Libertarian Leanings

The Connection Continued

In a FrontPage Magazine article entitled The Connection Continued Peter Wehner examines the Democratic/liberal renewed campaign to obliterate public consciousness of any connection between Iraq and the War on Terror.  He runs down a list of liberal luminaries and their complaints that President Bush mentioned the 9/11 attacks in his speech on the war in Iraq.

Mr. Gergen responded, "Well, listen, I was troubled and at times offended by the regularity of coming back to 9/11. You know, because we -- as you say, none of the terrorists were linked to Saddam and you know, there's been this myth for a long time, that's just untrue, that Saddam was somehow responsible for 9/11."

Jay Carney of Time put it this way: "there were a lot of distinctions blurred tonight, as has been pointed out, the, you know, the fact that the president once again reintroduced and sort of conflated 9/11, the events of 9/11 with what's happening in Iraq..."

And House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said this: "The president's frequent references to the terrorist attacks of September 11 show the weakness of his arguments. He is willing to exploit the sacred ground of 9/11, knowing that there is no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq."

These comments amount to an implied plea of "Guilty" to Karl Rove's charge that they would prefer to fight the terrorists with indictments, therapy and understanding.  By arguing that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do 9/11 they're propping up a straw man.  Nobody said he did.  President Bush did not declare war on al Qaeda alone, he declared War on Terror, and he demanded a stop to state sponsored terror.

And so you might forget that before the war Iraq was one of seven countries that had been designated by the State Department as state sponsors of international terrorism. You might forget Saddam Hussein’s regime provided sanctuary for Abu Musab Zarqawi, who helped establish a base for al Qaeda affiliates in Baghdad. You might forget that Saddam provided refuge for Abdul Rahman Yasin, a participant in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, probably the first al Qaeda attack on the U.S. homeland. You might forget that in April 2002, Saddam Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 the money offered to families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers. Mahmoud Besharat, a representative on the West Bank who handed out the money from Saddam, said at the time, “You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue." You might forget that in 1993, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) directed and pursued an assassination attempt, through the use of a powerful car bomb, on former U.S. President George Bush and the Emir of Kuwait.

The Democrats sound like defense attornies when they insist that there is no connection between Iraq and the War on Terror.  Again, that's a guilty plea to the charges by Rove.  Their call for a timetable for withdrawal and their solicitude for the Gitmo detainees buttresses that argument.  They would prefer to fight terrorism in the courts, and so they oppose any steps the administration takes in our national defense.  Today's Opinion Journal expresses the wish that Democrats would instead become the constructive opposition. 

...the Democrats could contribute to a victory in Iraq. But that isn't going to happen until more of them, or even some of them, switch from the Pottery Barn to the Home Depot rule: You Can Do It, We Can Help.

Beyond law enforcement and the courts, the Democrats don't have a plan for the War on Terror.  They don't have much of a plan for national defense.  They have one plan.  That's the plan for getting themselves re-elected and retaking the White House.  Unfortunately that plan is more and more at odds with our national security.

Update:  Power Line excerpts the Congressional resolution authorizing military action in Iraq.

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations,including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Note that the resolution puts the Iraq war in the context of September 11 without saying that Iraq was involved in those attacks; it recites what was indisputably true--that Iraq harbored members of al Qaeda.

One would think that administration critics like Joe Biden, John Kerry, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer would remember what was in the resolution, since they voted for it. I can understand why it would be convenient for the Democrats to forget that the resolution that authorized the Iraq war specifically and repeatedly linked the rationale for that war to the September 11 attacks. It is not so clear why mainstream reporters and commentators are so willing to share the Democrats' amnesia.

Connection

Captain's Quarters critiqued various editorial responses to the President's speech last night, and made an important point -- one that has been completely ignored by the press:

The Post makes two errors in its basic presumptions. First, Saddam did partner with al-Qaeda, long before the war, as the Jordanian government confirmed earlier this year and as intelligence reports have demonstrated. He hosted a conference of Islamist terrorists in 1999 that included both Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and sheltered the latter well before the 2003 invasion. In fact, Jordan asked for the extradition of Zarqawi in 2002, a request Saddam refused, not because he couldn't be found but because the Ba'athists didn't want him arrested.

There was a connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorists.  Whether you call them al Qaeda, Hamas, or any other name, there was a connection and that's what this business in Iraq is all about.

Update:  Power Line has more on the connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorists.

One of the Democrats' most ridiculous mantras is that there was no connection between Saddam's Iraq and international terrorism. This claim is demonstrably false, but as usual, the Democrats are playing to the least well-informed Americans. Let's just itemize a few of Iraq's most notorious pre-war connections to 9/11 style terrorism:

a) Ansar al Islam, an al Qaeda branch, manufactured ricin for use in attacks on Europe.
b) Saddam hosted al Qaeda's number two leader, Zawahiri, in the 1990s.
c) Saddam harbored, and put on a government pension, one of the few perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing who escaped apprehension.
d) Saddam harbored Abu Nidal, once the world's most famous terrorist, until, for reasons that remain mysterious, Saddam apparently had him murdered shortly before the war began.
e) Saddam harbored Abu Abbas, organizer of the Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking in 1984; Abbas was captured in Iraq during the first days of the war.
e) Zarqawi, the world's most deadly terrorist, fled Afghanistan when the Taliban fell at the end of 2001 and went to Iraq. Why? Because he knew that terrorists were welcome under Saddam.
f) From Iraq, Zarqawi organized the murder of American diplomat Lawrence Foley in Jordan.
g) From Iraq, Zarqawi organized and financed a chemical weapons attack on Jordan that could have killed tens of thousands. The perpetrators of that scheme are now on trial in Jordan.
h) Saddam paid the families of suicide bombers to encourage terrorist attacks against Israel.

These are just some of the many connections between Saddam's regime and international terrorism that we happen to know about. Others are known, and no doubt still more remain unknown.

The press and the Dems are wearing this one out. 

The President's speech

In his speech tonight that spelled out our strategy for Iraq, the President didn't tell me anything I didn't really already know.  I guess I'd have to say I'm reassured anyway, because there probably are some people who really don't see why we ought to stay the course.  Bush was pretty clear on it tonight.  One of the highlights of the speech was a recitation of the failures of the terrorists to disrupt our progress.

We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who behead civilian hostages and broadcast their atrocities for the world to see. These are savage acts of violence, but they have not brought the terrorists any closer to achieving their strategic objectives. The terrorists -- both foreign and Iraqi -- failed to stop the transfer of sovereignty. They failed to break our Coalition and force a mass withdrawal by our allies. They failed to incite an Iraqi civil war. They failed to prevent free elections. They failed to stop the formation of a democratic Iraqi government that represents all of Iraq's diverse population. And they failed to stop Iraqis from signing up in large number with the police forces and the army to defend their new democracy.

Terrorist failures are Iraqi successes.  Bush made the point that the terrorists, whom he described as men who "take innocent lives to create chaos for the cameras", can succeed only if we willingly abandon the Iraqis.  They play to the cameras in hopes of winning the war in the minds of the American public.  We, the people, must choose to abandon the Iraqis.  In order to make that choice a reality we must bring enough pressure to bear on our elected representatives that we force them to retreat.

The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September the 11th, if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi, and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like Bin Laden. For the sake of our nation's security, this will not happen on my watch.

It's hard for me to imagine an American leader who would ever suggest we abandon Iraq, considering what we have at stake. 

Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: "This Third World War is raging" in Iraq. "The whole world is watching this war." He says it will end in "victory and glory, or misery and humiliation." The terrorists know that the outcome will leave them emboldened, or defeated.

Unfortunately I don't have to rely on my imagination.  All I have to do is listen to the Senate Minority Leader for a little while.

"'Staying the course,' as the president advocates, is neither sustainable nor likely to lead to the success we all seek," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said. "The president's numerous references to September 11th did not provide a way forward in Iraq; they only served to remind the American people that our most dangerous enemy, namely Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose."

Bin Laden may be on the loose if he's still alive, but he's been pretty damn quiet lately.  Bin Laden miscalculated in attacking the World Trade Center towers.  He misjudged the lengths to which America would go to take away his base of operations and take the fight to his own part of the world.  But he, or whoever has taken over for him, hasn't misjudged the Harry Reids we have in our midst.  Those are the folks that are so easily persuaded by terrorist on-camera appearances.  Reid's comments, and like comments from Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, and Patrick Leahy, are aid and comfort for the enemy.  Could we find better allies for bin Laden than this sorry bunch?

Now will we find out who outed Val?

The Supreme Court rejected the appeals of Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper.

The Supreme Court rejected appeals yesterday from two journalists who have refused to testify before a grand jury about the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity.

The ruling effectively ends the free-speech appeal by Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and the New York Times' Judith Miller, who both face up to 18 months in jail for refusing to reveal sources as part of an investigation into who divulged the name of CIA officer Valerie Plame.

This has been a marvelously entertaining case, beginnning with hubby Joe's eight day visit to Niger which he claimed was proof conclusive that Iraq could not possibly have been seeking uranium anywhere on the continent of Africa.  It got even more fun to watch the loony left jump up and down and scream that Karl Rove should be dragged off to jail for the crime of revealing Val's identity, then suddenly do a complete about face when they couldn't pin it on Rove, and instead two reporters were threatened with jail if they didn't say what they knew.  "Crime?  What crime?  There's no crime here."

It's not over yet.  There's still time for the loony left to do another pirouette.  Once Miller and Cooper do their time, lefties will be free to go apoplectic again about the "crime" of outing Val.  Stay tuned.

Let's talk about real incompetence

Power Line posted an article yesterday about the Democrats' response to President Bush's weekly radio address, which came from Zbigniew Brzezinski. According to Power Line author Paul Mirengoff, Brzezinski claimed the war in Iraq is being waged with "tactical and strategic incompetence".  Mr. Mirengoff makes these observations:

...there are several more pressing questions. First, where does Brzezinski, the top foreign policy adviser during the harrowing Carter years, get the nerve to accuse anyone of incompetence? Carter/Brzezinski presided over our greatest setback ever in the Middle East, the rise of a fundamentalist Islamic regime in Iran, which they basically invited by signaling their lack of support for Shah knowing that his strongest enemies were fundamentalist clerics. They also presided over and basically invited a Communist takeover in Nicaragua. Under Brzezinski's tutelage, Carter was shocked, betrayed, and unprepared when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. And who can forget what may be the worst piece of incompetence the U.S. has been associated with in its modern history, the failed rescue attempt of our hostages in Teheran?

Perhaps this partially explains why Democrats appeal to younger voters.  It has to be pretty hard to attract people old enough to remember how utterly pathetic the Carter administration really was.

Neat trick

On behalf of the troops liberals are urging capitulation in Iraq. 

Congressman Kucinich and insurgent leadership make same demands of Bush

Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich, speaking on the House floor:

"But this war can end another way. It can end if enough members of Congress consider and cosponsor H.J. Res 55, a bi-partisan bill introduced last week, to require the President to initiate troop withdrawal no later than October 1, 2006. Thank the troops, and bring them home."

US 'in talks with Iraq rebels' - Sunday Times - Times Online: 

The Iraqis had agreed beforehand to focus on their main demand, “a guaranteed timetable of American withdrawal from Iraq”, the source said. “We told them it did not matter whether we are talking about one year or a five-year plan but that we insisted on having a timetable nonetheless.”

What esteemed company the authors of Res 55 find themselves in! The Americans were meeting with Ansar Al Sunnah, The Islamic Army of Iraq, the Iraqi Liberation Army, and Jaish Mohammed.

It's quite a neat trick to seek the identical objectives as the enemy while claiming that it's for the troops, or for the good of the country.

This comes by way of BlackFive.

The press itself, is now the news

Tim Blair disposes of the latest New York Times editorial rather handily:

Editorial in the New York Times:

To have the sober conversation about the war in Iraq that America badly needs, it is vital to acknowledge three facts:

The war has nothing to do with Sept. 11.

I don’t think we need bother with the other two.

While the New York Times campaigns vigorously in its news and editorial pages in hopes of a re-ascendant Democratic Party, the Washington Times provides coverage of the press itself with an article that appears under the headline, Press pounces on Rove's remarks.

Major news outlets that largely ignored the controversial comments of the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate last week immediately reported on a fiery speech by White House adviser Karl Rove, giving the story front-page prominence and the lead of newscasts.

The news is clearly the subject of the news.  The Washington Times article contrasts the non-coverage by media of Senator Richard Durbin likening American military personnel to Nazis and Soviet gulag guards, against the wall to wall coverage of liberal outrage over Karl Rove's speech in which he described their preferred response to 9/11 as favoring indictments, therapy, and understanding for the attackers.  Reporter James G. Lakely even went so far as to call on various news organizations asking for comment.  First the broadcast media.

"What the networks did was zero, zero, zero, zero on Durbin, and as soon as Rove shows up, boom," said Tim Graham, director of media analysis at the conservative Media Research Center. "To say that one deserves zero coverage and the other huge coverage is just bizarre."

Steve Lovelady, managing editor of the Columbia Journalism Review Daily, said he's "not sure if the network morning shows even qualify as journalism these days," describing them as "yuk-fests with periodic headline updates tossed into the mix almost as an afterthought."

But he was still puzzled about why CBS, including their evening news program, ignored the Durbin story altogether. "Nothing about Durbin ever, even after the apology," he said. "I'd love to hear how they justify that."

Calls to CBS, ABC and NBC for comment were not returned.

Then the print media.

The Washington Post reported the Democratic outrage over Mr. Rove on its front page yesterday, but Mr. Durbin's remarks never made it there. The newspaper published its first story on the Durbin controversy three days after the speech on page A-11. The story was kept inside for its duration.

The New York Times played the Rove story on page A-16 yesterday, a 776-word bylined story. The newspaper's largest story about Mr. Durbin was 381 words, published inside three days after the firestorm erupted.

New York Times public editor Byron Calame and The Washington Post did not return calls for comment.

Even the White House Press Corps.

The White House press corps also handled both stories dramatically differently. Questions about Mr. Rove dominated the White House press briefing the day after the speech was delivered with spokesman Scott McClellan being peppered with 22 questions on the subject.

A solitary reporter asked for the White House's response to Mr. Durbin's speech -- two days after it was delivered -- and Mr. McClellan was asked about it just two more times.

In view of the continuing anti-American news campaign that includes such highlights as Dan Rather's use of forgeries in his attempt to unseat George W. Bush, baseless claims by Eason Jordan and Linda Foley that American military personnel were "targeting" (in other words murdering) journalists, and the non-reporting of anything that might indicate success in the War on Terror, a more appropriate start to such an editorial would be:

To have the sober conversation about news coverage as America badly needs to do, it is vital to acknowledge three facts:

The news has nothing to do with the truth...

Realistically, one could hardly expect the New York Times to print that.  They might be guilty of accuracy.  But the good news is, it's not just the bloggers who are fact checking big media and scrutinizing the balance these days.  They're checking on each other now.

Flypaper theory gets new legs

The term "flypaper strategy" to describe the war in Iraq was originated by David Warren, a Canadian essayist, back in July of 2003.  In his essay on the invasion of Iraq Mr. Warren had this to say.

They [various "experts" on regional security] notice that the U.S. forces in Iraq have become a new magnet for regional terrorist activity. They assume this demonstrates the foolishness of President Bush's decision to invade.

It more likely demonstrates the opposite. While engaged in the very difficult business of building a democracy in Iraq -- the first democracy should it succeed in the entire history of the Arabs -- President Bush has also quite consciously to my information created a new playground for the enemy away from Israel and even farther away from the United States itself. By the very act of proving this lower ground he drains terrorist resources from other swamps.

This is the meaning of Mr. Bush's "bring 'em on" taunt from the Roosevelt Room on Wednesday when he was quizzed about the "growing threat to U.S. forces" on the ground in Iraq. It should have been obvious that no U.S. President actually relishes having his soldiers take casualties. What the media and U.S. Democrats affect not to grasp is that the soldiers are now replacing targets that otherwise would be provided by defenceless civilians both in Iraq and at large. The sore thumb of the U.S. occupation -- and it is a sore thumb equally to Baathists and Islamists compelling their response -- is not a mistake. It is carefully hung flypaper.

This all comes by way of Ace of Spades HQ who linked to this post by Michael McNeil, in which Mr. McNeil relates this bit of news from the BBC:

A BBC interviewee, Jeremy Binnie of Jane's Terrorism and Insurgency Centre, put it thusly:

The war in Iraq has minimized the threat to Europe because everyone who's Jihad-inclined wants to go fight over there. So even though some of these… the guys suspected of involvement in the train bombings have reportedly gone over to lodge themselves in Iraq. So there are these radicals sort of coming out of Europe and actually going to a different theater altogether.

I bring this up for two reasons.  First, a commenter left a message here that began "Tom, Iraq is an unqualified disaster and, far from making us safer, its made us decidedly less secure."  When I asked for some evidence that might support this, he responded by pointing out a New York Times article about Iraq becoming the new terrorist training ground.  You can find our exchange, which was quite civil to the point of being cordial, here.  As you might expect I continue to disagree with the commenter's statement.  The fact that terrorists may be traveling to Iraq to learn how better to terrorize civilians doesn't lead me to conclude we are less secure.

Second are the recent remarks by Ted Kennedy at the Senate Armed Services Committee testimony of Donald Rumsfeld.

TED KENNEDY:  Secretary Rumsfeld, as you know, we are in serious trouble in Iraq, and this war has been consistently and grossly mismanaged, and we are now in a seemingly intractable quagmire. Our troops are dying, and there really is no end in sight.  Our troops deserve better, Mr Secretary, I think the American people deserve better. They deserve competency, and they deserve the facts. In baseball it's three strikes and you're out. What is it for the Secretary of Defence?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Well, that is quite a statement. First, let me say that there isn't a person at this table who agrees with you that we're in a quagmire, and that there's no end in sight. The suggestion by you that people – me or others – are painting a rosy picture is false. I think that the comments you made are certainly yours to make, and I don't agree with them.

TED KENNEDY: Well, my time has just expired, but Mr Secretary, I'm talking about the misjudgements and the mistakes that have been made, the series which I've mentioned. Those are on your watch. Isn't it time for you to resign?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Senator, I have offered my resignation to the President twice, and he's decided that he would prefer that he not accept it. And that's his call.

Remarks like those of Mr. Kennedy and the way they are portrayed in the news are in my view aid and comfort to the enemy.  The news article from which the exchange was taken was about poll numbers that indicate declining support for the war in Iraq.  The only way the United States can lose in Iraq is by quiting.  The only reason for the United States to quit would be overwhelming public opinion against continuing the fight.

For Mr. Kennedy and the press that supports him, it's just politics.  They hope for more Democratic seats in houses in Washington, so they oppose the President.  They try to make the case that the Administration is on the wrong track, whether by incompetence, duplicity, or a combination.  They try to make the case that we're losing.  But the reality is far different.  We are winning the fight.  We are more secure.  But in trying to make a case that we are not winning, that public opinion is turning against fighting the war to its finish, Kennedy, Kerry, Durbin, Hagel and their like encourage the enemy to continue their attacks.

The answer is a Constitutional Amendment

Horton, Shields & Cormier, the firm that argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of New London in Kelo v. New London, is receiving death threats, a source close the law firm informs me.  What a truly absurd response. 

As horrible as this decision is, there is a way to correct it that doesn't require criminal behavior or armed insurrection. The proper course of action in response to this ridiculous decision by the Supreme Court is to amend the Constitution to expressly forbid the taking of private property for other private use, no matter what better "public good" the takers may claim.

The public good intended by this decision is vastly outweighed by the detrimental effect it will have the kinds of places it is intended to help -- inner cities and depressed areas.  Home ownership in a depressed area, a risky proposition by itself, has just been made riskier.  This makes the Court's liberal decision a liberal bonanza by helping to keep depressed areas depressed. 

For the sake of ourselves and for the sake of our cities we need to take action on this.  Most of us are homeowners.  Most of us who aren't homeowners plan to be.  It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the numbers will be on our side when we take up the fight to push an amendment through.  We need to do it and we need to start now.  As a start I'm calling on any law bloggers out there who would be willing to put together the proper wording for a Constitutional Amendment that will protect us against this unreasonable expansion of the power of eminent domain.  Let's get going.

Let the games begin!

No time is being wasted in the aftermath of the Kelo v. New London eminent domain decision.  Speculation is bubbling on the improved prospects for a baseball stadium in Southeast Washington, D.C. 

The Supreme Court's ruling that local governments can take private property for commercial use is expected to bring a number of contested local projects -- including the District's plans to build a baseball stadium -- closer to fruition.

The ruling angered property owners who could be displaced, including those who have fought plans to build the Washington Nationals' new baseball stadium in Southeast near the Anacostia River waterfront. The court said a commercial venture that brings tax revenue or jobs to the city is a public good and, thus, is eligible to benefit from the power of eminent domain.

Opponents of the projects engage in some wishful thinking by suggesting that the ruling requires a comprehensive development plan. 

"The Supreme Court's decision today is [on its face] disappointing, but in reality is good news," he said. "It won't support the use of the power of eminent domain to condemn property on the purposed stadium site."

The court ruling said economic development plans must specifically designate the site to be condemned. Opponents contend the District's development plan does not do that.

How long do they think it will take developers to designate the specific sites they'd like to have condemned?  And who do they think will be arbiters of what constitutes a comprehensive development plan?  The door has been pushed wide open.