Robert Byrd and the Nuclear Option

This guy perpetually nauseates me. Not quite as much as Ted Kennedy, but damn close.

Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia said Monday he doesn't expect Democrats to filibuster the nomination of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, but he still chastised Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist for threatening to stop any such effort through a drastic parliamentary effort that has been dubbed the "nuclear option." "If he ever tries to exercise that, he's going to see a real filibuster if I'm living and able to stand on my feet or sit in my seat," Byrd said in a Senate debate with Frist, R-Tenn. "If the senator wants a fight, let him try it," said Byrd, the Senate's senior Democrat. "I'm 88 years old, but I can still fight, and fight I will for freedom of speech. I haven't been here for 47 years to see that freedom of speech whittled away and undermined."

Maybe there should be a mental health requirement to be in the government. His obvious anger over the threat to change the filibuster requirements is odd, considering he himself was a leader in the senate that moved for changing the rules previously. I found this interesting bit from an entry from ProfessorBainbridge back in March.

For a great analysis of the so-called "nuclear option," by which the Senate GOP could undo the filibuster as applied to judicial nominations, see Gold & Gupta, The Constitutional Option to Change Senate Rules and Procedures: A Majoritarian Means to Over Come the Filibuster, in which they describe Senator Byrd's own invocation of the nuclear option (at 207-08):

In 1979, faced with a potential filibuster on his rules-change proposal, Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) raised the possibility that the U.S. Constitution provides the majority with a method for overriding the SenateÂ’s cloture rule:

The Constitution in article I, section 5, says that each House shall determine the rules of its proceedings. Now we are at the beginning of Congress. This Congress is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past. . . . .

The first Senate, which met in 1789, approved 19 rules by a majority vote. Those rules have been changed from time to time . . . . So the Members of the Senate who met in 1789 and approved that first body of rules did not for one moment think, or believe, or pretend, that all succeeding Senates would be bound by that Senate. . . . It would be just as reasonable to say that one Congress can pass a law providing that all future laws have to be passed by two-thirds vote. Any Member of this body knows that the next Congress would not heed that law and would proceed to change it and would vote repeal of it by majority vote.

[I]t is my belief which has been supported by rulings of Vice Presidents of both parties and by votes of the Senate —in essence upholding the power and right of a majority of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate at the beginning of a new Congress. Byrd made clear that if his rules-change proposal were filibustered, he would invoke the SenateÂ’s powers under the U.S. Constitution to force a vote.

Byrd never carried out his threat to use the "“constitutional option."” He never had to. His threat to use it was enough to break the opposition and secure a vote on his rules-change proposal.

And

During his two terms as Senate Majority Leader, Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) initiated four precedents that allowed a simple majority to change Senate procedures without altering the text of any Standing Rule. Two of Byrd'’s precedents overturned procedures then standing, and two others would appear to contravene via reinterpretation the plain language of an existing Standing Rule.

Makes you wonder if Byrd has always been a hypocrite. Though it's probably a necessity for being a politician. Back to the article.

Byrd insisted that Democrats have not threatened to filibuster Alito, who was chosen by President Bush as the replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. In response, Frist read from a half-dozen news stories that quoted Democrats mentioning the option, looking back at Byrd after each item.

"I will do everything I possibly can if your side chooses, if the Democrat side chooses to filibuster," Frist said.

The posturing here is just sad. It reminds one of two bullies who don't want to come to blows threatening each other repeatedly and noisily.

The filibuster is a parliamentary tactic whereby senators use their right to virtually unlimited debate to block measures, legislation or nominations. It takes 60 votes in the 100-member Senate to stop a filibuster.

Under Frist's scenario, the GOP would seek a parliamentary ruling that declares filibusters are not permitted against judicial nominees. That ruling ultimately would go before the full Senate for a vote, with a simple majority required to prevail. Republicans hold 55 seats.

Democrats like Byrd have threatened to retaliate with a fight that could snarl Senate business for months.

Sixty votes. It was originally a two-thirds vote, until the democrats, with Byrd as Majority Whip, changed the rules. As for snarling the Senate, wouldn't that be falling into the plans of the republicans? Being shown as the party of stagnation and blockage is exactly what moved the republicans into the majority. I have yet to see the democrats get rid of that judgement.

ElBaradei Blathering

It's no wonder this man got the Nobel Peace Prize. It's also no wonder that his organization is so completely powerless.

The world should stop treating the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea as isolated cases and instead deal with them in a common effort to eliminate poverty, organized crime and armed conflict, the director general of the United Nations' nuclear monitoring agency said Saturday in accepting the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize. The director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, said a "good start" would be for the United States and other nuclear powers to cut nuclear weapon stockpiles sharply and redirect spending toward international development.

Ah, the Dream, disarm the Evil Americans so they can give the money to the poor.

Feelings of insecurity and humiliation, exaggerated by today's nuclear imbalance, are behind the spread of bomb-development programs at the national level, said Dr. ElBaradei, who has led the International Atomic Energy Agency since 1997. No less dangerous, he added, are the presumed efforts of extremist groups to acquire nuclear materials. With goods, ideas and people moving more freely than ever, the containment of nuclear technology must be part of a broad global effort, he said.

My god, is this man in his right mind? Should we seek psychotherapy and a big hug for those feeling insecurity and humiliation? Oh no, ElBaradei would rather those with power disarm to bring themselves down to the same level as the insecure. Does that make any sense at all?

Extremist groups are seeking these weapons, not to feel secure, but to ultimately use against those that they disagree with. Their intention isn't to feel better, but to gain power. The effectiveness of the IAEA has been shown clearly with the activities related to Iran and North Korea. They have shown that they can pester those states and still ensure that they develop nuclear weapons.

"We cannot respond to these threats by building more walls, developing bigger weapons or dispatching more troops," he said. "These threats require primarily multinational cooperation." Dr. ElBaradei said the manufacture and sale of nuclear fuel for power generation, which can also be enriched to make bombs, should be placed under multinational control, with his agency operating as a "reserve fuel bank" for accredited nations.

There is a brilliant idea. Put nuclear fuel control under whom? The UN? That will ensure that no one with sites on nuclear power will get nuclear fuel. Just like Saddam didn't get vast quantities of cash out of the food for oil program. Or maybe the IAEA thinks it should have control. But then, who would have oversite of that group? Should the major powers that already produce their own Uranium voluntarily give control of the materials to the IAEA?

Then there is Iran stating that the US could bid on building a nuclear power plant in Iran.

"America can take part in international bidding for the construction of Iran's nuclear power plant if they observe the basic standards and quality," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said. The head of Iran's atomic organization said Saturday that a light-water nuclear power plant would be built in the southwest.

The article wishes you to believe this could ease fears that Iran would use the nuclear plant for making material for nuclear bombs. I don't see how that follows. You have a plant and claim it's run at a certain rate, which would burn out the fuel early. You then take the fuel for the plants refueling and divert it to be processed and/or placed into a breeder reactor, and you get more bomb material instead.

For countries like Iran, I see no viable means to assist them with civilian nuclear power, when they have more than proven themselves beyond trust with any form of nuclear program.

UPDATE:
Oddly enough Professor Bainbridge has an entry on Iran getting the bomb. He links to a US Army War College's Strategic Studies Institutes book Getting Ready for a Nuclear Iran. It's pretty big, but looks like it could be an interesting read.

Quote of the Day

From GeekWithA.45

In a truly civil society peopled primarily by enlightened, sober individuals, the carriage of arms might be deemed gratuitous, but it is nonetheless harmless.

In a society that measures up to anything less than that, the option to carry arms is a necessity.

Now there is a clear and concise argument for the Right to keep and bear arms.

Global FootPrint

Interesting piece. Though I'll remain a touch skeptical. As usual, it's a quite short test that doesn't come anywhere near making a thorough investigation of lifestyle or impact. But then, I suppose it's more about making a selective point than factual results.

I did better than most people in the US, but that doesn't mean much in reality.

[ht Global Warming Watch]

UN Climate Conference

I've been reading the rather poor news about this conference all week. Most of it is on how evil the United States are for not joining and how the US is evil for producing all the green-house gases, etc. Pretty much a predictable news evolution.

With news by the Guardian calling the present situation "Playing Russian roulette with the world" you can probably guess where they are in the discussion.

Then there is Slick Willy coming to the conference in a surprise speech for today.

n a surprise visit, former President Clinton will speak at the annual U.N. climate conference Friday, final day of a contentious two-week meeting, the United Nations confirmed.

Bush administration envoys here were said to be displeased at Thursday's news of the unusual appearance - of an ex-president at a critical point in backroom negotiations involving the U.S. delegation.

"They haven't protested formally, but they're annoyed," a source in the Canadian government, the conference host, said of the U.S. delegates. "They're not infuriated, but they're not thrilled."

Just what is needed. More posturing by Bill over the Kyoto treaty.

A city spokesman said the former president will be representing the William J. Clinton Foundation, which operates the Clinton Global Initiative, a program focusing on climate change as a business opportunity, The Canadian Press reported.

Clinton's vice president, Al Gore, was instrumental in final negotiations on the treaty protocol negotiated in the Japanese city of Kyoto eight years ago. It mandates cutbacks by 2012 in emissions of carbon dioxide and five other gases whose buildup in the atmosphere is expected to disrupt the global climate.

A broad scientific consensus agrees that greenhouse gases, byproducts of automobile engines, power plants and other fossil fuel-burning industries, have already contributed significantly to the past century's global temperature rise of 1 degree Fahrenheit.

Yes that Broad Scientific Consensus. The one that is unwilling to debate the alternative explanations. But I jump ahead a bit.

The linked article is from QandO which links a bunch of news articles that take an opposing stand or even discuss how many meteorologists with dissenting views were not allowed into the conference. There are links to alternate explanations for the global warming as well. Interesting reading.

Discrimination

Saw this linked at mASS BACKWARDS.

Members of a Scottish group are calling for a high school principal to apologize to a student who was asked to change out of the kilt he wore to a formal dance.

An online petition that was posted Nov. 19 already has accumulated more than 775 signatures from across the globe.

Members of the Clan Gunn Society of North America also are putting together a registry to provide Jackson High School senior Nathan Warmack with the items he needs to complete his Scottish ensemble.

After learning about his family history, Warmack wore the traditional red Clan MacRae tartan to the school dance in November. But he changed into pants at the direction of Principal Rick McClard.

Ron Anderson, superintendent of the Jackson school district, said he was aware of the Internet discussion but had not received any phone calls.

"We don'’t have any comment regarding it," Anderson said. "It'’s a principal decision, and that pretty much covers it."

No comments since it's a "principal decision?" is that a decision by the Principal or a decision based on principle? Obviously not the latter. Now the question is, if this had been ethnic dress of some other culture, would he have required the change?

What if the student had been an Arab and wore a Thoub? Would he have been required to put on trousers?

I've had several friends of Scottish descent wear kilts at weddings and other formal occasions and when they have it done all the way, it makes a tux look like a pair of bib-coveralls.

But I can understand the Principal's stand. It's just fine to discriminate against those of European ethnicity in this modern PC world. Tolerance is only required to be shown to minority groups.

Soldier's in Iraq

Here's an entry on Atlas Shrugs.

You'll love the analysis of the weaponry. Appears that the M-16 is still hated as is the 9mm handguns. Funny to see that more M-14s are being issued to the field and anyone who is allowed to carry a .45 is trying to get one.

The part I thought most telling is this:

According to Jordan, morale among our guys is very high. They not only believe they are winning, but that they are winning decisively. They are stunned and dismayed by what they see in the American press, whom they almost universally view as against them. The embedded reporters are despised and distrusted. They are inflicting casualties at a rate of 20-1 and then see shit like "Are we losing in Iraq" on TV and the print media.

Go and have a read.

PATRIOT Act Renewal

NYT firewalled area, but you may be able to find creative ways around it.

From the MSM it looks like the compromise may be finished, but there is still threats of a filibuster by Feingold.

House and Senate negotiators reached a compromise agreement Thursday to extend the antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act, but critics from both parties said they found the plan unacceptable because it did not go far enough in protecting Americans' civil liberties.

The plan is expected to come up for final votes in the House and Senate early next week, but its passage was uncertain Thursday, with some Democrats, including Senator Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, threatening a filibuster to block a vote.

Do you think this is the same Feingold that was part of the McCain-Feingold repression of political speech bill?

Three of the most-debated measures would have to be reviewed again by Congress in four years, rather than the seven-year window originally favored by some House leaders in a tentative agreement that was reached last month but then derailed by last-minute concerns from members of both parties.

Those measures that would be extended for four years involve the government's ability to demand records from libraries and other institutions, conduct "roving wiretaps" in surveillance operations and single out "lone wolf" terrorists who operate independently of a larger group.

The library records portion still bothers me, especially relating to the governments tendency to go fishing when they feel the desire. But I don't see any reason to give them a protection that no citizen would be allowed. I am glad that they have essentially left all the review periods on. I would truly hope that at the next review cycle that these allowances would be made to go away.

In another concession to lawmakers who pushed for greater government restrictions, the plan agreed to on Thursday eliminated a proposal that would make it a crime punishable by one year in prison for anyone receiving certain types of records demands from the government to disclose them publicly.

Well, what do you know? They actually are allowing one of the constitutionally delineated rights stand against this bill. The people will be allowed to tell the press when the government forces them to provide records.

I don't know if there are any added protections against abuse, though I doubt there are. I'm going to hope that the agencies like the FBI can show restraint in their application of these allowances, but I won't be holding my breath.

Iranian Nutjob, Also the President

This guy is a true gem of the faith.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has again attracted widespread condemnation after he denied the Holocaust and called for a Jewish state to be set up in Europe to replace Israel.

Ahmadinejad sparked an international outcry in October when he said Israel "must be wiped off the map", whilst speaking at a conference held by a Tehran student organisation called “The World Without Zionism”.

On Thursday he further cemented his position as one of the most controversial politicians on the planet after he doubted that 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust, and then insisted that a European state should become Jewish instead of Israel.

“Some European countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces and they insist on it to the extent that if anyone proves something contrary to that they condemn that person and throw them in jail.” the IRNA news agency reported Ahmadinejad saying at a news conference he gave in the Saudi Arabian city of Mecca

“Although we don't accept this claim, if we suppose it is true, our question for the Europeans is: 'Is the killing of innocent Jewish people by Hitler the reason for their support to the occupiers of Jerusalem?'.”

“If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe - like in Germany, Austria or other countries - to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe. You offer part of Europe and we will support it,” he added.

I don't think any commentary is really required. This guy makes an ass of himself with his own mouth.

Canadian Stupidity

h/t Instapundit

The three people who browse this blog, but not the Instapundit might be interested in just how stupid some of our northern neighbors are becoming. So the gun registry system up there worked so well that now they're going to try to ban guns outright. Morons.

BTW, every single time one of the anti-gun crowd here in the USA tries to implement universal registry, the first thing they'll say is, "Oh no, this would never be used to confiscate legally owned guns." Yeah... Right... Pull this leg, it plays "Jingle Bells."

Exit Strategies

QandO has an entry relating to exit strategies from Iraq. They quote four experts from the The Council on Foreign Relations whose article I linked on the topic. The article is interesting and QandO's comment is pretty spot on.

The remarkable thing about these strategies—and, indeed, most strategies being tossed about—is the fundamental similarity between them. As much as various sides talk about the weakness of their opponents strategy, almost all strategies incorporate the same basic elements:

• Train Iraqi security forces.


• Give the Iraqis time and space to establish democratic institutions.


• Reassure the US and Iraqi public about US goals, intentions and progress.


• Withdraw US troops at a slow to moderate pace.

Excepting perhaps the Murtha plan, there's really not an awful lot of daylight between many of the strategies being put forth by supporters and critics of the war.

Max Boot was one of the comment0rs of the original article and he has a couple of other articles at the CFR site on Iraq. The first I thought was relevant discusses the factual disconnect between Iraqis and the US military to the Withdrawal crowd.

When it comes to the future of Iraq, there is a deep disconnect between those who have firsthand knowledge of the situation—Iraqis and U.S. soldiers serving in Iraq—and those whose impressions are shaped by doomsday press coverage and the imperatives of domestic politics.

A large majority of the American public is convinced that the liberation of Iraq was a mistake, while a smaller but growing number thinks that we are losing and that we need to pull out soon. Those sentiments are echoed by finger-in-the-wind politicians, including many - —such as John Kerry, Harry Reid, John Edwards, John Murtha and Bill Clinton - who supported the invasion.

Yet in a survey last month from the U.S.-based International Republican Institute, 47% of Iraqis polled said their country was headed in the right direction, as opposed to 37% who said they thought that it was going in the wrong direction. And 56% thought things would be better in six months. Only 16% thought they would be worse.

American soldiers are also much more optimistic than American civilians. The Pew Research Center and the Council on Foreign Relations just released a survey of American elites that found that 64% of military officers are confident that we will succeed in establishing a stable democracy in Iraq. The comparable figures for journalists and academics are 33% and 27%, respectively. Even more impressive than the Pew poll is the evidence of how our service members are voting with their feet. Although both the Army and the Marine Corps are having trouble attracting fresh recruits—no surprise, given the state of public opinion regarding Iraq—reenlistment rates continue to exceed expectations. Veterans are expressing their confidence in the war effort by signing up to continue fighting.

You can read the rest yourself.

There is also his piece on the White Flag Democrats.

Just a few years ago, it seemed as if the Democrats had finally kicked the post-Vietnam, peace-at-any-price syndrome. Before the invasion of Iraq, leading Democrats sounded hawkish in demanding action to deal with what Kerry called the “particularly grievous threat” posed by Saddam Hussein. But it seems that they only wanted to do something if the cost would be minuscule. Now that the war has turned out to be a lot harder than anticipated, the Democrats want to run up the white flag.

They are offering two excuses for their loss of will. First, they claim they were "“misled into war"” by a duplicitous administration. But it wasn'’t George W. Bush who said, "“I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons [of mass destruction] again.”" It was Bill Clinton on Dec. 16, 1998. As this example indicates, the warnings issued by Bush were virtually identical to those of his Democratic predecessor.

Again, you should read the rest yourself.

Scary Stupid Hippies

Caught this on the MuD&PHuD blog. These people make me nervous and angry all at the same time.

About two weeks ago, a male approximately 5 foot 9, 150 pounds broke and entered my house. (SIDE NOTE: This is funny because it is true.)

That night, or rather, early that morning, it was really, really not funny. I had just locked up the front door and the dog in the front room. My friend Lauren was watching TV in the back room.

Suddenly Jules, my roommate's seven-month-old black lab, began barking like she has mad cow, or bird flu, or mad cow and bird flu. She's growling and snapping like I never have heard her bark before.

Then we heard the coughing. Then we heard stomping. Dogs don't cough or stomp.

Lauren and I were freaking out. We grabbed butcher knives and head lamps and quickly turned on all the lights in my house.

(SIDE NOTE: For this to be funny, make sure you are picturing two women in a hallway, clutching pillows across our bodies, butcher knives in hand, wearing head lamps and pajamas.)

Funny? Yeah in a way you laugh at really stupid people who are explaining a situation where they were excessively stupid.

The point of the article is:

(SIDE NOTE: I am a pretty liberal hippie when it comes to life, a make-love-not-war type of girl. But I know enough about anatomy to know a butcher knife doesn't protect from a bullet. I have been an anti-hand gun person for years, mainly because they serve one purpose: to kill people. However, this has become a matter of self-defense. Damn it, this is Texas, and I'm gettin' a gun.)

and

Anyway, I begin my gun classes in January. I hear that with a shotgun, I won't miss much, so for the record, I also am buying a raffle ticket from the Texas Tech Polo Club.

Absolutely pathetic. With the response to a crisis situation that is told here, I'm pretty sure I would avoid these people like the plague. Another Anti-Gunner who suddenly gets a revelation that maybe some people should be able to defend themselves. Typical.

Sami Al-Arian Case

I suppose this is just another article by the press reporting more opinion than fact. They call it "news analysis" which seems to give it the look of news, but still retains the stench of opinion.

It was, by some accounts, the most important terrorism-related trial in the United States since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 -— an ambitious undertaking that included dozens of government witnesses and hundreds of pages of transcripts of wiretapped phone calls dating to the 1990s.

But the Justice Department's case against a former college professor, Sami Al-Arian, and three codefendants for financing and promoting terrorism -— a case that had been in the works for more than a decade -— collapsed in a Florida courtroom this week with acquittals nearly across the board. After a recent string of victories, the verdicts cast a pall over the Bush administration's war on terrorism in the courts.

What happened?

Wrong question. My thoughts came to "how is that?" (Actually I think it came out as WTF?) How is it that a single fairly old case that was unconvincingly argued with vast volumes of old data placing a pall over the war on terror? How is it that a terrorist fund-raiser is suddenly raised to the upper eschlons of the terrorist elites? Now would you call those statements melodramatic?

"What this case shows is, when you cannot connect the dots until the dots are stale, people are not all that interested in the dots," said Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor who represented the government in several major terrorism cases in New York.

The verdict also revives a debate over whether the government was too slow to act on intelligence gathered in the 1990s about Al-Arian and other suspects. "If everyone was playing off the same sheet of music, maybe this case gets indicted in 1997 instead of 2003," McCarthy said. "If that happens, it may be an entirely different result."

Old data isn't the same as inadmissable data. I really don't see any relevance to the age of the "dots." In fact, I would say that having sufficient information is what matters in this case. Then again, maybe the jury wasn't up to connecting dots that are tenuous and miles apart.

But despite the years of intense surveillance, U.S. officials did not seek charges at the time. Officials have long cited the mythical "wall" prohibiting intelligence agents from sharing information with prosecutors -— a barrier that was removed by the Patriot Act.

Yeah, that's a gem. Did you catch the opinion twisting? If the wall is "mythical" how could it be removed by the Patriot Act? The wall was well understood, especially with all of the bricks laid into it by previous administrations. Remember this is another one of those cases that information was obtained out of country by an intelligence service and concerned a party that was on American soil. Until the Patriot Act, sharing that information across service was strictly forbidden.

The part of the article that pushed me to write this is a quote that just strikes me as completely illogical.

"I do think it critical for the government to pursue those who raise money to fund terrorist activities in Israel and, indeed, just about anywhere else," said Daniel Richman, a former federal prosecutor and now a professor at Fordham University School of Law in New York. "But a jury confronted with a defendant not alleged to have plotted against the U.S. and who presented himself as merely an intellectual supporter of foreign groups might have found itself unwilling to convict on these charges."

"There was no murder weapon. There was no fingerprint. This is about a guy who raised money for a group, and that group went out and committed acts of violence, and they thanked him for giving them the money," said another lawyer involved in terrorism cases who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is close to the government team in the Al-Arian case. "That is different than shooting someone in the head with a pistol."

That is an interesting stand. So if I purchase a pistol and the cartridges and give them to a psychopath who kills someone, I'm not liable for providing the weapon. Now you can ask if Al-Arian knew what the money was for, but I'd guess that that was a part of the governments case. I also don't see it as disqualifying some liability in his actions.

Just another case of the "news" not providing full context and failing to provide alternate opinion in the analysis.

Pearl Harbor

Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives:

Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.

Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.

It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was
deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time, the Japanese
government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.

Yesterday, the Japanese government also launched an attack against Malaya.
Last night, Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.
Last night, Japanese forces attacked Guam.
Last night, Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.
Last night, the Japanese attacked Wake Island.
And this morning, the Japanese attacked Midway Island.

Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.

As commander in chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense.

But always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us.

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in theirrighteous might will win through to absolute victory.

I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph -- so help us God.

I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.

Constitution Test

Heh,

You Passed the US Citizenship Test

Congratulations - you got 10 out of 10 correct!

Could You Pass the US Citizenship Test?

Found link at Ravenwood's Universe.

Rumsfeld v. FAIR

I've linked the Boston Globe article on this one. I add the SCOTUSblog link here as well, just so you can see how 'balanced' the BG is on this argument.

No one should be surprised that this is going to make the law schools angry, but from the analysis, it looks like the majority of the court are leaning against FAIR.

The closely-watched case turns on issues of gay rights, free speech, academic freedom, and national security.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. questioned whether anyone would believe a law school espoused the views of the military just because it permitted recruiters on campus. Justice Stephen Breyer suggested the schools were acting like reluctant taxpayers -- willing to take government benefits and not willing to pay for them.

But Justice David Souter voiced concern that the law, known as the Solomon Amendment, was forcing universities ''in effect to underwrite [the military's] speech" and that the measure's sole purpose was to restrict the schools from expressing their views.

''The Solomon Amendment is directed or is responsive entirely to positions taken by law schools on, among other things, First Amendment expressive grounds," he said. ''So if we are going to address the Solomon Amendment, I think we are addressing an exclusively First Amendment speech expression issue."

And

In her questions, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor focused on the practicalities of the law's enforcement, asking what sort of notices the law schools might post at their recruitment offices to make clear their stance opposing the military's position on gays and lesbians.

''Can [the law schools] come forward with their position on this in every recruitment office without violation of the amendment?" O'Connor asked.

Clement said they could, but added that there is a ''line."

The odd thing is that the BG only discusses the arguments related to free speech. SCOTUSblog tells that there were other arguments that were of concern as well.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., made it clear in several instances that he sees the case as solely one in which the law schools can pursue their desire to exclude the military's recruiters simply by giving up federal funds. Other Justices, while making somewhat more nuanced comments, seemed to be troubled by the prospect that a major First Amendment ruling in favor of the law schools would open the way for individuals to resist obeying all kinds of laws -- including federal anti-discrimination laws -- by claiming their refusal to obey was a matter of their beliefs or conscience.

And

The counsel for the law schools, New York attorney Joshua E. Rosenkranz, made reasonably well most of the points to be made on his side of the case, but to no apparent avail. And, by accepting somewhat extreme hypotheticals about extensions of his First Amendment protest argument, Rosenkranz opened the way for Clement, on rebuttal, to stress that there was "no limit to their argument" so that "more is at issue here than the exclusion of homosexuals." The Court should be worried, Clement said, about law schools next objecting to military recruiters on a wide array of other grounds -- objections to the military's exclusion of women from combat positions that are the route to leadership, opposition to the war in Iraq, or to the war in Afghanistan. And, he said, "we have to worry about this coming back in the context of Title VI and IX."

It's interesting that the court is at least viewing this as the First amendment doesn't trump other constitutionally mandated activities, such as providing for a military. They also appear to be questioning the logic of the First Amendment allowing for the violation of laws because a group or individual disagrees with the context of the law.

With Souter (prat) and Ginsberg being the only ones obviously against this case, it looks at present like it may fall for the government in this case.

This article from Law.com has additional information and commentary.

Roberts said the law, passed in 1994, "doesn't require anything" from universities in terms of support because they can simply choose to refuse federal money. But universities contend that because the law allows the government to withdraw federal funds from an entire university, even if only the law school refuses equal access to military recruiters, that is an impossible choice that amounts to coercion.

Roberts shrugged off that argument Tuesday, implying that if universities really felt strongly about the military's policy regarding homosexuality, they would pay the price of losing federal money institution-wide.

Rosenkranz also countered that under the Court's precedents, the government may not use the threat of cutting off funds to force recipients to surrender their constitutional rights. "All bets are off if there is a superseding right," he said.

Roberts fired back that there is also a "right to raise the military." He and other justices seemed to view the Article I power of Congress to "raise and support armies" as a justification for the recruiting statute that outweighs law schools' First Amendment objections.

I like the coercion argument. In some ways it's quite accurate. Many of these schools take very large amounts of money from the government. If the law school alone forbids access by military recruiters, then the whole school loses. Though I find this a bit hard to swallow when this is approved law that is being tested in the courts. How is it coercion when you are violating the law? Should the government, and thus the citizenry of the US, be forced to give institutions money even when they violate standing law?

The NYTimes has an article with some other quotes of interest:

With both sides clothing their arguments in the language of nondiscrimination, it became clear that the nondiscrimination principle cuts in more than one direction. Justice Breyer suggested to Mr. Rosenkranz that a victory for the law schools might also provide a constitutional basis for others to object to abiding by other federal antidiscrimination laws.

"They also have the same right, Bob Jones University, because they disapprove of social mixing of the races?" Justice Breyer asked, referring to the Greenville, S.C., university that lost its tax-exempt status because of its racial policies in a Supreme Court case 25 years ago.

Mr. Rosenkranz tried to argue that the government could demonstrate a compelling need to eradicate racial discrimination.

But the military has needs of "immense national importance" also, Justice Scalia said.

The discrimination argument strikes me as strange when both parties use it.

Anti-War Arguments in Salon

I catch crap because I read this online magazine almost every day. I find it interesting on two fronts. Sometimes they have really good articles on interesting topics. Other times, it's good to know what those you disagree with are saying. The article today, addressing the 10 questions on the war and the answers to it falls into the latter category. It's also quite bad. It's a bunch of assumptions and some facts, but with no links or comments to the sources of those facts. Therefore, it's pretty much all suspect. I'm going to try my hand at giving this one a thorough fisking on at least on of his points.

1. Nothing was mentioned about improvements in Iraq (elections, water and energy, schools). No Saddam to fear! Water and energy delivery as well as schools are worse off than before the U.S. invasion. Ditto for the state of hospitals (and medical supplies), highways and oil production.

Logically, this doesn't make sense, but I'm going to check it out. First thing I found, is that he's right. Oil production is not quite up to pre-war levels, but soon will be. Of course, when you look at the 25 year production, the pre-war levels were also part of the Oil-For-Food program and when one considers the how's, why's & wherefores of that debacle, should it be counted? Academics can argue that one for a while. I'll concede the point. As to electricity production, I wanted to get the latest figures. Indications are, we're ahead of pre-war levels, but not meeting demands. Unless you prefer to listen to the military, then we're well ahead of pre-war levels, but still not meeting demands.Not stated is that we're not meeting demands because the Iraqi economy is growing by leaps & bounds and more & more people need more & more energy for their televisions, air conditioners and cell phone chargers. I can't seem to find pre-war/post-war water production, but the links I can find, seem to suggest that the main cause of the problems was poor http://www.cfr.org/publication/9185/iraqs_reconstruction_ailments.html?breadcrumb=defaultprior to the invasion. Every indication is, while things may not be as good as they should be, they're better than they would have been without our direct aid, had Saddam been left in power. Note, that last link talks about rebuilding 120 hospitals. Since we weren't bombing them, rebuilding them must mean we've improved the hospital system since the invasion. As to schools, well this document, probably slanted since it's from someone who actually worked over there, paints a picture that sounds pretty night & day. That's not say things are perfect, but they're clearly improved and improving. On the whole, the story seems the same, Saddam Hussein let things slide while he funded his military and built palaces and lined the pockets UN & French officials.

One more before I give up:

6. Nothing was mentioned about what fundamentalist Muslims would like to achieve. I assume that, when you refer to "fundamentalist Muslims," you are referring to terrorists, including those in Iraq and those who attacked the World Trade Center, the London tube, and the Madrid trains. First, I have to disagree with this identification of the terrorists (who are indeed fundamentalist) with all fundamentalist Muslims. That would be the same as characterizing those who bombed the Oklahoma City Federal Building as "fundamentalist Christians" and then implying that the destruction of such buildings is what all fundamentalist Christians yearn to achieve.

Um, well, yeah. Certain strains of fundamentalist Christians did believe that. That's why the term Islamo-fascists is a bit better because it differentiates between those the nice fundamentalist Muslims who simply want women in burka's and the not so nice ones that want to blow people up. Most of the time I see as "radical fundamentalist Muslims" which does differentiate. Let's face it, radical fundamentalist Christians are just as bad.

Read it. It'll keep the blood pressure up. I also loved the deal on how Iraqis want us to leave their country (yeah, eventually, not tomorrow) and how the military isn't retaining veterans (despite record setting reenlistment rates that even make the NY Time). It's kind of like a weird-other world, just slightly skewed from this one.

Public Discourse Project

This is the 9/11 commissison's privately funded final report. They have gone to press yelping loudly about the failures, and completely ignoring the successes. Of course there is also the failure of any discussion on whether some of these projects are worth doing at all.

Here are some that I believe are more costly than they can justify for the protections they would provide.

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
National Strategy for Transportation Security C- DHS has transmitted its National Strategy for Transportation Security to the Congress. While the strategy reportedly outlines broad objectives, this first version lacks the necessary detail to make it an effective management tool.
Improve airline passenger pre-screening F Few improvements have been made to the existing passenger screening system since right after 9/11. The completion of the testing phase of TSA'’s pre-screening program for airline passengers has been delayed. A new system, utilizing all names on the consolidated terrorist watch list, is therefore not yet in operation.
Improve airline screening checkpoints to detect explosives C While more advanced screening technology is being developed, Congress needs to provide the funding for, and TSA needs to move as expeditiously as possible with, the appropriate installation of explosives detection trace portals at more of the nationÂ’s commercial airports.
Checked bag and cargo screening D Improvements here have not been made a priority by the Congress or the administration. Progress on implementation of in-line screening has been slow. The main impediment is inadequate funding.

The TSA prescreening has been a mess from the start and probably won't get much better. No method to fix erroneous listings of citizens has made it impossible for some people to fly. And the explosives screening is a technology that isn't getting there and when it does, it will be far to likely to have major false-positive problems due to what can be used in the world as an explosive.

Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board D
We see little urgency in the creation of this Board. The President nominated a Chair and Vice Chair in June 2005, and sent their names to the Senate in late September. To date, the Senate has not confirmed them. Funding is insufficient, no meetings have been held, no staff named, no work plan outlined, no work begun, no office established.

Guidelines for government sharing of personal information D
The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board has not yet begun its work. The DNI just named a Civil Liberties Protection Officer (November 2005).

These go along with the following:

Incentives for information sharing D Changes in incentives, in favor of information sharing, have been minimal. The office of the program manager for information sharing is still a start-up, and is not getting the support it needs from the highest levels of government. There remain many complaints about lack of information sharing between federal authorities and state and local level officials.

Government-wide information sharing D
Designating individuals to be in charge of information sharing is not enough. They need resources, active presidential backing, policies and procedures in place that compel sharing, and systems of performance evaluation that appraise personnel on how they carry out information sharing.

Now maybe there is a disconnect, but having universal information sharing between agencies will ensure that sooner or later there will be some agency trodding on civilian rights. Recall the previous discussion of military spying on civilians? CIFA is the project, and people should be concerned about the allowance of such agencies.

The most amusing of the findings though are these:

International broadcasting B
Budgets for international broadcasting to the Arab and Muslim world and U.S.-sponsored broadcasting hours have increased dramatically, and audience shares are growing. But we need to move beyond audience size, expose listeners to new ideas and accurate information about the U.S. and its policies, and measure the impact and influence of these ideas.

Scholarship, exchange, and library programs D
Funding for educational and cultural exchange programs has increased. But more American libraries (Pakistan, for example) are closing rather than opening. The number of young people coming to study in the U.S. from the Middle East continues to decline (down 2% this year, following declines of 9% and 10% in the previous two years).

Support secular education in Muslim countries D
An International Youth Opportunity Fund has been authorized, but has received no funding; secular education programs have been initiated across the Arab world, but are not integrated into a broader counterterrorism strategy. The U.S. has no overarching strategy for educational assistance, and the current level of education reform funding is inadequate.

This is especially entertaining after the recent kerfuffle over the Pay for Press issue in Iraq. The Military puts out factual reporting, though editorially bent to their favor, and the MSM and congress get all twisted into a ball. The commission wants more propaganda broadcasts and don't see any conflict with this issue?

As for Muslim education, either here or there, I find it unlikely that this will ever touch those that are of real concern. The most fanatical groups will see this as more propagandizing in a different venue. Allowances for Muslim students to come to the US has been more restrictive, for security reasons. These students come and then don't leave whent their VISAs expire or they fail to receive the VISA for security reasons. These combined make the number coming over understandably lower. How should the country get more middle-eastern students to come to the US? Lower the security standards?

The preparedness section shows the lack of patience by the commission. Some of these tasks will be very extensive in creating. It also points to the fact that the assessments are going to be done by many people who are making judgement calls on what is "vital" infrastructure.

Provide adequate radio spectrum for first responders F (C if bill passes)
The pending Fiscal Year 2006 budget reconciliation bill would compel the return of the analog TV broadcast (700 Mhz) spectrum, and reserve some for public safety purposes. Both the House and Senate bills contain a 2009 handover date - —too distant given the urgency of the threat. A 2007 handover date would make the American people safer sooner.

Establish a unified Incident Command System C
Although there is awareness of and some training in the ICS, hurricane Katrina demonstrated the absence of full compliance during a multi-jurisdictional/statewide catastrophe—and its resulting costs.

Allocate homeland security funds based on risk F (A if House provision passes)
Congress has still not changed the underlying statutory authority for homeland security grants, or benchmarks to insure that funds are used wisely. As a result, homeland security funds continue to be distributed without regard for risk, vulnerability, or the consequences of an attack, diluting the national security benefits of this important program.

Critical infrastructure risks and vulnerabilities assessment D
A draft National Infrastructure Protection Plan (November 2005) spells out a methodology and process for critical infrastructure assessments. No risk and vulnerability assessments actually made; no national priorities established; no recommendations made on allocation of scarce resources. All key decisions are at least a year away. It is time that we stop talking about setting priorities, and actually set some.

Private sector preparedness C
National preparedness standards are only beginning to find their way into private sector business practices. Private sector preparedness needs to be a higher priority for DHS and for American businesses.

The emergency radio bandwidth failure is just shameful. There is no reason that that little bit of reform couldn't have been completed by now. Especially having to consider that the radio bandwidth will then need to be systemetized into the radios that are used by those groups. Radio upgrades to change the used bandwidth aren't something you do by upgrading software.

The unified incident command system is just funny. They point to Katrina as proof that it doesn't exist, to which you have to credit them with noticing the obvious. Then you have to want to slap them upside of the head for not having a clue about separations of powers between the different levels of government from local to state to federal. You want unified command? You're going to have to talk state and local powers to surrender their control. And that's just not going to happen.

The National Infrastructure Protection Plan is at an interim level at the moment. No full assessment is available. My thought is that there is no surprise at this. Making a full list of the assets and there relative value for the country makes the list incredibly difficult to compile. I imagine it will become even worse when the politicians actually get their hands onto the funding to protect or establish backup infrastuctures. Talk about pork wars. You also have to consider that just because a plan is in place to make the assessment, doesn't mean that everyone using it will actually perform the assesment identically.

As to the private sector preparedness, most businesses have some plan in order to protect their own interests. Then there are those businesses that have interests in letting the government pay for the expensive facility upgrades to make their companies more secure for the citizenry. Who will set the balance here?

Makes you wonder who decides which of these recommendations are of primary concern. Some of these have gotten good grades, but appear to me to be a waste of time and money. Sadly I'm betting it's coming down to politicians making the call. Nothing should make you want a gun and 6 months of non-perishable supplies like that thought.

Schumer's Gun Registry or Maybe It's Bloomberg's

SayUncle linked this in his blog. The usual desire for a gun registry.

At a Manhattan news conference, Schumer (D-N.Y.), said a current law approved as an amendment to a spending bill that restricts the sharing of gun tracing data should be rolled back.

"The fundamental problem is almost every gun used in a crime does not come from New York, so without a national database we can't do very much," Schumer said. "In New York, if a gun is stolen or if a gun is used in a crime, they have very good records but many, 90 percent of the guns, come from out of state."

He said police can only "trace certain guns after a crime is committed" and called for traces on all reported stolen guns.

Why would you trace a gun before a crime is committed? Isn't that gun a legal object before a crime? I can see a gun registry of guns that are reported stolen. That would track the start of the crime usage and may assist in tracking illegal gun use. But having a gun registry before a crime is just a list of guns that the government can use in seizing them.

Of course, Schumer wasn't the only NY moron to pipe up on topic.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg used his radio address Sunday to call for tougher laws in the wake of Stewart's death. He said national and state laws need to be toughened.

"Until Congress gets serious about shutting down the flow of illegal guns, it is only a matter of time before another tragedy occurs," Bloomberg said.

Wonder what he means? Here's what he meant.

The National Rifle Association was in Mayor Bloomberg's cross hairs yesterday as he blasted the group for putting guns ahead of the lives of cops and children.

"Fundamentally, if you want to solve the problem [of gun violence] it's up to Congress, and Congress keeps getting rolled by the NRA," the mayor said during his weekly WABC radio show.

"This is plain and simple, the NRA versus the lives of our children and our police officers," he declared.

Yep, Put the police and children ahead of allowing the rest of the public to protect themselves and their children when the police aren't around to save the day.

NJ Bear Hunt

The usual weeping and gnashing of teeth is going on in New Jersey over the bear hunt. It'll be interesting if to see if there are any arrests of people interfering with hunters. I doubt there will be, mainly because it's something that is pretty hard to prove unless there's a game warden standing there. But to the report.

Animal rights activists say they'll be in the woods this morning, too, attempting to rescue wounded bears. The state Division of Fish & Wildlife, meanwhile, has warned that anyone caught interfering with the hunt will be prosecuted.

"We're not going to interfere with the hunt," said Lynda Smith, director of the Bear Education and Resource Group of West Milford. "But if a hunter loses an animal in the woods and fails to track it, then we'll attempt to rescue it. And some people are willing to get arrested."

Wonder how many of the Bear Huggers will get mauled trying to come to the aid of an injured bear.

The state has set no limit on the number of bears that may be killed, but Environmental Commissioner Bradley M. Campbell can call off the hunt anytime he believes too many have been killed.

An interesting way of turning a phrase, don't you think? Why is it "too many" rather than a "sufficient number" have been killed. Sounds strange to me, especially from the Environmental Commissioner.

Of course they also go into an interview that tells how unpleasant it is to kill and drag out of the woods and how the meat isn't very pleasant. I'm not going to quote it, it's just too foolish.

Two years ago, New Jersey held its first bear hunt since 1970, and hunters killed 328 bears.

After that hunt, the number of bear complaints dipped in 2004. The Fish and Game Council wanted to hold another hunt last year, but Campbell blocked it, saying that New Jersey should experiment with non-lethal means of population control.

The state Supreme Court sided with Campbell but ordered New Jersey to update its bear management policy before it could hold another hunt.

Campbell, who has supported this year's hunt, points to a rise in the number of bear complaints in 2005 as evidence that the bruin population needs another thinning. Bear complaints have risen from 1,126 between Jan. 1 and Nov. 1, 2004, to 1,677 during the same period this year.

Some critics have taken issue that the rise in bear complaints is proof the bear population is exploding.

I got quite a laugh over the "non-lethal means of population control." What's that? Bear condoms? The pill or the patch for the sow? And if you're going to experiment, why stop the hunt? It's not like there is going to be a solution in such a short period of time.

Well, it's humorous at least. I'll be watching for the bear mauling reports in NJ.

New Melodrama in Saddam's Trial

Not really surprised that Saddam's lawyers pulled out nor that the catalyst was Clark

The defence team in the trial of Saddam Hussein has walked out of court in protest at the legitimacy of the proceedings.

The lawyers left the court in Baghdad after the chief judge refused to allow Ramsey Clark, the former US Attorney General and member of the defence team, to challenge the legitimacy of the trial.

Mr Clark said he only needed two minutes to present his argument to the court, but Rizgar Mohammed Amin, the chief judge, said the tribunal had been established under the law by an elected Iraqi government and that only Saddam's chief lawyer could address the hearing.

Mr Amin told the defence it should submit its motion and writing and warned that the court would appoint replacement lawyers if the defence team walked out.

Clark challenges the legitimacy of the trial. Wonder if anyone has challenged the legitimacy of his even being there. I would love to know that he thinks is a valid excuse to challenge the legitimacy of the trial though.

International observers have raised concerns about the court, which operates under a mix of Iraq's criminal code, some international statutes and others written specifically for the tribunal, which was originally formed under US occupation.

They are also worried about the amount of time the defence has had to prepare for a complex case involving allegations of crimes against humanity connected to the deaths of 148 men after an attempt on Saddam's life in Dujail in 1982.

International observers can raise all the concerns that they want, but it doesn't invalidate the right of the people of Iraq to bring Saddam to trial and then punish him. If international courts want a whack at prosecution, go right ahead, but it shouldn't stop or delay the Iraqi prosecution.

Silly Fun

But good for a laugh.

H/T Instapundit

Paying for Press pt. 2

Yeah, yeah, I'm on this again.

Is anyone else tired of the US being required to be a saint in the world of pirates? I've never been fond of the Captain Whitebread super-hero, and I find it appalling that reasonable actions used by the military are called scandalous because some slow witted politicians think they may hurt our reputation in the world.

Citing increasing concerns about the matter, the Senate Armed Services Committee summoned Defense Department officials to Capitol Hill for a briefing today.

''I am concerned about any actions that may undermine the credibility of the United States as we help the Iraqi people stand up a democracy," said Committee Chairman John Warner, Republican of Virgina, adding that he has no information to confirm or refute the reports. ''A free and independent press is critical to the functioning of a democracy, and I am concerned about any actions which may erode the independence of the Iraqi media."

Fine that you want an independent press. You probably should also want a responsible press. But why wish that on them when we don't even have that in this country. As to credibility, can anyone, with a straight face, state that the US has any real credibility with people in general in the middle east? Last polls I saw showed that most middle east countries loathe the US by large majorities.

I still haven't found any report of propaganda that provides false information to the Iraqi press. It makes one wonder if these people understand that the military is in a theater of conflict at them moment. Ask yourself, why would the military do this?

Defense Department officials in Baghdad continued to defend the program, saying it is a necessary tool to provide factual information to the Iraqi people.

It's even more than that. This is definitely propaganda. The purpose of which is to attempt to sway the moderate majority of Iraqis that the US isn't a monster and that the US does intend to leave the country better than it was. You know, that type of information that causes less Iraqis to build IEDs and try to kill our soldiers.

Being the Boston Globe they had to give voice to the local royalty on the matter.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, slammed the program as a devious scheme that ''speaks volumes about the president's credibility gap. If Americans were truly welcomed in Iraq as liberators, we wouldn't have to doctor the news for the Iraqi people."

Devious scheme? You bloated pompous jack-ass. Nice of you to condemn the military for trying to make the soldiers lives any more secure. Being that Teddy-the-Tick is a politician, I'm not surprised that he places all fault for acts that he conceives as evil, on the president. Can Teddy honestly state that he believed, or anyone in the US for that matter, that all Iraqis would consider the US occupation as an act of liberation? No one was that foolish. Even the best estimates stated that there would be some insurgency. As is typical, Teddy has made an illogical premise for his statement to forward his view point vice reality. (Buffoon)

Ramsey Clark: Anti-War or Anti-Iraqi

Slate article. Definitely not what I expected. When I finished I looked up the author and to my surprise it was Christopher Hitchens. Well, sometimes you see good articles in Slate.

I was wondering when Clark would pop up in Baghdad, and there he was last Monday, presenting his credentials to the judge in the Saddam Hussein case and being accepted at his face value as a defense spokesman. He lost no time in showing what he is made of.

The first charge being brought against Saddam Hussein is that in 1982, after his motorcade came under fire near the mainly Shiite town of Dujail, he ordered the torture and murder of 148 men and boys. It's a relatively minor item in the catalog, but there it is. The first prosecution witness in the case, Wadah al-Sheikh, has actually testified that he knows of no direct link between Saddam and the killings. The defense team has to hope that it can prove the same, or perhaps suggest that no such massacre occurred. Not so Ramsey Clark. In a recent BBC interview, he offered the excuse that Iraq was then fighting the Shiite nation of Iran:

He (Saddam) had this huge war going on, and you have to act firmly when you have an assassination attempt.

Just go back and read that again. Ramsey Clark believes that A) the massacre and torture did occur and B) that it was ordered by his client and C) that he was justified in ordering it and carrying it out. That is quite sufficiently breathtaking. It is no less breathtaking when one recalls why Saddam "had this huge war going on." He had, after all, ordered a full-scale invasion of the oil-bearing Iranian region of Khuzestan and attempted to redraw the frontiers in Iraq's favor. Most experts accept a figure of about a million and a half as the number of young Iranians and Iraqis who lost their lives in consequence of this aggression (which incidentally enjoyed the approval of that Nobel Peace laureate Jimmy Carter). And Ramsey Clark says that the aggression is an additional reason to justify the massacre at Dujail.

He goes on to quote the anti-war commentator, Jeffrey Blankfort, who clearly separates himself from Clark on this matter.

He is one of the few to have noticed what Ramsey Clark said, and here is his comment:

The problem is Â… that Clark is one of the most well-known representatives of the anti-war movement and represents the ANSWER coalition and in my mind this is more than the conflict of interest that it unquestionably is. Thus, the message that it sends to the Iraqi people is that the anti-war movement doesn't really care about any Iraqis other than those who have been killed by US and UK forces, that it, in fact, does not condemn Saddam for his long history of human rights violations and for his launching a bloody war against Iran that took well over a million lives.

That is to say the least of it. He adds:

It is long past time for the anti-war movement to drop its double standards. It can begin by saying Ramsey Clark does not speak for us. He certainly does not speak for me.

This is a nice twist on the self-regarding "Not In Our Name" slogan under which the anti-war movement filled the streets to hear speeches from Saddam sympathizers, Fidel and Kim groupies, and Islamic fundamentalists. Not really anti-war at all, but pro-war on the other side. It was more like a single standard if you ask me, but let's put this to the test.

Hitchens then ponders if other loud anti-war celebrities will separate themselves from this. Very interesting request, which I doubt will find any actual voice in the MSM.

Ok, so I yanked the majority of the article out, but it's a great piece.

There are also a bunch of microscopic links at the bottom of the page to other Hitchens articles. I found this piece from September on anti-war protestors also amusing.

Paying for Press in Iraq

Been reading around on this topic. Kind of interesting at the views in the press and most of the blogs I've run across.

LATimes started it.

As part of an information offensive in Iraq, the U.S. military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories written by American troops in an effort to burnish the image of the U.S. mission in Iraq.

The articles, written by U.S. military "information operations" troops, are translated into Arabic and placed in Baghdad newspapers with the help of a defense contractor, according to U.S. military officials and documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

Many of the articles are presented in the Iraqi press as unbiased news accounts written and reported by independent journalists. The stories trumpet the work of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce insurgents and tout U.S.-led efforts to rebuild the country.

Though the articles are basically factual, they present only one side of events and omit information that might reflect poorly on the U.S. or Iraqi governments, officials said. Records and interviews indicate that the U.S. has paid Iraqi newspapers to run dozens of such articles, with headlines such as "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism," since the effort began this year.

Paying for the articles is suspect, but if they are factual, I don't see that there is much to be upset about. If you're going to try the "balanced article" argument, I'd say you should look pretty closely at the American press and how balanced a majority of their articles are. You should also look at the press in the Middle East and give me an honest analysis that can show that those press organs are providing balance.

The military's information operations campaign has sparked a backlash among some senior military officers in Iraq and at the Pentagon who argue that attempts to subvert the news media could destroy the U.S. military's credibility in other nations and with the American public.

"Here we are trying to create the principles of democracy in Iraq. Every speech we give in that country is about democracy. And we're breaking all the first principles of democracy when we're doing it," said a senior Pentagon official who opposes the practice of planting stories in the Iraqi media.

I can understand a pure ethical stand, but that isn't the situation there. The press has been shown not to be fair to the actions of the west, never mind the US. Should the military stay away from trying to move the information more toward their own favor? I don't think so. Call it propaganda if you must, but it is to benefit the overall situation. Can anyone honestly say that psychological warfare isn't allowed as a tool to the present military?

One of the military officials said that, as part of a psychological operations campaign that has intensified over the last year, the task force also had purchased an Iraqi newspaper and taken control of a radio station, and was using them to channel pro-American messages to the Iraqi public. Neither is identified as a military mouthpiece. The official would not disclose which newspaper and radio station are under U.S. control, saying that naming them would put their employees at risk of insurgent attacks. U.S. law forbids the military from carrying out psychological operations or planting propaganda through American media outlets. Yet several officials said that given the globalization of media driven by the Internet and the 24-hour news cycle, the Pentagon's efforts were carried out with the knowledge that coverage in the foreign press inevitably "bleeds" into the Western media and influences coverage in U.S. news outlets. "There is no longer any way to separate foreign media from domestic media. Those neat lines don't exist anymore," said one private contractor who does information operations work for the Pentagon.

The bleed over is not even an argument. The press in the US reports conjecture and heresay all the time. If it's said by someone even slightly reputable, then it's truth. Rumors bleed into the press all the time. Or did you miss the press in New Orleans after Katrina. It's not even approaching a violation of the law.

Use of the press to assist the military meet its objective has been used in many wars. WWII onward showed the extreme use of the press and radio to move the public. That would be the public of this country as well. Movies were heavily controlled to show Americans as the righteous fighters. Germany and Russia did the same things. Now our military is using the news to give themselves a more favorable look to the people that they have to work among every day.

I don't see any reason for an uproar. You might have had some ethical qualms if the information was completely false, but I have found no information that proves that any falsehoods have been put out due to this.

The Plan for Iraq

I've started looking at the strategy document that was issued yesterday. Pretty much what you'd expect from anyone that was willing to see what was being done in Iraq. Though I must say, it's about time the administration has actually published the strategy. They could have stifled a lot of screeching by the tin-foil-beany set by coming out with this early.

As to the actual strategy:

- Our Strategy for Victory is Clear
• We will help the Iraqi people build a new Iraq with a constitutional, representative government that respects civil rights and has security forces sufficient to maintain domestic order and keep Iraq from becoming a safe haven for terrorists. To achieve this end, we are pursuing an integrated strategy along three broad tracks, which together incorporate the efforts of the Iraqi government, the Coalition, cooperative countries in the region, the international community, and the United Nations.
• The Political Track involves working to forge a broadly supported national compact for democratic governance by helping the Iraqi government:
- Isolate enemy elements from those who can be won over to the political process by countering false propaganda and demonstrating to all Iraqis that they have a stake in a democratic Iraq;
- Engage those outside the political process and invite in those willing to turn away from violence through ever-expanding avenues of participation; and
- Build stable, pluralistic, and effective national institutions that can protect the interests of all Iraqis, and facilitate Iraq’s full integration into the international community.
• The Security Track involves carrying out a campaign to defeat the terrorists and neutralize the insurgency, developing Iraqi security forces, and helping the Iraqi government:
- Clear areas of enemy control by remaining on the offensive, killing and capturing enemy fighters and denying them safe-haven;
- Hold areas freed from enemy influence by ensuring that they remain under the control of the Iraqi government with an adequate Iraqi security force presence; and
- Build Iraqi Security Forces and the capacity of local institutions to deliver services, advance the rule of law, and nurture civil society.
• The Economic Track involves setting the foundation for a sound and self-sustaining economy by helping the Iraqi government:
- Restore Iraq’s infrastructure to meet increasing demand and the needs of a growing economy;
- Reform Iraq’s economy, which in the past has been shaped by war, dictatorship, and sanctions, so that it can be self-sustaining in the future; and
- Build the capacity of Iraqi institutions to maintain infrastructure, rejoin the international economic community, and improve the general welfare of all Iraqis.

Yeah, the bulleting doesn't copy from PDF very well, so I changed the topic headers to green for clarity. You should read the rest, it's not like it's rocket science.

The politics, as expected, clicked into an immediate response from Reid and Pelosi:

Critics dismissed the public relations offensive as too little, too late.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada called on Bush to release a strategy establishing military, economic and political benchmarks that must be met.

“Simply staying the course is no longer an option,” Reid said. “We must change the course.”

For the first time, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California endorsed a call by Rep. John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, for a speedy withdrawal.

“Clearly, the president fails to understand that a new course is needed in Iraq,” Pelosi said.

You have to love these types of statement. First the screech that the administration has no policy, and when it's placed cleanly and neatly in their lap, they claim it's a failure and that a new strategy is needed. I guess I shouldn't have expected anything different from politicians.

Then Pelosi jumped on the Murtha retreat strategy and endorsed that.

After the president spoke, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, announced that she is now backing the call by U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

That's a reversal for Pelosi, the top Democrat in the House, who two weeks ago rejected Murtha's call for an exit strategy.

Then there is John Kerry's comments:

Providing the Democrat Party’s response to Wednesday’s President Bush speech on Iraq, which was delivered from the US Naval Academy, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) said that members of the president’s administration “always use the troops when making speeches”. Kerry further said: “The troops don’t belong to the administration”.

Kerry advised that the “debate is not about an artificial date for withdrawal” from Iraq. Defending the Democrat position, Sen. Kerry stated that Democrat leaders now believe in the upcoming Iraq elections. He further said that if the Iraq elections are successful, the US should begin to withdraw its troops. Kerry said “I can’t tell you what motivates the president or the administration” and added “withdrawing troops will lead to success”.

Not about an artificial date for withdrawal? Wasn't the Murtha plan for a withdrawal in the next six months? Oh wait, it wasn't a withdrawal, it was a "redeployment." So Kerry is completely correct.

I have several snide comments about Kerry's motivations, but you probably can figure those out on your own.

I also ran across an editorial in WaPo, and like usual, nothing is good enough for the naysayers. Hoagland starts by getting the real requirement for the endgame completely wrong.

An effective endgame strategy must center on making U.S. withdrawal the primary catalyst for change in Iraq, rather than a grudging response to the political pressures at home and continuing losses in Iraq.

The primary catalyst must be Iraqi's own secure and stable democracy, not the threat of the US military bailing out on them. Yes, threatening to leave would make the Iraqi's react quickly, but it wouldn't create an environment that would be stable. Without that stability, you could easily end up with a situation as bad or worse than what was in place with Saddam. The US must spark the Iraqi's own sefl-interest to get them to succeed, not threaten to abandon them.

Both the speech and the strategy document restate and refine Bush's still-firm commitment to finishing what he has started in Iraq. But they also understated or avoided the concrete details of the risks that any form of withdrawal, hedged or precipitous, will raise.

Making withdrawal a catalyst for change means equipping Iraqi forces with lethal U.S. weaponry -- something the Pentagon is reluctant to do. It means letting an elected Iraqi government run its own internal intelligence organization -- something the CIA is reluctant to do. It means taking the kind of big risks on Iraqis that Bush has been reluctant to take since the beginning of the war.

Understating the risks of the withdrawl is an interesting thought, though seeing that this is a strategy paper I don't see a risk analysis being the primary focus. The paper is a plan of action at a high level. Hoagland can't seem to get that bit. As for arming the Iraqi forces with US military weaponry, why and who's going to pay for it? I can see why the Pentagon is reluctant to do it. The cost of giving them the equipment is quite high.

Further in the article:

Warner, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, confirmed that he has been urging the Pentagon to begin arming Iraqi units with standardized U.S. vehicles, rifles and other equipment to replace the hodgepodge of obsolete weaponry that the previous Iraqi interim government bought from former Soviet satellites in often dubious deals.

One quick way to accomplish this would be for U.S. units that are withdrawn to leave behind at least a portion of their equipment. Warner is considering legislation that would authorize that step if the Pentagon can work out details, he indicated.

"Yes, there are risks. But we have to take them, to say to the Iraqis: 'It's yours. You're a fully sovereign nation.' That will be the tipping point," says Warner.

Leave our equipment behind is such a brilliant idea. No chance that our military might need it? That detail seems to be totally unaddressed here. But why bother with particulars, since Hoagland seems to want them from the president.

The CIA is understandably reluctant to release their present intelligence operations. If you're responsible to the military to provide that information, you don't want to hand the operations to someone else that may mess it up. Especially when you will still take the blame. I see no reason why the Iraqi government can't have their own system though, especially if it's run in concert with the CIA. It potentially could be more effective than at present.

Bush did make his first significant admissions that -- in the classic Washington phrase for refusing to assign responsibility -- mistakes were made. He highlighted failures in organizing Iraqi police and security forces into small units that were lightly armed with discarded Soviet-made weapons, if they were armed at all. Nothing more would be needed in the wake of a rapid U.S. battlefield victory and the centering of power in the hands of an occupation authority, it had been assumed.

Ah yes, the usual Washinton insider complaint that the president doesn't immediately assume all blame or nail down who the failure was. Mistakes were indeed made, and were reacted to and fixed. Does pointing a finger really get you anything in these scenarios?

Hoagland at least completes his op-ed correctly though:

Americans still have a limited understanding of -- and ability to mold -- Iraqi society. Neither wars nor speeches can change that. But the president needs to return to this subject again in the near future and demonstrate a deepening awareness that the war in Iraq must be fought first of all on Iraqi terms, by Iraqis, for Iraqi reasons.

I'm not sure the president needs to demonstrate the awareness. I think his statements to date show his awareness already, and that he understands that the Iraqis must bring stability to their country out of self interest.