Libertarian Leanings

Religion of peace comes to Boston

A couple of Boston area imams were among 33 arrested on immigration law violations. 

Government attorney Richard Neville said "immigration agents opened their investigation of Imam Masood in 2004, when his name came up in connection with Imam Muhammad Khalil, who led a basement mosque in Brooklyn."  More about Khalil here, he's also the connection to Imam Hafiz  Abdul Hannan of the Islamic Society of Greater Lowell, the second imam arrested in Boston.

As might be expected, letters of support for Imam Masood have appeared on the one side and a petition in support of immigration officials on the other.  But then, a surprise!  Miss Kelly, who has been following the story very closely, received an email from members of Masood's mosque who claim they would sign the petition supporting the immigration investigation, but are afraid.  Says Miss Kelly,

Yesterday, I received an e-mail from Muslim gentleman who is a member of the Sharon mosque, and he wrote: "Many muslims from the ICNE community wanted to sign your petition but are afraid."  According to this man, many members of that mosque feel that their mosque - which used to be quite moderate - has been taken over by conservative Muslims, with Masood as their leader.  Perhaps you remember hearing about this last spring when their Imam, Talal Eid, was essentially forced out.  The members of the mosque have known about Masood's visa irregularities (and other untruths) for years, and they support what the feds are doing here.  But they are afraid of physical harm if they come forward.  I found that shocking.  It's something that needs to be widely known.

More on the story here and here.

The "realists"

William Kristol sums up the "realist" position:

So let's add up the "realist" proposals: We must retreat from Iraq, and thus abandon all those Iraqis--Shiite, Sunni, Kurd, and others--who have depended on the United States for safety and the promise of a better future. We must abandon our allies in Lebanon and the very idea of an independent Lebanon in order to win Syria's support for our retreat from Iraq. We must abandon our opposition to Iran's nuclear program in order to convince Iran to help us abandon Iraq. And we must pressure our ally, Israel, to accommodate a violent Hamas in order to gain radical Arab support for our retreat from Iraq.

Return to Ramadi

Michael Fumento reports there's progress in Ramadi.

"There is still certainly fighting, but the days of platoon-sized attacks are over," Patriquin says. "We welcomed it when they came at us with groups of 20 because it gave us a chance to kill them. But they just don't have the capability of getting that many men together anymore." The commander of Ramadi's Camp Corregidor would later tell me the same thing about one of his areas of operation, in southeastern Ramadi, known as the Mulaab. "You just don't see groups of tens and twenties anymore," he said. "Now they tend to be onesies and twosies."

Among the overhead transparencies Patriquin and Lee showed were "before and now" images of Ramadi with translucent red oval overlays, which MacFarland calls "the blob chart," to show progress. "The areas that are red are those where we still consider AIF to have the control," I was told. That was about 25 percent of the city. "Over the time Ready First Combat Team has been here, we have squeezed this area into a significantly smaller portion of the city. The blobs' reduction demonstrates the success we have had against the insurgency, creating a better security situation and limiting the areas where the AIF have freedom of movement." Lee added, "We own southern Ramadi; make no mistake. But in the north, there's still a jungle out there."

Indeed, the coalition is now so confident of security in the area that it has begun $15 million in public works, including hauling the rubble near the government center, $1.4 million for a water treatment and power generation plant, and $6.5 million for Ramadi General. Applying the "broken windows" theory of crime, even trash disposal is a major part of the budget.

Lame Duck

In his Washington Times column entitled Al Qaeda welcomes Democratic victory, Walid Phares points out an oddity -- the term "lame duck" is cropping up in al Qaeda propaganda tapes. 

The terminology used in the videotape is a powerful indicator that al Qaeda's political network relies on Western-educated minds, familiar with political processes in the United States and serving as advisers to the jihadists. A regular al Qaeda emir does not use the term "lame duck." It is more likely that a U.S.-based cadre, who understands the impact of political jargon on domestic audiences, had suggested the use of this word. Abu Hamza al Muhajir's use of the term batta arjaaa (lame duck) is striking to any native speaker of Arabic. This term does not exist in Arab culture, let alone in jihadi rhetoric. Its use is yet another proof of the Americanization jihad has undergone. Thus, Iraq's al Qaeda is using the term as a weapon -- something most likely requested by the jihadi brains operating on the other side of the Atlantic.

So what do the speechwriters want to achieve with these kinds of tapes? They aim at sapping American public morale during a time when reorganization is taking place in the U.S. government. Reading from the jihadi wishful thinking, the audiotape of al Muhajir and the statements made by other radical Islamists send the following message: Americans are being thanked for removing Mr. Bush's party from the leadership of Congress, which the jihadists attribute to the war on terror rather than U.S. domestic problems. Al Qaeda's audio tells citizens in the United States that they were wise for having responded positively to the previous messages by Osama bin Laden. Al Masri's words aim at convincing the American public to pressure their newly elected legislators to pull U.S. forces hastily from Iraq.

In short, al Qaeda wants an American Madrid: it wishes that a change of power in January would be accompanied by a change of national determination, not just a change of course within Iraq.

The scent of our blood

Deborah Orin-Eilbeck sees no point in reaching out to Syria and Iran for help on Iraq as recently suggested by Democrats such as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The assassination of Pierre Gemayel, one of Lebanon's top anti-Syrian leaders, suggests the thugs feel free to act as they please after midterm U.S. elections were read as a vote of no confidence in President Bush's pro-democracy Mideast policy.

"The Syrians are now so confident of their position and U.S. weakness that they're willing to go back to their old ways of assassination. They have the scent of our blood and they're going to chase it," said Lexington Institute analyst Dan Goure.

Why not Afghanistan?

Windsor Mann asks that question in American Spectator as Democrats insist on an immediate start to phased redeployment out of Iraq.

Last month General George Casey predicted that it would take 12-18 months for the Iraqis finally to be able to provide their own security.

But Democrats insist that this happen sooner. Despite what generals say about conditions on the ground, incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) demands that "redeployment" begin "within the next few months." If this were to happen, Congress would in effect be enacting Sen. John Kerry's (D., Mass.) failed amendment this summer that called for withdrawal by July 1, 2007 -- an amendment that was rejected 13-86. But backed by new congressional majorities, Democratic politicians now feel entitled to run, if not win, wars.

Kerry's amendment contended that setting a timetable will "further a political solution in Iraq" and "encourage the people of Iraq to provide their own security." Although the amendment failed, the thinking behind it persists.

The thinking is that a specific deadline will somehow "motivate" Iraqi leaders to finish the nasty and onerous task of rebuilding their security forces and infrastructure, at which point they will instinctively proceed with do-it-yourself democratic reforms. Their instructions: Be creative.

But if a timetable is such a good idea for Iraq, why isn't it also for Afghanistan?

The key to understanding Democratic logic is to understand that winning in Iraq is not their objective.  Winning elections takes precedent, and if losing in Iraq helps them win elections, they're for it.  They just have to figure out how to make right political noises while they go about it.

Culture of corruption

Byron York has the story at National Review.

House impeachment manager Rep. John Bryant told the Senate on October 18, 1989. “Borders is in jail today at this moment and will be until this body votes, and he is in jail for refusing to testify before the impeachment trial committee despite a grant of immunity. I ask you, on behalf of the House managers, why would he go to jail, again, if by his testimony he could honestly vindicate his close friend of so many years?”

The answer to that question, Bryant concluded, was that Hastings was guilty, and Borders knew it. “The fact is that Borders will not talk, because if he tells the truth he must acknowledge Judge Hastings’ role in the conspiracy, and if he does not tell the truth he risks placing himself in violation of the law again,” Bryant argued. “And that is why he refused to testify, and that is why the judge did not call Borders to testify at his own trial.”

Borders never talked. He was behind bars for about eight weeks, and was released when the trial ended, after the Senate had voted to remove Hastings from office.

At various times over the years, Borders has tried to have his license to practice law in the District of Columbia restored. But his episodes of contempt, in addition to his original conviction for bribery, led the legal bodies involved to conclude that, even though he had done his time, he did not feel remorse for his actions nor a respect for the law under which he was punished. He remains disbarred today.

None of that, however, stopped President Bill Clinton from granting Borders a full and unconditional pardon as part of the flurry of controversial pardons Clinton issued during his last hours in office.

As far as anybody knows, Hastings is still Pelosi's choice to head the House Intelligence Committee.  Doesn't that inspire confidence!

Hitchens on Baker

Christopher Hitchens wonders why would anybody listen to James Baker.

In 1991, for those who keep insisting on the importance of sending enough troops, there were half a million already-triumphant Allied soldiers on the scene. Iraq was stuffed with weapons of mass destruction, just waiting to be discovered by the inspectors of UNSCOM. The mass graves were fresh. The strength of sectarian militias was slight. The influence of Iran, still recovering from the devastating aggression of Saddam Hussein, was limited. Syria was—let's give Baker his due—"on side." The Iraqi Baathists were demoralized by the sheer speed and ignominy of their eviction from Kuwait and completely isolated even from their usual protectors in Moscow, Paris, and Beijing. There would never have been a better opportunity to "address the root cause" and to remove a dictator who was a permanent menace to his subjects, his neighbors, and the world beyond. Instead, he was shamefully confirmed in power and a miserable 12-year period of sanctions helped him to enrich himself and to create the immiserated, uneducated, unemployed underclass that is now one of the "root causes" of a new social breakdown in Iraq. It seems a bit much that the man principally responsible for all this should be so pleased with himself and that he should be hailed on all sides as the very model of the statesmanship we now need.

Draft shot down

Nancy Pelosi and Dick Durbin take a dim view of Charlie Rangel's idea to revive the draft.

New York's Mr. Rangel periodically has urged a draft revival as a mechanism to criticize President Bush's handling of military deployments in the war on terrorism. He renewed his call again on Sunday, saying on CBS' "Face the Nation" that "if we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without the draft. ... I will be introducing that bill as soon as we start the new session."

But Mrs. Pelosi, California Democrat, told reporters she does not favor the draft and has no plans to schedule a floor debate. And in the Senate, incoming Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat, also dismissed the idea.

"I don't think we need it," he told reporters.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, California Republican, disagreed with Mr. Rangel's long-held position that the burden of fighting wars fall disproportionately on low-income people. A study by the conservative Heritage Foundation concluded that the children of higher-income parents increased their enlistment numbers after the September 11 attack.

Mr. Hunter said his son left a civilian job to serve in Iraq and that several committee members have sons fighting in the war.

So much for the argument that the job of fighing the war false disproportionately on minorities.

Speaker in waiting

Nancy Pelosi apparently intends to stick to her plan of installing Alcee Hastings to the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee.  It boggles the mind.

He was removed from office as a federal judge in 1989 for taking a $150,000 bribe to render light sentences and other perks to two mobsters. And his latest disclosure forms list $2 million to $7 million in liabilities (mostly for legal fees).

Were Hastings a regular Joe applying for a security clearance of the lowest kind for a job at the CIA or FBI, he'd be rapidly and roundly denied. His history of public corruption, coupled with his precarious financial situation, makes him ripe to be targeted for espionage.

We may be in luck, particularly if John Murtha's losing run at House Majority Leader is any indication of Pelosi's leadership skills.  With national defense and national security taking back seat to political considerations, another Pelosi slap down would be in order.

For some time now, California Rep. Jane Harmon has been the chief Democratic voice on the intelligence panel, but the word in Washington is that Pelosi has cut a deal with the Democratic Black Caucus to give the job to Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida. Trouble is, Hastings has his own checkered ethics record.

A onetime federal judge, Hastings was accused of accepting $150,000 in return for doling out a lenient sentence. He was tried and acquitted of criminal charges but impeached by the House in 1989 and ousted from the court by the U.S. Senate. Not exactly a letter of recommendation from a previous employer.

Why pass up Harmon? It's not altogether clear, but the rumor is that Pelosi can't stand the woman. It's not business. It's personal. That's also what seems to have prompted her opposition to Hoyer.

Pelosi's loss on Murtha was the nation's gain and the same will be true of her support for Alcee Hastings' chairmanship.  But, how perfectly she represents the Democrats, don't you think.