Squiggler

Bush-Karzai: What a press conference!

At a news conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Bush said political opponents had disclosed only select parts of the National Intelligence Estimate, a U.S. global report on terrorism, and he decided to make the document public so "you read it for yourself." Somebody has taken it upon themselves to leak classified information for political purposes," Bush said.

Did you catch the press conference this morning with President Bush and Afghani President Hamid Karzai? It was great.

At one point, Bush kind of went off about intelligence leaks and the latest leak of the April NIE. Check out the video:

Partial Transcript:

KARZAI: Thank you very much, Mr. President.

It's a great honor to be in your very beautiful country once again, especially during fall, with all the lovely leaves around.

And thank you very much for the great hospitality that you and the first lady are always giving to a guest, especially to me.

And thanks also for your visit to Afghanistan and for seeing us in our country, and for seeing from close as to who we are and how we make it to a better future.

I'm very grateful, Mr. President, to you and the American people for all that you have done for Afghanistan for the last four-and-a-half years, from roads to education to democracy to parliament to good governance effort to health and to all other good things that are happening in Afghanistan.

Mr. President, I was the day before yesterday in the Walter Reed hospital. There I met wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. And there also I met a woman surgeon with six boys, from 7 to 21, that she had left behind in America in order to build us a road in the mountainous part of the country in Afghanistan.

KARZAI: There's nothing more that any nation can do for another country _ to send a woman with children to Afghanistan to help. We are very grateful. I'm glad I came to know that story. And I'll be repeating it to the Afghan people once I go back to Afghanistan.

We discussed today all matters that concern the two countries: the question of the reconstruction of Afghanistan, improvement for the reconstruction of Afghanistan, the equipping of the Afghan army, the training of the Afghan army, the police in Afghanistan, in all other aspects of reconstruction.

We also discussed the region around us; discussed our relations with Pakistan and the question of the joint fight that we have together against terrorism.

And I'm glad that, Mr. President, that you are, tomorrow, hosting a dinner for me and President Musharraf. And I'm sure we will come out of that meeting with a lot more to talk about to our nations in a very positive way for a better future.

Mr. President, we, the Afghan people, are grateful to you and the American people for all that you have done.

I had things in mind to speak about, and you did that. So I will stop short and let the questions come to us.

BUSH: We'll have two questions a side.

Q: Thank you, sir.

Even after hearing that one of the major conclusions of the national intelligence estimate in April was that the Iraq war has fueled terror growth around the world, why have you continued to say that the Iraq war has made this country safer?

And to President Karzai, if I might: What do you think of President Musharraf's comments, that you need to get to know your own country better when you're talking about where terror threats and the Taliban threat is coming from?

BUSH: You want to start?

KARZAI: Go ahead, please.

BUSH: I, of course, read the key judgments on the NIE. I agree with their conclusion that, because of our successes against the leadership of al-Qaida, the enemy is becoming more diffuse and independent.

I'm not surprised the enemy is exploiting the situation in Iraq and using it as a propaganda tool to try to recruit more people to their murderous ways.

Some people have, you know, guessed what's in the report and have concluded that going into Iraq was a mistake. I strongly disagree. I think it's naive. I think it's a mistake for people to believe that going on the offense against people that want to do harm to the American people makes us less safe.

The terrorists fight us in Iraq for a reason; they want to try to stop a young democracy from developing, just like they're trying to fight this young democracy in Afghanistan.

And they use it as a recruitment tool because they understand the stakes. They understand what will happen to them when we defeat them in Iraq.

You know, to suggest that if we weren't in Iraq we would see a rosier scenario, with fewer extremists joining the radical movement, requires us to ignore 20 years of experience.

We weren't in Iraq when we got attacked on September the 11th. We weren't in Iraq and thousands of fighters were trained in terror camps inside your country, Mr. President. We weren't in Iraq when they first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993.

KARZAI: Yes, sir.

BUSH: We weren't in Iraq when they bombed the Cole.

KARZAI: Yes, sir.

BUSH: We weren't in Iraq when they blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

My judgment is, if we weren't in Iraq, they'd find some other excuse, because they have ambitions. They kill in order to achieve their objectives.

You know, in the past, Osama bin Laden used Somalia as an excuse for people to join his jihadist movement.

In the past, they used the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was a convenient way to try to recruit people to their jihadist movement.

They've used all kinds of excuses.

This government is going to do whatever it takes to protect this homeland. We're not going to let their excuses stop us from staying on the offense.

The best way to protect America is to defeat these killers overseas so we do not have to face them here at home.

We're not going to let lies and propaganda by the enemy dictate how we win this war.

Now, you know what's interesting about the NIE? It was an intelligence report done last April. As I understand, the conclusions _ the evidence on the conclusions reached was stopped being gathered on February _ at the end of February.

And here we are coming down the stretch in an election campaign and it's on the front page of your newspapers. Isn't that interesting? Somebody's taken it upon themselves to leak classified information for political purposes.

I talked to John Negroponte today, the DNI. You know, I think it's a bad habit for our government to declassify every time there's a leak, because it means it's going to be hard to get good product out of our analysts. Those of you who've been around here long enough know what I'm talking about.

But once again there's a leak out of our government, coming right down the stretch in this campaign in order to create confusion in the minds of the American people.

In my judgment, that's why they leaked it.

And so we're going to _ I told the DNI to declassify this document. You can read it for yourself. It will stop all the speculation, all the politics about somebody saying something about Iraq; you know, somebody trying to confuse the American people about the nature of this enemy.

And so John Negroponte, the DNI, is going to declassify the document as quickly as possible _ declassify the key judgments for you to read yourself.

And he'll do so in such a way that we'll be able to protect sources and methods of _ that our intelligence community uses.

And then everybody can draw their own conclusions about what the report says.

Thank you.

Q: (OFF-MIKE)

BUSH: Why _ why is declass _ what was that question?

Q: Why is that declassification not a political act?

BUSH: Because I want you to read the document so you don't speculate about what it says.

You asked me a question based upon what you thought was in the document _ or at least somebody told you was in the document. And so I think you'll be able to ask a more profound question when you get to look at it yourself ... as opposed to relying upon gossip and somebody, you know, who may or may not have seen the document trying to classify the war in Iraq one way or the other.

It's a _ just I guess it's just Washington _ isn't it? _ where, you know, we, kind of _ there's no such thing as classification anymore, hardly.

But, anyway, you all take a look at it, and then you'll get to see.

KARZAI: Ma'am...

BUSH: Why don't you ask them _ yeah, you got the two-part question.

KARZAI: Ma'am, before I go to the remarks by my brother, President Musharraf, terrorism was hurting us way before Iraq or September 11. The president mentioned some examples of it.

These extremist forces were killing people in Afghanistan and around for years, closing schools, burning mosques, killing children, uprooting vineyards with vine trees, grapes hanging on them, forcing populations to poverty and misery.

They came to America on September 11, but they were attacking you before September 11 in other parts of the world.

We are a witness in Afghanistan as to what they are and how they can hurt. You are a witness in New York.

Do you forget people jumping off the 80th floor or 70th floor when the planes hit them? Can you imagine what it will be for a man or a woman to jump off that high?

Who did that? And where are they now? And how do we fight them, how do we get rid of them, other than going after them? Should we wait for them to come and kill us again?

That's why we need more action around the world, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, to get them defeated. Extremism, their allies, terrorists and the likes of them.

On the remarks of my brother, President Musharraf, Afghanistan is a country that is emerging out of so many years of war and destruction and occupation by terrorism and misery that they brought to us.

We lost almost two generations to the lack of education. And those who were educated before that are now older.

We know our problems. We have difficulties. But Afghanistan also knows where the problem is, in extremism, in madrassas preaching hatred, places by the name of madrassas preaching hatred. That's what we should do together, to stop.

The United States, as an ally, is helping both countries. And I think it is very important that we have more dedication and more intense work, with sincerity, all of us, to get rid of the problems that we have around the world.

Q: Mr. President, what is your new strategy to fight against terrorism and also to deal with narcotics in Afghanistan?

Thank you.

KARZAI: All right.

This was to me or to President Bush?

OK.

Ma'am, there is no new strategy on the fight against terrorism. We are continuing the strategy that we have. We are implementing the strategy. We are moving further in that strategy. We are getting more of them. We're trying to clean the country of these elements and the region of these elements by doing more reconstruction, by doing more search for the terrorist elements hiding around there.

So the fight against terrorism will continue the way we started it, on all...

Q: (OFF-MIKE) think it's working now the way it's going?

KARZAI: It is absolutely working.

We come across difficulties as we are moving forward, and that's bound to happen. And we get over those difficulties. We resolve them, and we go the next stage of this fight against terrorism for all the allies.

At one stage, four years ago we had a war against them to dislodge them from Afghanistan, to remove them from being the government of Afghanistan. And then there were major operations against them to arrest them or to chase them out.

And then we began to rebuild the country, to have roads, to have schools, to have health clinics, to have education, to have all other things that people need all over the world.

And now we are at a stage of bringing more stability and trying to get rid of them forever.

The desire is to do that sooner. But a desire is not always what you get. So it will take time. And we must have the patience to have the time spent on getting rid of them for good.

On narcotics, it is a problem. It is an embarrassment to Afghanistan. And I told President Bush earlier in my conversation with him we feel very much embarrassed for having narcotics growing in our country.

But again, it has come to Afghanistan because of years of our desperation and lack of hope for tomorrow.

I know Afghan families, ma'am, who destroyed their pomegranate orchards or vineyards to replace them with poppies because they did not know if they were going to have their children the next day, if they were going to be there in their own country the next day, if they were going to be having their homes standing the next day.

It has become a reality because of droughts and years of misery.

We have worked on the problem. In some areas of the country we have succeeded. In other areas of the country we have failed because of the circumstances and because of our own failures.

We have discussed that, and we will continue to be very steadfast. It is Afghanistan's problem, so Afghanistan is responsible for it and Afghanistan should act on it, with the help of our friends in the United States and the rest of the world.

Q: Former President Clinton says that your administration had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after he left office. Is that factually accurate? And how do you respond to his charges?

BUSH: You know, look, I've watched all this, you know, fingerpointing and, you know, namings of names and all that stuff.

Our objective is to secure the country.

BUSH: And we've had investigations, we had the 9/11 Commission, we had the look-back this, we've had the look-back that.

The American people need to know that we spend all our time doing everything we can to protect them.

And I'm not going to comment on, you know, other comments. But I will comment on this; that we're on the offense against an enemy who wants to do us harm, and we must have the tools necessary to protect our country.

On the one hand, if al-Qaida or al-Qaida affiliates are calling somebody in the country, we need to know why. That's why Congress needs to pass that piece of legislation.

If somebody's got information about a potential attack, we need to be able to ask that person some questions. And so Congress has got to pass the piece of legislation.

You can't protect America unless we give those people on the front lines of protecting this country the tools necessary to do so within the Constitution.

And that's what the debate is here in the United States. There are some decent people who don't believe _ evidently don't believe we're at war and, therefore, shouldn't give the administration what is necessary to protect us.

And that goes back to her question: Does being on the offense mean we create terrorists?

My judgment is: The only way to defend the country is to stay on the offense. It is preposterous to think, if we were to withdraw, and hope for the best, things would turn out fine, against this enemy.

That was my point about, you know, before we were in Iraq, there was thousands being trained in Afghanistan to strike America and other places.

The only way to protect this country is to stay on the offense, is to deal with threats before they fully materialize and, in the long term, help democracy succeed, like Afghanistan and Iraq and Lebanon and a Palestinian state.

But there's a difference of opinion. It will become clear during this campaign, where people will say: Get out; leave before the job is done. And those are good, decent, patriotic people who believe that way. I just happen to believe they're absolutely wrong.

And so I'm going to continue to work to protect this country. And we'll let history judge all the different fingerpointing and all that business.

I don't have enough time to fingerpoint. I've got to stay _ I've got to do my job, which comes home everyday in the Oval Office, and that is to protect the American people from further attack.

Now there are some who say: Well, maybe it's not going to happen, you know? Well, they don't see what I see.

All I ask is that they look at that terror plot that, along with the Brits, we helped to help stop: people who were going to get on an airplane and blow up innocent lives in order to achieve political objectives.

They're out there. They're mean. And they need to be brought to justice.

And how impressive was Karzai? Very, if you ask me, and very committed. Perhaps far more committed than most of those who were in the room asking the questions.

I would remind you that the very last thing either the NYT or Democrats want is to have the April NIE declassified. It defeats their partisan political leaking purposes to have more than some out of context statements being touted as final conclusions or completed facts.

Related:

More of What You Won't Read in the NYT from In from the Cold:

Thankfully, the actual NIE is not the harbinger of disaster that the Times and WaPo would have us believe. According to members of the intel community who have seen the document, the NIE is actually fair and balanced (to coin a phrase), noting both successes and failures in the War on Terror--and identifying potential points of failure for the jihadists. The quotes printed below--taken directly from the document and provided to this blogger--provide "the other side" of the estimate, and its more balanced assessment of where we stand in the War on Terror (comments in italics are mine).

Bill Clinton: Play it as it lies ...

A great title for a post, but the credit goes to Real Clear Politics and Powerline. Both posts begin to address all the whoppers Clinton managed to spew in his tirade during his interview with Chris Wallace. One of those, which seems to have been given traction in the way it was portrayed in the telemovie "Path to 9/11" is the one about Richard Clark being demoted. A claim, it would seem according to Kevin Groenhagen and Richard Clark, himself, just isn't true.

Via Powerline:

Our friends at RealClearPolitics have posted a tough column by Ronald Cass begins to address Clinton's rewriting of the record. Reader and former Marine intelligence analyst Kevin Groenhagen has also taken a look at the assertion that the Bush administration demoted and fired Richard Clarke -- the man who apparently was the key to fighting terrorism in every administration since the Reagan administration. (See Miniter's comments on the Clinton administration's use of Clarke -- who was a significant source for Miniter's book -- at pages 78-80. How has the Bush administration succeeded so far in averting another terrorist attack on American ground without Clarke in the government?) Groenhagen contrasts Clinton's comments on the Bush administration's alleged mistreatment of Clarke with Clarke's comments in Against All Enemies:

Clinton claimed that Richard Clarke had been demoted and then later said he was fired.

On page 234 of "Against All Enemies," Clarke writes:

"I had completed the review of the organizational options for homeland defense and critical infrastructure protection that Rice had asked me to conduct. There was agreement to create a separate, senior White House position for Critical Infrastructure Protection and Cyber Security, outside of the NSC Staff. Condi Rice and Steve Hadley assumed that I would continue on the NSC focusing on terrorism and asked whom I had in mind for the new job that would be created outside the NSC. I requested that I be given that assignment, to the apparent surprise of Condi Rice and Steve Hadley."

If Clarke was demoted, he requested the demotion.

Clinton also seems to imply that Clarke was "demoted" prior to 9/11. However, on page 239 of Against All Enemies, Clarke writes the following:

"Roger Cressey, my deputy at the NSC Staff, came to me in early October, after the time that I had intended to switch from the terrorism job to Critical Infrastructure Protection and Cyber Security. The switch had been delayed by September 11."

In other words, the Bush administration kept Clarke at NSC beyond the period Clarke had planned on being there.

In a footnote on page 240, Clarke makes it clear that he left the administration under his own volition:

"Cressey and I did spend over a year working on the cyber security problem, producing Bush's National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, and then quit the Administration altogether."

I'm not a big Clark fan and I must admit, I thought the demotion story was fact, but then I didn't read Clark's book. Perhaps I will get it today. How 'bout you?

www.patriotart.com

On Bill Clinton: "I felt like a mountain was coming down in front of me" ... Updated

Have you had more about Bill Clinton's meltdown, childishness and finger pointing than you can stand at this point? I have had no respect for Bill Clinton since the first time I saw him as the person tapped to introduce Michael Dukakis at the 1988 Democratic convention. When he became a "serious" (no I never considered him serious) candidate in 1992, I could barely stand to look at the man. His arrogant smirk drives me crazy. Then I heard that he'd written that letter to get out of the draft, the one where he says "I despise the military," and that did it for me. I would have voted for anyone else but Bill Clinton at that point. That he managed to fool the people for not only one but two elections is still a mystery to me. He is a sleaze and his actions while in the White House bear me out and so do his actions since he left. As for fighting terror, the dems and Clinton still don't get it ... you can not fight worldwide terror and take out the terrorists by treating it as a domestic criminal case (1998 U.S. Grand Jury Indictment against bin Laden).

So, it you must, Hot Air has the video and Sweetness and Light has the transcript and Byron York sums up and Jonah Goldberg says: "Bill Clinton in his interview today seemed to be suggesting that conservatives uniformly opposed and denounced him when he launched his "wag the dog" strike in 1998. For the record, here's the NR editorial in response to the attacks, dated 9/14/98," also Newsday 8/21/1998, Gingrich (CNN) 8/23/1998, AP 8/21/1998. Jim Geraghty does some fact checking:

Bill Clinton, in that Fox News interview:

OK, now let’s look at all the criticisms: Black Hawk down, Somalia. There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk down or was paying any attention to it or even knew Al Qaida was a growing concern in October of ‘93.

Not a living soul in the world... except for President Clinton's own Justice Department. The U.S. Justice Department's indictment of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda's military commander, Mohammed Atef, on Nov. 4, 1998, for conspiring to kill Americans: (if you are a truthseeker, you'll read it all)

And via Drudge, here are the after interview remarks by Chris Wallace:

Following today's buzz generating conversation with Bill Clinton, Chris Wallace shared some of his post-interview thoughts with FishbowlDC:

I was delighted to get the chance to interview former President Clinton. This was the first one-on-one sitdown he's ever given "Fox News Sunday" during our 10 years on the air.

The groundrules were simple--15 minutes--to be divided evenly between questions about the Clinton Global Initiative and anything else I wanted to ask.

I intended to keep to the groundrules.  In fact--I prepared 10 questions--5 on the CGI and 5 on other issues.

I began the interview with 2 questions about Mr. Clinton's commitment to humanitarian causes. His answers were cogent and good-humored.

Then--I asked him about his Administration's record in fighting terror--fully intending to come back to CGI later (as indeed I did).

I asked what I thought was a non-confrontational question about whether he could have done more to "connect the dots and really go after al Qaeda."

I was utterly surprised by the tidal wave of details--emotion--and political attacks that followed.

The President was clearly stung by any suggestion that he had not done everything he could to get bin Laden. He attacked right-wingers--accused me of a "conservative hit job"--and even spun a theory I still don't understand that somehow Fox was trying to cover up the fact that NewsCorp. chief Rupert Murdoch was supporting his Global Initiative. I still have no idea what set him off.
Former President Clinton is a very big man. As he leaned forward--wagging his finger in my face--and then poking the notes I was holding--I felt as if a mountain was coming down in front of me.

The President said I had a smirk.  Actually--it was sheer wonder at what I was witnessing.

I tried repeatedly to adhere to the ground rules--to move the President along--and back to the CGI. But he wanted to keep talking about his record fighting terror.

When it became clear he wanted to throw out the ground rules--then I just went with the flow of the interview.

And this comment just about says everything I have to say on the subject of Bill Clinton:

Why Don't Ex-Dem Presidents Ever Go Away?!!
09-24-06 | cww

Posted on 09/24/2006 1:49:46 PM PDT by CWW

What is it with former Democrat Presidents? They are like those guys in your fraternty 20 years ago that keep trying to create the good 'ol days.

The sad thing about it is that they are dangerous because they have a sort of "government in exile" type mentality. It's almost as if they are waiting for America to beg them to come back, that we should just collectively apologize to Carter for kicking him out of office and to Clinton for impeaching him.

What's worse is that they and their sychophantic minions, e.g., Madeline Albright, Ramsey Clarke, etc., really undermine the present administration by constantly publicly second guessing and monday morning quarterbaking everything.

I mean think about it -- does anyone give a rats a$$ what President Carter has to say about foreign policy issues? This is the same guy who the Soviets duped on Afganistan, Salt II, etc., not to mention the Iran hostage crisis.

And Clinton on terrorism? Oh please spare me!!! Can anyone say World Trade attack #1, the USS Cole, Somalia, the embassy bombings.

Are they so narcissistic that they think we really care what they have to say?

Carter -- I liked you better working on Habitat for Humanity houses, and you, Clinton, when helping Tsunami victims.

President Clinton, President Carter -- you had your shot. Now please sit down and shut up!!

I highly recommend the Anchoress piece I agree with the Captain - UPDATE. Although she takes some exception to one Clinton claim, she is level-headed and actually quite generous to our former CofC. A snippet from today's update, but worth your time to go read the whole thing:

:::UPDATED:::SCROLL DOWN FOR ORIGINAL POST:::

Update: One thing that did offend me about Clinton’s statement was that “right wingers” didn’t support him, or something like that. Annoying revision of history. Ace is still angry and he puts it to rights with this NY Times story from 1998:

Congressional leaders were briefed about the planned raid Wednesday night and Thursday morning. For the most part, Republican leaders praised Clinton’s decision and urged more aggressive action against terrorism.

House Speaker Newt Gingrich expressed firm support, and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, said, “Our response appears to be appropriate and just.”

Did some “right wingers” fuss? Yes. But the “head right wingers” supported the president as did the majority of conservatives.

But while the Republican leadership rallied to support the raids, some members of Congress reacted suspiciously, noting that the action followed by three days Clinton’s acknowledgment to the public and a grand jury of his relationship with former intern Monica Lewinsky.

Oh, my goodness…isn’t that harsh? President Bush has never had to endure such rudeness and opposition!

Ace has more wet blankets to throw on Clinton here. I’m making a note to myself: never tick off Ace!
END UPDATE:::

Patterico's Pontifications says:

"Clinton’s charge that Wallace hasn’t asked these sorts of questions of Bush officials is false." So what else is new?

In 2004, Wallace asked almost the exact same question of Donald Rumsfeld that he asked Clinton today.

Here’s what Wallace asked Clinton today:

[H]indsight is 20 20 . . . but the question is why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?

And here is what Wallace asked Donald Rumsfeld on the March 28, 2004 episode of Fox News Sunday:

I understand this is 20/20 hindsight, it’s more than an individual manhunt. I mean — what you ended up doing in the end was going after al Qaeda where it lived. . . . pre-9/11 should you have been thinking more about that?

. . . .

What do you make of his [Richard Clarke’s] basic charge that pre-9/11 that this government, the Bush administration largely ignored the threat from al Qaeda?

. . . .

Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority.

Be sure to check out Gateway Pundit's great link roundup from around the blogosphere. We especially like this quote, but take a look at all the links:

More from Dr. Sanity... "In spite of all the self-serving BS delivered up in his interview with Chris Wallace, there is no indication that Osama ever felt the need to hide himself when Clinton was US President."
-As evidenced by the above 1998 video!
Hat Tip Larwyn

To say Mac is mad would be an understatement ...

Whew! MacRanger is on a tear about the current detainee debate. Go read it all and see how he ends up with this conclusion:

Fact is that the Justices that told us what the Constitution nor Article III ever did committed treason against the United States of America and should be appropriately dealt with.

I am as angry as Mac over the way McCain and Graham are playing politics here, I'm not sure about the impeachment of justices part. I can see his point, just not sure I want to subscribe to the remedy/punishment.

Saturday Reading Recommendations

Some weekend recommended reading:

How Bad Is the Senate Intelligence Report? by Stephen Hayes

Yes it is pretty darn bad.

Saddam's Man in Niger 
What was the Iraqi regime's nuclear expert doing in Africa? by Christopher Hitchens in the Weekly Standard.

They Liked It When It Was McCain's Idea by Powerline

 

For Plameholics:

The Case of the Missing Crime by Clarice Feldman in the Weekly Standard

and this piece that first appeared as a comment and then moved to be a stand-alone post:

Plame Review by Elendil via Strata-Sphere.

I found this article to be especially interesting with some eye-openers contained within.

Quote of the Day!

OK, I think I have this right...

By Jay Tea on War On Terror

With the recent furor over Pope Benedict XVI's statements about Islam, coupled with the reactions to President Bush's use of the term "Islamic Fascists" and the hysteria over the Danish newspaper's Mohammed cartoons, just to cite three examples, I think I have the fundamental message of Islam figured out:

"Islam is a peaceful, accepting, tolerant, loving religion, and we will kill anyone who says differently."

That about sum it up?

A little something for everyone's tastes, the following list comes from an article in the Washington Post:

Think Tank Town

FROM THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: U.S. Trade Dilemma: Free or Fair?

U.S. trade policy is at a crossroads between pursuing freer trade or fairer trade.

FROM THE RAND CORPORATION: 'No Child' Leaves Too Much Behind (By Brian Stecher, September 13, 2006; 12:00 AM)

FROM THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES: Evaluating Our Partners and Allies Five Years Later (By Julianne Smith and Thomas Sanderson, September 11, 2006; 12:00 AM)

FROM THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: End Open-Ended Litigation (By Ted Frank, September 7, 2006; 12:00 AM)

FROM THE URBAN INSTITUTE: Provide Protections From Retirement's Pitfalls (By Richard W. Johnson, September 5, 2006; 12:00 AM)

FROM THE NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION: Mixed Messages Inhibit Escape From Welfare (By Rourke O'Brien, August 31, 2006; 12:00 AM)

FROM THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: U.S. Patent Imperialism Hurts American Interests (By Ben Klemens, August 25, 2006; 12:00 PM)

Bill Clinton Was Right (By Robert Rector, August 23, 2006; 12:00 AM)

FROM THE CATO INSTITUTE: Bankruptcy Reform Gave Creditors Too Much (By Michelle J. White, August 21, 2006; 12:00 AM)

FROM THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Open Markets Start at Home (Douglas Holtz-Eakin, August 17, 2006; 12:00 AM)

FROM THE RAND CORPORATION: Regulatory Reform on Both Sides of the Atlantic (By John Graham, August 15, 2006; 12:00 AM)

FROM THE CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: Creating Equitable Public Education in the U.S. (By Elena Rocha, August 11, 2006; 12:00 AM)

FROM THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: Make Federal Spending Transparent (By Roger Bate, August 9, 2006; 12:00 AM)

FROM THE URBAN INSTITUTE: The Right Way to Sell Off Public Assets (By Olga Kaganova and Marilee A. Utter, August 7, 2006; 11:46 AM)

FROM THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES: Monumental Hope and Grinding Despair (By Jon B. Alterman, August 3, 2006; 12:00 AM)

FROM THE NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION: Will Your Vote Count in 2006? (By Steven Hill, August 1, 2006; 11:56 AM)

FROM THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: U.S. Shares Blame for Trade Talk Collapse (By Lael Brainard, July 28, 2006; 12:00 AM)

FROM THE HERITAGE INSTITUTE: Missing the Real Missile Threat (By James Jay Carafano, July 26, 2006; 12:00 AM)

FROM THE CATO INSTITUTE: An Elixir for the Military's Health Care Woes (By Cindy Williams, July 23, 2006; 6:13 PM)

FROM THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Cliffhanger: Mexican Elections and Their Aftermath (Julia E. Sweig, July 20, 2006; 12:00 AM)

FROM THE RAND CORPORATION: Protecting U.S. Interests In the Middle East (By Robert E. Hunter, July 19, 2006; 12:00 AM)

FROM THE CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: Today's Activism: The Art of the Possible (By Adam Jentleson and Elana Berkowitz , July 14, 2006; 12:25 PM)

FROM THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: Summer Vacation of Our Discontent (By Frederick M. Hess, July 12, 2006; 12:00 AM)

FROM THE URBAN INSTITUTE: It's a Crime What We Don't Know About Crime (By John Roman, July 10, 2006; 12:00 AM)

FROM THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES: Deterrence is Not a Dirty Word (By Jon B. Wolfsthal, July 7, 2006; 12:41 PM)

Democrat Hypocrisy

Captain Ed is on it:

Phase II Report: Saddam Retained Banned Missiles, Biological Stocks

Phase II 'Accuracy' Report Proves Joe Wilson A Liar

The Phase II Reports

And an excellent piece at Weekly Standard:

Rules of Evidence

A new Senate report on Iraq and al Qaeda ignores everything which gets in the way of its conclusions.
by Thomas Joscelyn

But beyond the obvious political gamesmanship, there is little merit to this posturing because there is little serious analysis in the Senate report: Far from providing the definitive word on Saddam's ties to al Qaeda, the report is almost worthless.

(Read it all here)

The White House responds ....

The White House responds to the idiotic letter the dems sent with their demands:

Hat tip: Curiouser and Curiouser (letter available on the White House site) 

Dear Senator Reid:

Thank you for your September 4 letter to the President. I am responding on his behalf.

A useful discussion of what we need to do in Iraq requires an accurate and fair-minded description of our current policy: As the President has explained, our goal is an Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself. In order to achieve this goal, we are pursuing a strategy along three main tracks -- political, economic, and security. Along each of these tracks, we are constantly adjusting our tactics to meet conditions on the ground. We have witnessed both successes and setbacks along the way, which is the story of every war that has been waged and won.

Your letter recites four elements of a proposed “new direction” in Iraq. Three of those elements reflect well-established Administration policy; the fourth is dangerously misguided.

First, you propose "transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection." That is what we are now doing, and have been doing for several years. Our efforts to train the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) have evolved and accelerated over the past three years. Our military has had substantial success in building the Iraqi Army -- and increasingly we have seen the Iraqi Army take the lead in fighting the enemies of a free Iraq. The Iraqi Security Forces still must rely on U.S. support, both in direct combat and especially in key combat support functions. But any fair-minded reading of the current situation must recognize that the ISF are unquestionably more capable and shouldering a greater portion of the burden than a year ago -- and because of the extraordinary efforts of the United States military, we expect they will become increasingly capable with each passing month. Your recommendation that we focus on counter-terrorism training and operations -- which is the most demanding task facing our troops -- tracks not only with our policy but also our understanding, as well as the understanding of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, that Iraq is a central front in the war against terror.

Second, your letter proposes "working with Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources." You are once again urging that the Bush Administration adopt an approach that has not only been embraced, but is now being executed. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is pursuing a national reconciliation project. It is an undertaking that (a) was devised by the Iraqis; (b) has the support of the United States, our coalition partners and the United Nations; and (c) is now being implemented. Further, in Iraq's political evolution, the Sunnis, who boycotted the first Iraq election, are now much more involved in the political process. Prime Minister Maliki is head of a free government that represents all communities in Iraq for the first time in that nation's history. It is in the context of this broad-based, unity government, and the lasting national compact that government is pursuing, that the Iraqis will consider what amendments might be required to the constitution that the Iraqi people adopted last year. On the matter of disarming militias: that is precisely what Prime Minister al-Maliki is working to do. Indeed, Coalition leaders are working with him and his ministers to devise and implement a program to disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate members of militias and other illegal armed groups.

Third, your letter calls for "convening an international conference and contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq's sovereignty, and to revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding effort." The International Compact for Iraq, launched recently by the sovereign Iraqi government and the United Nations, is the best way to work with regional and international partners to make substantial economic progress in Iraq, help revitalize the economic reconstruction and rebuilding of that nation, and support a fair and just political settlement in Iraq -- all while preserving Iraqi sovereignty. This effort is well under way, it has momentum, and I urge you to support it.

Three of the key proposals found in your letter, then, are already reflected in current U.S. and Iraqi policy in the region.

On the fourth element of your proposed “new direction,” however, we do disagree strongly. Our strategy calls for redeploying troops from Iraq as conditions on the ground allow, when the Iraqi Security Forces are capable of defending their nation, and when our military commanders believe the time is right. Your proposal is driven by none of these factors; instead, it would have U.S. forces begin withdrawing from Iraq by the end of the year, without regard to the conditions on the ground. Because your letter lacks specifics, it is difficult to determine exactly what is contemplated by the “phased redeployment” you propose. (One such proposal, advanced by Representative Murtha, a signatory to your letter, suggested that U.S. forces should be redeployed as a “quick reaction force” to Okinawa, which is nearly 5,000 miles from Baghdad).

Regardless of the specifics you envision by “phased redeployment,” any premature withdrawal of U.S forces would have disastrous consequences for America’s security. Such a policy would embolden our terrorist enemies; betray the hopes of the Iraqi people; lead to a terrorist state in control of huge oil reserves; shatter the confidence our regional allies have in America; undermine the spread of democracy in the Middle East; and mean the sacrifices of American troops would have been in vain. This “new direction” would lead to a crippling defeat for America and a staggering victory for Islamic extremists. That is not a direction this President will follow. The President is being guided by a commitment to victory -- and that plan, in turn, is being driven by the counsel and recommendations of our military commanders in the region.

Finally, your letter calls for replacing Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. We strongly disagree.

Secretary Rumsfeld is an honorable and able public servant. Under his leadership, the United States Armed Forces and our allies have overthrown two brutal tyrannies and liberated more than 50 million people. Al Qaeda has suffered tremendous blows. Secretary Rumsfeld has pursued vigorously the President’s vision for a transformed U.S. military. And he has played a lead role in forging and implementing many of the policies you now recommend in Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld retains the full confidence of the President.

We appreciate your stated interest in working with the Administration on policies that honor the sacrifice of our troops and promote our national security, which we believe can be accomplished only through victory in this central front in the War on Terror.

Sincerely,

Joshua B. Bolten
Chief of Staff

I am still at a loss as to who would be dumb enough to take any suggestion about the War on Terror or on who should head the Defense Department from a group of moonbat Members of Congress whose only motive for the U.S. is "get Bush" and the country be damned. They want us to lose, so why would we want to take their recomendations on anything. And as Bolten points out, they are a day late and a dollar short on the good suggestions and only repeating what they know the Bush Administration is already doing. The rest is garbage in, garbage out.

The liar in Plamegate? Fitzgerald!

I am so livid today, I hardly know where to start this narrative. Yes, I'm talking about the confirmation that Richard Armitage and not someone from the Office of the Vice President (OVP) or the White House (WH) was responsible for the leak that started the entire Wilson/Plame (Plamegate) affair. It isn't that I didn't already know that Armitage was the one. I did and so did most of the posters and commenters at Just One Minute HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE, and a host of other sites that have continued to cover this story. What is new is finding out that Patrick Fitzgerald has known this information all along as well and yet he continued to pursue his investigation, made false filings with the higest courts in the land, publicly trashed a hardworking and honorable man in his famous press conference announcing the indictment of Scooter Libby for crimes he knew someone else had committed. Oh wait, let me correct that ... indicted Scooter for lying about not having committed an act that someone else had actually committed.

I was going to do a link roundup on this subject since so many seem to have so much to say about the nothingness that Plamegate has turned out to be, but instead I will refer you to Flopping Aces, who does have a nice list of links as well as pretty much covering the entire story in two posts HERE and HERE and to AJ Strata's posts HERE, HERE, HERE regarding Fitz's lies to the Courts and this little bombshell at Able Danger concerning an earlier Fitz case and al-Qaeda HERE .

The Jawa Report in its succinct summary gives you an idea of where my head is at this time:

Plamegate Wrap-up: Short 'n Sweet

So what have we learned from this escapade?

Fitzgerald's got nuttin'. Richard Armitage is a coward. Joe Wilson is a liar and a hack. Valerie Plame is a super-secret media whore. Rove is a non-factor. Novak was doing his job. Russert is silent. Mitchell is silent. Bush is vindicated. Cheney is off the non-hook. Keith Olbermann is a jackass. Chris Matthews is in catatonic depression. Mark Ash and Jason Leopold are on suicide watch. Larry Johnson is incredulous. Ray McGovern is speechless. Bill Keller is mute. The Democrats are in denial. David Corn is slinking away from his original zeal. Scooter Libby is paying for dishonesty over a crime that wasn’t committed. Judith Miller spent time in jail for nothing. The MSM are pretending they had nothing to do with it. The US taxpayer is furious. The left is hysterical. The right is chuckling. The average American doesn’t really care.

NBC joins the looney left

In surfing around today and reading lots of posts and comments about the foiled terror plot, I've seen some incredibly stupid remarks. I have never seen such lunacy as is rampant on the far left. I didn't think it could get any more insane, until I came to the Newsbusters story. Jeff Goldstein has a suggestion. I take only one exception: to do what Jeff suggests presumes the loonies admit terrorists exist. They don't. In their childish worlds, it is all a Rovian/Cheney plot.

Progressive delusional paranoia goes national:  NBC News “questions the timing”

Via Newsbusters, here’s NBC’s Kevin Corke:

“Yeah well said because a lot of people here are going to be asking the question, not only today but in the days to come, if, if the administration has known about this potential plot what was the hold up in getting the word out, especially domestically? Now right now they’re saying, Ann, that there’s no expectation that there will be domestic arrests related to this particular terror plot but still it does beg the question how long ago did they know of this and why are we just hearing about it right now?”

As Ace notes:

I can’t think of any obvious answers to that. Nothing like, “He didn’t leak it because he didn’t want to compromise the British investigation, which was a painstaking, massive one conducted over a period of months.”

Must be something else, I’m sure.

And of course, here’s the question that an objective journalist would have directed back to Corke—and those many many many concerned people so concerned and curious about “the timing”:  If not today, when?  And the corollary (which goes to motive), why NOT today?

Because here’s the thing:  had Bush leaked the story for political purposes days ago—say, in the run-up to the Lieberman primary—we’d hear braying from the left about the timing of that. That he didn’t do any such thing—that he let British intelligence and law enforcement do its job and make the call about when to make arrests and how to break the story—is now (ironically! amazingly!  incredibly!) being framed as, well, what, exactly?  A coverup?  Who knows.  We’re never told.

And the reason is simple: by framing the question open-endedly—which has the effect of insinuating a dark conspiracy being carried out by cynical men for secret purposes—Corke and those like him have achieved their purpose of creating doubt where thre need not be any.  It is a smear couched as intellectual curiosity.

So in order to avoid this kind of unsavory journalism in the future, I have a suggestion:  perhaps Mr Corke and the rest of the “concerned” and “curious” can make this easy on all of us and just draft a list of dates when it would be convenient for them to have facts reported.  For my part, that the story broke on the day the arrests were made is something I’m comfortable with, answering to my satisfaction, as it does, the fraught question posed by Mr Corke: “why today?”
That answering being that today is the day of the arrests.  Which is the story.  QED.

Missing Egyptians

UPDATE with more details HERE:

Northeast Intelligence Network seems to have gotten its hands on the photos of the missing Egyptian men that the FBI wouldn't give out this morning. Take a look:

**********************end update

So the news reports are that three of the eleven missing Egyptian students have been picked up:

Three of 11 missing Egyptian students has been picked up — one in Minneapolis, Minn., and two in Manville, N.J., NBC News’ Pete Williams reported.

This is too weird and very disturbing. Why did they split up? What is in Minnesota? What is in New Jersey. What were these guys doing? Where are the other 8? Why isn't the FBI issuing their pictures? Why so much diplospeak about them? Is there something major in the works that these students are part of or is it just college-age kids being on their own and kicking up their heels? So many questions.

Is there any connection or significance to these guys disappearing and the promised Armegeddon on August 22nd?

Iran's Day of Terror?

By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 27, 2006

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has frustrated Western officials by refusing to reply to their offer of various incentives in exchange for Iran’s discarding its nuclear program until August 22. The Western governments had asked Ahmadinejad to reply by June 29; why would Tehran need two extra months?

Farid Ghadry, the president of the Reform Party of Syria, has offered a provocative explanation for this delay. He asserts that the Supreme National Security Council of Iran chose the August 22 date “for a very precise reason. August 21, 2006 (Rajab 27, 1427) is known in the Islamic calendar as the Night of the Sira’a and Miira’aj, the night Prophet Mohammed (saas) ascended to heaven from the Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem on a Bourak (Half animal, half man), while a great light lit-up the night sky, and visited Heaven and Hell also Beit al-Saada and Beit al-Shaqaa (House of Happiness and House of Misery) and then descended back to Mecca.…”

 

The Night Journey, or Miraj, is central to Islam’s claim to Jerusalem as an Islamic holy city. According to Islamic tradition, Muhammad was carried on a Buraq, a miraculous horse with a human head, from Mecca to Jerusalem, where he ascended into heaven and met the other prophets. The only thing the Qur’an has to say about it is this: “Glory to (Allah) Who did take His servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did bless, in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: for He is the One Who heareth and seeth (all things)” (17:1). There is no identification of the “farthest Mosque” with any mosque in Jerusalem in this, but the Hadith is very clear on the identification of its location with Jerusalem.

The traditions say that Muhammad and the Buraq, along with the angel Gabriel, went to the Temple Mount, and from there to heaven itself, where Muhammad encountered various prophets. In the sixth heaven was Moses, occasioning a dig at the Jews. “When I left him,” Muhammad says, “he wept. Someone asked him, ‘What makes you weep?’ Moses said, ‘I weep because after me there has been sent (Muhammad as a Prophet) a young man, whose followers will enter Paradise in greater numbers than my followers.’”

 

Evidently, however, Muhammad’s stories of his journey were not altogether convincing: even some of the Muslims abandoned their faith and challenged Muhammad’s most faithful follower, Abu Bakr, to do the same. Abu Bakr was contemptuous: “If he says so then it is true. And what is so surprising in that? He tells me that communications from God from heaven to earth come to him in an hour of a day or night and I believe him, and that is more extraordinary than that at which you boggle!” The world has continued to witness such unshakeable devotion from Muslims to this day.

Did Muhammad really go anywhere? According to his favorite wife, Aisha, he did not: “The apostle’s body remained where it was but God removed his spirit by night.” Nevertheless, the Night Journey has become firmly embedded in the Islamic consciousness, such that Muslims today celebrate it as one of the central events of Muhammad’s life. And now, according to Ghadry, Ahmadinejad is planning an illumination of the night sky over Jerusalem to rival the one that greeted the Prophet of Islam on his journey. What the Iranian President, he says, is “promising the world by August 22 is the light in the sky over the Aqsa Mosque that took place the night before. That is his answer to the package of incentives the international community offered Iran on June 6.”

 

Certainly a nuclear attack on Jerusalem or even an all-out conventional assault against Israel by Iran would be consistent with Ahmadinejad’s oft-repeated denials of Israel’s right to exist and recent predictions that its demise was at hand. He hinted at the use of nuclear weapons in his phrasing when he said that Israel “pushed the button of its own destruction” by finally retaliating against Hizballah’s relentless rocket barrage from south Lebanon.

 

“Arrogant powers,” Ahmadinejad said, “have set up a base for themselves to threaten and plunder nations in the region. But today, the occupier regime” – that is, Israel – “whose philosophy is based on threats, massacre and invasion, has reached its finishing line.”

 

Will he attempt to make good on these threats this year on the anniversary of the Miraj, illuminating the night sky over Jerusalem? Will Western powers heed Farid Ghadry’s words and move to stop Iran before it is too late?