country that is our closest ally on the planet we should take him at his word.  But Rudd intends to pull out Australia's remaining combat troops (550) out of Iraq, sending them to Afghanistan (where nearly 1,000 Aussie troops are already posted), while keeping 450 non-combat support troops in Iraq.

On another front there is good news.  Last spring Rudd called for Australia's mufti (yes, there is one, and his fate lies in the hands of the Australian National Imams Council) to be sacked, citing the cleric's labeling scantily-clad women "meat" who deserve to be raped, and also the imam's statement on Egyptian television earlier this year, that because Australia was founded by convicts, Muslims had a superior right to live Down Under than descendants of the first settlers.  The Washington Post reports that the new PM, who takes office next week (in stark contrast to America's 11-week transition period), will sign the Kyoto Treaty.  Rudd, incidentally, is married to a Chinese woman, and speaks fluent Mandarin.

It is fair, however, to predict that Rudd will not be the rock-solid ally John Howard was during his 12 years as Aussie PM.  This Wall Street Journal op-ed assesses the new PM.  Asked about supporting America down the line in Iraq, Howard answered that there is not much point in being a 75 percent friend.  For John Howard, 100 percent friendship was a minimum baseline, one he regularly surpassed.   A Wall Street Journal editorial lists Long John's stellar accomplishments.  It is thus doubly sad that Howard trails in the race for his Parliament seat, and is likely to lose it, although it will take several days to count absentee ballots.

Compounding our setback is that Japan and Britain also have leaders who came to power in 2007, and are less well disposed towards the US than their predecessors.  Only in France has 2007 seen a gain for America, albeit it was a huge one, with Nicholas Sarkozy the polar opposite of his rotten predecessor.  But this latest electoral change should engender considerable concern in the States: Australia has been a vital ally in the Southern Pacific, notably, in Indonesia, but also elsewhere in a region where they frequently have a surer touch than do we.

It is fitting that on 9/11 Howard was visiting DC, and thus by 43's side in the early days, before any other foreign leader.  He stayed by America's side though thick and thin.  Our Europe-besotted press corps frequently ignores Down Under, except when an Aussie move star or supermodel is center stage.  We can only wish John Howard many happy years in retirement, and warmly welcome him whenever he chooses to grace our shores with his impressive presence.

A "No Thanksgiving" Campaign Finance Bill From Congress

George Will's latest dissection of how Congress feathers its own job-nest with "reforms" of the campaign finance laws was helpfully published by Jewish World Review on Thanksgiving Day.  Will explains how our Solons passed a pro-incumbent "Millionaires' Amendment" to the egregious 2002 McCain-Feingold bill (that the Supremes unconscionably largely upheld in 2003), that actually furthers the improper purposes they claim the campaign finance laws are designed to prevent.  Under the MA, incumbents facing a self-financed challenger get three goodies: (1) they can collect triple the $2,300 individual contribution limit from donors; (2) the amounts such donors provide above the limit are not counted against their aggregate contribution limits for that two-year election cycle; (3) the incumbents can raise unlimited (Will's emphasis) funds from their party finance committees.

Thus, by limiting self-financed campaigns--which draw on funds that make a candidate beholden to no one--while vastly expanding the right of incumbents to raise funds against an independent challenger who refuses public funds, Congress increases the amount of funding it claims to be corrupting to recipients, while limiting funds free of such taint.  Nothing like Congress getting ethical, eh?  The Supremes are considering whether to accept an appeal challenging the constitutionality of the MA.  They should throw it out, and perhaps the appeal, having been filed by a Democrat, may help them reconsider their 2003 jurisprudential travesty, at least, in part.

New York: Bloomberg's Finest

New York may not be quite the "Wonderful Town" of the Comden-Green lyrics from 1944's "On the Town," but the New York Sun reports that the murder rate in the Apple is headed for the lowest mark in over 40 years, with 427 deaths recorded as of November 18.  Which would mean, if the pace is maintained, about 502 homicide deaths for all of 2007.  This is inflated, because 16 of the 427 were whacked in earlier years but didn't die right away, which, if projected, would make for 483 for 2007. (After a low total of 539 in 2005 the city's total jumped up to 579 in 2006.)  But all these numbers look good compared to 1990's record 2,245.  2007's rate would be a 78 percent decline from 1990.  Significantly, very few of these were stranger murders.

To put this figure in perspective, as of November 18, New Orleans had tallied 188 homicides for 2007.  This in a city with less than 300,000, versus 8.2 million in NYC.  (New Orleans made the top 50 city population list in 2005; it is no longer on it.  Depending up whose guess one chooses to believe for NO's population today, the Big Apple has 25 to 30 times as many people.)  Take the Big Easy's 188 homicides in 2007, multiply by 25 and 30, and you get a per capita equivalent range of 4,700 to 5,640.  Which makes NO's per capita rate 9.4 to 11.3 times greater than NYC's in 2007.

Illustrative of NO's problems is this delicious nugget from a WSJ piece that says NO may have reached bottom: Big Easy Mayor Ray Nagin, speaking of the high local crime rate, had this to say: "[It] kept the New Orleans brand out there."  As one LFTC reader likes to say, you can't make this stuff up, can you?  (Nagin's quip reminds me of then-Mayor Marion Barry's famous crack about DC's skyrocketing crime rate and whether folks could safely visit: "It's not so bad, if you don't count the murders.")

Former Mayor David Dinkins, who presided over NYC's peak murder years, likes to take credit for the initial drop, which happened in his last years.  This is half-true.  First, the 2,245 for 1990 included several social club fires that caused mass deaths.  Simply by not recurring, this brought the total down.  (OK, murders never recur, but the mass deaths were outliers that distorted regular crime numbers.)  Dinkins did appoint Ray Kelly in 1992, which helped--Kelly returned under Bloomberg and is tops.  But Dinkins opposed most of Rudy's anti-crime moves, which made for the big push in reclaiming the streets.  Rudy, take another bow, and Bloomie, too.  Too bad Comden and Green are gone, as they might have written a new song in celebration.

Index 11/21/07

4 posts: (1) Iraq: Much to Give Thanks For--Us v. Them; (2) The Economy: Quintile Quintessence--The Home Front; (3) Down Under's Upside-Down Politics--Weenie Watch; (4) Mideast: Condi in Blunderland--The Home Front.  Next LFTC posting is Monday, Nov. 26.  Happy Turkey.

Iraq: Much to Give Thanks For

A New York Times front-pager reports that casualties in Iraq are now at their lowest level since January 2006.  Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times reports that Sunni and Shia militias are cooperating to hunt down al-Qaeda in Baghdad.  It was in February 2006 that the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra ignited a full-blown sectarian civil war in Iraq, which looked like the end for U.S. hopes.  But the surge, ordered by 43 in defiance of public opinion, sentiment in Congress, and the Pollyanna ideas floated by the Iraq Surrender Group last December, is succeeding.  The strategic shift from search-and-destroy attrition to counter-insurgency clear, hold and build has transformed the conflict.  Failure is still very possible in a highly fluid environment, but success--modest, but real--is now a distinct possibility as well.  which offers reasons to give thanks on America's day--especially to the magnificent men and women of our military, with special thanks to America's three Medal of Honor winners since 9/11: Paul Smith, Jason Dunham and Michael Murphy.

The Economy: Quintile Quintessence

A Wall Street Journal editorial explains why comparing household income quintiles doesn't prove widening income inequality in the U.S.  simply put, big gainers in the lower quintiles move up into a new quintile.  Taxpayers they leapfrog can make gains, but may fall into a lower quintile.  Quintile mobility within a period even as short as a decade is be significant.  Between 1996 and 2005 the biggest income increase was reported by those int he bottom quintile, at 90.5 percent.  Nearly 58 percent of those in the bottom quintile had moved up within the decade, into a higher quintile.  Income inequality widens only if quintile populations are static.  They are dynamic.  Another statistical artifact: Big gainers in the top quintile pull it upward, as they cannot jump quintiles upward; this widens the gap versus lower quintiles, where big earners move up to a new level. 

Hudson Institute scholar Diana-Furchtgott-Roth notes that in 2006 the bottom income quintile households had 1.7 residents and one earner, whereas households in the high-income quintile had 3.2 residents and 2.1 taxpayers.  In the past 20 years low-income household size has shrunk 12 percent, versus 3 percent for the top group.  These changes reflect senior longevity, divorces and single-parent households--the latter two are more prevalent in lower-income strata.  Her excellent article has more comparison data on household spending.

Richard Rahn, former chief economist of the Chamber of Commerce, notes that when Roanld Reagan took office in 1981 the top one percent of taxpayers paid 18 percent of all income taxes; in 2005 the figure was 39%--despite earning only 21 percent of U.S. income.  Other 2005 numbers: The top 5 percent earned 36 percent of the income and paid 60 percent of income taxes.  Astoundingly, the top 50 percent of taxpayers earned 87 percent of the income and paid 97 percent of all income taxes.  So in 2005 the bottom 50 percent of US taxpayers earned 13 percent of the income but paid only 3 percent of income tax payers.  An added factor: Low-income households often earn more non-cash income (such as food stamps) than their recorded income, but non-cash equivalents are not counted in the IRS numbers.

Thus, the numbers used to prove widening income inequality are quintessential examples of Benjamin Disraeli's famous aphorism about there being three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.

Down Under's Upside-Down Politics

The November 24 election in Australia bids fair to be America's best pal John Howard's swan song, with polls showing challenger Kevin Rudd 8 to 10 points ahead.  Rudd is a lefty who will pull Aussie troops out of Iraq.  Rudd got a boost in polls from an incident that would have ended any American politician's career, as reported in the New York Sun: He was caught visiting the Big Apple's topless mecca, Scores, where he enjoyed lap-dancing whilst getting plastered.  This kind of incident destroyed conservative Senatorial aspirant Bruce Herschensohn in 1992, saddling us with California's egregious loudmouth  lefty, Barbara Boxer.  But Aussies, a cheeky bunch, decided it added spice to a colorless pol, and Rudd's numbers actually went up as a result.  Thanksgiving is a uniquely American holiday.  Perhaps Rudd, if he wins, can introduce it Down Under.

Mideast: Condi in Blunderland

Condoleeza Rice is a warm, gracious, elegant presence, which makes it hard to dump on her--especially because in addition to all that, she plays piano well enough to duet with Yo-Yo Ma.  WSJ editor Bret Stephens dissects the upcoming Annapolis "peace parley" exercise.  Stephens presents in op-ed length a detailed portrait of how Condi's grand illusions are being stripped away one by one.  The confab, if she is lucky, will be canceled.  Seems the Palestinians remain, well, indisposed towards the idea of any Jewish state, disinclined to end terror....

Alas, inhaling the vapors at Foggy Bottom is the quickest way to catch "Dennis Ross Derangement Syndrome", a behavioral condition caused by the Beltway virus Jimbakeris Malisraelis, which induces victims to propose grand bargain settlements of the Arab-Israeli dispute, with the main characteristic being severe, long-lasting Palestina Dementia: delusions of diplomatic grandeur....

Index 11/20/07

4 posts: (1) Bolton Bolts on Bush Policies--The Home Front; (2) War's Toll: Casualty Counts for Congress--The Home Front; (3) 2008: The Iron Lady--and the Tinfoil Not-So Lady--The Home Front; (4) Sooners Go Soviet--The Home Front.

War's Toll: Casualty Count for Congress

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has compiled a 28-page report requested by Members of Congress who expected different comparative numbers than they got, as to the current wars versus earlier conflict.  In 1981 and 1982 4,699--call it 4,700--troops died; in 2005 and 2006 3,800 died.  The ratio of dead to wounded was 2:1 in WW-II and is now (courtesy of advanced medicine and body armor) 7 to 1.

Bolton Bolts on Bush Policies

Former UN Ambassador John Bolton explains in an 8-minute AmSpec Newsmaker internview how the Bush Administration foreign policy has become Clintonized in many areas, during the second term.  Bolton makes more sense in 8 minutes than most people can make in 8 days.  His book, Surrender is Not an Option (2007) is superlative.  It details the foreign policy matters that Bolton was intimately involved in, 2001 - 2006, and is laden with delicious nuggets.  Most fun of all is that Kofi Annan thought himself a "Secular Pope."  To which Bolton notes that as a Lutheran he (Bolton) does not even follow religious popes.  How about Pontiff of Turtle Bay?

2006: The Iron Lady--and the Tinfoil Not-So-Lady

Peggy Noonan, at her best, recently showed why Hillary is no Maggie Thatcher.  Simply put, the latter was a genuine leader with firm convictions, who never hid behind her gender as an excuse for anything.  Hill, alas, shows little sign of genuine anything, and uses her gender to deflect criticism, even from her fellow Democratic candidates.  PN offers tidbits from the campaign that Hill's "lil' woman" act is wearing thin on the hustings.  One poll shows that only 25 percent of voters accept the "ganging up" whine from Hill.  Mr. Bill makes the same argument, which in effect asks that Hill be treated as if she were teenage Chelsea.  Add to this her planted questioner(s)--according to Captain's Quarters blogger Ed Morrissey, eight--yes, that is 8--and Morrissey sees Hill's wheels coming off.  Then, to complete the portrait, look at the image of Maggie that PN uses in her column, and behold a stately visage exuding a stern determination to lead.  Voters will not warm to a candidate who whines during wartime.  Then there is the "Omen" factor: Is the video of Hill amidst falling American flags at one campaign stop, helpfully posted by feminist blogger Camille Paglia, an augury?

I had occasion once to meet the Baroness Thatcher, some 3 years after she was sneakily shoved out of 10 Downing Street, an idiocy from which the Conservatives have never recovered.    I went through the receiving line, but noticed that the luncheon photographer neglected to snap a photo memorializing the moment.  So I got back into line with some trepidation, expecting a frosty glance from the Iron Lady.  ("Mr. Wohlstetter, isn't it?  And didn't I see you here before?")  Nope.  Maggie listened to my explanation and chuckled, delighted, she said, to remedy the photog's slip up.  A gracious, class act.

Sooners Go Soviet

The Wall Street Journal informs us that Oklahoma is prosecuting political activists who used out-of-state sloicitors to collect signatures for a state petition.  The activists face ten years.  They garnered over 300,000 petition signatures, well above the 219,000 required, to put on the state ballot a constitutional amendment limiting taxes and spending.  The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled the petition invalid because of the out-of-state involvement.  The WSJ notes that out-of-state support is permitted, however, if the aim is to oppose such petitions in Oklahoma.  A Democratic prosecutor, one Drew Edmondson, who apparently aspires to higher office, indicted the activists.  This was done despite the activists having consulted both the state board of elections and the the secretary of state's office as well.  Prosecutors have lots of  discretion in allocating limited resources, and lots of power to ruin targets, too.  This case is another reason to bar attorneys-general from running for higher political office, or require a 5- or 10-year lag before allowing such further quest, so as to remove immense temptations to abuse prosecutorial power.

Index 11/19/07

3 posts: (1) Veterans' Day in Samarra, and the Great War--Us v. Them; (2) Sarko Speaks to Congress--Weenie Watch; (3) Waterboarding Wars--The Home Front.

Veterans Day in Samarra, and the Great War

Bob Tyrrell's American Spectator ran a classic piece in its current print issue, now available online.  "The Longest Morning" is an account of an incredibly heroic firefight conducted by four US troops against ten times their number.  Out-gunned, out-numbered, pinned on a rooftop, with two of their number already dead, it is an account of bravery and discipline under fire that is a fitting tribute to our veterans, in this first LFTC since Veteran's Day, Sunday, November 11.  In my youth, it was known as Armistice Day, and it is celebrated around the world, under different names, as the anniversary of the end of the Great War that began Europe's century-long suicide.  A New York Times op-ed tells of America's last surviving veteran of the Great War, Frank Buckles, born 1901.  He lied about his age to enlist, and managed to get to France, but not the trenches.  He guarded German POWs after the Armistice.  They saw that he was a mere lad, and adopted him, teaching him their language, giving him food from their own Red Cross packages, and bits of their uniforms as souvenirs.  (Does anyone think al-Qaeda detainees will do this?).

Mr. Buckles was sent to Manila by his employer in late life, and was captured by the Japanese in January 1942, freed more than three years later.  He feels WW-I vets never were honored enough.  As LFTC's modest tribute to WW-I vets, George M. Cohan's lyrics to "Over There" capture the spirit of America then.  For our fight today we should pay special attention to the final line of the chorus: "and we won't be back 'til it's over over there."

Sarko Speaks to Congress

Nicholas Sarkozy addressed a joint session of Congress last week.  His speech is bracing.  While I would quarrel with a few things in it, there is no question that it stands as one of those speeches that sidestep the obligatory diplomatic platitudes, and reflects heartfelt sentiment of a true friend.  Viva Sarkozy and (his foreign minister Bernard) Kouchner!!

Waterboarding Wars

Recently the Wall Street Journal carried two articles discussing waterboarding--simulated drowning as a tool to make terror suspects talk.  The first was written by WSJ editor Bret Stephens.  The second was authored by Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz.  Stephens noted that in 1939 FDR opposed saturation bombing of populated ares, a position abandoned upon America's entry into WW II in 1941.  Dershowitz states that no candidate for 2008 should declare an unwillingness to use torture to try to gain information to stop a mass casualty event.

We have already one concrete example since 2001, of a specific mass casualty attack prevented: the 2006 plot to blow up 10 jetliners over the Atlantic.  British authorities arrested the plotters, in part based upon information gleaned from a detainee held by Pakistani captors.  Anyone think the Pakistanis gave the detainee the Miranda warnings?  Recited his Geneva Convention "rights"?  Right.

Also recently, NRO editor Rich Lowry noted on Fox Cable that several journalists have volunteered to be waterboarded, and walked away from the event.  Fox's Steve Harrigan was waterboarded, and 20 minutes later he felt OK.  TWENTY MINUTES.  Has anyone seen journalists lining up to be subjected to al-Qaeda favorites, such as applying electric drills to the elbow or kneecap?  If you walk away from it, can pain from it be "severe" within the meaning of the 1995 statute by which Congress ratified the Torture Convention?  (As to allegations that the procedure has been fatal, lawyers have a name for this phenomenon: the "thin skull" rule.  A bump on the head may be shrugged off by most, but the same blow may kill those with hidden vulnerabilities.)

On September 7, 2007, CIA Director General Michael V. Hayden gave a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations.  Since the capture of top Osama aide Abu Zubaydah in early 2002, less than 100 top detainees have been subjected to aggressive techniques such as waterboarding.  The result has been, said Hayden, thousands of intelligence reports, with more than 70 percent of the human intelligence in the National Intelligence Estimate coming from interrogation.  Which may explain why V-P Cheney called waterboarding "a no-brainer."

Congress, for its part, voted down 53-46 a Ted Kennedy amendment proposed for the Military Commissions Act of 2006.  Evidence that they are afraid to push the issue is that Congress has now confirmed Judge Michael Mukasey as Attorney-General, despite the Judge having stated that without a classified briefing he cannot take a formal position on whether waterboarding is lawful.