BC's Daily Politically Incorrect Thoughts

Who's to Blame for the War On Terror & the Economy?

2008-12-23T15:32:00.000-08:00

Blame Bush, Obama — or Us?

by Victor Davis Hanson
Tribune Media Services

When someone screams about a terrible policy of the present administration, just pose four questions:First, was the controversial decision taken with bipartisan support? Second, were there precedents for such action in prior Democratic administrations? Third, will such polices continue under the newly elected Obama administration? Four, have the media changed their position on the issue since the November election?

If the answer is yes to these questions, then the acrimony was probably about politics and style, not principle and substance.Take the so-called war on terror. The Patriot Act passed Congress in October 2001 by majorities in both parties — and was reauthorized in 2006. The original versions of the FISA wiretapping accords were enacted under the Carter administration in 1978.

Both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were given authorization by Congress. The pre-9/11 precursor for the removal of Saddam Hussein was the unanimous passage of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act — prompted by then-President Clinton's warnings about Saddam's dangerous weapons: "Some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."President-elect Barack Obama no longer believes that the controversial FISA accords should be repealed. And the retention of George Bush's secretary of defense, Robert Gates, along with the impressive appointments of Sen. Hillary Clinton as secretary of state and former Bush Mideast envoy Gen. James L. Jones as national security adviser — all of whom were in favor of removing Saddam — suggest that those who once supported the Iraq war will have more foreign policy influence in the Obama administration than those who opposed it all along.

Talk of a shredded Constitution and the need to immediately shut down Guantanamo Bay are no longer daily fare in the U.S. media — particularly after the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Suddenly we have sober reflection about how to stop such a paramilitary attack here in the U.S. — and what to do about monsters in custody in Guantanamo, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed architect of 9/11.Like it or not, radical Islamic terrorism antedated George Bush and will continue after him. And while we may lament how Bush sometimes conducted or articulated his policies, his support for beefing up homeland security, hitting terrorists hard abroad, supporting Democratic movements in the Middle East, and replacing two odious tyrannies with consensual governments once appealed to a broad number of Americans.Because they are largely sound strategies, they will not change much under a more charismatic President Obama — who for at least a while will enjoy the benefit of the doubt when confronting the same old nasty lose/lose choices.

On the economic front, we can apply the same type of critique to the present meltdown.The origins of our current mess were threefold: high energy costs, reckless borrowing and skyrocketing housing prices that squeezed family budgets. Promiscuous lending at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae created undue risks and increased foreclosures. The lack of proper oversight of Wall Street speculation ensured that a ripple of worry soon became a torrent of panic.But deregulation of Wall Street finance accelerated first under Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. Radical risk-taking at Freddie and Fannie was overseen by former Clinton officials and heartedly supported by Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank, the chief Democratic congressional watchdogs.

The controversial Bush bailout plan will be continued — or expanded — by a President Obama. We may see Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke remain in office in the manner that Bush extended Alan Greenspan's eight years under Clinton.Faulting Bush for the wild climbs in oil prices to $147 a barrel would mean also praising him for reducing gas costs below $1.50 a gallon as oil in tough times crashed to less than $50 a barrel. In truth, American dependency on foreign oil and vulnerability to wild swings in price have been chronic since the first Arab embargoes over three decades ago. Note that President-elect Obama has dropped talk of a windfall-profits tax on omnipotent oil companies. Supposed energy cabals that jacked up gas prices have now morphed into clueless oil companies that can't stop them from crashing.Many of our unpopular policies concerning terrorism, energy and finance are of long duration. They resulted from collective decisions by Congress, past administrations — and us, the people, in our daily lives. They were no more the fault of George Bush than they can be easily solved by Barack Obama.We should remember that fact in 2009, when the once-messianic Obama will become all too human, as he is overwhelmed by structural problems of terror, war and money not all of his own making — and the once-demonized but now retired George Bush will seem downright competent.

Campaign Rhetoric and Presidential Reality

2008-12-23T15:28:00.000-08:00

December 22, 2008
Campaign Rhetoric and Presidential Reality
A Brief History
by Victor Davis Hanson
Tribune Media Services

American presidential election rhetoric always paints the incumbent as incompetent in foreign policy, the challenger insightful and skillful. A look at recent history, however, shows that once the opposition gains office, the world suddenly becomes not so black and white.

The outsider Dwight Eisenhower charged President Harry Truman's administration with defeatist incompetence in Korea. Yet, in 1953, President Eisenhower continued Democratic war policies, reached a stalemate at the DMZ, and reclaimed Truman's prior unpopular war policy as his own inspired victory.Brash-talking John Kennedy claimed by 1960 that the softie Eisenhower had let the Russians take the lead in strategic missiles. When elected, however, a more sober JFK dropped talk of a "missile gap" and continued existing defense planning.

Old pro Richard Nixon, when running for president, was said to have a secret plan to end the Vietnam War — apparently unknown to the clueless Kennedy-Johnson liberals. But for the next five years, President Nixon had no easier time withdrawing than his predecessors without conceding defeat.

Maverick Jimmy Carter claimed that cold warriors Gerald Ford and his secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, had raised tensions with the Soviet Union due to an "inordinate fear of communism." Soon a red-faced President Carter scrambled to boycott the 1980 Russian Olympics and beef up the Pentagon after global Soviet aggression from Afghanistan to Central America.

After the interventions of the trigger-happy Reagan and Bush Sr., feel-your-pain Bill Clinton was convinced that his charisma could achieve through diplomacy what his predecessors had failed at through their clumsy use of force. But after 1993, President Clinton ended up bombing or shooting Afghans, Iraqis, Serbians, Somalis and Sudanese — without consulting either Congress or the United Nations.Realist George W. Bush ran on ending Bill Clinton's nation-building — and ended up spending hundreds of billions of dollars on war and fostering democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So given that history, don't expect that President-elect Barack Obama's message of hope and change will translate into all that much of either abroad.Once upon a time, Obama or his supporters variously asserted that Iran was a hyped-up threat, that we could go openly into Pakistan if need be after al Qaeda, that the surge wouldn't work, that the Patriot Act and the Guantanamo Bay prison have torn asunder the Constitution, that we have alienated our European allies, that defeating terrorists is more a matter for criminal justice than military force, and that pushing democracy on traditional Islamic societies is culturally chauvinistic and naive.

But like his predecessors, the Obama administration will quickly learn that present U.S. foreign policy is mostly a result of reasonable decisions taken amid bad and worse choices. Therefore, don't be surprised if a President Obama continues much of what we are now doing — albeit with a kinder, gentler rhetoric of "multilateralism" and "U.N. accords."Obama has not assumed office yet, and already Iran has mocked the president-elect's campaign suggestions for unconditional diplomacy. Already, old-new Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has indicated a desire to stabilize Iraq before withdrawing combat forces. Already, commanders have told the president-elect that a simple surge of more troops into Afghanistan offers no magical solution. Already, we are learning that whether we try more aid or ultimatums, Pakistan will remain Pakistan — a radical Islamic, nuclear failed state that is deeply anti-American rather than merely anti-George Bush.

As Inauguration Day approaches and campaign rhetoric ends and governance begins, words begin to have consequences. The truth is there are not many alternatives to the present general strategy against Islamic terrorism.President Obama doesn't want a terrorist attack after seven years of quiet — certainly not of the sort that occurred in Mumbai last month. He may tinker with, but not end, Homeland Security measures. He may better articulate the complexities of a tribal Middle East, but he won't stop American efforts to foster democracy there.President Obama may show more anguish over the necessary use of violence, but I suspect he won't cede a military victory to terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq. He will talk up the Atlantic Alliance but likely complain in private that the United States inordinately does the heavy lifting in NATO. And if terrorists dared again to kill hundreds of Americans here at home, our new president would probably take military action.

Most conservatives and moderates expected that candidate Obama's grand campaign talk of novel choices abroad would end with President Obama's realist admission of very few new options.His problem is instead his left-wing base, which for some reason believed Obama's electioneering bombast that he could magically make the world anew — and so now apparently should do just that or else!

Obama's Citizenship Still an Issue

2008-12-18T07:33:00.000-08:00

Worldnet Daily
Thursday, December 18, 2008
OBAMA WATCH CENTRALWorldNetDaily Exclusive

Citizenship issue has merit, AOL poll says Nation seeks answers to questions about president-elect's eligibility
Posted: December 16, 20089:11 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
WorldNetDaily
America Online is conducting a new poll asking readers whether they believe there is any merit to the controversy surrounding Barack Obama's citizenship – and most respondents say "yes."
There are some 87,000 national votes in the unscientific survery. A full 51 percent of nationwide respondents believe people should be concerned about Obama's citizenship, 43 percent say the controversy has no merit and 6 percent of voters remain undecided.
In all, 43 states agree that there could be merit to the Obama citizenship controversy.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 190,000 others and sign up now!
Among voters who said Obama's citizenship shouldn't be an issue, represented by 7 yellow states, an average only 50 percent of those states' respondents sided with Obama.
However, Washington, D.C., voters overwhelmingly sided with Obama – with 74 percent voting to drop the issue.
On a similar note, WND poll asked readers, "Are you satisfied Obama is constitutionally eligible to assume the presidency?" A full 97 percent of 6,000 voters said "no."
The top three answers were:
No, if I can't get a driver's license without an original birth certificate, how can Obama become president without one?
No, and Americans should continue to dog him about it through his term
No, there's a reason why he's unwilling to disclose his original birth certificate
(Story continues below)
AOL readers posted comments under its poll results, including the following:
No, I don't think it has any merit. A birth certificate was posted on his web site showing his birth in Hawaii and a story to go with it. Those who are keeping it alive are just sore losers.
This could be put to rest with a $10 copy from the government, and yet Obama has spent somewhere between $500,000 and $800,000 to block this. Why does he waste taxpayers money on this foolishness.
The birth certificate thing is just more racism under a smoke screen. You birthers can keep this going as long as you want with no results, just as the "Impeach Bush" folks never got anywhere for the past 8 years.
Why spend thousands of dollars to block lawsuits that are requesting him to do what John McCain willfully and freely did?
It's sad that every pathetic, Republican racist out there is clinging to the hope that President Obama is not a red-blooded, red, white and blue right down to his soxs American citizen! President Obama is a God given gift to America. He has a big job ahead of him ... cleaning up Bush's mess!
Now isn't that interesting that the slime states of the left which are in the most trouble with their budgets are the ones who think this thug is real.

Ten Random, Politically-Incorrect Thoughts

2008-11-27T09:51:00.000-08:00

Ten Random, Politically-Incorrect Thoughts
by Victor Davis Hanson
Pajamas Media

Four years of high-school Latin would dramatically arrest the decline in American education. In particular, such instruction would do more for minority youths than all the ‘role model’ diversity sermons on Harriet Tubman, Malcolm X, Montezuma, and Caesar Chavez put together. Nothing so enriches the vocabulary, so instructs about English grammar and syntax, so creates a discipline of the mind, an elegance of expression, and serves as a gateway to the thinking and values of Western civilization as mastery of a page of Virgil or Livy (except perhaps Sophocles’s Antigone in Greek or Thucydides’ dialogue at Melos). After some 20 years of teaching mostly minority youth Greek, Latin, and ancient history and literature in translation (1984-2004), I came to the unfortunate conclusion that ethnic studies, women studies — indeed, anything “studies” — were perhaps the fruits of some evil plot dreamed up by illiberal white separatists to ensure that poor minority students in the public schools and universities were offered only a third-rate education.2. Hollywood is going the way of Detroit. The actors are programmed and pretty rather than interesting looking and unique. They, of course, are overpaid (they do to films what Lehman Brothers’ execs did to stocks), mediocre, and politicized. The producers and directors are rarely talented, mostly unoriginal — and likewise politicized. A pack-mentality rules. Do one movie on a comic superhero — and suddenly we get ten, all worse than the first. One noble lion cartoon movie earns us eagle, penguin and most of Noah’s Arc sequels. Now see poorer remakes of movies that were never good to begin with. I doubt we will ever see again a Western like Shane, The Searchers, High Noon, or The Wild Bunch. If one wishes to see a fine film, they are now usually foreign, such as Das Boot or Breaker Morant. Watching any recent war movie (e.g., Iraq as the Rape of Nanking) is as if someone put uniforms on student protestors and told them to consult their professors for the impromptu script.3. All the old media brands of our youth have been tarnished and all but discredited. No one picks up Harpers or Atlantic expecting to read a disinterested story on politics or culture. (I pass on their inane accounts of ‘getaways’ and food.) The New York Times and Washington Post are as likely to have op-eds as news stories on the front page. Newsweek and Time became organs for paint-by-numbers Obamism, teased with People Magazine-like gossip pieces (at least, their editors still cared enough to seem hurt when charged with overt bias). NBC, ABC, and CBS would now make a Chet Huntley or Eric Sevareid turn over in his grave. A Keith Olbermann would not have been allowed to do commercials in the 1950s. Strangely, the media has offered up fashionably liberal politics coupled with metrosexual elite tastes in fashions, clothes, housing, food, and the good life, as if there were no contradictions between the two. No wonder media is so enthralled with the cool Obama and his wife. Both embody the new nexus between Eurosocialism in the abstract and the hip aristocratic life in the concrete.4. After the junk bond meltdown, the S&L debacle, and now the financial panic, in just a few years the financial community destroyed the ancient wisdom: deal in personal trust; your word is your bond; avoid extremes; treat the money you invest for others as something sacred; don’t take any more perks than you would wish others to take; don’t borrow what you couldn’t suddenly pay back; imagine the worse case financial scenario and expect it may very well happen; the wealthier you become the more humble you should act. And for what did our new Jay Goulds do all this? A 20,000 square-foot mansion instead of the old 6,000 sq. ft. expansive house? A Gulfstream in lieu of first class commercial? You milk your company, cash in your stock bonuses, enjoy your $50 million cash pile, and then get what — a Rolex instead of a reliable Timex? A Maserati for a Mercedes, a gold bathroom spout in preference to brushed pewter? The extra splurge was marginal and hardly worth the stain of avarice on one’s immortal soul.5. California is now a valuable touchstone to the country, a warning of what not to do. Rarely has a single generation inherited so much natural wealth and bounty from the investment and hard work of those more noble now resting in our cemeteries — and squandered that gift within a generation. Compare the vast gulf from old Governor Pat Brown to Gray Davis or Arnold Schwarzenegger. We did not invest in many dams, canals, rails, and airports (though we use them all to excess); we sued each other rather than planned; wrote impact statements rather than left behind infrastructure; we redistributed, indulged, blamed, and so managed all at once to create a state with about the highest income and sales taxes and the worst schools, roads, hospitals, and airports. A walk through downtown San Francisco, a stroll up the Fresno downtown mall, a drive along highway 101 (yes, in many places it is still a four-lane, pot-holed highway), an afternoon at LAX, a glance at the catalogue of Cal State Monterey, a visit to the park in Parlier — all that would make our forefathers weep. We can’t build a new nuclear plant; can’t drill a new offshore oil well; can’t build an all-weather road across the Sierra; can’t build a few tracts of new affordable houses in the Bay Area; can’t build a dam for a water-short state; and can’t create even a mediocre passenger rail system. Everything else — well, we do that well.6. Something has happened to the generic American male accent. Maybe it is urbanization; perhaps it is now an affectation to sound precise and caring with a patina of intellectual authority; perhaps it is the fashion culture of the metrosexual; maybe it is the influence of the gay community in arts and popular culture. Maybe the ubiquitous new intonation comes from the scarcity of salty old jobs in construction, farming, or fishing. But increasingly to meet a young American male about 25 is to hear a particular nasal stress, a much higher tone than one heard 40 years ago, and, to be frank, to listen to a precious voice often nearly indistinguishable from the female. How indeed could one make Westerns these days, when there simply is not anyone left who sounds like John Wayne, Richard Boone, Robert Duvall, or Gary Cooper much less a Struther Martin, Jack Palance, L.Q. Jones, or Ben Johnson? I watched the movie Twelve O’clock High the other day, and Gregory Peck and Dean Jagger sounded liked they were from another planet. I confess over the last year, I have been interviewed a half-dozen times on the phone, and had no idea at first whether a male or female was asking the questions. All this sounds absurd, but I think upon reflection readers my age (55) will attest they have had the same experience. In the old days, I remember only that I first heard a variant of this accent with the old Paul Lynde character actor in one of the Flubber movies; now young men sound closer to his camp than to a Jack Palance or Alan Ladd.7. We have given political eccentricity a bad name. There used to be all sorts of classy individualists, liberal and conservative alike, like Everett Dirksen, J. William Fulbright, Margaret Chase Smith, or Sam Ervin; today we simply see the obnoxious who claim to be eccentric like a Barbara Boxer, Al Franken, Barney Frank, or Harry Reid. The loss is detectable even in diction and manner; Dirksen was no angel, but he was witty, charming, insightful; Frank is no angel, but he merely rants and pontificates. Watch the You Tube exchange between Harvard Law Graduate Frank and Harvard Law Graduate Raines as they arrogantly dismiss their trillion-dollar Fannie/Freddie meltdown in the making. I suppose it is the difference between the Age of Belief and the Age of Nihilism.8. Do not farm. There is only loss. To the degree that anyone makes money farming, it is a question of a vertically-integrated enterprise making more in shipping, marketing, selling, packing, and brokering than it loses on the other end in growing. No exceptions. Food prices stay high, commodity prices stay low. That is all ye need to know. Try it and see.9. As I wrote earlier, the shrill Left is increasingly far more vicious these days than the conservative fringe, and about like the crude Right of the 1950s. Why? I am not exactly sure, other than the generic notion that utopians often believe that their anointed ends justify brutal means. Maybe it is that the Right already had its Reformation when Buckley and others purged the extremists — the Birchers, the neo-Confederates, racialists, the fluoride-in-the-water conspiracists, anti-Semites, and assorted nuts — from the conservative ranks in a way the Left has never done with the 1960s radicals that now reappear in the form of Michael Moore, Bill Ayers, Cindy Sheehan, Moveon.org, the Daily Kos, etc. Not many Democrats excommunicated Moveon.org for its General Betray-Us ad. Most lined up to see the premier of Moore’s mythodrama. Barack Obama could subsidize a Rev. Wright or email a post-9/11 Bill Ayers in a way no conservative would even dare speak to a David Duke or Timothy McVeigh — and what Wright said was not all that different from what Duke spouts. What separated Ayers from McVeigh was chance; had the stars aligned, the Weathermen would have killed hundreds as they planned.10. The K-12 public education system is essentially wrecked. No longer can any professor expect an incoming college freshman to know what Okinawa, John Quincy Adams, Shiloh, the Parthenon, the Reformation, John Locke, the Second Amendment, or the Pythagorean Theorem is. An entire American culture, the West itself, its ideas and experiences, have simply vanished on the altar of therapy. This upcoming generation knows instead not to judge anyone by absolute standards (but not why so); to remember to say that its own Western culture is no different from, or indeed far worse than, the alternatives; that race, class, and gender are, well, important in some vague sense; that global warming is manmade and very soon will kill us all; that we must have hope and change of some undefined sort; that AIDs is no more a homosexual- than a heterosexual-prone disease; and that the following things and people for some reason must be bad, or at least must in public company be said to be bad (in no particular order): Wal-Mart, cowboys, the Vietnam War, oil companies, coal plants, nuclear power, George Bush, chemicals, leather, guns, states like Utah and Kansas, Sarah Palin, vans and SUVs.Well, with that done — I feel much better.

Be an Angel to Those Who Have Bled for Our Freedoms

2008-11-27T09:45:00.000-08:00

Be an Angel to Those Who Have Bled for Our Freedoms
Posted By C. Blake Powers On November 27, 2008 @ 12:28 am In . Column2 04, Media, US News No Comments
One can scarcely turn on the news today without hearing the latest breathless take on the damage done by the current economic crisis. The refrain, from [1] Canada, the [2] trotted out almost every time there is a hiccup, much less a real economic problem.
What we are experiencing has truly created the effects of a storm, however, as people prepare for the worst and react as if the worst were already here. One of the first casualties of any economic downturn are charities, and it is [3] easy [4] to [5] find [6] stories [7] about real or anticipated drops in contributions.
Yet, if history is any guide, Americans will continue to give and could even increase donations as noted by [8] the Chronicle of Philanthropy, which even has a [9] special guide on philanthropy in troubled times. Americans have traditionally voluntarily given to others in times of crisis, be it a natural disaster or an economic downturn. This history and spirit of giving to those truly in need is a cultural foundation of our nation and its people.
It is with pleasure that we at [10] Soldiers’ Angels report that despite the economy, that most major programs are continuing with the generosity of individual and corporate donors. Things are tight, but with the continued generosity of the public towards those who have served and are serving, Soldiers’ Angels will continue to be able to meet the demand.
“Soldiers’ Angels is very fortunate to have its direct mail program which has allowed us to keep care packages flowing out to deployed, backpacks to the combat support hospitals, vet packs to our VA hospitals,” notes Patti Patton-Bader, founder of Soldiers’ Angels. This program has grown out of the base of initial individual contributors, who helped the charity grow. Building off that base, the direct mail campaigns have reached out to a wider audience and brought in contributions that have allowed a second stage of growth for the charity.
The company behind them creates the mailings, provides the incentives, and raises the funds in exchange for a flat fee per piece mailed. It is important to note that the two companies doing the direct mail fund-raising believe in Soldiers’ Angels mission and have contracted for a smaller fee than for their other clients, so that Soldiers’ Angels gets more for their work.
Additionally, the direct mail campaign not only brings in significant funds to the charity, it also serves the purpose of advertising the mission of Soldiers’ Angels and opens doors to yet another level of donations. With this funding and more than 200,000 volunteers, Soldiers’ Angels now has the resources to pursue significant corporate sponsorships and participation in events such as the Combined Federal Campaign and other planned giving opportunities.
The individual donors who helped Soldiers’ Angels get off the ground remain the cornerstone of its economic foundation. Those who already know about the charity can, and do, make contributions directly to it for that purpose.
They are also an integral part of [11] Project Valour-IT, which provides voice-activated/adaptive laptops and other technology to wounded or disabled veterans. In addition to the laptops, which are the heart of the project, WII game consoles and GPS units are provided as well. The WII systems work the whole body, and as such, increase motivation and speed recovery when used under the guidance of physical therapists. The GPS and/or PDA units build self-confidence and independence by providing compensation for short-term memory loss and challenges related to Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
All the equipment is given only at the request of therapists and caseworkers, and never frivolously. The success of this program has resulted in the development of a direct partnership between Soldiers’ Angels and the Department of Defense. Soldiers’ Angels donates the laptops directly to the soldier and DOD provides voice activated software and technical training to the wounded warrior. Since the soldier receives his own personal laptop, he is able to take it with him when he is discharged and thus maintain continuity with the hospital to his home.
This very special project has always been completely Internet and word-of-mouth driven in its fund-raising. Traditionally, an annual fundraiser kicks off on Veterans’ Day and ends on Thanksgiving, and a friendly competition between the services provides the means to raise a goal of $250,000.00.
Sad to say, this year finds us barely more than 27% to that goal. There are a variety of factors at work, and the economy and worries about the future are a part of that. The problem is, as Patti notes, “Without these needed funds, someone who fought for us will go without and that is heartbreaking. PTSD is on the rise and we are far from training a public on how they can help. After all It will take a Nation to heal a War. These laptops, GPS , WII’s and the like truly help these men and women feel special, important, that someone cares and that can mean a lot.”
You can help Soldiers’ Angels and the various teams meet their goal even at this late date. You can donate directly to [12] Valour-IT and know that one hundred percent of the monies raised go to the technology provided and not to overhead or other costs. Or, if you would like to get something more than knowing that you’ve had a direct and positive impact on a wounded or disabled service member, you can get as you give via [13] the charity auction.
This auction of signed books, and one special fleece blanket, was made possible by the generosity of seven authors: David Weber, John Ringo, David J. Williams, Travis “Doc” Taylor, David Drake, Dean Ing, and Mark L. Van Name. Each of them have donated signed books to be auctioned in support of Valour-IT. David J. WIlliams has even added maps of the world of his books to go with each of the volumes he donated.
One of the most humbling moments of my life was being asked to present some of these laptops at Walter Reed on my way home from my first embed in Iraq. Some of the most rewarding moments of this last year, if not my life, came when talking to recipients and hearing from them how much the laptops and technology had helped them and meant to them.
This year will see us examine how we want to meet the challenges for Project Valour-IT fundraising. With your help, we can still meet our goals and provide a direct and tangible benefit for those who have paid a blood price for us and our country. I ask you today to do what we have always done in times of crisis, and help those in need.

Pat Buchanan to Obama

2008-11-27T09:42:00.000-08:00

Buchanan to Obama
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America .
Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.
This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:
First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known. Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.
Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the ’60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.
Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks — with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas — to advance black applicants over white applicants.
Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.
We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude??
Barack talks about new ‘ladders of opportunity’ for blacks.
Let him go to Altoona and Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for ‘deserving’ white kids.
Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America ? Is it really white America ’s fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?
Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?
As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence.
Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?
Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?
We have all heard adnauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena . And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.
Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago. Be a better friend,

Terrorist Women Turn Themselves In

2008-11-27T09:40:00.000-08:00

Women Bite Dogs in Iraq
Posted By Michael Ledeen On November 26, 2008 @ 7:51 pm In Uncategorized 7 Comments
Here is one of the biggest stories to come out of the Middle East in quite some time. You probably can’t find it in the New York Slimes or the Washington Compost (copyright, Mark Levin), but rather on [1] the exceptionally useful web site of our military Voila’:
TIKRIT, Iraq – Eighteen females in northern Iraq who were associated with Al-Qaeda in Iraq suicide bombing cells turned themselves into Coalition forces on Nov. 26.
The females were persuaded by their mullahs and fathers to cease their training in suicide operations and reconcile.
Today, these women took the first step in reconciliation by turning themselves in and signing a reconciliation pledge.
Individuals who turn themselves into CF and want to demonstrate their willingness to cease attacks against the Government of Iraq, Iraqi civilians, Iraqi Security Forces and CF can enter the Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration (DDR) process. Eligible petitioners provide weapons and information on insurgent groups and sign a pledge to cease attacks and declare their support for the GoI.
Let’s start with the dateline: Tikrit, Saddam Hussein’s home town. How good is that? Then comes the really good part: these women were talked out of terrorism by their fathers and by their mullahs. So we’re talking about Shi’ites, and the menfolk in their town, whether religious or “just dads,” got wind of their daughters’ intentions and talked them out of it.
Which is an important datum in the important ongoing debate over the nature of Islam, isn’t it? For this means that at least some Islamic religious leaders–the mullahs referenced above–are opposed to suicide terrorism, whether against Americans or Iraqis, civilians or military. And they acted on it. And, to use our legalese, they got the women to turn state’s evidence against those who were training them to blow themselves up.
Yes, I’d like to know a lot more about this story. I’d like to know how old the women are, I’d like to know where and how they were recruited, and I’d love to know the evidence they provided to our guys. But meanwhile, it’s worth a glass of good Sicilian red.
Or two…
Before the third glass, an additional point: this is singularly bad news for the mullahs across the road, the ones in Iran, the ones who are forever hailing “martyrdom.” If we had a Voice of America worthy of the name (we don’t, alas), this story would be broadcast in Farsi around the clock, because it will encourage the brave women of Iran to continue their struggle against the sexist barbarians who rule their country. If the Iraqis can do it, so can they. Eventually they’re gonna win.
Which of course brings me to the final point: at the end of the day, the women of the Middle East are the strongest revolutionary force in the region. We should be supporting them in every imaginable way. Maybe Miss Hillary will move forward with that mission?

Proposition 8- Who's really lying?

2008-10-17T19:00:00.000-07:00

latest news
[SPX] S&P 500 Index down 24 points to 922
Proposition 8: Who's Really Lying?
Last update: 3:28 p.m. EDT Oct. 16, 2008
SACRAMENTO, Calif.,, Oct 16, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Public Records Show Proposition 8 Opponents Want Gay Marriage To Be Taught In Public Schools - 'The earlier the better.'
The top issue that has emerged in the Proposition 8 campaign is whether same-sex marriage will be taught in California public schools if the initiative is not enacted. Opponents of Proposition 8 are spending millions of dollars on television commercials telling voters that the Yes on 8 campaign's claim that gay marriage will be taught in public schools is a lie. Yet a review of public records filed with the First District Court of Appeal in Boston shows these same organizations who claim our statement is a lie fought to make it true in Massachusetts. Specifically, they fought to ensure that gay marriage be taught in Massachusetts public schools, even over the objection of parents who sought an "opt out" for their children. Gay marriage was legalized by Massachusetts courts in 2003.
Further, their assurance that parents can always "opt-out" of such instruction when it is taught is belied by the fact that in Massachusetts, they argued successfully that Massachusetts' parental opt-out provision should not be permitted.
"These damning public records show that it is in fact the organizations leading and financing the No on 8 campaign who are lying to California voters," said Yes on 8 campaign manager Frank Schubert. "On one coast of the country they tell judges that gay marriage should be taught to children in school at the youngest possible age. But, on the opposite coast, here in California, they have the audacity to tell voters that gay marriage has nothing to do with public schools."
Lying... who's really lying?
The Yes on 8 campaign has been airing television and radio commercials factually presenting what happened in Massachusetts where second graders were taught in class about gay marriage using the book, "King and King." This book is about a prince who married another prince, and includes an illustrated scene of the two men kissing. In response, the No on 8 campaign has purchased at least $1.25 million in television time to run an ad that says, "They're using lies to persuade you...[Prop. 8] will not affect teaching in schools. Another lie." (Source: No on Prop. 8 Ad available at http://www.noonprop8.com)
In the greatest irony, of course, just two days after the No on 8 "Lies" television commercial began airing, a first grade public school class in San Francisco was taken on a field trip to a lesbian wedding at City Hall, officiated by Mayor Gavin Newsom. School officials said they wished to provide their five and six year old students a "teachable moment."
It should also be noted that the day after the first Yes on 8 ads began running, the Los Angeles Times reported that "Newsom called the (Yes on 8) ad 'classic distraction' and misleading." Ten days later, he officiated at the above-mentioned and now infamous field trip.
"Not only do the organizations leading the No on 8 campaign want gay marriage, under the guise of 'diversity,' taught in public schools, they believe it is important to teach it at the earliest possible age," Schubert said. Massachusetts begins its "diversity education" to five year old children in kindergarten.
According to legal records on file with the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston, Massachusetts in the case Parker v. Hurley (514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir.2008)), some of the very organizations who are funding and driving the No on 8 campaign have argued vociferously that gay marriage should be taught in the public schools under the guise of "diversity," and any attempt to prohibit such instruction - or to permit parents to opt their children out of it - must be stopped.
The following are statements filed in amicus curiae briefs in Parker v. Hurley. The statements show how organizations leading the No on 8 campaign are lying to California voters when they say gay marriage will not be taught in California public schools.
From the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Amicus Curiae Brief:
"In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the right of same-sex couples to marry is protected under the state constitution, it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents." [p 5]
"Diversity education is most effective when it begins during the students' formative years. The earlier diversity education occurs, the more likely it is that students will be able to educate their peers, thereby compounding the benefits of this instruction." [p 3]
(Note: The ADL is a leading member of the No on 8 campaign, and publicly announced they had joined the campaign opposing Proposition 8 on September 9, 2008.)
From the Human Rights Campaign Amicus Curiae Brief:
"There is no constitutional principle grounded in either the First Amendment's free exercise clause or the right to direct the upbringing of one's children, which requires defendants to either remove the books now in issue - or to treat them as suspect by imposing an opt-out system." [pp1-2]
"In short, there can be no serious dispute that the books in issue are both age-appropriate and reflect the growing diversity of American families." [p 9]
"Lexington's selection of the [three] books...for inclusion in its curriculum is firmly rooted in the long-recognized tradition of public schools as a place for disseminating the knowledge and information that helps to foster understanding between diverse groups and individuals for the overall benefit of society." [p 13]
(Note: The Human Rights Campaign has organized one of the largest recipient committees to oppose Proposition 8. The committee, Human Rights Campaign CA Marriage PAC (ID# 1307246) has received more than $2.2 million in contributions (as of 10/8/08), including over $100,000 from the Human Rights Campaign itself in non-monetary contributions. The committee has funneled over $2 million of its funds to No on 8, Equality for All (ID# 1259396), the main No on Proposition 8 campaign committee.)
From the ACLU Amicus Curiae Brief:
"Specifically, the parents in this case do not have a constitutional right to override the professional pedagogical judgment of the school with respect to the inclusion within the curriculum of the age-appropriate children's book...'King and King'." [p 9]
"This court has astutely recognized that a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would fatally compromise the ability of a school to provide a meaningful education, a conclusion that holds true regardless of the age of the child or the nature of the belief." [p 18]
"First, a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would subject a school to a staggering administrative burden...Second, in contravention of the axiom that 'the classroom is peculiarly the 'marketplace of ideas' [citations], a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would chill discussion in the classroom...Third, the coming and goings of those children who have been opted out of lessons would be highly disruptive to the learning environment. Moreover, such comings and goings would fatally undermine the lessons that schools teach the other students." [pp 22-23]
(Note: The Northern California Chapter of the ACLU has also formed a Proposition 8 opposition committee: No on Prop 8, Campaign for Marriage Equality, a project of the ACLU of Northern California (ID# 1308178). This committee has collected $1.6 million in contributions (as of 10/8/08), including more than $70,000 from the ACLU of northern California, as well as $8,000 from the ACLU Foundation. This committee has contributed $1,250,000 to No on 8, Equality for All (ID# 1259396), the main No on Proposition 8 campaign committee.)
These are the facts. This is the truth about the calculated efforts to deliver gay marriage into our public school classrooms, against the wishes of the people of our state. Voters may differ about how they feel about gay marriage, but there is no disputing that the organizations funding and leading the No on Proposition 8 campaign have already revealed, in their own words, their desire to impose this subject on children in the public schools - 'whether you like it or not.'
For more information, visit http://www.ProtectMarriage.com
Paid for by ProtectMarriage.com -- Yes on 8, a project of California Renewal. 915 L Street, #C-259, Sacramento, CA 95814. 916-446-2956. Major funding by Knights of Columbus, National Organization for Marriage California Committee and Focus on the Family.
SOURCE ProtectMarriage.com http://www.noonprop8.com

How Hostages, And Nations, Get Liberated

2008-10-17T18:58:00.000-07:00

How Hostages, And Nations, Get Liberated
By Charles KrauthammerFriday, July 11, 2008; A17
On the day the Colombian military freed Ingrid Betancourt and 14 other long-held hostages, the Italian Parliament passed yet another resolution demanding her release. Europe had long ago adopted this French-Colombian politician as a cause celebre. France had made her an honorary citizen of Paris, passed numerous resolutions and held many vigils.
Unfortunately, karma does not easily cross the Atlantic. Betancourt languished for six years in cruel captivity until freed in a brilliant operation conducted by the Colombian military, intelligence agencies and special forces -- an operation so well executed that the captors were overpowered without a shot being fired.
This in foreign policy establishment circles is called "hard power." In the Bush years, hard power is terribly out of fashion, seen as a mere obsession of cowboys and neocons. Both in Europe and America, the sophisticates worship at the altar of "soft power" -- the use of diplomatic and moral resources to achieve one's ends.
Europe luxuriates in soft power, nowhere more than in l'affaire Betancourt in which Europe's repeated gestures of solidarity hovered somewhere between the fatuous and the destructive. Europe had been pressing the Colombian government to negotiate for the hostages. Venezuela's Hugo Chávez offered to mediate.
Of course, we know from documents captured in a daring Colombian army raid into Ecuador in March -- your standard hard-power operation duly denounced by that perfect repository of soft power, the Organization of American States -- that Chávez had been secretly funding and pulling the strings of the FARC. These negotiations would have been Chávez's opportunity to gain recognition and legitimacy for his terrorist client.
Colombia's President Álvaro Uribe, a conservative and close ally of President Bush, went instead for the hard stuff. He has for years. As a result, he has brought to its knees the longest-running and once-strongest guerrilla force on the continent by means of "an intense military campaign [that] weakened the FARC, killing seasoned commanders and prompting 1,500 fighters and urban operatives to desert" ( Washington Post). In the end, it was that campaign -- and its agent, the Colombian military -- that freed Betancourt.
She was, however, only one of the high-minded West's many causes. Solemn condemnations have been issued from every forum of soft-power fecklessness -- the European Union, the United Nations, the G-8 foreign ministers -- demanding that Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe stop butchering his opponents and step down. Before that, the cause du jour was Burma, where a vicious dictatorship allowed thousands of cyclone victims to die by denying them independently delivered foreign aid lest it weaken the junta's grip on power.
And then there is Darfur, a perennial for which myriad diplomats and foreign policy experts have devoted uncountable hours at the finest five-star hotels to deplore the genocide and urgently urge relief.
What is done to free these people? Nothing. Everyone knows it will take the hardest of hard power to remove the oppressors in Zimbabwe, Burma, Sudan and other godforsaken places where the bad guys have the guns and use them. Indeed, as the Zimbabwean opposition leader suggested (before quickly retracting) from his hideout in the Dutch embassy -- Europe specializes in providing haven for those fleeing the evil that Europe does nothing about -- the only solution is foreign intervention.
And who's going to intervene? The only country that could is the country that in the past two decades led coalitions that liberated Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan. Having sacrificed much blood and treasure in its latest endeavor -- the liberation of 25 million Iraqis from the most barbarous tyranny of all, and its replacement with what is beginning to emerge as the Arab world's first democracy -- and having earned near-universal condemnation for its pains, America has absolutely no appetite for such missions.
And so the innocent languish, as did Betancourt, until some local power, inexplicably under the sway of the Bush notion of hard power, gets it done -- often with the support of the American military. "Behind the rescue in a jungle clearing stood years of clandestine American work," explained The Post. "It included the deployment of elite U.S. Special Forces . . . a vast intelligence-gathering operation . . . and training programs for Colombian troops."
Upon her liberation, Betancourt offered profuse thanks to God and the Virgin Mary, to her supporters and the media, to France and Colombia and just about everybody else. As of this writing, none to the United States.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Mo Will To Drill...

2008-10-17T18:56:00.000-07:00

No Will To DrillThe Democrats Resist Logic -- and Politics
By Charles KrauthammerFriday, August 8, 2008; A17
Let's see: housing meltdown, credit crunch, oil shock not seen since the 1970s. The economy is slowing, unemployment growing and inflation increasing. It's the sixth year of a highly unpopular war, and the president's approval rating is at 30 percent.
The Italian Communist Party could win this election. The American Democratic Party is trying its best to lose it.
Democrats have the advantage on just about every domestic issue from health care to education. However, Americans' greatest concern is the economy, and their greatest economic concern is energy (by a significant margin: 37 percent to 21 percent for inflation). Yet Democrats have gratuitously forfeited the issue of increased drilling for domestic oil and gas. By an overwhelming margin of 2 to 1, Americans want to lift the moratorium preventing drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, thus unlocking vast energy resources shut down for the past 27 years.
Democrats have been adamantly opposed. They say that we cannot drill our way out of the oil crisis. Of course not. But it is equally obvious that we cannot solar or wind or biomass our way out. Does this mean that because any one measure cannot solve a problem, it needs to be rejected?
Barack Obama remains opposed to new offshore drilling (although he now says he would accept a highly restricted version as part of a comprehensive package). Just last week, he claimed that if only Americans would inflate their tires properly and get regular tuneups, "we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling."
This is bizarre. By any reasonable calculation of annual tire-inflation and tuneup savings, the Outer Continental Shelf holds nearly a hundred times as much oil. As for oil shale, also under federal moratorium, after a thousand years of driving with Obama-inflated tires and Obama-tuned engines, we would still have saved an amount equal to only one-fifth the oil shale available in the United States.
But forget the math. Why is this issue either/or? Who's against properly inflated tires? Let's start a national campaign, Cuban-style, with giant venceremos posters lining the highways. ("Inflate your tires. Victory or death!") Why must there be a choice between encouraging conservation and increasing supply? The logical answer is obvious: Do both.
Do everything. Wind and solar. A tire gauge in every mailbox. Hell, a team of oxen for every family (to pull their gasoline-drained SUVs). The consensus in the country, logically unassailable and politically unbeatable, is to do everything possible to both increase supply and reduce demand, because we have a problem that's been killing our economy and threatening our national security. And no one measure is sufficient.
The green fuels the Democrats insist we should be investing in are as yet uneconomical, speculative technologies, still far more expensive than extracted oil and natural gas. We could be decades away. And our economy is teetering. Why would you not drill to provide a steady supply of proven fuels for the next few decades as we make the huge technological and economic transition to renewable energy?
Congressional Democrats demand instead a clampdown on "speculators." The Democrats proposed this a month ago. In the meantime, "speculators" have driven the price down by $25 a barrel. Still want to stop them? In what universe do traders only bet on the price going up?
On Monday, Obama outlined a major plan with mandates and immense government investment in such things as electric cars and renewables. Fine, let's throw a few tens of billions at this and see what sticks. But success will require not just huge amounts of money. It will require equally huge amounts of time and luck.
On the other hand, drilling requires no government program, no newly created bureaucracy, no pie-in-the-sky technologies that no one has yet invented. It requires only one thing, only one act. Lift the moratorium. Private industry will do the rest. And far from draining the treasury, it will replenish it with direct taxes and with the indirect taxes from the thousands of non-subsidized new jobs created.
The problem for the Democrats is that the argument for "do everything" is not rocket science. It is common sense. Which is why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, surveying the political rubble resulting from her insistence on not even permitting drilling to come to a floor vote, has quietly told her members that they can save their skins and vote for drilling when the pre-election Congress convenes next month. Pelosi says she wants to save the planet. Apparently saving her speakership comes first.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Charlie Gibson's Gaffe

2008-10-17T18:55:00.000-07:00

Charlie Gibson's Gaffe
By Charles KrauthammerSaturday, September 13, 2008; A17
"At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' "
-- New York Times, Sept. 12
Informed her? Rubbish.
The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.
There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.
He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"
She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"
Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."
Wrong.
I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.
Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush doctrine.
Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.
It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."
This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy's pledge in his inaugural address that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points.
If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume -- unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise -- that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration.
Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption.
Not the "with us or against us" no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.
Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.
Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.
Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.
Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Obama's Attitude Sickness

2008-10-17T18:53:00.001-07:00

Obama's Altitude Sickness
By Charles KrauthammerFriday, September 12, 2008; A15
The Democrats are in a panic. In a presidential race that is impossible to lose, they are behind. Obama devotees are frantically giving advice. Tom Friedman tells him to "start slamming down some phones." Camille Paglia suggests, "be boring!"
Meanwhile, a posse of Democratic lawyers, mainstream reporters, lefty bloggers and various other Obamaphiles are scouring the vast tundra of Alaska for something, anything, to bring down Sarah Palin: her daughter's pregnancy, her ex-brother-in-law problem, her $60 per diem, and now her religion. (CNN reports -- news flash! -- that she apparently has never spoken in tongues.) Not since Henry II asked if no one would rid him of his turbulent priest have so many so urgently volunteered for duty.
But Palin is not just a problem for Obama. She is also a symptom of what ails him. Before Palin, Obama was the ultimate celebrity candidate. For no presidential nominee in living memory had the gap between adulation and achievement been so great. Which is why McCain's Paris Hilton ads struck such a nerve. Obama's meteoric rise was based not on issues -- there was not a dime's worth of difference between him and Hillary on issues -- but on narrative, on eloquence, on charisma.
The unease at the Denver convention, the feeling of buyer's remorse, was the Democrats' realization that the arc of Obama's celebrity had peaked -- and had now entered a period of its steepest decline. That Palin could so instantly steal the celebrity spotlight is a reflection of that decline.
It was inevitable. Obama had managed to stay aloft for four full years. But no one can levitate forever.
Five speeches map Obama's trajectory.
Obama burst into celebrityhood with his brilliant and moving 2004 Democratic convention speech (#1). It turned an obscure state senator into a national figure and legitimate presidential candidate.
His next and highest moment (#2) was the night of his Iowa caucus victory when he gave an equally stirring speech of the highest tones that dazzled a national audience just tuning in.
The problem is that Obama began believing in his own magical powers -- the chants, the swoons, the "we are the ones" self-infatuation. Like Ronald Reagan, he was leading a movement, but one entirely driven by personality. Reagan's revolution was rooted in concrete political ideas (supply-side economics, welfare-state deregulation, national strength) that transcended one man. For Obama's movement, the man is the transcendence.
Which gave the Obama campaign a cult-like tinge. With every primary and every repetition of the high-flown, self-referential rhetoric, the campaign's insubstantiality became clear. By the time it was repeated yet again on the night of the last primary (#3), the tropes were tired and flat. To top himself, Obama had to reach. Hence his triumphal declaration that history would note that night, his victory, his ascension, as "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."
Clang. But Obama heard only the cheers of the invited crowd. Not yet seeing how the pseudo-messianism was wearing thin, he did Berlin (#4) and finally jumped the shark. That grandiloquent proclamation of universalist puffery popped the bubble. The grandiosity had become bizarre.
From there it was but a short step to Paris Hilton. Finally, the Obama people understood. Which is why the next data point (#5) is so different. Obama's Denver acceptance speech was deliberately pedestrian, State-of-the-Union-ish, programmatic and only briefly (that lovely coda recalling the March on Washington) lyrical.
The problem, however, was that Obama had announced the Invesco Field setting for the speech during the pre-Berlin flush of hubris. They were stuck with the Greek columns, the circus atmosphere, the rock star fireworks farewell -- as opposed to the warmer, traditional, balloon-filled convention-hall hug-a-thon. The incongruity between text and context was apparent. Obama was trying to make himself ordinary -- and serious -- but could hardly remember how.
One star fades, another is born. The very next morning McCain picks Sarah Palin and a new celebrity is launched. And in the celebrity game, novelty is trump. With her narrative, her persona, her charisma carrying the McCain campaign to places it has never been and by all logic has no right to be, she's pulling an Obama.
But her job is easier. She only has to remain airborne for seven more weeks. Obama maintained altitude for an astonishing four years. In politics, as in all games, however, it's the finish that counts.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Obama & Friends...

2008-10-17T18:51:00.000-07:00

Obama & Friends: Judge Not?
By Charles KrauthammerFriday, October 10, 2008; A19
Convicted felon Tony Rezko. Unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. And the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. It is hard to think of any presidential candidate before Barack Obama sporting associations with three more execrable characters. Yet let the McCain campaign raise the issue, and the mainstream media begin fulminating about dirty campaigning tinged with racism and McCarthyite guilt by association.
But associations are important. They provide a significant insight into character. They are particularly relevant in relation to a potential president as new, unknown, opaque and self-contained as Obama. With the economy overshadowing everything, it may be too late politically to be raising this issue. But that does not make it, as conventional wisdom holds, in any way illegitimate.
McCain has only himself to blame for the bad timing. He should months ago have begun challenging Obama's associations, before the economic meltdown allowed the Obama campaign (and the mainstream media, which is to say the same thing) to dismiss the charges as an act of desperation by the trailing candidate.
McCain had his chance back in April when the North Carolina Republican Party ran a gubernatorial campaign ad that included the linking of Obama with Jeremiah Wright. The ad was duly denounced by the New York Times and other deep thinkers as racist.
This was patently absurd. Racism is treating people differently and invidiously on the basis of race. Had any white presidential candidate had a close 20-year association with a white preacher overtly spreading race hatred from the pulpit, that candidate would have been not just universally denounced and deemed unfit for office but written out of polite society entirely.
Nonetheless, John McCain in his infinite wisdom, and with his overflowing sense of personal rectitude, joined the braying mob in denouncing that perfectly legitimate ad, saying it had no place in any campaign. In doing so, McCain unilaterally disarmed himself, rendering off-limits Obama's associations, an issue that even Hillary Clinton addressed more than once.
Obama's political career was launched with Ayers giving him a fundraiser in his living room. If a Republican candidate had launched his political career at the home of an abortion-clinic bomber -- even a repentant one -- he would not have been able to run for dogcatcher in Podunk. And Ayers shows no remorse. His only regret is that he "didn't do enough."
Why are these associations important? Do I think Obama is as corrupt as Rezko? Or shares Wright's angry racism or Ayers's unreconstructed 1960s radicalism?
No. But that does not make these associations irrelevant. They tell us two important things about Obama.
First, his cynicism and ruthlessness. He found these men useful, and use them he did. Would you attend a church whose pastor was spreading racial animosity from the pulpit? Would you even shake hands with -- let alone serve on two boards with -- an unrepentant terrorist, whether he bombed U.S. military installations or abortion clinics?
Most Americans would not, on the grounds of sheer indecency. Yet Obama did, if not out of conviction then out of expediency. He was a young man on the make, an unknown outsider working his way into Chicago politics. He played the game with everyone, without qualms and with obvious success.
Obama is not the first politician to rise through a corrupt political machine. But he is one of the rare few to then have the audacity to present himself as a transcendent healer, hovering above and bringing redemption to the "old politics" -- of the kind he had enthusiastically embraced in Chicago in the service of his own ambition.
Second, and even more disturbing than the cynicism, is the window these associations give on Obama's core beliefs. He doesn't share the Rev. Wright's poisonous views of race nor Ayers's views, past and present, about the evil that is American society. But Obama clearly did not consider these views beyond the pale. For many years he swam easily and without protest in that fetid pond.
Until now. Today, on the threshold of the presidency, Obama concedes the odiousness of these associations, which is why he has severed them. But for the years in which he sat in Wright's pews and shared common purpose on boards with Ayers, Obama considered them a legitimate, indeed unremarkable, part of social discourse.
Do you? Obama is a man of first-class intellect and first-class temperament. But his character remains highly suspect. There is a difference between temperament and character. Equanimity is a virtue. Tolerance of the obscene is not.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Sports Illustrated Rick Reilly Article: Bananas & Milk Duds

2008-04-28T15:15:00.000-07:00

Hi friends:

This is a worthwile read to that will have you rolling out of your chairs.

I hope that you enjoy it.

Brad
_________________________

Bananas & Milk Duds

Americas most famous athletes: Someday you may be invited to fly in the back-seat of one of your country's most powerful fighter jets. Many of you already have . John Elway, John Stockton, Tiger Woods to name a few. If you get this opportunity, let me urge you, with the greatest sincerity... Move to Guam . Change your name. Fake your own death! Whatever you do. Do Not Go!!! I know.

The U.S. Navy invited me to try it. I was thrilled. I was pumped. I was toast! I should've known when they told me my pilot would be Chip (Biff) King of Fighter Squadron 213 at Naval Air Station Oceana in Virginia Beach.

Whatever you're thinking a Top Gun named Chip (Biff) King looks like, triple it. He's about six-foot, tan, ice-blue eyes, wavy surfer hair, finger-crippling handshake -- the kind of man who wrestles dyspeptic alligators in his leisure time. If you see this man, run the other way Fast. Biff King was born to fly. His father, Jack King, was for years the voice of NASA missions. ('T-minus 15 seconds and counting .' Remember?) Chip would charge neighborhood kids a quarter each to hear his dad. Jack would wake up from naps surrounded by nine-year-olds waiting for him to say, 'We have liftoff'.

Biff was to fly me in an F- 14D Tomcat, a ridiculously powerful $60 million weapon with nearly as much thrust as weight, not unlike Colin Montgomerie. I was worried about getting airsick, so the night before the flight I asked Biff if there was something I should eat the next morning.

'Bananas,' he said. 'For the potassium?' I asked. 'No,' Biff said, 'because they taste about the same coming up as they do going down.'

The next morning, out on the tarmac, I had on my flight suit with my name sewn over the left breast. (No call sign -- like Crash or Sticky or Leadfoot. But, still, very cool.) I carried my helmet in the crook of my arm, as Biff had instructed. If ever in my life I had a chance to nail Nicole Kidman, this was it.

A fighter pilot named Psycho gave me a safety briefing and then fastened me into my ejection seat, which, when employed, would 'egress' me out of the plane at such a velocity that I would be immediately knocked unconscious.

Just as I was thinking about aborting the flight, the canopy closed over me, and Biff gave the ground crew a thumbs-up. In minutes we were firing nose up at 600 mph. We leveled out and then canopy-rolled over another F-14. Those 20 minutes were the rush of my life. Unfortunately, the ride lasted 80.. It was like being on the roller coaster at Six Flags Over Hell. Only without rails. We did barrel rolls, snap rolls, loops, yanks and banks. We dived, rose and
dived again, sometimes with a vertical velocity of 10,000 feet per minute. We chased another F-14, and it chased us. We broke the speed of sound. Sea was sky and sky was sea. Flying at 200 feet we did 90-degree turns at 550 mph, creating a G force of 6.5, which is to say I felt as if 6.5 times my body weight was smashing against me, thereby approximating life as Mrs. Colin Montgomerie.

And I egressed the bananas. And I egressed the pizza from the night before. And the lunch before that. I egressed a box of Milk Duds from the sixth grade. I made Linda Blair look polite. Because of the G's, I was egressing stuff that never thought would be egressed. I went through not one airsick bag, but two.

Biff said I passed out. Twice. I was coated in sweat. At one point, as we were coming in upside down in a banked curve on a mock bombing target and the G's were flattening me like a tortilla and I was in and out of consciousness, I realized I was the first person in history to throw down.

I used to know 'cool'. Cool was Elway throwing a touchdown pass, or Norman making a five-iron bite. But now I really know 'cool'. Cool is guys like Biff, men with cast-iron stomachs and freon nerves. I wouldn't go up there again for Derek Jeter's black book, but I'm glad Biff does every day, and for less a year than a rookie reliever makes in a home stand.

A week later, when the spins finally stopped, Biff called. He said he and the fighters had the perfect call sign for me. Said he'd send it on a patch for my flight suit. What is it?? I asked. 'Two Bags.'

President Award CMH to Fallen SEAL Hero

2008-04-09T12:19:00.000-07:00

This is the video of the presentation of the highest award that can be given to a person in the military. Somehow this kind of news never gets to us via the traditional media.

Here is the video:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/04/20080408-3.wm.v.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080408/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_medal_of_honor

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/04/20080408-3.html

Politics aside, these people are making the ultimate sacrifice of laying their lives down for their fellow soldiers (Iraqi and American). For some very strange reason, we are missing heroes for us and our children to look up to like this. Please share this with your friends and families so that they understand the kind of people that volunteer to go into harm’s way and do heroic selfless deeds like this.

God bless our people in uniform. Go out of your way to thank these people when you see them in your daily lives. We are safe and free because of these courageous people.

My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. - John 15:12-13

As Rivals Battle, McCain Builds November Machine

2008-04-01T16:03:00.001-07:00

As Rivals Battle, McCain Builds November Machine
By Michael D. Shear and Dan BalzWashington Post Staff WritersTuesday, April 1, 2008; A01
As his Democratic presidential rivals squabble, Sen. John McCain has moved to transform his ragtag primary campaign into a general-election operation by boosting fundraising, establishing control over the Republican National Committee, and beginning a conversation with voters who live in states where he has not campaigned.
One of McCain's first decisions has been to assemble a novel and risky campaign structure that will rely on 10 "regional managers" who will make daily decisions in the states under their direction, his advisers said. The managers will gather today in New Mexico to plot strategy with GOP state officials.
Some Republican strategists have said that McCain has not made the best use of the extra time that the prolonged Democratic nomination battle has given him. They have criticized the pace and direction of his decisions and have questioned why the senator from Arizona has not held more fundraisers to close the huge financial gap between him and his rivals.
Despite scheduling numerous events designed to grab attention, including a trip to meet with leaders in Iraq, Israel and Europe, McCain has struggled to be heard during the battle between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. The few times he has broken through have largely been because of questionable decisions or mistakes, such as when he confused Sunni and Shiite extremists and when he was criticized for accepting the endorsement of a controversial television evangelist.
McCain embarked yesterday on his latest effort to capture the spotlight: his "Service to America" tour. The week-long journey will put him in locations that have been influential in shaping his life -- including his family's ancestral home in Meridian, Miss.; the Naval Academy in Annapolis; and the naval air station in Jacksonville, Fla., where he arrived after more than five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.
The growing McCain team is also under no illusions about the financial and political energy of the opposition, noting the huge turnouts in Democratic primaries and the enormous sums of money Obama and Clinton have raised.
In February, the month he effectively clinched the GOP nomination, McCain raised $11 million -- an eighth of the combined total of his Democratic rivals.
A number of Mitt Romney's supporters said McCain's effort to win over his ex-rival's biggest donors has had mixed results.
"Some of the top leadership, who were very emotionally involved, still can't get over it," said Brad Freeman, a California financier who backed the former Massachusetts governor. "They said, 'Hey, I'm not being rational. But right now I can't.' Fact is, Romney inspired a lot of loyalty and enthusiasm in people."
Aides to McCain said that fundraising has improved, and that they raised $5 million in a five-day West Coast swing last week. Senior adviser Charles R. Black Jr. said the March fundraising take will be "an impressive number," though he declined to provide one.
One element that will work in McCain's favor in coming weeks is the formation of the Republican Party's Victory Committee, which can put together events that are held jointly by the senator and the Republican National Committee. Those events can bring in nearly $30,000 per person because the limits for giving to the RNC are much higher than those for candidates.
The naming last month of Lew Eisenberg, a former partner at Goldman Sachs and one of the heaviest hitters in Republican money circles, as the finance chairman of the Victory Committee silenced many of McCain's critics on the fundraising front.
"Will it come together? Yes," said a top fundraiser who supported one of McCain's GOP rivals and is now backing the senator from Arizona. "Is it coming together? Yes. Are there folks who would have liked it to come together quicker? Yes."
Polls suggest that McCain's position on the sidelines of Democrats' infighting has elevated his stature, at least for now. In some surveys, McCain has a slight edge over Obama and Clinton. And conservative Republicans appear to be growing more comfortable with the sometimes maverick senator as their nominee.
But McCain's advisers acknowledge that the Republican Party still has an image problem. Generic ballot tests, whether for presidential or congressional elections, show Republicans running well behind Democrats, and part of the campaign's goal is to start rebranding the GOP.
McCain recruited two key officials at the RNC: Frank J. Donatelli, a Reagan administration official, will serve as deputy chairman and will be the campaign's liaison to the committee. Mike DuHaime, who managed former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani's presidential campaign and used to be an RNC political director, will help staff the RNC's political team. He will also work directly for McCain.
The regional managers, most of whom have been chosen, will spend four days at the New Mexico resort this week. McCain aides said there will be intensive meetings with Republican chairmen from across the country, who are holding their annual meeting in the swing state.
"We prefer daily operational, tactical decisions be made by those guys," campaign manager Rick Davis said.
After essentially running out of money during the primaries, McCain was forced to rely heavily on his handful of workers -- many of whom were unpaid -- to run the essential operations on their own, with little direction from the national level.
The results, his advisers said, justified the unorthodox approach. His victories in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida were not the result of broad media campaigns driven by national operatives but rather of the ground games built by operatives in those states.
"We are going to try that kind of autonomy," senior strategist Mark Salter said.
That is a departure for a party that has prized itself on running hierarchical, highly disciplined campaigns, and it has sparked grumbling among some Republicans, who say McCain's advisers are moving too slowly to build a large national apparatus.
One senior GOP strategist called the decision "a recipe for internal communication problems and uneven execution." Another senior Republican said the lack of a political director or full-time pollster at McCain's Arlington headquarters has "a lot of us scratching our heads wondering what's taking so long to fill out the team."
Both Republican strategists spoke on the condition of anonymity so they could be candid about the party's presidential nominee.
Others are quick to defend McCain's team. "The grumbling is probably in direct proportion to how much they think they should be inside the campaign," said Dan Hazelwood, a GOP consultant who is not working for the campaign.
McCain aides reject the criticism, too. "Anybody who is grumbling doesn't know what's going on," Black said.
Davis said the decision to run a decentralized campaign reflects a pride in having run a lean and nimble primary operation after an initially bloated campaign structure imploded and fell far short of its budget and fundraising expectations.
Davis said the goal is to "keep the head count down" at headquarters. "I believe in speed. That's an important asset in a campaign."
Beyond transitioning from a hand-to-mouth primary operation to a full-blown general-election campaign, McCain will spend the next month attempting to put a more appealing face on his party.
The senator has chosen former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina to be a high-profile pitchwoman for the campaign and the Republican Party. She will travel the country as a key surrogate for McCain and other Republicans.
McCain will be in Washington this month for the testimony of Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. Petraeus's testimony last fall was a signature event in McCain's primary campaign, as it coincided with a "No Surrender" tour that aides think helped boost his candidacy when he had been given up for the political graveyard.
Later this spring, McCain will embark on a two-week tour of places where, his advisers say, few Republicans ever campaign, including Alabama's Black Belt, where African Americans in the state are concentrated; Appalachia; and New Orleans. Davis said the goal is to send a message that McCain is appealing for votes from all types of Americans in all regions.
"Nothing is left off the table in this campaign," he said.
Staff writer Matthew Mosk and washingtonpost.com staff writer Chris Cillizza contributed to this report.

Democrats Set On Self-Destruct

2008-04-01T15:57:00.000-07:00

Democrats Set on Self-Destruct
Tuesday, April 1, 2008 11:25 AMBy: David Limbaugh
Article Font Size
Democrats seemed determined to convert their sunny 2008 forecast into a perfect storm, which only can be diverted if either the approaching Obama front or Clinton front dissipates soon or changes directions to join forces with the other via the proverbial "dream ticket."
Until Pastor Wright managed to become Obama's potentially career-shattering albatross, Obama looked unstoppable, indeed superhuman. But as has happened repeatedly in this campaign, Hillary's persistence was rewarded — briefly, anyway. Obama's long and close association with the incendiary pastor undercut his perceived ability to rise above both race and party.
With the passage of a little time, though, Obama appears to have recovered. Or are his rising poll numbers merely a result of Hillary's umpteenth gratuitous tall tale?
It's hard to imagine that Obama's 52 to 42 percent national lead among Democrats, his narrowing of the superdelegate gap, and his lopsided acquisition of endorsements since Super Tuesday (64 to nine) are the result solely of Hillary's fraudulent assertion of sniper-tested heroism.
It's more likely that concerns about Obama's association with Wright have diminished with the cessation of a 24/7 news cycle devoted to it. The mainstream media's reversion to Obama adoration following his dreamy post-Wright lecture on race in America hasn't hurt him, either.
That said, if Hillary wasn't deterred before — when her prospects looked even worse — why would she be now? She has to believe, along with many, many others, that the Wright story has legs.
But the dirty little secret is that the Democratic left, which wields enormous power in the party, probably isn't much troubled by Wright's anti-American and racist diatribes or Obama's arguably tacit endorsement of them.
Don't forget that it wasn't the Democratic left that threw Howard Dean overboard. Nor did the party reject Dean's message; they just deemed him unelectable, and the media reinforced that perception.
Interestingly, the same thing hasn't happened yet to Obama. Since the initial Wright shock wore off, there has been no sustained mass exodus from Obama. Yet his association with Wright, along with other disturbing stories beginning to surface out there, could render him as unelectable in the general election as Howard Dean in his worst screaming moment.
Why is Obama weathering this storm? Is it political correctness; are Democrats cutting him extra slack because of his race? Is it that they are in denial about his increasing baggage because they so crave a party deliverer who speaks their language? Is it because they aren't viscerally repulsed by Wright's hate speech or Michelle Obama's apparent grievances against this nation? Or is it that they have no one even as electable as John Kerry waiting in the wings — considering Hillary's permanent and ever-increasing negatives?
I suspect it's a combination of all those factors, which doesn't bode well for the party. Hillary is not in as good a position to capitalize on an Obama implosion as Kerry was to exploit the Dean political suicide. Everyone, including formerly ardent Clinton supporters, now realizes that for the Clintons, it's all about the Clintons, who'll do anything to win. "Anything" includes playing a despicable brand of racial politics and betraying the Democrats' unwavering, albeit disingenuous battle cry since Bush-Gore 2000: "Every vote must count."
The leftist blogs are getting ever-more vicious against Hillary and increasingly indignant over any criticisms of their would-be champion, Obama. After all, what good did it do for them to settle for Kerry last time? They've been waiting a long time now for a full-blown anti-war standard-bearer.
So Democrats are faced with the dilemma of sticking with Obama, who truly might be approaching unelectability, or turning to the obnoxious and narcissistic power couple for whom the magic has long since disappeared.
If Obama does well from this point forward, the superdelegates will have no choice but to endorse him because even concerns of electability would not justify the divisions, including along racial lines, that would ensue should the party brokers cashier him. If Hillary marginally, but not significantly, outperforms Obama, the same principles will apply.
Only if Hillary wins consistently and decisively from now on, to the point of overtaking Obama in the popular vote, will she have the slightest chance of credibly arguing that superdelegates should go her way. Even then, unless Obama fully gets on board a Hillary ticket, especially by way of the second slot, there will be hell to pay in the party for years.
David Limbaugh is a writer, author, and attorney. His book "Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" was released recently in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his Web site at www.davidlimbaugh.com.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Iranian Defectors Provide Crucial Intel

2008-04-01T15:55:00.000-07:00

Iranian Defectors Provide Crucial Intel
Tuesday, April 1, 2008 8:24 AMBy: Kenneth R. Timmerman
Article Font Size
Iranian intelligence and security operatives know they have an address in the West should they be seeking to defect from the Islamic Republic, says human rights activist Dr. Amir Farshad Ebrahimi.
In an exclusive interview just days after the Iranian regime attempted to kidnap him in Istanbul and take him back to Iran, the former Revolutionary Guards officer told Newsmax that he and other former Iranian officials and like-minded friends in the West have established a “Salvation Committee” to help high-level defectors seeking to leave Iran.
But such actions do not come without a price.
Ebrahimi’s role in helping a top Iranian government official defect to the United States last spring made him a target of Iranian intelligence last week.
The official he helped, former Deputy Defense Minister Gen. Ali Reza Asgari, is credited with having provided the CIA and other Western intelligence agencies with critical new intelligence on Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, as well an insider’s account of Iran’s overseas terrorist apparatus.
Without Ebrahimi’s help, however, Asgari would most likely have returned to Iran after his special “pilgrimage” passport to Damascus, Syria expired last February.
“We were at the [Iranian] embassy together in Beirut in the mid-1990s,” Ebrahimi told Newsmax. “That’s where we knew each other. That’s why General Asgari called me when he was in Damascus last year. He reminded me that we had been together in Beirut.”
During that fateful call and in other communications, Asgari told Ebrahimi that he didn’t want to return to Iran, but that he only had two days left on his special passport.
Ebrahimi was then living in Germany, and instructed the would-be defector to rent a car and drive to Turkey, leaving his second wife behind in the Damascus hotel room.
From that moment on, the two men remained in constant contact.
After paying a Turkish border guard $1,500 to let him enter Turkey without a visa, Asgari was supposed to rendezvous with Ebrahimi’s contacts at the Gilan hotel in Istanbul, in rooms Ebrahimi had rented for him. But the sudden appearance of Turkish police in front of the hotel scuttled that plan.
As a fall-back plan, Ebrahimi arranged for Asgari to meet with a U.S. embassy official in the Turkish capitol, Ankara. Another U.S. official came from the United States to interview Asgari.
The Americans suggested that the potential defector approach United Nations-affiliated organizations in Ankara and apply for political refugee status, which was approved in a record one week’s time.
Newsmax obtained copies of Asgari’s refugee documents last year and showed them to outside experts who said they were authentic.
From Ankara, Asgari flew to Hamburg, Germany, where he and Ebrahimi saw each other one last time.
“Four hours after his flight arrived in Germany from Ankara, General Asgari changed planes and flew with a U.S. official to Washington, DC,” Ebrahimi told Newsmax.
As a backup plan, Ebrahimi arranged with other members of his Salvation Committee to shelter Asgari in a safe house in Cyprus, but never put that plan into motion because the U.S. government kicked in.
“After he arrived in the United States, Asgari called me and asked me to tell his second wife in Iran that he was OK,” Ebrahimi told Newsmax.
Two weeks later, Asgari had been taken to a safe house in Texas. The last time he contacted Ebrahimi, in early summer of last year, was to encourage him to help other Iranian government officials to defect.
“Did Asgari realize that the CIA was misusing his information to claim that the Iranian nuclear weapons program had been shut down?” speculated Pooya Dayanim, a Los Angeles developer who aided Ebrahimi and was familiar with the Asgari case.
“I believe that his call to encourage other defectors was motivated by a conviction that the nuclear weapons program was still up and running,” Dayanim told Newsmax.
A National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran’s nuclear programs, released in December 2007, claimed on the basis of defector information — presumably from Asgari 1 that a key segment of the nuclear weapons had been shut down.
But the director of National Intelligence, Vice Adm. Mike McConnell, appeared to walk back that conclusion of the NIE in congressional testimony in early February
He pleaded that a lack of time led to careless wording in the unclassified version of the NIE that was ultimately released to the public. “So if I’d had until now to think about it, I probably would have changed a thing or two,” the DNI acknowledged.
(See the Newsmax report on McConnell back-peddling on the NIE.)
Another report, “U.S. Intel Possibly Duped by Iran," focuses on how U.S. intel misinterpreted this information.
Sources with knowledge of what Asgari told the CIA about the Iranian nuclear weapons program tell Newsmax they are convinced that CIA analysts cherry-picked Asgari’s information.
These sources believe that CIA analysts included information from Asgari that fit their concept of a politically-ordered “halt” to nuclear weaponization by the Iranian leadership, while neglecting other information he divulged that suggested ongoing nuclear weapons work.
The NIE “was an incredibly shoddy piece of work that made selective use of sources,” a senior U.S. government official who had reviewed the classified source material told Newsmax.
A closed-door briefing to diplomats in Vienna by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s chief weapons inspector on Feb. 25 also directly contradicted the NIE report, as Newsmax reported last month.
Among the documents presented by IAEA Safeguards Deputy Director General Olli Heinonen was an internal Iranian government PowerPoint report detailing progress on a nuclear missile re-entry vehicle through early 2004, well after the NIE claimed the program had been shut down.
Newsmax covered the critical report in a related article.
Ebrahimi said that his Salvation Committee was committed to helping other defectors escape Iran with knowledge of Iran’s nuclear weapons programs and its support for international terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Top psychiatrist concludes liberals clinically nuts

2008-02-21T17:07:00.000-08:00

Top psychiatrist concludes liberals clinically nuts- Eminent psychiatrist makes case ideology is mental disorder
Posted: February 15, 20083:40 pm Eastern© 2008 WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON – Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder.
"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."
While political activists on the other side of the spectrum have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to "the vast right-wing conspiracy."
For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.
Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by the two major candidates for the Democratic Party presidential nomination can only be understood as a psychological disorder.

"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do."
Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:
creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.
"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."

Newt Gingrich's Crystal Ball on the GOP

2008-02-12T18:12:00.000-08:00

Take a few minutes and listen to Newt's speech to CPAC. Is is telling about how Conservatives have done sucha bad job of leading change in government and have become what they hate in Liberals... politically correct bureaucrats.

Click here to link to the video page

I would love to hear your comments on this speech.

Gingrich is my hero and one of the only shining stars in the Conservative movement.

Immigration Gumballs

2008-02-12T18:06:00.000-08:00

If you don't think thatthere is acurrent immgration problem, then you need to watch this video and see what kind of legacy that we are passing onto our children and grandchildren.

This isn't about politics, it's about the government lying to us about this pending problems that we are constantly denying in the name of polictically correct lies.

Click here

Michelle Malkin: FISA Wins Approval!

2008-02-12T17:51:00.000-08:00

The FISA fight: Nutroots lose, America wins
By Michelle Malkin • February 12, 2008 12:51 PM
I’ve been keeping you up-to-date on the FISA fight in the Senate (see here and here). This morning, a series of votes took place and you’ll be happy to know that the defeatist Dems were defeated.
Carter Wood at the NAM’s ShopFloor blog sums up the votes:
The Senate has just rejected an amendment to S. 2248, the FISA amendments legislation, by Sens. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Russell Feingold (D-WI) that would have stripped out the retroactive immunity for telecommunication companies.
The vote was 31-67. Roll Call vote here.
This is a clear statement in favor of effective, legal surveillance of suspected terrorists overseas, and an endorsement of good corporate citizens aiding in the protection of Americans. A very important vote…
…UPDATE (12:13 p.m.) Second string of Kos commentary here. Quotes e-mail from Senator Reid’s office: “If, as appears likely, none of the amendments to strike or modify the provisions of the bill concerning retroactive immunity are adopted, we expect Sen. Reid to oppose cloture and oppose final passage of the bill.”
UPDATE (12:34 p.m.): Cloture invoked, 69-29. Senate now breaks.
The Senate Roll Coll votes are here.
Dow Jones dispatch reports:
The U.S. Senate Tuesday voted down an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that aimed to strip out immunity for telecommunications companies alleged to have cooperated with the government’s warrantless wiretapping program.
The result of the vote makes it increasingly likely that phone companies will receive retroactive immunity from civil lawsuits over their involvement in the controversial wiretapping program.
The development comes even though Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and other senior Democrats have argued in favor of the amendment.
The vote was 67-31 against removing the immunity provision.
The Senate has been divided over the legislation underpinning the warrantless wiretapping program for weeks. At the heart of the debate has been over whether the phone companies should be sheltered from the dozens of lawsuits they potentially face.
The amendment was backed by Sens. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Russell Feingold, D-Wis.
In last-minute arguments before the vote, Dodd pointed out that three out of four Congressional committees that had considered the immunity issue had decided against granting retroactive legal cover to the phone companies.
Only the Senate Intelligence Committee’s version of the FISA legislation includes an immunity provision. It is that version which is currently on the Senate floor. Last year, the House approved legislation which made no mention of immunity.
Even if the final Senate bill includes immunity, the matter will have to decided at a meeting between leaders of both houses of Congress to resolve differences over legislation.
The White House has threatened to veto any bill that doesn’t include immunity for the phone companies.
Lawmakers hope to conclude voting on the FISA legislation later Tuesday.
The nutroots are despondent. Profanity-spewing despondent. See here and more here.
***
Ed Morrissey:
Telecom immunity should have never taken this long to approve. The immunity covers companies who received assurances from the Department of Justice that their cooperation broke no laws, and they cooperated to help defend the US from attack. Their reward for trust and assistance should not be billion-dollar class-action lawsuits, which would have been nothing more than a back-door attempt to kneecap intelligence operations that kept this nation safe for more than six years after 9/11.
The House has to put this bill into motion now, and the clock is ticking. The Democrats set up these sunset provisions as a means to pressure the White House, and once again they have had the opposite effect. Faced against bipartisan agreement in the Senate on immunity, expect the House to quietly acquiesce.
John Boeher’s office sent me the following this morning:
It speaks volumes about the national security priorities of congressional Democrats that they have failed to permanently close the terrorist loophole. And it certainly speaks volumes that they have failed to do so because they have bowed to the demands of those on the Left seeking to derail common sense terrorist surveillance laws that would help keep our country safe from attack.
With the deadline coming this Saturday, will Democratic leaders finally work with Republicans to permanently close the terrorist loophole in our nation’s terrorist surveillance laws and extend appropriate liability protections for third parties who have stepped up to the plate in the interest of our national security? Or will the Majority’s allies on the Left demand that Congress backs down from this responsibility once again, kicking the can even farther down the road while the safety of Americans at home and abroad hangs in the balance?

Welfare Ain't What It Used To Be....

2008-02-12T17:49:00.000-08:00

Welfare Ain’t What It Used To Be
December 22, 2007 by jimbyrd

Sharon Jasper has been victimized. Sharon Jasper has been rabidly wronged. She has become a Section 8 carcass–the victim of ever changing public housing policies.
Sharon Jasper has spent 57 or her 58 years dedicated to one cause and one cause only, and has nothing to show for her dedicated servitude. She has lived in Section 8 housing all but 1 of her 58 years. It was a legacy passed down from her parents who moved into Section 8 housing in 1949 when she was six months old. She has passed the legacy down to her children, but fears they may have to get jobs to pay for the utilities and deposits. She laments about her one year hiatus from the comfort of her Section 8 nirvana, ” I tried it for a year..you know…working and all. It’s not anything I would want to go through again, or wish on anyone in my family, but I am damn proud of that year.”
Sharon was moved out of her St. Bernard housing project after hurricane Katrina and into a new, yet albeit, substandard quarterage. As can be noted from the above photo of her new Section 8 home, it is repugnant and not suitable for someone of Sharon Jasper’s seniority status in the system. “Don’t be fooled by them hardwood floors,” says Sharon. “They told me they were putting in scraped wood floors cause it was more expensive and elegant, but I am not a fool–that was just a way to make me take scratched up wood because I am black. The 60 inch HD TV? It may look nice but it is not a plasma. It’s not a plasma because I’m black. Now they want me to pay a deposit and utilities on this dump.” “Do you know why?”
She has held her tongue in silence through the years of abuse by the system, but it came to a head at the New Orlean’s city council meeting where discussions were under way about the tearing down of the St. Bernard projects. When a near riotous exchange between groups opposing the tearing down of St. Bernard and groups wanting the dilapidated buildings torn down and newer ones built, Sharon unleashed verbal hell with her once silenced tongue. The object of her oratory prowess was an acquiescent poor white boy in attendance. The context of her scathing rebuke was, “Just because you pay for my house, my car, my big screen and my food, I will not be treated like a slave!” and “Back up and Shut up! Shut up, white boy! Shut up, white boy!”
Recapping from the mental log of the city council minutes in her head, Sharon repines, “Our families have been displaced all over the United States. They are being forced to commit crimes in cities they are unfamiliar with. It is a very uncomfortable situation for them. Bring them back, then let’s talk about redevelopment.”
To try bring notice to her tribulation, Sharon has graciously allowed parts of her slummy abode to be photographed for documentation of her abuse.

Above is the dinning room the housing authority pawned off on her. Sharon will acknowledge that it is a nice and all, but the “man” knows she has 25 family members to feed and the size is inadequate. She believes she is the recipient of malevolence by the “man”.

Above is her bathroom. This was done solely to taunt her because the “man” knows she is going to have to start paying her utility bills and this was only done to run up her water and towel bill. Once again, she is the recipient of malevolence by the “man”.

Above is the stocked wine cellar that came with her new Section 8 house. Sharon states this is another example of the white man is taking advantage of a poor black women. “Look at all these bottles of wine”, she said–”they are worthless. Just another example of thinking I am stupid. All this wine is at least 10 years old and some of it is 20 years old, you know the white man kept all the fresh stuff for himself. I ain’t that stupid.”
Sharon directs the reporter’s attention across the street to Duncan Plaza where homeless people are living in tents and states that, “I might do better out there with one of these tents.” She further lamented her sentiments about her situation,” I might be poor, but I don’t have to live poor.”
Sharon Jasper is not going down without a fight. She is the head of a tenant association that works with the AFL-CIO’s Gulf Coast Revitalization Program who is working closely with the Congressional Black Caucus, who is working very closely with Rev. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to get a bill, operation Section 8 Time Share, passed in Congress. The bill would allow people of seniority, like Sharon Jasper, who have been a loyal recipient of Section 8 housing for a minimum of 30 years, to be able to use a special Section 8 permit for a time share vacation home 2 weeks out of the year in a tropical location.

Dennis Prager column on Baby Boomers

2007-12-04T22:54:00.000-08:00

Baby Boomers Owe America's Young People an ApologyBy Dennis PragerTuesday, December 4, 2007
We live in the age of group apologies. I would like to add one. The baby boomer generation needs to apologize to America, especially its young generation, for many sins. Here is a partial list:
First and perhaps foremost, we apologize for robbing many of you of a childhood.
We baby boomers were allowed perhaps the most innocent childhoods known to history. We grew up without material want, in one of the most decent places in world history, with media that preserved our sexual and other innocence, in schools that generally taught us well, and we were allowed childhood play from boy-girl play to rough and tumble boy-boy play to monkey bars and ringalievio. Our generation has deprived you of all these things. And while we were aware of the threat of a nuclear war with the Soviet Union, few of us believed that we were threatened with death anywhere near the amount we have scared you about death from secondhand smoke, global warming and heterosexual AIDS, to mention just a few of the exaggerated death scares we have inflicted on you.
Our generation came up with two truly foolish slogans that also ended up robbing you of childhood.
One was, "Never trust anyone over 30." Our infantile attitude toward adult authority has inflicted great harm on you. Because of it, many baby boomers decided not to become adults, and this has had disastrous consequences in your lives. It deprived you of one of the greatest needs in your life -- adults. That in turn deprived you of something as important as love -- parental and other adult authority. With little parental authority, you were left with little personal security, few guardrails and a diminished sense of order in life. And we transferred this denial of authority to virtually all authority figures, from teachers to police.
The other slogan whose awful consequences we baby boomers bequeathed to you was, "Make love, not war." Our parents had liberated the world from immeasurably cruel and murderous regimes in Germany and Japan -- solely thanks to waging war. But instead of concluding that war could do great moral good, we sang ourselves silly with such inane lyrics as "Give peace a chance," as if that deals in any way with the world's most monstrous evils. So we taught you to make love and not war. And we succeeded.
We made you anti-war and almost completely sexualized your lives. We told you that having sex was terrific or at least to be expected, even in early teens, and that your only concerns should be avoiding sexually transmitted diseases and getting pregnant. And if you did get pregnant, we made sure that you could extinguish the life you were carrying as effortlessly and guiltlessly as possible.
We started teaching you about sexuality and homosexuality in early grade school and we taught you how to put condoms on bananas. It is true that we did not grow up learning about these things at such young ages -- certainly our schools never taught us about these things -- but we chalked that up to the preposterous, if not reactionary, values of the 1950s and early 1960s. We had contempt for our parents believing that "Father Knows Best" and "Leave It to Beaver" and "Superman" -- with the show's motto of "truth, justice, and the American way" -- were good things for young people to be exposed to. So we replaced these shows with MTV's mind-numbing parade of three-second images and sex-drenched shows for teenagers. Sorry.
We also made you weak. We did everything possible to ensure that you suffered no pain. Sometimes we changed game scores if a team was winning by too large a margin; we abolished dodgeball lest anyone suffer early removal from the game; and we gave trophies to all of you who played on baseball teams, no matter how awfully you or your team played so that none of you missed getting a trophy while members of another team did. Much of this was thanks to the self-esteem-without-having-to-earn-it movement, which in our generation's almost infinite lack of wisdom we inflicted upon you. Sorry for that, too.
We also apologize for coming close to ruining so many of your schools and universities. Despite the unprecedented sums of money we had America spend on education, most of you got an education quite inferior to the one we got at a fraction of the cost. But we thought of our teachers as fools (they were, after all, over 30) who just concentrated on reading, writing and arithmetic (and history, music and art). We were sure we knew better and we therefore concentrated on sexual issues, and teaching you about peace, global warming and the horrors of smoking. The fact that few high school graduates can identify Mozart, let alone were ever exposed to his music, is far less significant to many baby boomers than your knowledge of the alleged perils of secondhand smoke. Most of you cannot identify Stalin either, and we are sorry for that, too. But, hey, we did make sure you saw Al Gore's film.
And a real apology to those of you hooked on drugs. While your choice to do drugs is your responsibility, it was our generation that romanticized them and made them cool. "Mind expanding" we called them. But it turns out that they don't expand minds, they destroy them. Sorry.
And, young women, we apologize especially to you. Many of us baby boomers bought into the feminist idea that getting married and making a family with a man were far less fulfilling than career success and that marriage itself is "sexist" and "patriarchal." So, to those of you women who have career success and didn't get married, we sincerely apologize. Turns out that most careers aren't as fulfilling as we promised.
So we really blew it, and what's really amazing is that few of us have changed our minds. Most people get wiser as they get older. But not those of us baby boomers who still believe these things. Of course, many of us never bought into these awful ideas that have so hurt you and our country, and some of us have grown up. But many of us still talk, think, dress and curse the same as we did in the '60s and '70s. And we're still fighting what we consider the real Axis of Evil: American racism, sexism and imperialism.
But for those of us who know the damage baby boomers as a whole did to you, a heartfelt apology.
Dennis Prager is a radio show host, contributing columnist for Townhall.com, and author of 4 books including Happiness Is a Serious Problem: A Human Nature Repair Manual.

'Gay question' general linked to Clinton

2007-11-29T09:37:00.000-08:00

'Gay question' general linked to Clinton

By: Kenneth P. Vogel November 29, 2007 12:13 PM EST
The retired general who asked about gays and lesbians serving in the military at the CNN/YouTube Republican debate on Wednesday is a co-chairman of Hillary Rodham Clinton's National Military Veterans group.Retired Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr was named a co-chairman of the group this month, according to a campaign press release.He was also active in John F. Kerry's 2004 campaign for president.Kerr asked candidates “why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.”
After the debate, former Education Secretary Bill Bennett said on a CNN panel that he was being told Kerr was involved with the Democratic presidential campaign of Clinton, a New York senator.CNN anchor Anderson Cooper, who moderated the debate and the panel, said that if that was the case, CNN should have identified Kerr as such.
David Bohrman, a CNN senior vice president and executive producer of the debate, later said: "We regret this and apologize to the Republican candidates. We never would have used the general's question had we known that he was connected to any presidential candidate."
Kerr told CNN that he had not done work for the Clinton campaign, and CNN verified before the debate that he had not contributed money to any candidate, the broadcaster said in a blog post after the debate.
Kerr told CNN he is a member of the Log Cabin Republicans and was representing no one other than himself, CNN said.
On Thursday, Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer said the retired general "is not a campaign employee and was not acting on behalf of the campaign." A Nov. 11 press release retrieved from the website of the nonpartisan magazine Campaigns & Elections lists Kerr as one of nearly 50 co-chairs of “Veterans and Military Retirees for Hillary."Clinton’s campaign did not respond to an e-mail asking about Kerr’s role in her campaign or whether he was acting on behalf of the campaign.Kerr also was on Kerry’s National Veterans Steering Committee, according to a campaign press release retrieved from the website of George Washington University.And Kerr appears to be an active opponent of the U.S. military’s current stance on gays and lesbians serving in the military, known as the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy.
He appeared on the now-defunct CNN partner network CNNfn in December 2003 to discuss the 10th anniversary of the policy. According to a transcript, he called it “a tremendous waste of personnel, a tremendous waste of financial resources for the United States.”Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, got first crack at Kerr’s question. He said he thought having openly gay men and lesbian women in the military “would be bad for unit cohesion.”
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, answering next, basically agreed.Cooper then singled out former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who in 1994 said he looked forward to the day gays and lesbians could serve openly in the military.Romney said times have changed. Though he said he laughed when he first heard talk of the don’t ask, don’t tell policy, and didn’t think it would work, he said: “You know what? It’s been there now for 15 years, and it seems to have worked.”Cooper then turned to Kerr and asked whether he felt he got an answer to his question.Kerr responded: “With all due respect, I did not get an answer from the candidates. American men and women in the military are professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians. ... Today, don’t ask, don’t tell is destructive to our military policy.”Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a decorated Vietnam veteran, got the last word on the subject.
He said, “almost unanimously, they [high-ranking military officials] tell me that this present policy is working, that we have the best military in history, we have the bravest, most professional, best-prepared, and that this policy ought to be continued because it’s working.”
TM & © THE POLITICO & POLITICO.COM, a division of Allbritton Communications Company

CNN Allows Clinton Backer to Question GOP Candidates in YouTube Debate

2007-11-29T09:34:00.000-08:00

CNN Allows Clinton Backer to Question GOP Candidates in YouTube Debate
Thursday , November 29, 2007
A CNN host acknowledged the participation of a retired Army colonel linked to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in a televised Republican debate Wednesday.
Keith Kerr of Santa Rosa, Calif., who revealed himself as gay, challenged the eight candidates via video message and on stage at the CNN/YouTube debate in Florida on the right of gays and lesbians to serve openly in the U.S. military.
The broadcast, however, failed to mention that Kerr, who served as a brigadier general in the reserves, is a member of a gay and lesbian steering committee for Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Read the Clinton campaign release naming Kerr to the steering committee.
Clinton spokesman Phil Singer has denied that the campaign had any knowledge ahead of time that Kerr was going to participate in the debate, and Kerr said he did not inform the campaign of his plans.
It turns out Kerr wasn't the only Democratic supporter asking questions. One woman who identified herself as Journey from Texas, and who has a Web page in which she goes by the name Paperserenade asked the candidates about whether they would prosecute women and doctors if abortion were made illegal and the practice continued. After the debate, she posted a Web video wearing a John Edwards '08 T-shirt. In the posting, she said she was disappointed by the responses she got, particularly from Fred Thompson, though it's the answer she expected.
Another questioner, Leeann Anderson, asked about the danger of lead toys from China. Anderson, an activist on the issue, is reportedly an assistant to Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers of America. The union endorsed Edwards earlier this month, and Anderson's question is posted on the steelworkers' YouTube page next to a picture of Edwards.
As for Kerr, he has been an activist against the military's don't-ask-don't-tell policy for years. He appeared on CNN twice in 2003 discussing his opposition to the policy that says service men and women will be dismissed from service for revealing their gay orientation. But as if reading from that policy Wednesday, Kerr told FOX News that CNN "never asked" him if he is a Clinton supporter so he "never told."
Kerr submitted the question for Republican candidates at the video debate "a couple months ago," and said last Saturday CNN called him and said they'd like him to come to the debate. He said the cable news network paid for his flight, his hotel and his transportation to and from the event.
According to the Clinton campaign, members of Clinton's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Steering Committee have endorsed Hillary Clinton for president in their individual capacity and work with the campaign on several areas including political outreach, communications, policy advice and counsel and fundraising.
The retired officer said his activities with the Clinton campaign are minimal. He receives e-mails from the campaign and has been invited to a fundraiser in San Francisco. He said he offered to pay "some token amount like 100 bucks" to attend the fundraiser, but as of yet has given no contribution
"I have not done any work. Several friends asked me if I would allow my name to be listed and I agreed. She's been such a strong advocate for gay rights," he told CNN on Thursday.
He added that he had been a Log Cabin Republican for a long time and recently changed from Republican to independent in California. He said he had supported the GOP but "these guys are just partisanly homophobic."
Following the debate, CNN anchor Anderson Cooper said in a broadcast statement that Kerr's political ties to Clinton were unknown to the network.
"We don't know if he is still on it," said Cooper. "We are trying to find out that information. Certainly, had we had that information we would have acknowledged that in using his question, if we had used it all."
Watch Anderson Cooper's comments regarding the Hillary supporter.
During the debate, Kerr said he wanted to know why the GOP candidates think that "American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians."
Candidates Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and John McCain all answered the question. Hunter said it would be "bad for unit cohesion" for openly homosexual people to serve in the ranks. Huckabee said the the Uniform Code of Military Justice states that such "conduct could put at risk the morale." Romney said that in the midst of a war is not the time to change policy, and he would listen to recommendations from military leaders. McCain said he respects the general's service to the nation but believes the leaders in the field when they say the present policy is working.

Thanks & Praise in Baghdad

2007-11-08T09:23:00.000-08:00

You won't ever read about this in our Liberal media...

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/thanks-and-praise.htm

Thanks and Praise
Thanks and Praise: I photographed men and women, both Christians and Muslims, placing a cross atop the St. John’s Church in Baghdad. They had taken the cross from storage and a man washed it before carrying it up to the dome.
A Muslim man had invited the American soldiers from “Chosen” Company 2-12 Infantry to the church, where I videotaped as Muslims and Christians worked and rejoiced at the reopening of St John’s, an occasion all viewed as a sign of hope.
The Iraqis asked me to convey a message of thanks to the American people. ” Thank you, thank you,” the people were saying. One man said, “Thank you for peace.” Another man, a Muslim, said “All the people, all the people in Iraq, Muslim and Christian, is brother.” The men and women were holding bells, and for the first time in memory freedom rang over the ravaged land between two rivers. (Videotape to follow.)

9-11-2001 Video Tributes

2007-11-07T10:13:00.000-08:00

This is great! May we never forget.

http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=QZFkZiwMLZ4&eurl=http%3A//webmail.pas.earthlink.net/wam/preview.jsp%3Fmsgid%3D43866%26folder%3DINBOX%26isSeen%3Dfalse%26x%3D-681691243&iurl=http%3A//img.youtube.com/vi/QZFkZiwMLZ4/default.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskJDYm_Q5QHzMQY7Jh5b6mZG&rel=1&border=0

Here's one by Josh Groban:

http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=QZFkZiwMLZ4&eurl=http%3A//webmail.pas.earthlink.net/wam/preview.jsp%3Fmsgid%3D43866%26folder%3DINBOX%26isSeen%3Dfalse%26x%3D-681691243&iurl=http%3A//img.youtube.com/vi/QZFkZiwMLZ4/default.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskJDYm_Q5QHzMQY7Jh5b6mZG&rel=1&border=0

Tribute to our people in uniform

2007-10-01T09:28:00.000-07:00

This is something that you should ALL see. Never forget their sacrifice, never forget the price that we had to pay for freedom and liberty!

I pray that you thank every person that you see in uniform or veteran who has served (everyone in our family practices this daily)... regardless of your politics! Men & women fought and died so that all of us have the freedom to speak our minds without persecution and to practice religions (even some who are committed to killing ALL Americans).

God bless our people in uniform and those who served our great country.

Interesting Article from the Weekly Standard on Iraq

2007-07-31T09:29:00.000-07:00

Iraq Report: Taji Tribes Turn on Mahdi Army and al Qaeda
Operation Phantom Thunder and the Baghdad Security Plan continue to place pressure on al Qaeda in Iraq, allied Sunni insurgent groups, the Mahdi Army and the Iranian-backed Special Group. In Baghdad, junior al Qaeda in Iraq operatives are reportedly cooperating with Coalition forces and a series of car bombs hit a Shia area of the capital. In the Belts, U.S. and Iraqi forces maintain aggressive operations against al Qaeda and insurgent cells as both Sunni and Shia tribal leaders in and around Taji have banded together to fight the Mahdi Army and al Qaeda. Meanwhile, the U.S. captured two more members of the Special Groups and have indicated that Iran is now smuggling Chinese made weapons into Iraq.

A Soldier from the 1st Cavalry Division clears an al Qaeda prison camp south of Baqubah, Iraq.
Baghdad
The London Times reported that junior al Qaeda in Iraq foot soldiers are turning on their leaders and acting as informants in the Baghdad district of Doura. "The ground-breaking move in Doura is part of a wider trend that has started in other al-Qaeda hotspots across the country and in which Sunni insurgent groups and tribal sheiks have stood together with the coalition against the extremist movement," the Times said. The low level operatives have become disgusted with al Qaeda's tactics of brutality.
A series of four bombings over the past two days resulted in 14 killed and 37 wounded. Sunday's attack near the al-Khilani square in central Baghdad consisted of a motorcycle bomb; two were killed and 18 wounded in the strike. Three car bombs ripped through Shia neighborhood in Karradah. One bomb was aimed at a police patrol and another hit an outdoor market. Twelve were killed and 19 wounded in the attacks.
Salahadin
U.S. forces continue the process of turning tribal leaders and Sunni insurgent groups against al Qaeda in Iraq. The latest success came in Salahadin province, where 25 Sunni and Shia tribes in and around the city of Taji banded together to fight both al Qaeda in Iraq and the Mahdi Army. Taji is just 12 miles north of Baghdad and sits along the strategic supply lines to the northern provinces.
Salahadin tribes formed the Salahadin Awakening in late May, and al Qaeda in Iraq has targeted the group in an effort to destroy disrupt its activities. Yesterday, five senior tribal leaders were killed and 12 wounded when a suicide bomber penetrated a meeting of the Taji council. The Mahdi Army has attacked family members of the group as well.
Iraqi army forces are targeting al Qaeda's network in the Taji region. Iraqi troops conducted an air assault northwest of Taji on July 20. The target was "a suspected Al Qaeda in Iraq leader suspected of numerous crimes including a recent attack that destroyed a bridge on a primary Iraqi transportation route" in the Habbaniyah area in Anbar province.
"He is also allegedly responsible for facilitating foreign fighters and the planning and execution of multiple improvised explosive device attacks in Ramadi and other areas. The insurgent leader and his cell are also suspected of murdering and intimidating Iraqi citizens, conducting oil smuggling operations, and committing a string of highway robberies in an effort to fund al Qaeda activities."
U.S. soldiers also freed three Iraqis being held hostage at an insurgent safe house south of Samarra. Four insurgents were captured during the raid.
Diyala, Babil and Anbar
Operations against al Qaeda in Iraq and allied insurgent groups are ongoing in the belts of Diyala, Northern Babil and Anbar province. In the city of Miqdadiyah in Diyala, Coalition forces killed nine insurgents and captured eight during a series of raids and patrols. An insurgent safe house and several weapons caches were also found in the region.
In northern Babil province, the recently launched Operation Marne Avalanche in the Iskandariyah region has resulted in four insurgents killed and 37 captured over the course of four days. In a separate operation Iraqi soldiers arrested a member of an al Qaeda kidnapping ring on July 18.
In Anbar province, tribal leaders in the city of Zaidon have turned on al Qaeda and established local security forces.
Iranian-backed Special Groups
The Iranian-backed, Qods Force-directed Special Groups continues to remain a high priority for Coalition and Iraqi forces. On Sunday, Coalition forces captured "two suspected terrorists that may be affiliated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) from Iran in a raid Sunday near the Iranian border East of Baghdad," Multinational Forces Iraq said. "The suspects may be associated with a network of terrorists that have been smuggling Explosively Formed Projectiles (EFPs), other weapons, personnel and money from Iran into Iraq."
On July 22, U.S. troops found a cache that contained an explosively formed penetrator and parts to make more, along with home made explosives, in the West Rashid district in Baghdad. Also, Iran is believed to be smuggling Chinese made rockets into Iraq, Admiral Mark Fox said in a recent briefing.
Al Qaeda
The daily raids against al Qaeda’s leadership and facilitator cells resulted in one al Qaeda operative killed and 26 captured over the past two days. Sunday's operations in Baghdad, Mosul, Fallujah, and Yusifiyah resulted in one al Qaeda operative killed and 14 captured. Twelve al Qaeda operatives were captured on Monday during raids in Mosul, Baghdad, Yusifiyah, and Tarmiyah.

Another Optimistic Article on The Surge's Positive Progress...

2007-07-30T22:02:00.000-07:00

July 30, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
A War We Just Might Win
By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK
Washington
VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.
Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.
After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.
Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.
Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.
In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an Arab-style living room, where he met with the local Sunni sheiks — all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups — who were now competing to secure his friendship.
In Baghdad’s Ghazaliya neighborhood, which has seen some of the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming back to life with stores and shoppers. The Sunni residents were unhappy with the nearby police checkpoint, where Shiite officers reportedly abused them, but they seemed genuinely happy with the American soldiers and a mostly Kurdish Iraqi Army company patrolling the street. The local Sunni militia even had agreed to confine itself to its compound once the Americans and Iraqi units arrived.
We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq. All across the country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the long term remains a major question mark.
But for now, things look much better than before. American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq).
In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion. The Iraqi Army’s highly effective Third Infantry Division started out as overwhelmingly Kurdish in 2005. Today, it is 45 percent Shiite, 28 percent Kurdish, and 27 percent Sunni Arab.
In the past, few Iraqi units could do more than provide a few “jundis” (soldiers) to put a thin Iraqi face on largely American operations. Today, in only a few sectors did we find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations were useless — something that was the rule, not the exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005.
The additional American military formations brought in as part of the surge, General Petraeus’s determination to hold areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents popping back up after the Americans leave.
In war, sometimes it’s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.
These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas). Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.
Another surprise was how well the coalition’s new Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working. Wherever we found a fully staffed team, we also found local Iraqi leaders and businessmen cooperating with it to revive the local economy and build new political structures. Although much more needs to be done to create jobs, a new emphasis on microloans and small-scale projects was having some success where the previous aid programs often built white elephants.
In some places where we have failed to provide the civilian manpower to fill out the reconstruction teams, the surge has still allowed the military to fashion its own advisory groups from battalion, brigade and division staffs. We talked to dozens of military officers who before the war had known little about governance or business but were now ably immersing themselves in projects to provide the average Iraqi with a decent life.
Outside Baghdad, one of the biggest factors in the progress so far has been the efforts to decentralize power to the provinces and local governments. But more must be done. For example, the Iraqi National Police, which are controlled by the Interior Ministry, remain mostly a disaster. In response, many towns and neighborhoods are standing up local police forces, which generally prove more effective, less corrupt and less sectarian. The coalition has to force the warlords in Baghdad to allow the creation of neutral security forces beyond their control.
In the end, the situation in Iraq remains grave. In particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another when major steps towards reconciliation — or at least accommodation — are needed. This cannot continue indefinitely. Otherwise, once we begin to downsize, important communities may not feel committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may splinter along ethnic and religious lines.
How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.
Michael E. O’Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kenneth M. Pollack is the director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings.

New York Times Pulitzer Prize winner John Burns on Iraq, Iran and how the surge is working.

2007-07-30T21:57:00.000-07:00

Here is a significant interview by Hugh Hewitt with a NY Times Editor on Iraq... I would enjoy hearing your feedback on how the Libs are going to combat one of their own admitting to the surge working.

BC

HH: Pleased to welcome back to the Hugh Hewitt Show John Burns of the New York Times. Mr. Burns, welcome, it’s been about six months since we spoke, and I gather you’re in Baghdad today?
JB: I am indeed.
HH: How long have you been back in Baghdad?
JB: About three months. We take long rotations here, and then we reward ourselves with nice long breaks back home in the United States, or in my case, in the United Kingdom.
HH: Well, there are three things I want to cover with you today, Mr. Burns. Where are we now in Iraq, in your view? Secondly, where Iraq might be in a couple of years, depending on a couple of developments that the United States might enact? And then finally, in hindsight, what we did right and what we did wrong over the last four years. But let’s start with what you see in Baghdad today. Is the surge working?
JB: I think there’s no doubt that those extra 30,000 American troops are making a difference. They’re definitely making a difference in Baghdad. Some of the crucial indicators of the war, metrics as the American command calls them, have moved in a positive direction from the American, and dare I say the Iraqi point of view, fewer car bombs, fewer bombs in general, lower levels of civilian casualties, quite remarkably lower levels of civilian casualties. And add in what they call the Baghdad belts, that’s to say the approaches to Baghdad, particularly in Diyala Province to the northeast, to in the area south of Baghdad in Babil Province, and to the west of Baghdad in Anbar Province, there’s no doubt that al Qaeda has taken something of a beating.
HH: Now when General Petraeus returns in September to make his report, do you expect Petraeus to be completely candid with the American people about the good news and the bad news in Iraq?
JB: I think there’s no doubt that he’ll be candid. As a matter of fact, every time I’ve spoken to him about it, he talks about the need to be forthright, and as he puts it, he said we’re not going to be putting lipstick on a pig. I think that’s a fairly, that’s military jargon which most Americans will understand. David Petraeus is a man who’s had a remarkably distinguished military career, and he is very clear that he thinks his responsibilities lie not to the White House alone, but to the White House and the Congress conjointly, and through them to the American people. I don’t think that this is just a profession, a claim. I think he really intends that, and he’s been very careful not to make commitments at the moment as to what he’s going to say, though we may guess it. And I think he’s going to say that the surge is having its effects, it hasn’t turned the tide of the war, there’s been too little time for it, and I think he and Ambassador Crocker, who will be his partner in that September report, are going to say one thing very clearly, and that is a quick, early withdrawal of American troops of the kind that is being argued by Nancy Pelosi, for example, would very likely lead to catastrophic levels of violence here. And in that, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will be saying something which is pretty broadly shared by people who live and work here, I have to say. The removal of American troops would very likely, we believe from all indications, lead to much higher, and indeed potentially cataclysmic levels of violence, beyond anything we’ve seen to date.
HH: Mr. Burns, some anti-war critics have begun to attack General Petraeus as being not credible and not trustworthy for a variety of reasons, one he gave me an interview, he’s given other people interviews that they consider to be partisan, whatever. Do you believe he’ll be as trustworthy as anyone else speaking on the war?
JB: I do. I can only speak for my own personal experience, and there definitely was in the, in the Vietnam war, there was a failure of senior generals and the joint chiefs of staff to speak frankly about the Vietnam war early enough. There has definitely been some Pollyannaish character to the reporting of some of the generals here over the past three or four years, although in my own view, knowing virtually all of those generals, I don’t think that that was out of fealty to the White House or Mr. Rumsfeld. It’s a difficult and complex question which we really don’t have time to discuss here. But to speak of General Petraeus in particular, General Petraeus is 54 years old. Let’s look at this just simply as a matter of career, beyond the matter of principle on which I think we could also say we could expect him to make a forthright report. At 54, General Petraeus is a young four star general, who could expect to have as much as ten more years in the military. And he has every reason to give a forthright and frank report on this. And he says, and he says this insistently, that he will give a forthright, straightforward report, and if the people in Washington don’t like it, then they can find somebody else who will give his forthright, straightforward report. He is not without options on a personal basis, General Petraeus, and I think he, from everything I’ve learned from him, sees both a professional, in the first place, and personal imperative to state the truth as he sees it about this war.
HH: Speaking more broadly now, in the American higher command, is there optimism that the surge, given enough time, will bring the kind of stability to Iraq that we all hope it achieves?
JB: You know, optimism is a word which is rarely used around here. The word they would use is realism. You have to look at what the plan is. The plan is that with the surge, aimed primarily at al Qaeda, who are responsible for most of the spectacular attacks, the major suicide bombings, for example, that have driven the sectarian warfare here, the belief is, or the hope is, that with the surge, they can knock al Qaeda back, they can clear areas which have been virtually sanctuaries for al Qaeda, northeast, south, west and northwest of Baghdad, and in Baghdad itself, and then have Iraqi troops move in behind them. The problem here is time. How much time does the U.S. military have now, according to the American political timetable, to accomplish this? I think most generals would say, indeed have said, most serving current generals here have said that a drawdown, which took American troops from the 160,00 level they’re at now quickly down to 100,000 or 80,000 over the next, shall we say, year to eighteen months, that’s too fast. If you do that, I think they would say, though they don’t put it quite this frankly, that this war will be lost for sure. Given a little bit more time, they think that it is realistic to think that the Iraqi forces can move in behind them, and can take over the principal responsibilities for the war. The problem is, of course, that American generals have been saying this now for four years, and as we know, the Congress is beginning to run out of patience with that. But I think that they have a good plan now, at least if there is any plan that could save the situation here, any plan that could bring a reasonably successful end to the American enterprise here, it’s probably the plan they have right now.
HH: Now John Burns, a military historian was writing this week that he fears a Tet-like offensive by al Qaeda’s fighters, as well as perhaps radical Shiia militias prior to the Petraeus report. Have you heard warnings or concerns about such a thing?
JB: (pause) Hello?
HH: Yes, Mr. Burns, maybe you didn’t hear that.
JB: Sorry, you were breaking up quite badly, as you have been at several points during our discussion.
HH: Okay, I’ll try it again. A military historian wrote this week that he fears a Tet-like offensive by al Qaeda and radical Shiia fighters in the next weeks running up to the September report. Have you heard warnings about that, concerns about that kind of…
JB: Yeah, it’s not an original thought. As a matter of fact, it’s a thought we’ve heard expressed by General Petraeus and other commanders here, and you don’t have to be a crystal ball gazer or a seer to understand the risks in that. Indeed, there have been one or two attempts to pull off exactly that. The fear has been among the generals here that a major, spectacular attack, aimed for example at the Green Zone, the government and military command complex in the center of Baghdad, of the kinds that was mounted during the Tet offensive when, as you’ll recall, Viet Cong or North Vietnamese troops got right inside the American embassy. That kind of attack would have an…whatever its consequences here, would have an enormous impact and possibly fatal impact from the American military point of view on the balance of opinion in the Congress. You’ll forgive me, I have American attack helicopters flying overhead right now over our compound here in Baghdad.
HH: Sure.
JB: There was one attempt already to pull off an attack of that kind. It was not on the Green Zone, but on an American military base southwest of Baghdad, when a truck loaded with 12,000 pounds of high explosives, that’s by quick calculation, we’re talking about more than five tons of high explosives, got very close to what they call the wire of an American base in which there were several hundred American troops. A wary gunner in a watchtower, an American gunner, spotted the truck, and killed or fired at the driver, who got out of the truck wearing a suicide vest, as it happens, and the truck did not explode. Had it exploded, there could have been a repeat of what happened in Lebanon in 1982, when as you will recall, a truck bombing of the Marine barracks residential complex near Beiruit airport killed, as I recall, 249 Marines, and speeded Ronald Reagan in his decision to pull American Marines out of Beirut. So yes, there is a definite concern about that, and there has been a tightening of what the American military calls force protection, that is to say I guess self-evidently, the efforts that the force spends to protect itself in respect of that threat.
HH: When we spoke in February, you told us about the killing that had been underway in Adamiya, one of the places where sectarian violence in Baghdad had really flared in October. What’s your assessment of the Shiia on Sunni violence level in Baghdad six months into the surge?
JB: It is reduced, and it’s reduced primarily, as far as we can see, because of the increment, and I’m talking here of a virtual doubling of American troop strength in Baghdad, to speak only the neighborhood in which the New York Times operates here, the Rusafa neighborhood on the east side of the Tigris River, we here now have American troops quartered about a half a mile away from us for the first time in three years. So when you put American boots on the ground, you definitely have an inhibiting effect on this, and we’ve seen that in falling levels of sectarian violence. Where you don’t have American boots on the ground inside Baghdad, you see higher levels of sectarian violence. So I would that on the whole, the situation is somewhat better than it was, which is exactly what you would have expected by introducing a significant increase of American combat troops.
HH: John Burns, that means it’s down, but is there any kind of movement that you can see that would suggest that when, that the Iraqis are coming to their own conclusion that they’ve go to work through other means than violence, is there a lowering of the hatred level there in Baghdad?
JB: Well, of course, that would be what the American military would call the most crucial metric of all. If we could see that, then we would begin to see the end of the war. Now the fact is that the Iraqi people are, of course, exhausted with the violence. The question is at what point does that begin to translate into the kind of stepping up that would make a change in the warfare, specifically the flow of intelligence to the Iraqi and American militaries here, which would enable them to go after the people who are primarily responsible, whether it’s Shiite death squads or its suicide bombers, mostly Sunni suicide bombers. The intelligence flow, we’re told, is a good deal better, very much better than it was. This is an intelligence driven war, but the American military will tell you that they still don’t have enough of it. They have quite a good flow of intelligence, which has allowed them to have some spectacular successes, including one just last night in Karbala, southwest of Baghdad, the holy city where they went after a Shiite militia death squad leader. And this happens virtually every night, usually special forces operations, American led. They’ve have some success with that. So that’s really the key metric. When the Iraqi people’s exhaustion with this war begins to express itself in a full flow of intelligence to the Iraqi and American military, then you will see real progress in the war. Up until now, it’s much better, but it’s still, according to the American military, still not nearly enough to make it a crucial difference.
HH: Now another metric is what the political elite of a country says off the record. And you have those conversations with the Maliki government, with the opposition, with the people in parliament, etc. What do you hear from those conversations, John Burns? Are they beginning to think that it is possible to see a functioning government and a multi-party system that relies on other than guns?
JB: No, I would say that’s probably the most depressing or discouraging aspect of the entire situation. I think it’s probably fair to say that the Iraqi political leaders, Sunni, Shiia, Kurd in the main, are somewhat further apart now than they were six months ago. In other words, the Bush administration’s hope that the military surge would be accompanied by what they called a political surge, a movement towards some sort of national reconciliation, uniting around a kind of national compact, that has simply not occurred. Indeed, the gulf between the Shiite and Sunni leaders in the government is probably wider than it has ever been. There’s a great deal of recrimination. There’s hardly a day when the Sunnis do not, as they did again today, threaten to withdraw from the government altogether. There’s virtually no progress on the key benchmarks, as the Bush administration calls them, matters like a comprehensive oil law that will settle the issue of how oil revenues, which account for 90% of government revenues here, will in future be divided and spent between the various communities, and many other issues, eighteen of them, benchmarks identified by the Congress, there’s very little progress on those benchmarks. Where there is some progress is at the grass roots level, some progress, though we’re beginning to see tribal leaders, in particular, in some of the most heavily congested war areas, beginning to stand up and say they’ve had enough of it, and to volunteer to put forth their young men, either to join the Iraqi police or army, or to join in tribal auxiliaries, or levees if you will. That’s probably the most encouraging political sign. But at the Baghdad level, unfortunately, the United States still does not have an effective political partner.
HH: One of the arguments for those favoring a timeline for withdrawal that’s written in stone is that it will oblige the Iraqi political class to get serious about such things as the oil revenue division. Do you believe that’s an accurate argument?
JB: Well, you would think it would be so, wouldn’t you, that the threat of withdrawal of American troops, and the risk of a slide into catastrophic levels of violence, much higher than we’ve already seen, would impel the Iraqi leadership to move forward. But there’s a conundrum here. There’s a paradox. That’s to say the more that the Democrats in the Congress lead the push for an early withdrawal, the more Iraqi political leaders, particularly the Shiite political leaders, but the Sunnis as well, and the Kurds, are inclined to think that this is going to be settled, eventually, in an outright civil war, in consequence of which they are very, very unlikely or reluctant, at present, to make major concessions. They’re much more inclined to kind of hunker down. So in effect, the threats from Washington about a withdrawal, which we might have hoped would have brought about greater political cooperation in face of the threat that would ensue from that to the entire political establishment here, has had, as best we can gauge it, much more the opposite effect, of an effect that persuading people well, if the Americans are going, there’s absolutely no…and we’re going to have to settle this by a civil war, why should we make concessions on that matter right now? For example, to give you only one isolated exception, why should the Shiite leadership, in their view, make major concessions about widening the entry point for former Baathists into the government, into the senior levels of the military leadership, that’s to say bringing in high ranking Sunnis into the government and the army and the police, who themselves, the Sunnis, are in the main former stalwarts of Saddam’s regime. Why would the Shiites do that if they believe that in the end, they’re going to have to fight a civil war? This is not to reprove people in the Congress who think that the United States has spent enough blood and treasure here. It’s just a reality that that’s the way this debate seems to be being read by many Iraqi politicians.
HH: Would a, John Burns, a contrary approach yield the also counterintuitive result that if Congress and the United States said we’re there for two or three more years at this level, would that assist the political settlement, in your view, coming about?
JB: Unfortunately, I think the answer to that is probably not, and that’s something that General Casey and General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker now, General Petraeus’ partner, if you will, are very wary of. They understand that there has to be something of a fire lit under the feet of the Iraqi leaders. It’s a paradox, it’s a conundrum, which is almost impossible to resolve. Now I think the last thing that you need is an Iraqi leadership which is already inclined to passivity on the matters, the questions that seem to matter most in terms of a national reconciliation here, the last thing they need is to be told, in effect, the deadline has been moved back three years. I would guess the way, if you will, to vector all of this would be to find some sort of solution, indeed it was the benchmark solution, which would say to them if you come together and you work on these benchmarks, then you will continue to have our support. But it seems to me that the mood in Congress has moved beyond that. The mood in Congress, as I read it from here, at least those who are leading the push for the withdrawal, are not much interested anymore in incremental progress by the Iraqi government. They’ve come to the conclusion that this war is lost, that no foreseeable movement by the Iraqi leaders will be enough to justify the continued investment of lives and dollars here by the United States, and that it’s time to pull out. And of course, you can make a strong argument to that effect.
HH: Do you believe that, John Burns, that the war is lost?
JB: No, I don’t, actually. I think the war is close to lost, but I don’t think that all hope is extinguished, and I do think, as do many of my colleagues in the media here, that an accelerated early withdrawal, something which reduced American troops, even if they were placed in large bases out in the desert to, say, something like 60-80,000 over a period of six to nine months, and in effect, leaving the fighting in the cities and the approaches to the cities to the Iraqis, I think the result of that would, in effect, be a rapid, a rapid progress towards an all-out civil war. And the people who are urging that kind of a drawdown, I think, have to take that into account. That’s not to say, I have to say, that that should be enough to inhibit those politicians who make that argument, because they could very well ask if that’s true, can those who argue for a continued high level of American military involvement here assure us that we wouldn’t come to the same point three or four years, and perhaps four or five thousand American soldiers killed later? In other words, we might only be putting off the evil day. It seems to me that’s where this discussion really has to focus. Can those who argue for staying here, can they offer any reasonable hope that three, two, three, four years out, the risk of a decline into cataclysmic civil war would be any less? If the answer is no they can’t, then it seems to me that strengthens the argument of those who say well, we might as well withdraw fairly quickly now.
HH: Now you’ve reported some very tough places, Sarajevo, Afghanistan under the Taliban, and after the liberation from the Taliban, and you’ve won Pulitzers for that. When you say cataclysmic civil war, what do you mean in terms of what you’ve seen before? What kind of violence do you imagine would break out after precipitous withdrawal?
JB: Well, let’s look at what’s happened already as a benchmark. Nobody really knows how many people have died here, but I would guess that in terms of the civilian population, it’s probably not less than 100-150,000, and it could be higher than that. I don’t think it’s as high as the 700,000 that some estimates have suggested, but I think it’s, and I know for a fact, that the sort of figures that were being discussed amongst senior American officials here, as a potential, should there be an early withdrawal and a progress to an all-out civil war, they’re talking about the possibility of as many as a million Iraqis dying. Now of course, that is suppositional. It’s entirely hypothetical. How could we possibly know? But I think you couldn’t rule out that possibility. And the question then arises, catastrophic as the effect on Iraq and the region would be, you know, what would be the effect on American credibility in the world, American power in the world, and America’s sense of itself? These are extremely difficult issues to resolve, and I can’t say, sitting here in Baghdad, that I have any particular wisdom about what the right course would be. And fortunately, as a reporter, I’m not paid money to offer that kind of wisdom, only to observe what I see. And there are days when I thank God that I’m not sitting in the United States Senate or the United States House of Representatives, with the responsibility of putting the ballot in the box on this.
HH: In his recent speech in Charleston, President Bush argued that to withdraw would be to empower al Qaeda in Anbar Province, and to allow them to set up a base there. What do you make of that projection, John Burns?
JB: Well, I think it’s self-evident. Whatever we may make of the original intent of coming here, if the United States did not have a problem with Islamic extremism in Iraq before 2003, it certainly does now. You only have to look at the pronouncements of Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahiri, his deputy, to see that they regard Iraq now as being, if you will, the front line of the Islamic militant battle against the West. And so if American troops were withdrawn, I think that there would be a very serious risk that large parts of this country will fall under the sway of al Qaeda linked groups. Now we could debate what that exactly means. Al Qaeda’s a holding company. Does that mean that Mr. bin Laden would be able to direct affairs in Afghanistan? No, I don’t think he would. I don’t think he does now. But it would mean that Islamic extremists who bear the worst intent towards the United States would have a base similar to the base they had in Afghanistan before 9/11 from which to operate, and I think it’s very likely that they would then begin to want to expatriate their hatred of the United States in some way or another. In fact, it’s already the case, that there are parts of Iraq which are under the sway of groups that swear allegiance to al Qaeda. And just to speak of one of them, the city of Sumarra, where I was yesterday, it’s about sixty miles north of Baghdad, is definitely under the sway of al Qaeda right now. And that would likely get very much worse in the event of an accelerated withdrawal. So I don’t think it’s purely propaganda, political propaganda on the part of the Bush administration to say that there would be a major al Qaeda problem here. It seems to me it’s absolutely self-evident that there would be.
HH: Now given that you covered Afghanistan from the Taliban era, would they have a greater lethality anchored in Iraq than they did when they were anchored in Afghanistan, John Burns, al Qaeda I mean?
JB: I’m sorry, I missed that. Do you want to repeat that?
HH: Sure.
JB: I understood you were asking me about the lethality of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
HH: No, I was asking when al Qaeda was in Afghanistan under the Taliban regime, they obviously developed potential and capabilities and operational abilities that resulted in 9/11. If they anchored themselves in a lawless Iraq, would their lethality towards the United States be even greater or lesser than it was when they were in Taliban Afghanistan?
JB: I would say it would probably be greater, and for these reasons. Let’s remember that the Afghanistan, that was a sanctuary for al Qaeda and bin Laden, is a very, very underdeveloped, I dare say primitive country. Iraq is not. Iraq is a country that had and potentially still has a major industrial base, it has among Middle Eastern countries one of the most highly educated corps of scientists and engineers, people who were on their way, certainly in the early 1990’s, to developing nuclear weapons, even if that program, as we now know, fell by the wayside after the first Gulf War. Many of these people have left, but would some of them come back? You would then have to add to that the fact that this is an oil country, which even in the situation of a civil war, is exporting billions of dollars of oil to the world, and could potentially export much more. So I would say add to that the question of geography. We’re a thousand miles closer here in Baghdad to Western Europe and the United States than Mr. bin Laden and his followers were when they were in Afghanistan. So I think yes, it could be a serious problem. Whether that problem can be overcome in any foreseeable or acceptable period of time here, I don’t know. If we knew the answer to that, we’d be well on our way to deciding whether or not it’s worth staying here. But I think to deny that there is such a problem, or even simply to blame it on the Bush administration…
(Call dropped. End of Part 1)
HH: Mr. Burns, sorry, we dropped you there as you were…I just need about ten more minutes if I can hold you for that long.
JB: Yeah, sure.
HH: Great. You were talking about that al Qaeda is real in Anbar, and they would pose problems for us, and it’s not a Bush administration figment, I think you were saying.
JB: I’m not sure where we…you still had me on the line when I was talking about why Iraq is different to Afghanistan?
HH: Yeah, but…I got most of that…
JB: Yes.
HH: And you were, when you got cut off, you were saying that this is not made up by the Bush administration.
JB: So you know, we can all exhaust ourselves with questions of political accountability for this, and whether the Bush administration, post 9/11, made a huge mistake in moving on from an uncompleted war in Afghanistan to Iraq. But it seems to me that perhaps instead of exhausting our energies on that, it would be better to look at the situation as it actually is, set aside for time being, or for history, who is responsible for it, and come to some conclusions about what is best to do about it. And that would have to start from a recognition that it is a really serious problem. And then the question is what, if anything, can be done about it? Will leaving American troops here only exacerbate the problem, and exhaust the United States? Or would it hold out the prospect that the United States and its Iraqi partners could actually begin to knock al Qaeda back? That’s a very complex question, and as I said earlier, I consider it one of my great blessings that it’s my job to report on these things and not to decide on them.
HH: It’s extraordinarily well put. A couple of metrics, though. When I interviewed General Petraeus last week, he was reluctant to talk in terms of the number of al Qaeda or foreign terrorists killed in the last six months of the surge. What do you think that number is? How many al Qaeda are being killed by the surge?
JB: I would say the figure is in the hundreds.
HH: High hundreds or low hundreds?
JB: I would say it’s probably something in the nature of three to five hundred, cumulatively, since the surge began. Now I’ve not got that figure from the American military. I’m simply pulling together various estimates we’ve had from various parts of this offensive as to the people that they have killed. Now of course, that figure isn’t very helpful. You need to know are these people, you know, 17 and 18 year old recruits who have been paid $50 dollars to go and put a roadside bomb somewhere where it can blow up an American humvee? Or are they hard core? How many of the hard core have they got? I think they’ve had some success, and they’ve probably taken off the streets several dozen senior al Qaeda in Iraq linked terrorists. And that has to be significant. The problem is, as General Rick Lynch of the 3rd Infantry Division, who is presently in charge of the surge operations on the southern approaches to Baghdad has said, al Qaeda in Iraq is a hydra. It is a many headed monster which seems to be able to regenerate its heads when they’re cut off. And that’s been the case for a very long time, as General Lynch knows. He was the command spokesman in his previous assignment here. And many was the time wherein I attended briefings by General Lynch in that role, where he produced charts indicating how many first, second and third tier al Qaeda operatives had been killed or captured. And that was three years ago. So you know, it seems that no matter how many are killed or captured, this thing managed to regenerate.
HH: Now John Burns, some argue that withdrawal will stop the momentum for al Qaeda’s recruitment, that we are, our presence there is, in fact, breeding terrorists. Do you agree with that?
JB: Well, I think there’s no doubt that there’s some element of truth to that. But I don’t think that that alone is keeping or sustaining the al Qaeda presence here. As a matter of fact, if you talk, if you look at what’s happened in Anbar, for example, the tribal sheiks in Anbar who have shifted their position on this war, and in effect now put themselves in an alliance with the United States and Iraqi forces against al Qaeda, they’re doing that partly because of al Qaeda’s brutality, but also because of their fears for what this might portend beyond an American presence. In short, whilst they’ve got American troops here, they’re very happy to have them go after al Qaeda, because most Iraqis, and certainly most tribal sheiks, do not want to live in an Islamic caliphate of the kind that Mr. Zarqawi, who was killed a little over a year ago in an American bombing strike, the former leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, declared his intentions. As a matter of fact, the principal al Qaeda front operation here now calls it the Islamic state of Iraq. It’s pretty clear what those people intend. This, for all the religiosity we have seen in the past three or four years, was under Saddam Hussein, and remains a strongly secular society. Most Iraqis, most Iraqis, crave in their lives much of the same things that Americans do. They want to see economic progress. They want to see a degree of liberty. Of course they want also to preserve and protect their religion. But they do not want to live in a Taliban state.
HH: Mr. Burns, what is Iran’s role right now? What is, as you understand it, the game that they’re playing? What did they want to happen there?
JB: Well, it’s very difficult to read it, and I know that American officials who are dealing with this are absolutely perplexed. You would think that Iran would have, as much as any state in the region, an interest in stability in Iraq, and an interest in sustaining the first Shiite co-religionist, if you will, government in Iraq in hundreds of years. But what they’re actually doing is they are definitely, according to the intelligence that the American military passes to us, they are fueling, if you will, this country on its way to a civil war, and they are certainly responsible for providing the weapons technology and actual weapons in the form of what are known as explosively formed penetrators. That’s a particularly powerful form of bomb that have killed now scores of American troops. So how do we understand all of this? In two ways. Number one, Iran, as you know, is a country divided against itself. It has ayatollahs, extremist ayatollahs in many respects, who are in overall charge of the government. It has other ayatollahs who are more moderate. You have Islamic guards who are extremists, and you have a force, the Quds force, which is an elite force which appears to be the force that the ayatollahs, the extremist ayatollahs in Iran are using to, if you will, fuel the war in Iraq by funneling not just weapons and weapons technology and money, but actual agents into Iraq, according to what the American military has told, as they’ve captured some of them, to actually direct Shiite extremist activities, including death squads, including in February of this year, as I recall, an attack in the city of Karbala about 80 miles southwest of Baghdad, in which American soldiers, you’ll forgive me here, but my recollection is that there five of them, were abducted and killed by people wearing fake American military uniforms, and driving fake American military vehicles. This was an operation, so the American military tells us, which was conceived, directed, financed by the Iranian Quds force. So what is Iran up to here? It looks very much as though their interest in striking back at the great Satan, the United States, humiliating if they can the United States in Iraq, matters more to them on balance than creating a stable Shiite led government in Baghdad.
HH: When you talk with American military and diplomatic personnel there, John Burns, do they foresee some sort of military clash between Iran and the United States?
JB: No, I think it’s fair to say they don’t. They would say, of course, that they will do whatever they are directed by the president and Congress of the United States to do. But from everything I know of the American military commanders here, the last thing they want is any kind of military engagement with Iran, and for one very obvious reason. They have their hands absolutely full here. They have an army which is stretched to the point of exhaustion. I read the other day somewhere that something like 70% of the armored vehicles in the United States armed forces are now in Iraq. One indication of that is that if there were a rapid withdrawal, or helter skelter withdrawal, you’d have an army, an United States Army which would be stripped of much of its fighting vehicles. So do they want another war on their hands? They absolutely do not. They want to do the best job they an possibly do here, and they want to get home. How often do you hear American generals and American officers say that? Nobody wants to come home more than we do.
HH: And do you expect, though, that the nuclear ambitions of Iran will lead the Bush administration, do you hear people speculating about strikes on the nuclear facilities?
JB: You know, that’s way, as the military here likes to say, out of may lane. Though I’m sitting here in Baghdad, probably only about an hour’s flying time west of Tehran, and although I have been in Iran a number of times under the rule of the ayatollahs, I find that one extremely difficult to contemplate. But I do think that there are some things that are easy to state about this, and I think everybody who bothers to acquaint himself to the realities would understand it, that a proliferation of nuclear weapons in this region would be an extremely, extremely dangerous thing. And the proliferation of nuclear weapons to Iran would have a particular danger, because of the hostility of the ayatollahs to the West in the first place, and to the state of Israel in the second, and especially a president of Iran who has declared that it is his desire, his intent, to wipe Israel off the face of the map. So clearly, you know, an unstable policy like Iran acquiring nuclear weapons would be a development of the most frightened proportions. What can you do about that? Is it too late? Is the genie dropped out of the bottle? I was in India and Pakistan when those two countries tested nuclear weapons, and in effect, became nuclear weapons states, and I remember very well the sanctions that were placed on India and Pakistan in the immediate aftermath of those weapons tests in 1998, and how now, less than 10 years later, the United States is in harness with both those countries, and most of the sanctions then imposed have been withdrawn. So it’s difficult, is it not, to develop a coherent policy here in which some states, even if they are a lot more responsible we may judge than Iran are allowed to acquire nuclear weapons and others are not. I don’t pretend to have any answers to this, although I will say is, as I say to my children who are now well into their 20’s, I think they’re growing up into a world a lot more dangerous than I did, and I grew up into the world of the Cold War. And we thought that was dangerous enough.
HH: I want to wrap up by asking you just that kind of a question. When you’re sitting around and having a drink with your friends or your wife or your kids, and you’re an Englishman, and you know, what Gordon Brown has said in the last couple of weeks, and MI5 says you’ve got 2,000 jihadists running around London, what do you think the world’s going to look like in ten years? What’s the best case and the worst case out there, as you contemplate all the different moving parts in this clash of jihadist Islamist extremism and the West?
JB: I have to say I find it…and everything not to say quite frightening, and you know, I’ve learned one thing in my 30 years working for an American newspaper, and thus acquiring some kind of understanding, I hope, about the United States, and that is the can do spirit, that the only useful thing to do in the face of this kind of threat is to ask yourself what can we do about it? America has a genius, in my view, for not sitting down and moping about its forlorn state, but of actually doing something about it. And we will see the United States do something about this. I think that our focus needs to be on what is it that is within our control? There’s only so much that you can accomplish by force of arms. I was with General Nixon, who’s command of American troops in North Iraq yesterday, and he said you know, we haven’t advanced our security one little bit by killing people here. He meant, of course, that what you have to do is try and change hearts and minds. I think there are limits to what you can do with force of arms. We know that now. And we have to look at various aspects of American and Western policy in the world, and see where we can change that. And the most obvious place to change it would be in bringing some kind of peace between the Arabs and the Israelis, between the Israelis and the Palestinians. And God knows that’s a difficult enough problem. But I think if we could start there, and broaden out beyond that, then we would begin to have an answer to Islamic extremism.
HH: Do you think Hamas and Hezbollah, though, are at all inclined to want that with Israel, John Burns?
JB: Say again?
HH: Do you think that Hamas and Hezbollah, Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in the north, in Lebanon, are at all inclined to want co-existence, peaceful with Israel?
JB: Well, that’s certainly an open question. And again, I have to plead that that’s outside my lane. I worked in those two countries, Israel and Lebanon, and in the West Bank and Gaza, and I can’t claim to have any inside knowledge any more, I would say, than most of the people who are listening to your program. I think the answer would be that of course, these aren’t the most extreme elements, Islamic extreme elements, probably do not want peace. But my sense is that we should work from one observable fact there as elsewhere, and that is that most people, most people, including most Palestinians, most Iraqis, do not want to live in Terminator world. They want, broadly speaking, the same things that we do. As long as that’s the case, as long as that’s the case, a policy that reaches out to those people will be a policy that brings us some hope.
HH: Let’s conclude by asking you about the American military, the trooper, and the Marines who are…you know, the privates and the corporals and the sergeants there. There was a piece in the New Republic last week by a Scott Thomas Beauchamp. Have you had a chance to read that, or read about the controversy, John Burns?
JB: I did not, no. Tell me about it.
HH: Well, he attributed to himself, and to his fellow troopers, a cruelty and indifference to cruelty that shocked a lot of people, and now there’s an investigation into whether or not his observations were in fact truthful, and we don’t know the answer to that. But when you observe the American troops, A) how are their morale, and B) what do they think about this war, and about the Iraqi people at the level of the people doing the hardest fighting?
JB: Look, war is a brutalizing thing. It is an ugly thing. My own father was a fighter pilot during World War II. And when I went out to cover wars around the world, he cautioned me about being too quick and ready in my judgments. He said unless you’ve fought a war, you don’t know what it does to people. And he was speaking for an air force, the Royal Air Force, which firebombed Dresden and Hamburg, and killed more people, as I recall in those two cities, than were killed in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So that’s my first response to that, that if there has been brutality by American troops here, that would be nothing new in war. As for the morale of American troops, I think I can give you an answer to that, because I was only, a couple of days ago, in an American fort, in effect, a control base on the edge of the city of Samarra, which is as lawless and as al Qaeda dominated a place as you will find in Iraq, as I mentioned earlier, about sixty miles north of Baghdad, the place where a Shiite shrine was bombed in February of 2006 with catastrophic effects in terms of a tidal wave of sectarian violence between Sunni and Shiia across the country. So there I was with a platoon of American troops, led by a young man who was about a captain, who was about to receive a silver star for bravery in a battle inside Samarra. And I asked him what do you and the thirty men who were standing in line waiting for the silver star ceremony with him, what are you fighting for here? And I can tell you one thing, they’re not fighting for any grand mission. The days of that are gone. They don’t spend their hours keenly watching CNN and Fox News for the latest twists and turns in the debate in Congress. They watch movies, they watch WWF, they watch NASCAR. And when you ask them what you’re fighting for, they’ll tell you they’re fighting for the man to the left of them, the man to the right of them, they’re fighting to get home safely. They’re fighting for the unit, they’re fighting to protect and save themselves.
HH: And do they appreciate the Congressional debate? And when you talk to them, and their officers, do they think it’s helpful to what they’re trying to do?
JB: Well, if you talk to most of the fighting men, the enlisted men, they’re really not very much concerned about that. They’re concerned about, in the case of the unit that I was talking to, they came here on a twelve month hitch, they’ve done twelve months, they were extended to fifteen, so they have another three months to go, and their minds are fixed on those last three months, on getting through those last three months, and getting out. If you talk to officers in command headquarters around country, people who have had more time, and who are not at the sharp end of this war, yes, of course, they do follow the debate in Congress, and I would say the predominant opinion, not if by an means the exclusive opinion, because there are all the shades of opinion that you find in the United States, you’ll find here in the American armed forces. But I would say the predominant opinion appears to be, at least amongst the middle to senior levels of the officer corps here, that we came here, we paid a very high price, 3,600 men killed, 26 or 27,000 men, women wounded, let’s see if we can’t accomplish something here. They certainly do not like the idea of, to put it in the pejorative, cutting and running. They think that they can still make a crucial difference, they think it’s worth persisting here, they would just like a little bit more time. But they recognize, and this is undeniable, when you talk to most of these officers, they understand how the United States system works, and they understand what the Congress of the United States is elected to do. And they will accept, of course they will accept, whatever decision is made. They understand, because they’re paying the price, they are…you know, I was in a unit headquarters in Camp Spiker north of Tikrit for the last three days, and as we walked to the helicopter to fly back to Baghdad yesterday morning, we paused before the memorial board. And this is for the 82nd Airborne Division, one of the most famous units in the United States Army, now at about the twelve month mark of a fifteen month deployment, with something in the nature of 20,000 men, and that board has 56 names on it of men killed here in Iraq. And the average age, they told me, was as I recall about 21 years old. And you look at those faces and those dog tags staring out at you from the memorial wall, and you’d have to be, have ice water in your veins not to ask yourself is this worth it. Is what’s going to be accomplished or not accomplished here worth the lives of these young men? I don’t have a ready answer to that. And I think the wise thing to do is frankly to show some modesty in respect to that question. And I ask myself when I looked at those faces, what would they be saying to us now? Having given their lives for this, what would they want? Some of them, no doubt, I think would say get out of this place now. Others, as one would, might suspect, would say I went to Iraq knowing I could pay this price. Having paid the price, I would like to see the mission accomplished. As I’ve said before, thank God that it’s not my responsibility to make the finite decisions on this. My heart goes out, as it does to those soldiers out there in the 120 degree heat of the Iraqi desert fighting this sometimes impossible war, my heart also goes out to those 400 plus members of the United States Congress and the 100 members of the Senate who have to decide this thing. I don’t think in my lifetime there has been an issue of public policy quite as vexed as this.
HH: You know, John Burns, I’m imposing on you, and I apologize. It’s just so fascinating and it’s deeply, I think, informative, so I want to just ask you about those quiet conversations with your Iraqi friends, the people who serve the Bureau, who you’ve become friends with over your many years in Baghdad. What do they think is going to happen here? How fearful are they of the future?
JB: Very fearful, very fearful indeed. We’ve had much reason in the New York Times bureau in Baghdad in the past two weeks, more reason than usual, to thing about this, because we lost one of our Iraqi reporter/interpreters, killed two weeks ago today on his way to work in Baghdad, executed, in effect, in a professional manner which left little doubt that the people who were doing it were in one way involved with the insurgency. I don’t think it was a purely criminal enterprise. The young man who died was 23 years old, and full of life, and full of love for America, and full of hope for his own future. So we have talked more than we normally would about this question. I would say the prevailing opinion amongst the Iraqis I know best is they are very scared, very scared. They wonder whether they will live out each day. With, almost without exception, they are all hoping to get out of Iraq, to get to Jordan or Syria, or beyond that to the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom. That’s becoming an increasingly difficult venture for them. Their lives are filled with fear, and with very little hope. And when they contemplate the possible early withdrawal of American troops, of course, in the main, not exclusively, some feel that it’s better that Iraqis settle this amongst themselves. But in the main, those Iraqis feel that a withdrawal of American troops would very much increase the level of danger that they and their families face.
HH: Can we abandon, John Burns, can we abandon these Iraqis the way we abandoned the Cambodians to Pol Pot or the South Vietnamese to the North? I mean, doesn’t that strike you as something we simply cannot do?
JB: Well, if you ask me that as a personal matter, as somebody who has spent five years here and made many friends here, and come to admire greatly the Iraqis for their, their fortitude in enduring these miseries, it fills me with dread to think that they would be left to face the consequences of all of this without our, and I mean, by the way, American and not only American but British support as well. The British are much closer to the exit as far as I can tell than American troops are. So I am filled with dread about that, and wish that I could give these young Iraqis more encouragement than I can. And frankly, the best advice, and I think the most wise advice that anybody could give an Iraqi faced with that situation would be that if he could get his family to safety now, it would probably be a wise thing to do. Easier said than done. Visas are extremely difficult to get even for neighboring Arab countries. And very few of these people have any savings at all…in 2003, at a time when doctors in Iraq were earning $3 dollars a month. Most of them, speaking of the people that we employ, are supporting not just themselves and their own families, but whole extended families, and their salaries are exhausted, very often, before the month is through. So to contemplate them moving a family, even their nuclear families out of this country, even if they can get the visas, is extremely difficult. It’s a completely nightmarish situation for them, and obviously, I would that however we in the West resolve this, we don’t forget them.
HH: Asking, I’ve asked you this before, and I’ll ask it again to exit, knowing what we know now, would you have counseled the invasion to occur in ’03?
JB: Well, let me answer the question in a slightly different way. I think that people like myself, who were here before the overthrow of Saddam, were absolutely mesmerized, and I’m even inclined to say obsessed with one aspect of this society, and that was the terror that Saddam Hussein inflicted on his own people, and that I think we thought, I know I thought, that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein would bring an end to that terror, and would bring hope for the first time in a generation to Iraqis. I think those of us who felt that should have studied harder, and tried to acquaint ourselves more with the history of this country, and realized that beneath the carapace of terror laid a deeply fractured, deeply dysfunctional society in which Sunni, Shiia and Kurds have been locked together, and held in some relative stability only by at the point of a gun. Had we known all that, had we fully weighed all of that, I think that we might have reckoned then that ghastly as the terror of Saddam Hussein was, there was something even more ghastly that could ensure. I personally am too close to this now to be able to make any kind of judgment about that, and I think the judgment will depend on events yet to unfold. But I think that journalists, we who file mostly for 24 hour deadlines, need to learn a lesson, and I’m talking about myself, as much as anybody else here, and that we need to think very carefully when we’re cast into situations like this, and we become the messengers, if you will, the tribunes of the Western world, to write more about those sorts of things, the fractured society that lay beneath that carapace of terror, than just the terror itself.
HH: Was there any way, is it possible, do you think on that reflection, that however hard the last four years have been, was there any other way to get past Saddam? Or was it, and is there a possibility in your mind that it will all be worth it in the end?
JB: I guess the judgment on that will probably be something like 20-25 years out from now.
HH: Yeah.
JB: …the judgment that the Iraqi people will have to make. Right now, the remarkable thing is not that so many Iraqis look back on Saddam’s time with a sense of yearning, but that so many other Iraqis, namely Shiite Iraqis and Kurdish Iraqis, who were his principal victims, continue to believe that his overthrow was for the best. What history’s judgment about this will be extremely difficult to tell. But one thing we can be sure of is that it will have cost enormous numbers of lives, and it makes you wonder, looking back to the period of 2003 and before…
(Call dropped – End of Part 2)
JB: John Burns…
HH: Mr. Burns, I’m just calling back, it’s Hugh Hewitt, to say thank you for the hour. It’s been fascinating, we’ll play it in its entirety on Monday, and I hope in a few more months, we can get you back to do it again. It’s riveting radio.
JB: Well, thank you very much, and I enjoyed the chat.
HH: Thank you, John Burns.
JB: Bye bye.
HH: Bye bye.
End of interview.

2007-07-13T01:28:00.000-07:00

Victor Davis Hanson

New York Times Surrenders A monument to defeatism on the editorial page12 July 2007
On July 8, the New York Times ran an historic editorial entitled “The Road Home,” demanding an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq. It is rare that an editorial gets almost everything wrong, but “The Road Home” pulls it off. Consider, point by point, its confused—and immoral—defeatism.
1. “It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.”
Rarely in military history has an “orderly” withdrawal followed a theater-sized defeat and the flight of several divisions. Abruptly leaving Iraq would be a logistical and humanitarian catastrophe. And when scenes of carnage begin appearing on TV screens here about latte time, will the Times then call for “humanitarian” action?
2. “Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward.”
We’ll get to the war’s “sufficient cause,” but first let’s address the other two charges that the Times levels here against President Bush. Both houses of Congress voted for 23 writs authorizing the war with Iraq—a post-9/11 confirmation of the official policy of regime change in Iraq that President Clinton originated. Supporters of the war included 70 percent of the American public in April 2003; the majority of NATO members; a coalition with more participants than the United Nations alliance had in the Korean War; and a host of politicians and pundits as diverse as Joe Biden, William F. Buckley, Wesley Clark, Hillary Clinton, Francis Fukuyama, Kenneth Pollack, Harry Reid, Andrew Sullivan, Thomas Friedman, and George Will.
And there was a Pentagon postwar plan to stabilize the country, but it assumed a decisive defeat and elimination of enemy forces, not a three-week war in which the majority of Baathists and their terrorist allies fled into the shadows to await a more opportune time to reemerge, under quite different rules of engagement.
3. “While Mr. Bush scorns deadlines, he kept promising breakthroughs—after elections, after a constitution, after sending in thousands more troops. But those milestones came and went without any progress toward a stable, democratic Iraq or a path for withdrawal. It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush’s plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost.”
Of course there were breakthroughs: most notably, millions of Iraqis’ risking their lives to vote. An elected government remains in power, under a constitution far more liberal than any other in the Arab Middle East. In the region at large, Libya, following the war, gave up its advanced arsenal of weapons of mass destruction; Syria fled Lebanon; A.Q. Khan’s nuclear ring was shut down. And despite the efforts of Iran, Syria, and Sunni extremists in Jordan and Saudi Arabia, a plurality of Iraqis still prefer the chaotic and dangerous present to the sure methodical slaughter of their recent Saddamite past.
The Times wonders what Bush’s cause was. Easy to explain, if not easy to achieve: to help foster a constitutional government in the place of a genocidal regime that had engaged in a de facto war with the United States since 1991, and harbored or subsidized terrorists like Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, at least one plotter of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida affiliates in Kurdistan, and suicide bombers in Gaza and the West Bank. It was a bold attempt to break with the West’s previous practices, both liberal (appeasement of terrorists) and conservative (doing business with Saddam, selling arms to Iran, and overlooking the House of Saud’s funding of terrorists).
Is that cause in fact “lost”? The vast majority of 160,000 troops in harm’s way don’t think so—despite a home front where U.S. senators have publicly compared them with Nazis, Stalinists, Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge, and Saddam Hussein’s jailers, and where the media’s Iraqi narrative has focused obsessively on Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo, and serial leaks of classified information, with little interest in the horrific nature of the Islamists in Iraq or the courageous efforts of many Iraqis to stop them.
4. “Continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of American soldiers is wrong. The war is sapping the strength of the nation’s alliances and its military forces. It is a dangerous diversion from the life-and-death struggle against terrorists. It is an increasing burden on American taxpayers, and it is a betrayal of a world that needs the wise application of American power and principles.”
The military is stretched, but hardly broken, despite having tens of thousands of troops stationed in Japan, Korea, the Balkans, Germany, and Italy, years—and decades—after we removed dictatorships by force and began efforts to establish democracies in those once-frightening places. As for whether Iraq is a diversion from the war on terror: al-Qaida bigwig Ayman al-Zawahiri, like George W. Bush, has said that Iraq is the primary front in his efforts to attack the United States and its interests—and he often despairs about the progress of jihad there. Our enemies, like al-Qaida, Iran, and Syria, as well as opportunistic neutrals like China and Russia, are watching closely to see whether America will betray its principles in Iraq.
5. “Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs.”
The Times should abandon the subjunctive mood. The catastrophes that it matter-of-factly suggests have ample precedents in Vietnam. Apparently, we should abandon millions of Iraqis to the jihadists (whether Wahhabis or Khomeinites), expect mass murders in the wake of our flight—“even genocide”—and then chalk up the slaughter to Bush’s folly. And if that seems crazy, consider what follows, an Orwellian account of the mechanics of our flight:
6. “The main road south to Kuwait is notoriously vulnerable to roadside bomb attacks. Soldiers, weapons and vehicles will need to be deployed to secure bases while airlift and sealift operations are organized. Withdrawal routes will have to be guarded. The exit must be everything the invasion was not: based on reality and backed by adequate resources.
“The United States should explore using Kurdish territory in the north of Iraq as a secure staging area. Being able to use bases and ports in Turkey would also make withdrawal faster and safer. Turkey has been an inconsistent ally in this war, but like other nations, it should realize that shouldering part of the burden of the aftermath is in its own interest.”
This insistence on planned defeat, following incessant criticism of potential victory, is lunatic. The Times’s frustration with Turkey and other “inconsistent” allies won’t end with our withdrawal and defeat. Like everyone in the region, the Turks want to ally with winners and distance themselves from losers—and care little about sermons from the likes of the Times editors. The ideas about Kurdish territory and Turkey are simply cover for the likely consequences of defeat: once we are gone and a federated Iraq is finished, Kurdistan’s democratic success is fair game for Turkey, which—with the assent of opportunistic allies—will move to end it by crushing our Kurdish friends.
7. “Despite President Bush’s repeated claims, Al Qaeda had no significant foothold in Iraq before the invasion, which gave it new base camps, new recruits and new prestige.
“This war diverted Pentagon resources from Afghanistan, where the military had a real chance to hunt down Al Qaeda’s leaders. It alienated essential allies in the war against terrorism. It drained the strength and readiness of American troops.”
The Times raises the old charge that if we weren’t in Iraq, neither would be al-Qaida—more of whose members we have killed in Iraq than anywhere else. In 1944, Japan had relatively few soldiers in Okinawa; when the Japanese learned that we planned to invade in 1945, they increased their forces there. Did the subsequent carnage—four times the number of U.S. dead as in Iraq, by the way, in one-sixteenth the time—prove our actions ill considered? Likewise, no Soviets were in Eastern Europe until we moved to attack and destroy Hitler, who had kept communists out. Did the resulting Iron Curtain mean that it was a mistake to deter German aggression?
And if the Times sees the war in Afghanistan as so important, why didn’t it support an all-out war against the Taliban and al-Qaida, as it apparently does now, when we were solely in Afghanistan?
8. “Iraq may fragment into separate Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite republics, and American troops are not going to stop that from happening. . . . To start, Washington must turn to the United Nations, which Mr. Bush spurned and ridiculed as a preface to war.”
But Bush did go to the United Nations, which, had it enforced its own resolutions, might have prevented the war. In fact, the Bush administration’s engagement with the UN contrasts sharply with President Clinton’s snub of that organization during the U.S.-led bombing of the Balkans—unleashed, unlike Iraq, without Congressional approval. The Times also neglects to mention that the UN was knee-deep in the mess of its cash cow Iraq, from its appeasement of the genocidal Hussein regime to its graft-ridden, $50 billion oil-for-food scandal, reaching the highest echelons of Kofi Annan’s UN administration.
9. “Washington also has to mend fences with allies. There are new governments in Britain, France and Germany that did not participate in the fight over starting this war and are eager to get beyond it. But that will still require a measure of humility and a commitment to multilateral action that this administration has never shown. And, however angry they were with President Bush for creating this mess, those nations should see that they cannot walk away from the consequences.”
New governments in France and Germany are more pro-American than those of the past that tried to thwart us in Iraq. The Times surely knows of the Chirac administration’s lucrative relationships with Saddam Hussein, and of the German contracts to supply sophisticated tools and expertise that enabled the Baathist nightmare. Tony Blair will enjoy a far more principled and reputable retirement than will Jacques Chirac or Gerhard Schroeder, who did their best to destroy the Atlantic Alliance for cheap partisan advantage at home and global benefit abroad.
Nations like France and Germany won’t “walk away” from Iraq, since they were never there in the first place. They never involve themselves in such dangerous situations—just look at the rules of engagement of French and German troops in Afghanistan. Their foreign policy centers instead on commerce, suitably dressed up with fashionable elite outrage against the United States.
10. “For this effort to have any remote chance, Mr. Bush must drop his resistance to talking with both Iran and Syria. Britain, France, Russia, China and other nations with influence have a responsibility to help. Civil war in Iraq is a threat to everyone, especially if it spills across Iraq’s borders.”
China and Russia, seeing only oil and petrodollars, will take no responsibility to help. Both will welcome a U.S. retreat. Yes, “civil war” will spill over the borders, but not until the U.S. precipitously withdraws. Iran and Syria—serial assassins of democrats from Lebanon to Iraq—are hoping for realization of the Times’s scenario, and would be willing to talk with us only to facilitate our flight, with the expectation that Iraq would become wide open for their ambitions. In their view, a U.S. that fails in Iraq surely cannot thwart an Iranian bomb, the Syrian reabsorption of Lebanese democracy, attacks on Israel, or increased funding and sanctuary for global terrorism.
11. “President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have used demagoguery and fear to quell Americans’ demands for an end to this war. They say withdrawing will create bloodshed and chaos and encourage terrorists. Actually, all of that has already happened—the result of this unnecessary invasion and the incompetent management of this war.”
But as the Times itself acknowledges, what has happened in the past only previews what is in store if we precipitously withdraw. And this will prove the case not only in Iraq, but elsewhere in the Persian Gulf, the Middle East, Taiwan, and Korea. Once the U.S. demonstrates that it cannot honor its commitments, those dependent upon it must make the necessary adjustments. Ironically, while the Times urges acceptance of defeat, Sunni tribesmen at last are coming forward to fight terrorists, and regional neighbors are gradually accepting the truth that their opportunistic assistance to jihadists is only threatening their own regimes.
We promised General Petraeus a hearing in September; it would be the height of folly to preempt that agreement by giving in to our summer of panic and despair. Critics called for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, a change in command in Iraq and at Centcom, new strategies, and more troops. But now that we have a new secretary, a new command in Iraq and at Centcom, new strategies, and more troops, suddenly we have a renewed demand for withdrawal before the agreed-upon September accounting—suggesting that the only constant in such harping was the assumption that Iraq was either hopeless or not worth the effort.
The truth is that Iraq has upped the ante in the war against terrorists. Our enemies’ worst nightmare is a constitutional government in the heart of the ancient caliphate, surrounded by consensual rule in Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Turkey; ours is a new terror heaven, but with oil, a strategic location, and the zeal born of a humiliating defeat of the United States on a theater scale. The Islamists believe we can’t win; so does the New York Times. But it falls to the American people to decide the issue.

2007-07-11T23:24:00.000-07:00

Fred Thompson: "A lawyer who is a prospective candidate"
Fred Thompson has sent us the following column on the subject of his career in the practice of law. We are delighted to bring it to our readers:
A lawyer who is a candidate or a prospective candidate for office finds himself in an interesting position because of the nature of the legal profession and the practice of law. This is true when the practice was as varied as mine, and it’s especially true when the office being considered is the Presidency of the United States.
The easiest and most generally used tactic when running against a lawyer is to trade off a general perception that most people dislike lawyers. Goodness knows that a lot of lawyers have earned disfavor but, as it turns out, folks understand our system better than a lot of politicians think they do. In my first run for the Senate, my opponent tried the old demagoguery route – “He has even represented criminals!” – to no avail.
A first cousin of this ploy is to associate the lawyer with the views of his client. Now-United States Chief Justice John Roberts addressed this notion during his confirmation hearings. “… [I]t’s a tradition of the American Bar that goes back before the founding of the country that lawyers are not identified with the positions of their clients. The most famous example probably was John Adams, who represented the British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre.”
Roberts pointed out that Adams was actually vindicating the rule of law. Every person, unpopular or not, is entitled to representation. He further said, “That principle that you don’t identify the lawyer with the particular views of the client or the views that the lawyer advances on behalf of the client, is critical to the fair administration of justice.”
Like Adams, the views of attorney Abe Lincoln would have been a little hard to discern from looking at the positions he took as a lawyer. He represented the big railroad companies and on other occasions represented farmers and small land owners against the railroads.
Likewise during the Roberts confirmation, the New York Times reported on August 5, 2005 that as an appellate lawyer in the mid-1990s, Roberts gave advice to a gay-rights group that helped them win a 1996 anti-discrimination suit. Chief Justice Roberts had no direct hand in the suit. Rather, colleagues at his firm were handling the case and sought advice from a number of partners, him included. The group said that Chief Justice Roberts provided “invaluable strategic guidance” formulating legal theories.
I’ve experienced another gambit of those schooled in the creative uses of law and politics: dredging up clients – or another lawyer’s clients – that I may have represented or consulted with, and then using the media to get me into a public debate as to what I may have done for them or said to them 15 or 20 years ago. Even if my memory serves me correctly, it would not be appropriate for a lawyer to make such comments.
This situation does however bring to mind my many years in the law, and the nature of law practice in a country such as ours that prizes independence and individual rights. Of course, these values could not be protected without lawyer-client confidentiality or if lawyers were identified with the positions of their clients.
As an idealistic teen-ager I could think of nothing more inspiring than the notion of representing a just cause against the most powerful forces in the country, including the government. I’ve had a chance to do some of that. It’s fair to say that not all of my clients have been so praiseworthy. Some were, in deed, accused of crimes. Some were convicted against my best efforts.
The practice of law is a business as well as a profession. It’s the way you support your family. And if a client has a legal and ethical right to take a position, then you may appropriately represent him as long as he does not lie or otherwise conduct himself improperly while you are representing him. In almost 30 years of practicing law I must have had hundreds of clients and thousands of conversations about legal matters. Like any good lawyer, I would always try to give my best, objective, and professional opinion on any legal question presented to me.
I’ve had great personal and professional satisfaction because of my decision to become a lawyer. I made a decent living, served the rule of law, and I believe I did some good. I’ve had the opportunity to help small farmers in Tennessee, the Chief Justice of the United States, previously mentioned, and several folks in between, as well as a half dozen or so lobbying clients.
I was a federal prosecutor at the age of 27, Watergate Counsel at the age of 30, and served as special counsel to both the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee. In Tennessee, I served on the Appellate Court Nominating Committee and, of course, I was elected twice to the United States Senate.
I went on to do other things, too. Before election to the Senate, I appeared in several movies. The movie work was always an avocation for me and I continued to practice law throughout my “movie days” while continuing to live in the Nashville, Tennessee area.
Actually, my legal career led to my movie career. I took the case of a woman who was Chairman of the Tennessee Pardons and Parole Board. She stood up to the then Governor of Tennessee, we sued him and ultimately it was determined that he was corrupt. He, his legal counsel, and others went to jail. A book was written, and a movie was made about my client and our case and I was offered the opportunity to play myself in the movie, which led to other roles.
I’m certainly not surprised that such a diverse career is being mined by others. As we get further into this political season we will undoubtedly see the further intersection of law, politics and the mainstream media. However I intend to keep in mind the appropriate distinction and separation between law and politics, and I do not intend to get sucked in to doing a disservice to either of them or to myself. Supplementing Senator Thompson's historical observations, I would only refer interested readers to the essay "A genius for frienship" that John and I wrote on Abraham Lincoln's successful representation of an obviously guilty murder defendant. We'll probably have a bit more to say on the Democratic attacks on Senator Thompson's professional work, though we will reserve our own comments for subsequent posts. In the meantime, thanks to Senator Thompson for entrusting us with his column on a subject that is close to our hearts.
Related: "Thompson: Pro-abortion lobbyist?"

Turncoat Moderate Republicans Jump Ship On Iraq Stand

2007-07-09T21:04:00.000-07:00

Moment of Truth for the President Will he reject disastrous advice to compromise with opponents of the war?

by William Kristol 07/09/2007 12:20:00 PM

The New York Times leads today with David Sanger's story, "In White House, Debate Is Rising On Iraq Pullback; Political Considerations; Not Waiting For Sept. 15, Aides Seek to Forestall G.O.P. Defections." The piece is tendentious, as one would expect--but THE WEEKLY STANDARD has confirmed that there are real discussions going on at the White House, with advocates of what is being called "The Grand Bargain" pushing hard for the president to move soon to announce plans to pull back in Iraq. So this week will not only be a week of (mostly silly) debate on the Hill; it will also be an important moment of truth for the president, who will have to decide whether to give Gen. Petraeus and the soldiers a chance, or to accept the counsel of some of his advisers and begin to throw in the towel on Iraq.

Let me be clear: The president ordered the "surge," which only recently came to full strength and whose major operation has been going on for less than a month. If he were not to give it a chance to work, he would properly be viewed as a feckless, irresolute president, incapable of seeing his own strategy through a couple of months of controversy before abandoning it. He will have asked our soldiers to go on the offensive, assuming greater risk of casualties--and then, even though the offensive is working better than expected, will have pulled the plug on their efforts.

Indeed, the White House is living in a fool's paradise if they imagine that "compromising" now and in this way buys them anything. Even the New York Times editorial page has abandoned the pretence that its preferred strategy will lead to anything other than catastrophe in Iraq, and in the very near term. If the president gives in now, he will not be credited with a statesmanlike compromise. He will be lambasted by the left for fighting a bad war, and by the right for fighting it badly, recommitting us to the fight, and then losing it. The remainder of his term will be mired in congressional investigations as the waters fill with blood and the sharks go in for the kill. The Democrats will be emboldened to press him on every front, especially since Iraq is virtually the only position he's actually been defending. Lame duck does not even begin to describe where President Bush will be if he does this.

What's more, the president will lose any ability to mitigate the effects of the withdrawal or control it. The pullout will become a wild hell-for-leather race for the exit, and the result will be a triumph for al Qaeda and Iran, and a moral and geopolitical disaster for the United States.

The best strategy for the president is to hold firm. There is every reason to believe that he can survive the current calamity-Janes of the Republican party (does anyone really imagine that a veto-proof majority will form in the Senate this week or next?). This nonsense will pass, Congress will go on recess, and Petraeus will have a chance to continue to produce results--and the president and his allies will have a chance to gain political ground here at home. Why on earth pull the plug now? Why give in to an insane, irrational panic that will destroy the Bush administration and most likely sweep the Republican party to ruin? The president still has a chance to emerge from this as a visionary who could see what the left could not--but not if he gives in to them. There is no safety in the position some in the Bush administration are running towards. Here's what I gather is a basic lesson of tactics: When you find yourself in an ambush, attack into the ambush. Don't twist and turn in the kill zone, looking for a way to retreat. Especially when the ambush is not a powerful one, and the Democrats' position (to mix military metaphors) is way overextended. The Democrats are hoping the president will break and run. They will not allow him a dignified retreat or welcome him with compromise. They will spring to finish him off completely. It doesn't matter what the president's motives are. Some of his advisers are trying to persuade him that he needs to go for a grand bargain now so as to build bipartisan support for his policies when he's gone. But the only way to do that is to hold firm now--and to counterattack. Those who try to convince him otherwise offer nothing but defeat, for the troops, for the mission, and for the president. --William Kristol
© Copyright 2007, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

PARDONS GRANTED BY PRESIDENT CLINTON

2007-07-09T00:45:00.000-07:00

Table of Contents
November 23, 1994
April 17, 1995
December 23, 1997
December 24, 1998
February 19, 1999
December 23, 1999
February 19, 2000
March 15, 2000
July 7, 2000
October 20, 2000
November 21, 2000
December 22, 2000
January 20, 2001
November 23, 1994
NAME
DISTRICT
SENTENCED
OFFENSE
David Phillip Aronsohn
D. Minn.
1961
Failure to pay special occupational tax on wagering, 26 U.S.C. § 7203
Wanda Kaye Bain-Prentice
D. Ariz.
1982
Mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341
Antonio Barucco
U. S. Army general court-martial
1945
Desertion in violation of the 58th Article of War
Kristine Margo Beck
D. Idaho
1981
Bank embezzlement, 18 U.S.C. § 656
David Christopher Billmaier
D. New Mex.
1980
Possession with intent to distribute amphetamines, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Terry Lee Brown
E. D. Ky.
1962
Interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle, 18 U.S.C. § 2312
Joe Carl Bruton
N. D. Tex.
1979
Conspiracy to commit mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Nolan Lynn DeMarce
W. D. Wis.
1983
Making false statements to obtain bank loans, 18 U.S.C. § 1014
Jimmy C. Dick
N. D. Calif.
1976
Conspiracy to manufacture counterfeit Federal Reserve Notes, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Edward Eugene Dishman
W. D. Okla.
1983
Conspiracy to defraud the United States and Oklahoma counties, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Brenda Kay Engle
S. D. Ind.
1983
Conspiracy to commit theft from interstate shipment, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Mary Theresa Fajer
D. Oregon
1980
Conspiracy to commit bank embezzlement, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 371
Albert James Forte
D. Dist. Col.
1973
Making and subscribing false and fraudulent income tax return, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)
Fendley Lee Frazier
S. D. Ala.
1965
Interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle, 18 U.S.C. § 2312
Robert Linward Freeland, Jr.
N. D. Ind.
1983
Forcible rescue of seized property, 26 U.S.C. § 7212(b)
Ralph Leon Furst
S. D. Calif.
1966
Embezzlement of United States mail (U.S. Code section not cited)
Barbara Ann Gericke
W. D. Wis.
1984
Conspiracy to introduce contraband into federal prison, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1791
Billy Joe Gilmore
N. D. Tex.
1982
Mail fraud and aiding and abetting, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2
Loreto Joseph Iafrate
N. D. W. Va.
1976
Failure to record receipt of firearms, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(m) and 924(a)
Carl Bruce Jones
W. D. Mo.
1983
Distribution of marijuana and use of telephone to facilitate marijuana distribution, 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 843(b)
Candace Deon Leverenz
N. D. Calif.
1972
Unlawful distribution of LSD, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)
George William Lindgren
S. D. N. Y.
1975
Bank embezzlement, 18 U.S.C. § 656
Brian George Meierkord
C. D. Ill.
1983
Making false statement to bank, 18 U.S.C. § 1014
Jackie Lee Miller
N. D. Okla.
1983
Conspiracy to defraud the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Joseph Patrick Naulty
E. D. Pa.
1980
Carrying away goods moving as part of foreign shipment, 18 U.S.C. § 659
Theodore Roosevelt Noel
N. D. Ala.
1972
Selling whiskey in unstamped containers and making false statement in the acquisition of firearms from licensed dealer, 26 U.S.C. § 5604(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(6) and 924(a)
Mary Louise Oaks
M. D. La.
1979
Conspiracy to defraud the government with respect to claims, 18 U.S.C. § 286
Robert Paul Padelsky
D. Utah
1980
Misapplication of bank funds, 18 U.S.C. § 656
Elizabeth Amy Peterson
D. Nev.
1985
Conspiracy to make false statements to bank, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Susan Lauranne Prather
W. D. Ark.
1975
Causing marijuana to be transported through the mail, 21 U.S.C. § 843(b)
Gary Lynn Quammen
W. D. Wis.
1976
Misapplication of bank funds, 18 U.S.C. § 656
Robert Ronal Raymond
D. Conn.
1972
Conspiracy to manufacture, receive, possess, and sell firearms silencers, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Elizabeth Hogg Rushing
N. D. Ga.
1978
Misapplication of bank funds, 18 U.S.C. § 656
Marc Alan Schaffer
S. D. N. Y.
1968
Submission of false statements to Selective Service System Local Board, 50 U.S.C. Appendix § 462(a)
Roy Aaron Smith
E. D. Tex.
1982
Misprision of a felony, 18 U.S.C. § 4
Diane Dorothea Smunk
D. So. Dak.
1984
Embezzlement by government employee, 18 U.S.C. § 641
Thomas Peter Stathakis
D. So. Car.
1976
Selling and delivering firearms to out-of-state resident and falsifying firearms records, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(3), 922(m), and 924(a)
Kathleen Vacanti
C. D. Calif.
1979
Conspiracy to defraud the United States by obtaining payment of false claims, presenting false claims to the United States, forging a writing, and aiding and abetting, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 286, 287, and 495
Pupi White
W. D. Mo.
1985
Making false statement on United States passport application, 18 U.S.C. § 911
Charles Coleman Wicker
E. D. Mo.
1975
Conspiracy to conduct illegal gambling business, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Roderick Douglas Woods
S. D. Miss.
1982
Misappropriation of bank funds and aiding and abetting, 18 U.S.C. §§ 656 and 2
April 17, 1995
NAME
DISTRICT
SENTENCED
OFFENSE
Bradley Vaughn Barisic
N. D. Calif.
1980
Making false statement to National Labor Relations Board, 18 U.S.C. § 1001
Herschel L. Brantley
U. S. Air Force general court-martial
1951
Larceny in violation of 93rd Article of War
Linda Bailey Byars
D. So. Car.
1975
Bank embezzlement, 18 U.S.C. § 656
Patricia Ann Chapin
W. D. Mo.
1986
Falsifying prescription for controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(4)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2
Ronald Jacobs
E. D. Pa.
1967
Theft from interstate shipment, 18 U.S.C. § 659
Margaret Mary Marks
N. D. Ohio
1984
Willful misapplication of bank funds, 18 U.S.C. § 657
John Richard Martin
S. D. Calif.
1956
Embezzlement of funds from savings and loan association, 18 U.S.C. § 657
Earl Thomas McKinney
1. U. S. Air Force summary court-martial
1. 1951
1.
Absent without leave
2. U. S. Air Force general court-martial
2. 1959
2.
Larceny by check, writing check with insufficient funds, and false claims, in violation of U.C.M.J. Articles 121, 132, and 134
Shirley Jean Odoms
S. D. Tex.
1978
Filing false claim for tax refund, 18 U.S.C. § 287
Jack Pakis
W. D. Ark.
1972
Operation of illegal gambling business, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1955
Gordon Roberts, Jr.
M. D. La.
1977
Interstate transportation of forged and falsely made securities, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 2314
Carl Edward Terhune, Jr.
N. D. Okla.
1985
Issuing United States Postal Service money orders while postal employee with intent to defraud Postal Service, 18 U.S.C. § 500
December 23, 1997
NAME
DISTRICT
SENTENCED
OFFENSE
Irving Frank Avery
D. Colo.
1984
Possession of counterfeit plates, 18 U.S.C. §§ 474 and 2
Billy K. Berry
E. D. Ark.
1986
Medicaid and mail fraud, 42 U.S.C. § 1396h(a)(1)(i) and 18 U.S.C. § 1341
Clio Louise Carson
D. Wyo.
1979
Transmission of wagering information, 18 U.S.C. § 1084
Giuseppe Casadei-Severei
D. Puerto Rico
1987
Obstruction of justice, 18 U.S.C. § 1503
Glen Edison Chapman
1. W. D. No.Car.
1. 1955
1.
Removing, possessing, and concealing non-tax-paid whiskey, 26 U.S.C. §§ 5632 and 7206
2. W. D. No. Car.
2. 1957
2.
Removing, possessing, and concealing non-tax-paid whiskey, 26 U.S.C. §§ 5632 and 5008(b)(1)
Ralph Wallace Crawford
C. D. Calif.
1985
Mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341
Aaron Golden
W. D. Tex.
1986
Failure to file a currency transaction report, 31 U.S.C. §§ 5313 and 5322(a)
Monroe Lee King
S. D. Tex.
1973
Making plates for counterfeiting Federal Reserve Notes, 18 U.S.C. § 474
Ralph Lee Limbaugh
N. D. Ala.
1974
Theft from interstate shipment, 18 U.S.C. § 659
George Edward Maynes, Jr.
D. Canal Zone
1975
Distribution of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Charley Morgan
N.D. Okla.
1964
Unlawful possession of still and manufacture of mash, 26 U.S.C. §§ 5179(a), 5601(a)(1), and 5601(a)(7)
Linzie Murle Morse
W. D. La.
1973
Interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicle and selling stolen motor vehicle, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2312 and 2313
Charles Patrick Murrin
C. D. Calif.
1988
Bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)
Moises Jaurequi Ramos
D. New Mexico
1983
Misprision of a felony, 18 U.S.C. § 4
William Ray Richardson
W. D. Mo.
1983
Interstate transportation of stolen property, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 2314
Raymond Phillip Weaver
U. S. Navy summary court-martial
1947
Theft of four pounds of butter
Bill Wayne West
E. D. Miss.
1984
Dealing in firearms without license, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(1) and 924(a)
Anita Glenn Whitlock
D. Dist. Col.
1978
Bank embezzlement, 18 U.S.C. § 656
Edward Kenneth Williams, Jr.
S. D. Iowa
1979
Receiving and selling stolen motor vehicles and aiding and abetting the same, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 2313
Larry Edward Winfield
W. D. Ark.
1987
Mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341
Louis Anthony Winters
1. U.S. Navy generalcourt-martial
1. 1957
1. Unauthorized absence from duty
2.D. So. Dak.
2. 1969
2. Assault with dangerous weapon, 18 U.S.C. § 1153
December 24, 1998
NAME
DISTRICT
SENTENCED
OFFENSE
Haig Ardash Arakelian
(aka Haig Arthur Arakelian)
S. D. Calif.
1975
Possession of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 844
Estel Edmond Ashworth
N. D. Tex.
1974
Theft of mail by Postal employee, 18 U.S.C. § 1709
Vincent Anthony Burgio
C. D. Calif.
1972
Possession of counterfeit government obligations, 18 U.S.C. § 472
Thomas Earl Burton
E. D. Va.
1982
Attempted possession with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846
Jesse Cuevas
D. Neb.
1984
Unauthorized possession of food stamps, 7 U.S.C. § 2024(b)
Harry Erla Fox
U.S. Army summary and special courts- martial
1961
Absence without leave, Article 86, U.C.M.J.
James William Gardner
D. Wyo.
1983
Conspiracy to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1)
Alejandro Cruz Guedea
U.S. Army general court-martial
1949
Larceny of government property
Sebraien Michael Haygood
E. D. N. Y.
1982
Importation of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 960(a)(1)
Warren Curtis Hultgren, Jr.
W. D. Tex.
1982
Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1)
Sharon Sue Johnson
E. D. Ark.
1986
Bank embezzlement, 18 U.S.C. § 656
Ronald Ray Kelly
U.S. Marine Corps special court-martial
1969
Unauthorized absences, escape from lawful custody, and breaking restriction
Francis Dale Knippling
D. So. Dak.
1985
Conversion of mortgaged property, 18 U.S.C. § 658
Michael Ray Krukar
D. Alaska
1988
Unlawful distribution of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Michael Francis Larkin
D. Mass.
1984
False statements to HUD, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1001
Leslie Jan McCall
W. D. Okla.
1988
Use of telephone to facilitate cocaine distribution, 21 U.S.C. § 843(b)
Bobby Joe Miller
E. D. Tex.
1982
Misprision of a felony, 18 U.S.C. § 4
William Edward Payne
D. Ore.
1965
Willful attempt to evade excise tax on wagers, 26 U.S.C. § 7201
Robert Earl Radke
C. D. Calif.
1981
Willful attempt to evade income taxes, 26 U.S.C. § 7201
David Walter Ratliff
N. D. Okla.
1981
Making false statement to the government, 18 U.S.C. § 1001
Billy Wayne Reynolds
E. D. Tex.
1981
Mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341
Benito Maldonado Sanchez, Jr.
W. D. Tex.
1960
Possession of marijuana without payment of transfer tax, 26 U.S.C. § 4744(1)
Vicki Lynn Seals
(fka Vicki Lynn Miller)
W. D. Tex.
1984
Making a false statement to a federally insured bank while an employee of that bank, 18 U.S.C.§ 1005
Lewis Craig Seymour
W. D. Okla.
1979
Distribution of Phencyclidine (PCP), 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Irving A. Smith
D. Md.
1957
Conspiracy to engage in price-fixing, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2 (Sherman Act)
Darrin Paul Sobin
E. D. Calif.
1987
Conspiracy to manufacture marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Monty Mac Stewart
W. D. Okla.
1983
Conspiracy to defraud U.S. and counties within Oklahoma, mail fraud, and aiding and abetting filing a false income tax return, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 371, and 1341, and 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)
Kevin Lester Teker
W. D. Wash.
1989
Maliciously damaging property used in an activity affecting interstate commerce by means of an explosive, 18 U.S.C. § 844(i)
John Timothy Thompson
W. D. Okla.
1986
Use of the telephone to facilitate cocaine distribution, 21 U.S.C. § 843(b)
Paul Loy Tobin
S. D. Ala.
1968
Interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicle, 18 U.S.C. § 2312
Gerald William Wachter
E. D. Pa.
1974
Conspiracy to cause stolen goods to be transported in interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Marian Lane Wolf
N. D. Tex.
1988
Misprision of a felony, 18 U.S.C. § 4
Samuel Harrell Woodard
1. U.S. Air Force summary court-martial
1. 1952
1. Absent without leave
2. S. D. Ga.
2. 1955
2. Theft from an interstate shipment, 18 U.S.C. § 659
February 19, 1999
NAME
DISTRICT
SENTENCED
OFFENSE
Henry Ossian Flipper
U.S. Army general court-martial
1881
Conduct unbecoming an officer
December 23, 1999
NAME
DISTRICT
SENTENCED
OFFENSE
Meredith Marcus Appleton, II
W. D. Okla.
1990
Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846
Steven Laurence Barnett
E. D. Calif.
1987
Misapplication of bank funds and aiding and abetting the same, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 657
Russell Carl Clifton
N. D. Calif.
1977
Transmission of a false distress signal, 47 U.S.C. § 325 (misdemeanor)
Albert McMullen Cox
S. D. Ga.
1987
Bribery of a public official, 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)
Bernard Earl Crandall
C. D. Ill.
1985
Theft from interstate shipment, 18 U.S.C. § 659
Eugene Harold Del Carlo
N. D. Calif.
1979
Conspiracy and blackmail, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 873 (misdemeanors)
Kenneth Lee Deusterman
D. Minn.
1991
False statement to HUD, 18 U.S.C. § 1012 (misdemeanor)
Frank Allen Els
E. D. Wash.
1976
Possession of an unregistered firearm, 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d)
Arthur Neil Evans
N. D. Calif.
1954
Protecting and assisting a deserter from the U.S. Army, 18 U.S.C. § 1381
Elizabeth Marie Frederick (fka Elizabeth Sigmon)
D. So. Dak.
1987
Distribution and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Jackie Lynn Gano
N. D. Iowa
1976
Receiving money or benefits through transactions of federal credit institution with intent to defraud while officer or employee of institution, 18 U.S.C. § 1006
Daniel Clifton Gilmour, Jr.
D. So. Car.
1985
Importation of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960, 963, and 18 U.S.C. § 2
Michael Lee Gilmour
D. So. Car.
1985
Importation of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960, 963, and 18 U.S.C. § 2
Theodore Avram Goodman
S. D. Calif.
1981
Unauthorized sale of government property, 18 U.S.C. § 641
Michael Charles Jorgensen
D. N. Mex.
1981
Misprision of a felony, 18 U.S.C. § 4
Leonard Charles Kampf
E. D. Va.
1990
Conveyance of government property without authority, 18 U.S.C. § 641
Kenneth Marshall Knull
Navy general court-martial
1976
Disobeying a lawful general order, negligently suffering destruction of military property, negligently hazarding two Naval vessels, Articles 92, 108, and 110, UCMJ
Reza Arabian Maleki
D. No. Dak.
1984
Conspiracy to make false statements to INS; false statements to INS, and aiding and abetting the same, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 371, and 1001
William Ronald McGuire
E. D. N. Y.
1978
Income tax evasion, 26 U.S.C. § 7201
Freddie Meeks
Navy general court-martial
1944
Making a mutiny during wartime
Steven Dwayne Miller
E. D. Tex.
1985
Possession of counterfeit Federal Reserve notes with intent to sell or otherwise use same, 18 U.S.C. § 474
Jodie David Moreland
W. D. La.
1987
Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(6), and 846
Lloyd Robert Odell
E. D. Wash.
1983
Theft of government property, 18 U.S.C. § 641
John Richard Palubicki
E. D. Wis.
1988
Conspiracy to defraud the IRS; income tax evasion, 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 26 U.S.C. § 7201
Patricia Ann Palubicki
E. D. Wis.
1988
Conspiracy to defraud the IRS; income tax evasion, 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 26 U.S.C. § 7201
Mark Edwin Pixley
D. Oregon
1991
Aiding in the manufacture, by cultivation, of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2
Theodore Alfred Rhone
D. Dist. Col.
1987
Wire fraud and aiding and abetting same, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1343
Warren David Samet
S. D. Fla.
1968
Transporting, concealing, and facilitating the transportation of marijuana that was acquired without paying the tax imposed, 26 U.S.C. § 4744(a)(2)
Steven Elliott Skorman
N. D. Ga.
1972
Distributing lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Ronald Marsh Smith
Army general court-martial
1977
Stealing mail matter, Article 134, UCMJ
Richard Beauchamp Steele
S. D. Tex.
1989
Conspiracy to eliminate competition by fixing prices in interstate commerce, 15 U.S.C. § 1
Christine Ann Summerbell (fka Christine Ann McKeown)
W. D. Wis.
1984
Theft of mail by postal employee, 18 U.S.C. § 1709
Robert A. Suvino
W. D. Ark.
1988
Conspiracy to commit mail fraud and mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1341
Daniel Larry Thomas, Jr.
N. D. Ohio
1987
Illegal use of a communication facility to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 843
Howard Edwin Walraven
W. D. Ark.
1968
Theft from an interstate shipment, 18 U.S.C. § 659
Martin Harry Wesenberg
E. D. Wis.
1964
Willfully failing to pay the special occupational tax on wagering, and aiding and abetting the same, 26 U.S.C. § 7203 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (misdemeanor)
Virgil Edwin West
N. D. Okla.
1982
Mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1341
February 19, 2000
NAME
DISTRICT
SENTENCED
OFFENSE
Preston Theodore King
1. M.D. Ga.
1. 1961
1.
Failure to appear for physical examination; failure to appear for induction into the Armed Forces, 50 U.S.C. App. § 46
2. M.D. Ga.
2. 1962 (indicted)
2.
Bail jumping, 18 U.S.C. § 3146
March 15, 2000
NAME
DISTRICT
SENTENCED
OFFENSE
Gregory Leon Crosby
D. Maine
1987
Theft by postal employee, 18 U.S.C. § 1709
Everett Gale Dague
N. D. Iowa
1982
Conspiracy to obstruct commerce by extortion, extortion, demanding or receiving illegal payments on behalf of a labor union, and demanding or accepting illegal unloading fees from a motor vehicle driver, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1951, 29 U.S.C. §§186(b)(1) and (2)
Terry Stephen Duller
W. D. Wis.
1990
Engaging in illegal gambling business, 18 U.S.C. § 1955; failure to pay excise tax, 26 U.S.C. § 7262
Richard George Frye
D. Maine
1973
Knowingly shipping and transporting a firearm in interstate commerce, having been convicted of a felony, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924
Edgar Allen Gregory, Jr.
S. D. Ala.
1986
Conspiracy to willfully misapply bank funds, make false statements to a bank, and commit wire fraud; misapplication of bank funds by person connected with a bank, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 656, and 2
Vonna Jo Gregory
S. D. Ala.
1986
Conspiracy to willfully misapply bank funds, make false statements to a bank, and commit wire fraud; misapplication of bank funds by person connected with a bank, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 656, and 2
Carl David Hamilton
E. D. Ark.
1986
Bank fraud, and conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 371
Charles Edward Kirschner
D. Alaska
1993
Theft of bank property, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b)
Charles Douglas Megla
W. D. Ky.
1980
Mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2
Owen Neil Nordine
D. Ariz.
1963
Interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle, 18 U.S.C. § 2312
William Thomas Rohring
D. Minn.
1986
Forgery of U.S. Treasury check, 18 U.S.C. § 510
Lawrence David Share
S. D. Calif.
1975
Conspiracy to commit securities fraud, sale of unregistered securities, and the use of manipulative devices in connection with the sale of securities, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 2, and 15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a), 77q(a), 77x, 78ff, and 78j(b)
Wayne Cletus Steinkamp
N. D. Iowa
1988
Conspiracy in restraint of trade in interstate commerce, 15 U.S.C. § 1
Peter John Thomas
D. Del.
1978
Conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 846
Heather Elizabeth Wilson
(fka Heather Elizabeth Calvin)
E. D. Okla.
1993
Use of telephone to facilitate commission of drug-trafficking felony, 21 U.S.C. § 843(b)
Donna Marie Yellow Owl
(fka Donna Marie Coursey)
D. Montana
1988
False statements, 18 U.S.C. § 1001
July 7, 2000
NAME
DISTRICT
SENTENCED
OFFENSE
Carl Stanley Gilbreath
N. D. Ga.
1971
Interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle, 18 U.S.C. § 2312
Claudette Dean Goodson
(fka Claudette GoodsonFindeisen)
E. D. No. Car.
1986
Aiding and abetting embezzlement of government funds, 18 U.S.C. §§ 641 and 2
Dane Robert Hessling
S. D. Ohio
1987
Conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846, and distribution and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Elwood Dwight Hopkins
D. New Jersey
1962
1. Theft of government property, 18 U.S.C. § 641
2. Mutilation of coins, 18 U.S.C. § 331
Thomas Vernon Jones
D. Wyo.
1989
Filing a false tax return 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)
Madison Dow Kimball, Jr.
W. D. Ark.
1983
Bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)
Cynthia Lou LeBlanc
(fka Cynthia Lou Gallagher)
N. D. Tex.
1978
Conspiracy to distribute and possess methaqualone, 21 U.S.C. § 846
Peter Thomas Lipps
C. D. Calif.
1981
Possession of counterfeit government obligation, 18 U.S.C. § 472
John Carroll Michiaels
N. D. Ind.
1989
Purloining and coverting property of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and aiding and abetting therein, 18 U.S.C. §§ 641 and 2
Richard Edwin Sacchi
M. D. Fla.
1989
Conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846
Horace Carroll Smith
D. So. Car.
1992
Conspiracy to violate the federal securities laws, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 2
Tammy Lawan Tallant
E. D. Okla.
1991
Misprision of a felony, 18 U.S.C. § 4
Carl Dennis Waren
W. D. Ark.
1980
Interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles, 18 U.S.C. § 2314
Robert Alexander Warr
D. So. Car.
1982
False statements, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 and 2
James H. Wetzel, Jr.
E. D. La.
1981
Conspiracy to distribute cocaine, 18 U.S.C. § 371, and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Diane Mae Zeman
(aka Diane Mae Moseman)
E. D. N. Y.
1981
Use of a telephone to facilitate importation of hashish oil, 21 U.S.C. § 843(b)
October 20, 2000
NAME
DISTRICT
SENTENCED
OFFENSE
William Oshel Casto, III
E. D. Wis.
1984
Embezzlement by a bank employee, 18 U.S.C. § 656
Donald Demerest Hall
D. Del
1974
Misapplication of bank funds by an employee, 18 U.S.C. § 656
Cheryl Ada Elizabeth Little
S. D. Fla.
1978
Conspiracy with intent to distribute a controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1)
Joe Clint McMillan
M. D. No. Car.
1992
Conspiracy to violate the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1
Jeralyn Kay Rust
D. Minn.
1990
Wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2
Jane Marie Schoffstall
S. D. Calif.
1989
Possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance (methamphetamine), 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
William Calvin Smith, Jr.
E. D. Pa.
1970
Interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle, 18 U.S.C. § 2312
November 21, 2000
NAME
DISTRICT
SENTENCED
OFFENSE
Glen David Curry
S. D. Ala.
1982
Conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, distributing and possessing with intent to distribute cocaine, and using a telephone to facilitate distribution of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 843(b), and 846
Dave Meyer Hartson, III
E. D. La.
1993
Mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2
Carl Edward Karstetter
M. D. Pa.
1992
Conversion of government property, 18 U.S.C. § 641
Donald Spencer Lewis
S. D. Tex.
1991
False statements to a government agency, 18 U.S.C. § 1001
Walter Sidney Orlinsky
D. Md.
1982
Extortion under color of official right, 18 U.S.C. § 1951
Howard Charles Petersen
D. Neb.
1971
Embezzlement by a bank employee and making false entries in a bank's records, 18 U.S.C. §§ 656 and 1005
John Laurence Silvi
D. New Jersey
1992
Conspiracy to make unlawful payments to a union official, 18 U.S.C. § 371, 29 U.S.C. § 186
Laurence John Silvi, II
D. New Jersey
1992
Conspiracy to bribe a union official, 18 U.S.C. § 371, 29 U.S.C. § 186
John Donald Vodde
N. D. Ind.
1989
Possession and distribution of cocaine, and aiding and abetting, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2
Melinda Kay Stewart Vodde
N. D. Ind.
1989
Distribution of cocaine, and aiding and abetting, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2
Philip Donald Winn
D. Dist. Col.
1994
Conspiracy to give illegal gratuities, 18 U.S.C. § 371
December 22, 2000
NAME
DISTRICT
SENTENCED
OFFENSE
Jimmy Lee Allen
W. D. Ark.
1990
False statements to agency of United States, 15 U.S.C. § 714m(a)
Virgil Lamoin Baker
E. D. (now S. D.) Ill.
1959
Violation of the Military Training and Service Act, 50 U.S.C. App. § 462
Garran Dee Barker
E. D. Ark
1986
Conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Nancy M. Baxter
W. D. Va.
1990
Tax evasion and filing a false amended tax return; 26 U.S.C. §§ 7201 and 7206(1)
Charles N. Besser
N. D. Ill
1985
Mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341
Harlan Richard Billings
D. Maine
1985
Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute in excess of 1,000 pounds of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 846
Edward Raymond Birdseye
E. D. Calif.
1992
Unlawful use of a communication facility, 21 U.S.C. § 843(b)
Roscoe Crosby Blunt, Jr.
Army court-martial
1945
Fraternization, Article of War 96
Charles Edward Boggs
E. D. Ark.
1977
Receiving a stolen motor vehicle which was part of interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. § 2313
Terry Coy Bonner
N. D. W. Va.
1986
Possession of an illegally made destructive device, 26 U.S.C. § 5861(c)
Alfred Whitney Brown, III
E. D. La.
1992
Illegal sale of wildlife by allowing hunting over a baited field, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3372(a)(1), 3372(c)(1)(A), and 3373(d)(1)(B), and 18 U.S.C. § 2
William Robert Carpenter
N. D. Calif.
1991
Possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Philip Vito DiGirolamo
N. D. Calif.
1984
Conspiracy to import marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 963; willfully subscribing to a false tax return, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)
Peter Welling Dionis
N. D. N. Y.
1976
Conspiracy, importation, and possession with intent to distribute hashish, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 952(a), and 963, and 18 U.S.C. § 2
Darrin Dean Dorn
S. D. Iowa
1981
Conspiracy to damage property by means and use of an explosive, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Peter Bailey Gimbel
S. D. N. Y.
1991
Conspiracy to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846
Philip Joseph Grandmaison
D. New Hamp.
1996
Mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1346
Joe Robert Grist
W. D. Tex.
1990
Misapplication of funds by a bank employee, 18 U.S.C. § 656
LeRoy Kenneth Hartung, Jr.
D. Nev.
1986
Interception of wire communications, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)
Joseph Riddick Hendrick, III
W. D. No. Car.
1997
Mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341
Judd Blair Hirschberg
N. D. Ill.
1991
Mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341
Robert Quinn Houston
S. D. Miss.
1986
Conspiracy to obstruct commerce by extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a)
Martin Joseph Hughes
N. D. Ohio
1987
Aiding and abetting the falsification of union records, aiding and assisting in the submission of false tax records, making false statements to a government agency, 29 U.S.C. § 439(c) and 18 U.S.C. § 2, 26 U.S.C. § 7204, 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (as modified)
Jere Wayne Johnson
W. D. Okla.
1982
Conspiracy to defraud the United States and Garfield County, Oklahoma, while serving as a county commissioner, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Michael Thomas Johnson
S. D. Miss.
1987
Filing false tax returns, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)
Daniel Wayne Keys
S. D. Tex.
1977
Possession with intent to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Larry Ray Killough
E. D. Ark.
1985
Unlawful distribution of prescription drugs, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Jack Kligman
E. D. Pa.
1985
Conspiracy and mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1341
Hector Osvaldo Labagnara
D. New Jersey
1976
Conspiracy to transport stolen motor vehicles in interstate commerce, to receive and sell stolen motor vehicles, to transport false vehicle registrations in interstate commerce, and to receive and dispose of false vehicle registrations; receipt and sale of stolen motor vehicles; 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 2313
Moses Jubilee Lestz
(fka Michael Eugene Lestz)
W. D. Ark.
1982
Forgery of United States savings bond, 18 U.S.C. § 495
Leon Lee Liebscher
W. D. Okla.
1982
Conspiracy to defraud the United States (tax evasion), 18 U.S.C. § 371
Pierluigi Mancini
N. D. Ga.
1985
Possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)
John Ross McCown, Jr.
D. Neb.
1992
Structuring of transactions to evade reporting requirements, 31 U.S.C. §§ 5324(3) and 5322(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 2
Edward Francis McKenna, III
S. D. Miss.
1993
Possession with intent to distribute anabolic steroids, 21 U.S.C. § 333(e)(1)
Andrew Kirkpatrick Mearns, III
D. Del.
1978
Conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841
Ralph Eugene Meczyk
N. D. Ill.
1987
Filing false partnership and individual federal income tax returns, and aiding and abetting therein, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2
Philip James Morin
W. D. Tex.
1984
Distribution of cocaine; 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Thomas Edward Nash, Jr.
W. D. No. Car.
1988
Conspiracy to restrain interstate trade and commerce, 15 U.S.C. § 1
Roger Lee Nelson
D. Neb.
1981
Aiding and abetting mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2
Jose Rene Pineda-Martinez
1. S. D. Tex.
1. 1983
1.
Entering U.S. without inspection (misdemeanor),8 U.S.C. § 1325
2. S. D. Tex.
2. 1983
2.
Transporting an illegal alien within the U.S., 8 U.S.C.§ 1324(a)(2)
3. S. D. Tex.
3. 1984
3.
Transporting an illegal alien within the U.S., 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)
John Russell Raup
Air Force general court-martial
1984
Larceny of government property and wrongful possession of marijuana; U.C.M.J. Articles 121 and 134
James William Rogers
D. So. Car.
1983 (as modified)
Conspiracy to commit racketeering, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
George Wisham Roper, II
E. D. Va.
1974
Conspiracy to bribe public officials and to defraud the United States government, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Daniel Rostenkowski
D. Dist. Col.
1996
Mail fraud (two counts), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1346
Dean Raymond Rush
W. D. Tex.
1993
False statements on a loan application, 18 U.S.C. § 1014
Archibald R. Schaffer, III
D. Dist. Col.
2000
Violation of the Meat Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C. § 622
Anthony Andrew Schmidt
D. Kan.
1985
Conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846
Stanley Sirote
E. D. N. Y.
1974
Bribery of a public official, 18 U.S.C. § 201(f)
Dent Elwood Snider, Jr.
D. Colo.
1981
Use of a telephone to facilitate the distribution of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 843(b)
James Lawrence Swisher
M. D. No. Car.
1977
Obstruction of a criminal investigation, 18 U.S.C. § 1510
Larry Kalvy Thompson
N. D. Tex.
1988
Aiding and abetting misapplication of bank funds, misprision of a felony, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 4, and 657
Stephanie Marie Vetter
D. New Mex.
1979
Possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Danny Ray Walker
E. D. Ark.
1975
Interstate transportation of stolen property, 18 U.S.C. § 2316
Thomas Andrew Warren
S. D. Fla.
1975
Conspiracy to import marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 963
Michael Lynn Weatherford
E. D. No. Car.
1986
Aiding and abetting interstate travel in aid of racketeering, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1952(a) and 2
Jack Weinstein
D. Nev.
1975
Conspiracy and interstate transportation of stolen property, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 2314, and 2
Robert Owen Wilson
M. D. Tenn.
1980
Mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341
Charles Elvin Witherspoon
E. D. Tex.
1977
Embezzlement of bank funds, 18 U.S.C. § 656
Charles Z. Yonce, Jr.
D. So. Car.
1988
Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and aiding and abetting therein, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and 841(b)(1)(B), and 18 U.S.C. § 2
January 20, 2001
NAME
DISTRICT
SENTENCED
OFFENSE
Verla Jean Allen
W. D. Ark.
1990
False statements to agency of United States, 15 U.S.C. § 714m(a)
Bernice Ruth Altschul
D. Ariz.
1992
Conspiracy to commit money laundering, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Nicholas M. Altiere
S. D. Fla.
1983
Importation of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a)(1) and 960(a)(1)
Joe Anderson, Jr.
S. D. Ala.
1988
Income tax evasion, 26 U.S.C. § 7201
William Sterling Anderson
D. So. Car.
1987
Conspiracy to defraud a federally insured financial institution, false statements to a federally insured financial institution, wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 371, 1014, and 1343
Mansour T. Azizkhani
W. D. Okla.
1984
Conspiracy and making false statements in bank loan applications, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1014
Cleveland Victor Babin, Jr.
W. D. Okla.
1987
Conspiracy to commit offense against the United States by utilizing the U.S. mail in furtherance of a scheme to defraud, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Chris Harmon Bagley
W. D. Okla.
1989
Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846
Scott Lynn Bane
C. D. Ill.
1984
Unlawful distribution of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2
Thomas Cleveland Barber
M. D. Fla.
1977
Issuing worthless checks, 18 U.S.C. §§ 7 and 13
Peggy Ann Bargon
C. D. Ill.
1995
Violation of Lacey Act, violation of Bald Eagle Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3372(a)(1), 3373(d)(2), and 668(a); 18 U.S.C. § 2
Tansukhlal Bhatka
W. D. Ark.
1991
Filing fraudulent income tax returns, 26 U.S.C. § 7201
David Roscoe Blampied
D. Idaho
1979
Conspiracy to distribute cocaine, 26 U.S.C. § 846
William Arthur Borders, Jr.
N. D. Ga.
1982
Conspiracy to corruptly solicit and accept money in return for influencing the official acts of a federal district court judge, and to defraud the United States in connection with the performance of lawful government functions; corruptly influencing, obstructing, impeding, and endeavoring to influence, obstruct, and impede the due administration of justice, and aiding and abetting therein; traveling interstate with intent to commit bribery, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1503, 2, and 1952
Arthur David Borel
E. D. Ark.
1991
Odometer rollback, 15 U.S.C. § 1984
Douglas Charles Borel
E. D. Ark.
1991
Odometer rollback, 15 U.S.C. § 1984
George Thomas Brabham
E. D. Tex.
1989
Making a false statement or report to a federally insured bank, 18 U.S.C. § 1014
Almon Glenn Braswell
1. N. D. Ga.
1. 1983
1. Mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341
2. N. D. Ga.
2. 1983
2. Perjury, 18 U.S.C. § 1623
3. N. D. Ga.
3. 1983
3. Filing false income tax return, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)
Leonard Browder
D. So. Car.
1990
Illegal dispensing of controlled substance and Medicaid fraud, 21 U.S.C. §§ 827(a)(3), 843(a)(3), 843(a)(4)(A), and 843(c); 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2
David Steven Brown
S. D. N. Y.
1987
Securities fraud and mail fraud, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78ff; 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2; 17 C.F.R. §240.106-5
Delores Caroylene Burleson
E. D. Okla.
1978
Possession of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 844(a)
John H. Bustamante
N. D. Ohio
1993
Wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343
Mary Louise Campbell
N. D. Miss.
1988
Aiding and abetting the unauthorized use and transfer of food stamps, 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 7 U.S.C. § 2024(b)
Eloida Candelaria
D. New Mex.
1992
False information in registering to vote, 42 U.S.C. § 1973i(c)
Dennis Sobrevinas Capili
E. D. Calif.
1990
Filing false statements in alien registration, 8 U.S.C. § 1306(c)
Donna Denise Chambers
E. D. Wis.
1986
Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine, possession with intent to distribute cocaine, use of a telephone to facilitate cocaine conspiracy, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 843(b)
Douglas Eugene Chapman
E. D. Ark.
1993
Bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1344
Ronald Keith Chapman
E. D. Ark.
1993
Bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1344
Francisco Larios Chavez
S. D. Calif.
1986
Aiding and abetting illegal entry of aliens, 8 U.S.C. § 1325 and 18 U.S.C. § 2
Henry G. Cisneros
D. Dist. Col.
1999
False statement (misdemeanor), 18 U.S.C. § 1018
Roger Clinton
1. W. D. Ark.
1. 1985
1. Conspiracy to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846
2. W.D. Ark.
2. 1985
2. Distribution of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Stuart Harris Cohn
S. D. N. Y.
1983
Illegal sale of commodity options, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6c(c) and 13(b), and 18 U.S.C. § 2
David M. Cooper
N. D. Ohio
1992
Conspiracy to defraud the government, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Ernest Harley Cox, Jr.
E. D. Ark.
1991
Conspiracy to defraud a federally insured savings and loan, misapplication of bank funds, false statements, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 657, and 1014
John F. Cross, Jr.
E. D. Ark.
1995
Embezzlement, 18 U.S.C. § 656
Rickey Lee Cunningham
S. D. Tex.
1973
Possession with intent to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Richard Anthony De Labio
D. Md.
1977
Mail fraud, aiding and abetting, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2
John Deutch
D. Dist. Col.
2001 information
Offenses charged in January 19, 2001, information
Richard Douglas
N. D. Calif.
1998
False statements to a government agent, 18 U.S.C. § 1001
Edward Reynolds Downe, Jr.
S. D. N. Y.
1993
Conspiracy to commit wire fraud and to subscribe to false income tax returns, securities fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 15 U.S.C. §§ 78p and 78ff
Marvin Dean Dudley
D. Neb.
1992
False statements, 18 U.S.C. § 1014
Larry Lee Duncan
W. D. Okla.
1992
Altering an automobile odometer, 15 U.S.C. § 1984
Robert Clinton Fain
E. D. Ark.
1982
Aiding and assisting in the preparation and filing of a false corporate tax return, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2)
Marcos Arcenio Fernandez
S. D. Fla.
1980
Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 846
Alvarez Ferrouillet
1. E. D. La.
1. 1997
1.
Interstate transportation of stolen property, 18 U.S.C. § 2314; money laundering, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1) (b)(i); engaging in a monetary transaction with criminally derived property, 18 U.S.C. § 1957; false statements to government agents, 18 U.S.C. § 1001
2. N. D. Miss.
2. 1997
2.
Conspiracy to make false statements to a financial institution, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1014
William Denis Fugazy
S. D. N. Y.
1997
Perjury in a bankruptcy proceeding, 18 U.S.C. § 152
Lloyd Reid George
E. D. Ark.
1997
Aiding and abetting mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2
Louis Goldstein
N. D. Ill.
1985
Possession of goods stolen from interstate shipment, 18 U.S.C. § 659
Rubye Lee Gordon
M. D. Ga.
1974
Forgery of U.S. Treasury checks, 18 U.S.C. § 495
Pincus Green
S. D. N. Y.
1984 superseding indictment
Wire fraud, mail fraud, racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, criminal forfeiture, income tax evasion, and trading with Iran in violation of trade embargo, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1341, 1962(c), 1962(d), 1963, and 2; 26 U.S.C. § 7201, 50 U.S.C. § 1705, and 31 C.F.R. §§ 535.206(a)(4), 535.208 and 535.701
Robert Ivey Hamner
C. D. Ill.
1986
Conspiracy to distribute marijuana, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1)
Samuel Price Handley
W. D. Ky.
1963
Conspiracy to steal government property, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Woodie Randolph Handley
W. D. Ky.
1963
Conspiracy to steal government property, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Jay Houston Harmon
1. E. D. Ark.
1. 1982
1.
Conspiracy to import marijuana, conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute, importation of marijuana, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. §§ 963, 846, 952, and 841(a)
2. M. D. Ga.
2. 1986
2.
Conspiracy to import cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960, and 963
John J. Hemmingson
E. D. La.
1997
Interstate transportation of stolen property, 18 U.S.C. § 2314; money laundering, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(b)(i); engaging in a monetary transaction with criminally derived property, 18 U.S.C. § 1957
David S. Herdlinger
W. D. Ark.
1986
Mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341
Debi Rae Huckleberry,
(fka Debi Rae VanDenakker)
D. Utah
1986
Distribution of methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Donald Ray James
W. D. Tenn.
1983
Mail fraud, wire fraud, and false statements to a bank to influence credit approval, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and 1014
Stanley Pruet Jobe
W. D. Tex.
1994
Conspiracy to commit bank fraud, bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1005, 1014, and 1344
Ruben H. Johnson
W. D. Tex.
1989
Theft and misapplication of bank funds by a bank officer or director (13 counts), 18 U.S.C. § 656
Linda Jones,
(fka Linda D. Medlar)
N. D. Tex.
1998
Conspiracy to commit bank fraud, to make a false statement to a bank, to launder monetary instruments, and to engage in monetary transactions in property derived from specific unlawful activity; aiding and abetting bank fraud; aiding and abetting false statements to a bank; aiding and abetting laundering monetary instruments; aiding and abetting engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specific unlawful activity; obstruction of justice; falsifying, concealing and covering up a material fact by trick, scheme, or device; making a false statement; 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 371, 1001, 1014, 1344(1) and (2), 1503, 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) and (B)(i), and 1957
James Howard Lake
D. Dist. Col.
1998
Illegal corporate campaign contributions (two counts), wire fraud, 2 U.S.C. §§ 437g(d)(1)(A), 441b(a), and 441f, and 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1343, and 1346
June Louise Lewis
N. D. Ohio
1991
Embezzlement by a bank employee, 18 U.S.C. § 656
Salim Bonnor Lewis
S. D. N. Y.
1989
Securities fraud, record keeping violations, margin violations, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78ff, 78g(a), 78g(f), and 78j(b), and 18 U.S.C. § 2
John Leighton Lodwick
W. D. Mo.
1968
Income tax evasion, 26 U.S.C. § 7201
Hildebrando Lopez
S. D. Tex.
1981
Distribution of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Jose Julio Luaces, Jr.
S. D. Fla.
1989
Possession of an unregistered firearm, 26 U.S.C. §§ 5861(d) and 5871
James Timothy Maness
W. D. Tenn.
1985
Conspiracy to distribute Valium, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1)
James Lowell Manning
E. D. Ark.
1982
Aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false corporate income tax return, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2)
John Robert Martin
N. D. Fla.
1987
Income tax evasion, 26 U.S.C. § 7201
Frank Ayala Martinez
W. D. Tex.
1989
Conspiracy to supply false documents to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Silvia Leticia Beltran Martinez
W. D. Tex.
1989
Conspiracy to supply false documents to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 18 U.S.C. § 371
John Francis McCormick
D. Mass.
1988
Racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, aiding and abetting Hobbjay houston harmons Act extortion (five counts), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) and (d), 1951, and 2
Susan H. McDougal
E. D. Ark.
1996
Mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341; aiding and abetting in misapplication of Small Business Investment Corporation funds, 18 U.S.C. §§ 657 and 2; aiding and abetting in making false entries, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1006 and 2; aiding and abetting in making false statements, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1014 and 2
Howard Lawrence Mechanic, (aka Gary Robert Tredway)
1. E. D. Mo.
1. 1970
1.
Violating the Civil Disobedience Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 213(a)
2. D. Ariz.
2. 2000
2.
Failure to appear, 18 U.S.C. § 3150
3. D. Ariz.
3. 2000
3.
Making a false statement in acquiring a passport, 18 U.S.C. § 1542
Brook K. Mitchell, Sr.
D. Dist. Col.
1999
Conspiracy to illegally obtain USDA subsidy payments, false statements to USDA (two counts), false entries on USDA forms, 15 U.S.C. §§ 741m(d), 714m(a), and 714m(b)(ii); 18 U.S.C. § 2
Charles Wilfred Morgan, III
W. D. Ark.
1984
Conspiracy to distribute cocaine, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Samuel Loring Morison
D. Md.
1985
Willful transmission of defense information, unauthorized possession and retention of defense information, theft of government property, 18 U.S.C. §§ 641, 793(d), and 793(e)
Richard Anthony Nazzaro
D. Mass.
1988
Perjury and conspiracy to commit mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1623
Charlene Ann Nosenko
N. D. Ill.
1990
Conspiracy to defraud the United States, and influencing or injuring an officer or juror generally, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1503
Vernon Raymond Obermeier
S. D. Ill.
1989
Conspiracy to distribute cocaine, distribution of cocaine, and using a communications facility to facilitate distribution of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 843(b)
Miguelina Ogalde
D. Puerto Rico
1981
Conspiracy to import cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 963
David C. Owen
D. Kans.
1993
Filing a false tax return, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)
Robert William Palmer
E. D. Ark.
1995
Conspiracy to make false statements, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Kelli Anne Perhosky
(fka Kelli Anne Flynn)
W. D. Pa.
1989
Conspiracy to commit mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Richard H. Pezzopane
N. D. Ill.
1988
Conspiracy to commit racketeering, mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(d) and 1341
Orville Rex Phillips
W. D. Tex.
1991
Unlawful structuring of a financial transaction, 31 U.S.C. § 5324
Vinson Stewart Poling, Jr.
D. Md.
1980
Making a false bank entry, and aiding and abetting, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1005 and 2
Normal Lyle Prouse
D. Minn.
1990
Operating or directing the operation of a common carrier while under the influence of alcohol, 18 U.S.C. § 342
Willie H. H. Pruitt, Jr.
U.S. Air Force special court-martial
1954
Absent without official leave, UCMJ
Danny Martin Pursley, Sr.
M. D. Tenn.
1991
Aiding and abetting the conduct of an illegal gambling business, and obstruction of state laws to facilitate illegal gambling, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1511, 1955, and 2
Charles D. Ravenel
D. So. Car.
1996
Conspiring to defraud the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 371
William Clyde Ray
W. D. Okla.
1989
Fraud using the telephone, 18 U.S.C. § 1343
Alfredo Luna Regalado
S. D. Tex.
1987
Failure to report the transportation of currency in excess of $10,000 into the United States, 31 U.S.C. § 5316(a)(1)(B)
Ildefonso Reynes Ricafort
Veterans Administration Compensation and Pension Service
1987
Submission of false claims to Veterans Administration, 38 U.S.C. § 3503(a), now codified at 38 U.S.C. § 6103(a)
Marc Rich
S. D. N. Y.
1984 superseding indictment
Wire fraud, mail fraud, racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, criminal forfeiture, income tax evasion, and trading with Iran in violation of trade embargo, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1341, 1962(c), 1962(d), 1963, and 2; 26 U.S.C. § 7201, 50 U.S.C. § 1705, and 31 C.F.R. §§ 535.206(a)(4), 535.208 and 535.701
Howard Winfield Riddle
N. D. Tex.
1989
Violation of the Lacey Act (receipt of illegally imported animal skins), 18 U.S.C. § 545
Richard Wilson Riley, Jr.
D. So. Car.
1993
Conspiring to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute marijuana and cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846
Samuel Lee Robbins
W. D. Tex.
1990
Misprision of a felony, 18 U.S.C. § 4
Joel Gonzales Rodriguez
S. D. Tex.
1991
Theft of mail by a postal employee, 18 U.S.C. § 1709
Michael James Rogers
S. D. Tex.
1977
Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846
Anna Louise Ross
N. D. Tex.
1988
Distribution of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); 18 U.S.C. § 2
Gerald Glen Rust
E. D. Tex.
1991
False declarations before grand jury, 18 U.S.C. § 1623
Jerri Ann Rust
E. D. Tex.
1991
False declarations before grand jury, 18 U.S.C. § 1623
Bettye June Rutherford
D. New Mex.
1992
Possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D)
Gregory Lee Sands
D. So. Dak.
1990
Conspiracy to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846
Adolph Schwimmer
S. D. Calif.
1950
Conspiracy to violate the Neutrality Act and export control laws, and conspiracy to export arms, ammunition, etc. to a foreign country, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 88 (1946 ed.) and 371, 22 U.S.C. § 452, and 50 U.S.C. § 701
Albert A. Seretti, Jr.
D. Nev.
1983
Conspiracy and wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 371, 1343
Patricia Campbell Hearst Shaw
N. D. Calif.
1976
Armed bank robbery and using a firearm during a felony, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and (d) and 924(c)(1)
Dennis Joseph Smith
1. U.S. Army summary court-martial
1. 1951
1. Unauthorized absence
2. U.S. Army summary court-martial
2. 1952
2. Failure to obey off limits instructions
3. U.S. Army special court-martial
3. 1954
3. Unauthorized absence
Gerald Owen Smith
S. D. Miss.
1956
Armed bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113
Stephen A. Smith
E. D. Ark.
1996
Conspiracy to misapply Small Business Administration loans, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Jimmie Lee Speake
N. D. Tex.
1976
Conspiracy to possess and utter counterfeit $20 Federal Reserve notes, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Charles Bernard Stewart
M. D. Ga.
1986
Illegally destroying U.S. mail, 18 U.S.C. § 1703(a)
Marlena Francisca Stewart-Rollins
N. D. Ohio
1989
Conspiracy to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846
John Fife Symington, III
D. Ariz.
1996 indictment; 1997 superseding indictment
False statements to federally insured financial institutions, wire fraud, attempted extortion, and false statements in bankruptcy proceeding, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1014, 1343, 1951, 152, 2(a) and 2(b)
Richard Lee Tannehill
D. Colo.
1990
Conspiracy in restraint of trade, 15 U.S.C. § 1
Nicholas C. Tenaglia
E. D. Pa.
1985
Receipt of illegal payments under the Medicare Program, 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn(b)(1)(B)
Gary Allen Thomas
W. D. Tex.
1987
Theft of mail by postal employee, 18 U.S.C. § 1709
Larry Weldon Todd
W. D. Tex.
1983
Conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States in violation of the Lacey Act and the Airborne Hunting Act, 18 U.S.C. § 371; 16 U.S.C. §§ 3372(a)(1), 3373(d)(1)(B), and 742j-1
Olga C. Trevino
W. D. Tex.
1987
Misapplication by a bank employee, 18 U.S.C. § 656
Ignatious Vamvouklis
D. New. Hamp.
1991
Possession of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 844(a)
Patricia A. Van De Weerd
W. D. Wis.
1990
Theft by U.S. postal employee, 18 U.S.C. § 1711
Christopher V. Wade
E. D. Ark.
1995
Bank fraud and false statements on a loan application, 18 U.S.C. §§ 152 and 1014
Bill Wayne Warmath
W. D. Tenn.
1965
Obstruction of correspondence, 18 U.S.C. § 1720
Jack Kenneth Watson
D. Oregon
1985
Making false statements of material facts to the United States Forest Service, 18 U.S.C. § 1001
Donna Lynn Webb
N. D. Fla.
1989
False entry in savings and loan record by employee, 18 U.S.C. § 1006
Donald William Wells
M. D. No. Car.
1973
Possession of an unregistered firearm, 26 U.S.C. §§ 5861(d) and 5871
Robert H. Wendt
E. D. Mo.
1982
Conspiracy to effectuate the escape of a federal prisoner, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Jack L. Williams
D. Dist. Col.
1998
Making false statements to federal agents (two counts), 18 U.S.C. § 1001
Kevin Arthur Williams
D. Neb.
1990
Conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846
Robert Michael Williams
E. D. Mich.
1981
Conspiracy to transport in foreign commerce securities obtained by fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 2314
Jimmie Lee Wilson
E. D. Ark.
1990
Converting property mortgaged or pledged to a farm credit agency, and converting public money to personal use, 18 U.S.C. §§ 641 and 658
Thelma Louise Wingate
M. D. Ga.
1991
Mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2
Mitchell Couey Wood
E. D. Ark.
1986
Conspiracy to possess and to distribute cocaine, 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)
Warren Stannard Wood
S. D. Calif.
1978
Conspiracy to defraud the United States by filing a false document with the Securities and Exchange Commission, 18 U.S.C. § 371; 15 U.S.C. §§ 78m. 78n, and 78ff
Dewey Worthey
E. D. Ark.
1988
Medicaid fraud, 42 U.S.C. § 1396
Rick Allen Yale
S. D. Ill.
1992
Bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344 and 2
Joseph A. Yasak
N. D. Ill.
1988
Knowingly making under oath a false declaration regarding a material fact before a Grand Jury, 18 U.S.C. § 1623
William Stanley Yingling
E. D. Ark.
1979
Receipt of a stolen motor vehicle, 18 U.S.C. § 2313
Philip David Young
W. D. La.
1992
Interstate transportation and sale of fish and wildlife, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3372(a)(2)(A) and 3373(d)(1)(B)

It's Not the Economy, Stupid No matter how low George Bush falls, terror remains the No. 1. issue.

2007-07-09T00:42:00.000-07:00

BY DANIEL HENNINGER

Thursday, July 5, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

For the professional politician, carving and chiseling a path to the White House, the task at hand is figuring out what ails the collective mind of the American electorate, this week and when the 300th week of the campaign lumbers into view next year. Yesterday found candidates Biden, Dodd, Clinton, Obama, Brownback and Romney floating like tireless balloons through Fourth of July parades all over Iowa. After that, our 20 or so presidential diviners and their retinues will continue to belly-flop into towns across America, trying to connect, trying to discover the one thing that will still animate voters when the final bell rings Nov. 4, 2008.

How about this issue: cars filled with nails and tanks of propane gas, blown up by people whose goal in life is to murder Western infidels.

But I could be wrong. Two weeks ago, Mike Bloomberg's turn in the center of the political conversation came when he divested the GOP and declared to a group of Google employees out West, "Whoever out of those 20 becomes president I think has to do something about a country that I think is really in trouble." The trouble, as the mayor sees it, has to do with the country's "reputation" and its "go-it-alone mentality."

Maybe Mike Bloomberg has it right. Maybe the winning presidential issue will be getting into a better relationship.

This is an unusual election to handicap. Setting aside the trick of a candidate avoiding statements now that would look irretrievably dumb 15 months from now, the campaigns have to contend with an American public fixated on a paradox: About 70% of polled people say the country is on the "wrong track," notwithstanding that the scenery along the track includes some three years of strong-to-moderate economic growth, 4% unemployment and a stock market that's been on an upward march for three years. So what's the problem?
Two weeks ago when Mike Bloomberg was in the news, wisdom had it that the mind of the "independent voter" was the Rosetta Stone for decoding American politics. This past weekend the Washington Post outputted a massive and dense polling analysis of the independent voter. If one assumes as I do that the partisan intensity of our politics has widened the number of voters who feel the parties are "not speaking to them," then the Post's numbers may serve as a useful proxy for their views, at least between May 3 and June 3.

The generalization that emerges from the Post survey's data is that independent voters (this includes Democratic and Republican leaners) have deep concerns about . . . everything. Combining those who say an issue is "extremely important" to them or "very important" puts the totals well above 50% for health care, the economy, terrorism, immigration, taxes, corruption and of course "the situation" in Iraq, with a combined 89% importance ranking, most of it negative.

This is the Worry Wart vote, a condition brought on by spending too much time with politics. Now that electronic media--the Web, radio, TV--has made overdosing on politics unavoidable, Mike Bloomberg could reasonably conclude there is pay dirt in offering antidotes to the Worry Warts. In a speech in Los Angeles, Mayor Bloomberg tried to gather all this anxiety in one phrase: "Washington is sinking into a swamp of dysfunction."

Rethinking political management amid deep partisan division would be a dandy avocation if we lived in normal times, say Sept. 10, 2001. But we don't. Last weekend, the forces of civilization foiled planned barbarian bombings and mass death for innocent civilians in London and Glasgow. One month ago, they foiled a plot to blow up the gasoline fuel pipeline at JFK airport. A month before that they arrested six men, enraptured by jihadist videos, who concluded it was their life's goal to blow up soldiers at Fort Dix, N.J. Before that they foiled a well-advanced plot to demolish U.S.-bound airliners over the Atlantic. This week Spain completed its trial of 28 people charged with the 2004 Madrid train bombing that killed 191.

I haven't conducted a poll, but my guess is this is the real reason many in the U.S. feel the country is on the wrong track. The possibility of mass, mortal risk is the one constant in life today; it's always floating beneath the changing surface of stock prices, gasoline prices or Sen. Obama's blueprints for universal health care.

In a wide-ranging interview with the Journal's editorial board last week at our offices in lower Manhattan, Rudy Giuliani talked a lot about terrorism. It may well be that 9/11 made the Giuliani presidential run possible, but I think the better political comparison isn't New York in September 2001 but New York in 1993, when Mr. Giuliani unseated Mayor David Dinkins. He described it to us:
"I was elected to reduce crime. That was the rationale for my being mayor of New York. They weren't going to elect a Republican prosecutor in New York unless they were desperate. And they were desperate: It was, 'We'll even give him a chance to do it.' "
This was the period of screwing stacks of deadbolt locks onto apartment doors in New York. Amid this, Republican Giuliani defeated Democrat Dinkins by 49% to 46%. This means that a lot of New York liberals, beset by the loss of physical well-being, went into the voting booth, pulled the lever for Giuliani, and walked out to tell their friends, "I voted for Dinkins."

This isn't an endorsement for Rudy Giuliani. It's an explanation for why this candidate, despite the presumed baggage, has polled strongly for months. In his meeting with us, Mr. Giuliani said something else unexpected: "George Bush's speech on September 20, 2001is still the best road map for what to do about terrorism."

That's right. It's not the economy this time, stupid. It's terrorism. No matter how low George Bush falls in the polls the next 18 months, "what to do about terrorism" is going to be the No. 1 voting issue in November 2008 because the Glasgow/JFK/Fort Dix/Heathrow/Madrid bombers are still going to be at play in November 2008.

This may well be the election decided by the Worry Wart Independents. But don't be surprised if a lot of them walk out of the voting booth that day and say with a straight face, "I voted to solve the health-care crisis." Right. They also voted for Dinkins.

Mr. Henninger is deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. His column appears Thursdays in the Journal and on OpinionJournal.com.

Al Gore's son busted for drugs in hybrid car

2007-07-09T00:40:00.000-07:00

Wed Jul 4, 2007 10:22PM EDT

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The 24-year-old son of former Vice President Al Gore was arrested for drug possession on Wednesday after he was stopped for speeding in his hybrid Toyota Prius, a sheriff's official said.
Al Gore III -- whose father is a leading advocate of policies to fight global warming -- was driving his environmentally friendly car at about 100 miles per hour on a freeway south of Los Angeles when he was pulled over by an Orange County sheriff's deputy at about 2:15 a.m.

The deputy smelled marijuana and searched the car, said sheriff's spokesman Jim Amormino. The search turned up a small amount of marijuana, along with prescription drugs including Valium, Xanax, Vicodin, Adderall and Soma. There were no prescriptions found, he said.

Gore was arrested on suspicion of drug possession and booked into the Inmate Reception Center in Santa Ana, about 34 miles south of Los Angeles, on $20,000 bail. Although he quickly identified himself as the son of the former vice president, Amormino said Gore received no special privileges.

Gore made bail and was released at 2 p.m., Amormino said. He will receive notice of a court date within 30 days.

The youngest child and only son of the former vice president, Gore has had previous brushes with the law. He was arrested in 2003 for marijuana possession and in 2002 for suspected drunken-driving.

2007-07-09T00:37:00.000-07:00

Methodists for Divestment

By Mark D. Tooley FrontPageMagazine.com July 6, 2007

The $15 billion United Methodist Church pensions board, which services over 74,000 church employees, is grilling companies doing business with Israel, with an implied threat of divestment.

Meanwhile, several regions of the denomination have called for divestment, including most recently the Baltimore-Washington Conference, with over 200,000 members. The New England Conference, which endorsed divestment in 2005, just released is Divestment Task Force report. Among its targets: Blockbuster Video, which is operating video kiosks in “illegal” Israeli settlements.
No doubt, the fusty New Englanders are distressed that Israelis might be watching “Rated R” movies!

“This month marks 40 years of Israel’s brutal and illegal occupation,” the grim New Englanders mused in their report. “Three generations of Palestinians have been denied their freedom.”

Implied threats from the Methodist pensions board, with its vast assets, carry more weight. Of late, the board has been quizzing companies doing business with Israel. “Many voices within the Church already have called for divestment from companies with significant involvement in Israel,” a letter from a pensions official intoned, citing special concerns about countries suffering from “civil and political unrest.” Israel is the only named country of concern, though. “The General Board, however, is interested in gathering information on the strategies and practices that you have implemented to govern your operations in this challenging business climate.”

One company responded back to the Methodist pensions agency: “We are not aware of any substantive ‘political or civil unrest’ within Israel as that term is commonly understood. Perhaps you were referring to the conflicts between Israel and the Palestinians, or Israel and Hezbollah and/or or Lebanon or other Arab or Muslim countries.” The company also pointed to its compliance with U.S. anti-boycott laws “with respect to Israel and other U.S. allies.”

The pensions official asked for one targeted company to report back to the pensions agency before an upcoming gathering of Churches for a Middle East Peace, a coalition of mostly pro-Palestinian church groups, to which the pensions board evidently reports.

Although The United Methodist Church, with its 7.9 million members in the U.S., has not endorsed divestment against Israel, many of its bureaucratic elites do support it. The Virginia Conference and California-Nevada Conference have also endorsed divestment.

But the church’s very left-leaning, and numerically declining, New England Conference has been the most aggressive in advocating anti-Israel divestment. “Palestinians face soaring unemployment, malnutrition, restrictions on movement, denial of medical care, denial of access to their agricultural lands, humiliation at checkpoints, and extended lockdowns called curfews,” its report observed. “More than 4 million Palestinian refugees live in poverty, while Israelis live in their homes and on their lands. Palestinians continue to alternate between often futile non-violent protest and unacceptable violent attacks on Israelis. Israeli soldiers have repeatedly fired on non-violent protesters, killing and wounding not only Palestinians, but international peace activists – including Americans – who have stood with them. In addition, volunteers with the Christian Peacemaker Teams in the West Bank have been attacked by Israeli settlers while escorting Palestinian children to school. Settlers have been involved in many acts of violence against Palestinians.”

Predictably, attacks against Israelis do not merit a lot of ink in the New Englanders’ ostensibly comprehensive report.

The New Englanders, upset about all the violence that the Israelis have exclusively let loose in the Middle East, recommended divestment against several dozen firms doing business with Israel. They include Blockbuster Video, which operates kiosks in “illegal settlements on occupied Palestinian land,” Boeing, which supplies F-15’s to the Israeli Air Force, Caterpillar, which sells bulldozers to the Israeli Defense Forces, Cement Roadstone Holdings, which sells cement used in the separation barrier, General Dynamics, which sells tanks, General Electric, which sells propulsion systems for Israeli helicopters, Motorola, which provides security radar for “illegal Israeli settlements,” Volvo, which provides construction equipment, United Technologies, which produces helicopters, and Veolia Environnement, whose subsidiary, Connex, is helping to build light rail between Jerusalem and the “illegal settlements.”

Helpfully, the New England Methodist divestment task force explained that it was targeting Israel, alone of all the world’s nations, because Israel’s “actions endanger Christians in the cradle of our faith and as members of the Body of Christ, we have an obligation to defend them,” The New England Methodists profess to be an “advocate for all who are persecuted.”

The New England Methodists are also distressed that Israel’s “blatant violations of human rights” are fueling terrorism and “anti-American hatred” around the world. The U.S. has repeatedly “vetoed efforts by the United Nations to end this conflict,” they lament. “We are seen as the reason this conflict continues.” These prime New Englanders are also concerned that Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid.

Of course, Egypt has for nearly 30 years been the second largest recipient of U.S. aid, and its human rights record, one-party rule, and policies towards its Coptic Christian minority, have not yet aroused the interest of the otherwise flint New Englanders. Indeed, the plight of no other Christian population in the Middle East seems to have aroused the New Englanders attention. Apparently, Israel is the only persecutor of the Holy Land’s Christians, who otherwise would apparently be quite happy to live in peace under Hamas’ brand of Islamist law and repression.

Undoubtedly, when the New England Methodists finally compel Blockbuster to shut down its video kiosks in the “illegal” Israeli settlements, the proverbial lion will finally lie down with the lamb on the once again peaceful slopes of the West Bank.

See No Muslims: The NY Times Ignores the Obvious

2007-07-09T00:36:00.000-07:00

By Joel Mowbray

Friday, July 6, 2007
In what must have come as a shock to its readers, the New York Times reported that the July 7, 2005 terrorist attacks in London brought “home to Britain fears of homegrown terrorist attacks among its disenfranchised South Asian population.”
Imagine the surprise of many to learn that Britain is now under attack from “disenfranchised South Asian” people, not those who murder in the name of their Islamic faith.
Cruelly ironic is that in the course of attempting to avoid offending Muslims, the Times managed to defame two larger groups of people—all in a single sentence.
And that’s setting aside the fact that the deadliest 7/7 bomber was not even “South Asian.” Germaine Maurice Lindsay, who changed his name to Abdullah Shaheed Jamal after converting to Islam at age 15, moved to the UK from Jamaica.
A plain reading of the silly Times sentence would suggest that the British discussions of terrorism for the past two years have revolved, in large part, around fears of Indian Hindus, the single largest South Asian demographic in the United Kingdom. (According to the last UK census, immigrants who trace their ancestry to India, over 80% of whom are Hindu, are the only population of South Asian descendants topping one million in the country.)
Presumably, the Times was seeking a gentle way of pointing the finger at ethnic Pakistani Muslims, or perhaps even Muslims hailing from Bangladesh. But the self-proclaimed “paper of record” couldn’t bring itself to write anything more specific than “South Asian population.”
Perhaps the Times assumed that its sophisticated readers would read between the lines, just sort of figuring out that reporters Alan Cowell and Raymond Bonner were really talking about Muslims, but couldn’t write as much out of politeness.
In a 1,600 word story about homegrown terrorism inside the UK, it took roughly 1,400 words before Cowell and Bonner mentioned “Muslims.” “Islam” is nowhere to be found.
But the Times’s absurd rhetorical acrobatics insulted not only the broad “South Asian” population, but also Britain itself.
Notice the clever phrasing about the object of Brits’ fears: the “disenfranchised South Asian population.” Disenfranchised is a victims’ tag that mostly sullies the aggressors who have committed the disenfranchising, in this case implying that Britain has “deprived” this population group “of the rights of citizenship.”
Brits have done no such thing.
Remember that Muslims, er, “South Asians,” have long been welcomed into British society, from employment through politics. 7/7 bomber Mohammad Sidique Khan, for example, used to work for Britain’s Department of Trade and Industry.
To the extent that Muslims live and function outside of British society, it is largely by choice. British imams, for example, have told their followers not to contribute to the “infidel” economy and instead suck off its government by collecting welfare checks. And no one who’s seen the photos needs reminding of the outrageous British Muslim protests calling for the blood of Islam’s critics.
Perhaps the Times feels no remorse insulting large groups that the paper doesn’t consider to be minorities. And perhaps the Times finds no shame in ignoring the religion of people hellbent on murdering in the name of that religion.
But is the Times even slightly concerned when the paper’s sensibilities trump the facts?
Joel Mowbray, who got his start with Townhall.com, is an award-winning investigative journalist, nationally-syndicated columnist and author of Dangerous Diplomacy: How the State Department Threatens America's Security.
Be the first to read Joel Mowbray's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox. Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

2007-07-09T00:34:00.000-07:00

Teaching Homosexuality to Kids
By Rebecca Hagelin

Friday, July 6, 2007

Quick question: Who thinks there isn’t enough frank sexual information forced on today’s kids? Is the bar for acceptable sexual behavior still too high? You would think so when reading a recent Washington Post article titled “A More Candid Approach to Sex-Ed.”

As many parents know, most sex-ed classes are already candid enough, thank you very much. The last thing we need is for anyone to spice them up or further complicate what should be a pretty simple subject. But that’s what schools in Montgomery County, Maryland plan to do by introducing lessons on homosexuality to 8th and 10th graders -- lessons that serve to further the radical homosexual activist agenda.

Those in 8th grade, for example, may be asked to ponder their “gender identity.” Is this the same thing as your actual gender, which should be, ummm, obvious by this time? No. Students are told that it’s “your identification of yourself as a man or a woman, based on the gender you feel to be inside.” You could be a boy trapped in a girl’s body, or vice versa. Or something in between, it seems. Since when did knowing one’s gender get so … difficult? My goodness, isn’t there enough out there to confuse our children without asking them to question whether they are really a boy or truly a girl? Have we gone mad?

Whatever your true identity, though, you can bet it is “innate,” the 8th graders are told. To be certain they understand, the curriculum defines “innate” as “determined by factors present in an individual from birth.” In short, gays are born, not made, so “straights” can’t say homosexuality or bisexuality is wrong. (Does that apply to those who prefer bestiality or pedophilia? Just wondering …) What’s needed, then, is “tolerance,” which the curriculum says is “the ability to accept others’ differences and allow them to be who they are without expressing disapproval.” Does the same logic apply to other abnormal or harmful behaviors? Do we say, “Oh, so you’re an alcoholic -- good for you!” Or, “Tendencies toward kleptomania? Well, don’t let me stand in your way!”? I think not.

Students in 10th grade, meanwhile, read “coming out” stories from homosexuals, a bi-sexual and one “transgendered” individual. “Esperanza,” for example, tells them:
“I’ve known for a long time that I am a lesbian. When I was a little girl, my grandfather would read me a bedtime story before I went to sleep. Sometimes, he would read fairy tales about a beautiful princess and a charming prince who fell in love, got married and lived happily ever after. When he read those stories, I knew that when I grew up, I would marry the beautiful princess, not the prince. I didn’t begin to realize until I was much older that these kinds of feelings made me different from the other girls at school.”

The curriculum contains a nod to abstinence, which it correctly notes, is “the only 100 percent effective way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.” But this is one sentence tucked into an explicit “Condom Use Demonstration Lesson.” That’s right -- a condom demonstration. Bet no one is sleeping through that class! But I do wonder what’s going on the minds of the girls and boys as they are forced to sit through such humiliating and degrading conversations and “instruction.” Do they think that adults expect them to behave like animals? Do their young, impressionable souls feel crushed at how little character we think they have? As I point out in my book, Home Invasion, and in my speeches nationwide, the underlying message our young people are getting is this: We adults believe you have no morals, no self-control, no courage, no conscience.

We are teaching our children a lie -- a lie that robs them of the joys of childhood and their best futures. Why shouldn’t we expect the very best from them? And why are we afraid to teach them the truth? We would never tell our little boys and girls to engage in “safe drug use” or to “smoke responsibly.” We don’t hesitate to put our foot down in other areas of life. So why should it be different when it comes to setting standards for sexual behavior?

Besides, exposing kids to graphic sex-ed is just plain stupid. As the mother of two teenage boys, I’m amazed at the naivetè of those who believe that young men have the ability to listen to detailed discussions of condom usage and sexual activities in one class and then concentrate on such exciting topics as, say, algebra and chemistry in the next.

Just as significant is what the Montgomery County sex curriculum doesn’t say. There’s no emphasis on the serious health risks associated with homosexual behavior. And, as the grassroots group Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum (CRC) notes, “Nowhere is abstinence or sex placed within the context of marriage. The word marriage is not mentioned in the 8th or the 10th grade lessons.” Not surprising, really: According to CRC, the 10th grade resource was developed by a homosexual advocacy group named Project 10, which is “dedicated to providing educational support services to gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth who attend public school campuses.”
Not every school community is as bad as Montgomery County. But some are, and others fall somewhere in between. Do you know what your schools teach? If not, I encourage you to stop by and check out the sex ed curriculum over the summer. If it’s offensive to core values and decency, if it degrades your sons and daughters, do what the brave folks at CRC did and make your voice heard.
As a parent, you have the right and responsibility to ensure that your children aren’t being bombarded or brainwashed by radical activists. The good folks at CRC can give you guidance on how to organize. Learn from others -- you’re not alone.
Rebecca Hagelin is a vice president of The Heritage Foundation and author of Home Invasion: Protecting Your Family in a Culture that's Gone Stark Raving Mad .
Be the first to read Rebecca Hagelin's column. Sign

'Gay'-rights leader quits homosexualityRising star in movement says God liberated him from lifestyle

2007-07-09T00:32:00.000-07:00

Posted: July 3, 20071:00 a.m. Eastern
By Art Moore© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Michael Glatze with Matthew Shepard's mother, Judy Shepard (Harvard University photo)He was a rising star in the "gay rights" movement, but Michael Glatze now declares not only has he given up activism – he's no longer a homosexual.
Glatze – who had become a frequent media source as founding editor of Young Gay America magazine – tells the story of his transformation in an exclusive column published today by WND.
Although Glatze cut himself off from the homosexual community about a year and a half ago, he says the column likely will surprise some people.
"This will actually be news to anybody I used to relate to," he told WND.
The radical change in his life, Glatze recalls, began with inner "promptings" he now attributes to God.
"I hope I can share my story," he said. "I feel strongly God has put me here for a reason. Even in the darkest days of late-night parties, substance abuse and all kinds of things – when I felt like, 'Why am I here, what am I doing?' – there was always a voice there.
"I didn't know what to call it, or if I could trust it, but it said 'hold on.'"

Glatze said he became aware of homosexual feelings at about the age of 14 and publicly declared himself "gay" at age 20. Finally, after a decade in which his leadership role in the homosexual activist world grew – but alongside it, a mysterious inner conflict – he says he finally was "liberated."
In fact, he writes in his WND column today, "'coming out' from under the influence of the homosexual mindset was the most liberating, beautiful and astonishing thing I've ever experienced in my entire life."
Before "coming out" in his column today, Glatze contacted WND Managing Editor David Kupelian after reading his book, "The Marketing of Evil, which Glatze said "has given me so much help in my process of healing from the profound influences of evil in our current society."
"There is nothing that would give me more pleasure," he wrote to Kupelian, "than to say the Truth about 'homosexuality' and atone for my sins in that regard."
Glatze's transformation calls to mind that of another prominent "gay" magazine publisher who also has renounced her former lifestyle. Lesbian activist Charlene Cothran, longtime publisher of Venus magazine, became a Christian and gave her magazine a new mission "to encourage, educate and assist those who desire to leave a life of homosexuality." She adds: "Our ultimate mission is to win souls for Christ, and to do so by showing love to all God's people."
In his column, Glatze doesn't mince words, calling homosexual sex purely "lust-based," meaning it can never fully satisfy.
"It's a neurotic process rather than a natural, normal one," he writes. "Normal is normal – and has been called normal for a reason."
After becoming editor of Young Gay America magazine at age 22, Glatze received numerous awards and recognition, including the National Role Model Award from the major homosexual-rights organization Equality Forum. Media gravitated toward him, leading to appearances on PBS television and MSNBC and quotes in a cover story in Time magazine called "The Battle Over Gay Teens."
He produced, with the help of PBS affiliates and Equality Forum, the first major documentary film to address homosexual teen suicide, "Jim In Bold," which toured the world and received numerous "best in festival" awards. Young Gay America's photo exhibit, telling the story of young people across North America, toured Europe, Canada and parts of the U.S.
Time, Oct. 10, 2006, quotes Glatze as expert
In 2004, Glatze moved from San Francisco to Halifax in eastern Canada where his partner, Young Gay America magazine's publisher, had family. The magazine, he said, sought to provide a "virtuous counterpart" to the other newsstand media aimed at homosexual youth.
But Glatze contends "the truth was, YGA was as damaging as anything else out there, just not overtly pornographic, so more 'respected.'"
In 2005, Glatze was featured in a panel with Judy Shepard, mother of slain homosexual Matthew Shepard, at the prestigious JFK Jr. Forum at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
"It was after viewing my words on a videotape of that 'performance,'" he writes, "that I began to seriously doubt what I was doing with my life and influence."
"Knowing no one who I could approach with my questions and my doubts, I turned to God," he says. "I'd developed a growing relationship with God, thanks to a debilitating bout with intestinal cramps caused by the upset stomach-inducing behaviors I'd been engaged in."
Toward the end of his time with Young Gay America, Glatze said, colleagues began to notice he was going through some kind of religious experience.
Just before leaving, not fully realizing what he was doing, he wrote on his office computer his thoughts, ending with the declaration: "Homosexuality is death, and I choose life."
"I was so nervous, it was like I wasn't even writing it myself," he said.
Inexplicably, he told WND, he left the words on the screen for others to see.
"People who looked at it were stunned; they thought it was crazy," he said.
But he left his co-workers wondering about where he stood, never having fully explained his decision to step down.
Looking back on his old lifestyle, Glatze told WND whenever he had a sense that he was doing something wrong, "I would I just attribute it to, 'that's just the way life is.'"
"If ever I were to question anything, [my colleagues] would say, 'You're such an idealist.'"
Glatze said he thought opponents of homosexual activism were "mean and crazy, and they wanted to hurt me."
"I thought they were out to get me," he said. "They made me really, really mad – and scared, I think. I wanted them to go away."
Glatze said he couldn't allow himself to think they were sincere in their beliefs.
But he now has deep respect for a Christian aunt who disapproved of his lifestyle.
She "was never judgmental, but always firm," he said.
Read Michael Glatze's WND column today, "How a 'gay rights' leader became straight"

How a 'gay rights' leader became straight

2007-07-09T00:28:00.000-07:00

How a 'gay rights' leader became straight

Posted: July 3, 20071:00 a.m. EasternEditor's note: See the news story about Michael Glatze in today's WND, titled "'Gay'-rights leader quits homosexuality."
By Michael Glatze

Homosexuality came easy to me, because I was already weak.
My mom died when I was 19. My father had died when I was 13. At an early age, I was already confused about who I was and how I felt about others.
My confusion about "desire" and the fact that I noticed I was "attracted" to guys made me put myself into the "gay" category at age 14. At age 20, I came out as gay to everybody else around me.

At age 22, I became an editor of the first magazine aimed at a young, gay male audience. It bordered on pornography in its photographic content, but I figured I could use it as a platform to bigger and better things.

Sure enough, Young Gay America came around. It was meant to fill the void that the other magazine I'd worked for had created – namely, anything not-so-pornographic, aimed at the population of young, gay Americans. Young Gay America took off.

Gay people responded happily to Young Gay America. It received awards, recognition, respectability and great honors, including the National Role Model Award from major gay organization Equality Forum – which was given to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien a year later – and a whole host of appearances in the media, from PBS to the Seattle Times, from MSNBC to the cover story in Time magazine.

I produced, with the help of PBS-affiliates and Equality Forum, the first major documentary film to tackle gay teen suicide, "Jim In Bold," which toured the world and received numerous "best in festival" awards.

Young Gay America created a photo exhibit, full of photographs and stories of gay youth all across the North American continent, which toured Europe, Canada and parts of the United States.

Young Gay America launched YGA Magazine in 2004, to pretend to provide a "virtuous counterpart" to the other newsstand media aimed at gay youth. I say "pretend" because the truth was, YGA was as damaging as anything else out there, just not overtly pornographic, so it was more "respected."

It took me almost 16 years to discover that homosexuality itself is not exactly "virtuous." It was difficult for me to clarify my feelings on the issue, given that my life was so caught up in it.
Homosexuality, delivered to young minds, is by its very nature pornographic. It destroys impressionable minds and confuses their developing sexuality; I did not realize this, however, until I was 30 years old.

YGA Magazine sold out of its first issue in several North American cities. There was extreme support, by all sides, for YGA Magazine; schools, parent groups, libraries, governmental associations, everyone seemed to want it. It tapped right into the zeitgeist of "accepting and promoting" homosexuality, and I was considered a leader. I was asked to speak on the prestigious JFK Jr. Forum at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government in 2005.
It was, after viewing my words on a videotape of that "performance," that I began to seriously doubt what I was doing with my life and influence.

Knowing no one who I could approach with my questions and my doubts, I turned to God; I'd developed a growing relationship with God, thanks to a debilitating bout with intestinal cramps caused by the upset stomach-inducing behaviors I'd been engaged in.

Soon, I began to understand things I'd never known could possibly be real, such as the fact that I was leading a movement of sin and corruption – which is not to sound as though my discovery was based on dogma, because decidedly it was not.

I came to the conclusions on my own.
It became clear to me, as I really thought about it – and really prayed about it – that homosexuality prevents us from finding our true self within. We cannot see the truth when we're blinded by homosexuality.

We believe, under the influence of homosexuality, that lust is not just acceptable, but a virtue. But there is no homosexual "desire" that is apart from lust.
In denial of this fact, I'd fought to erase such truth at all costs, and participated in the various popular ways of taking responsibility out of human hands for challenging the temptations of lust and other behaviors. I was sure – thanks to culture and world leaders – that I was doing the right thing.

Driven to look for truth, because nothing felt right, I looked within. Jesus Christ repeatedly advises us not to trust anybody other than Him. I did what He said, knowing that the Kingdom of God does reside in the heart and mind of every man.

What I discovered – what I learned – about homosexuality was amazing. How I'd first "discovered" homosexual desires back in high school was by noticing that I looked at other guys. How I healed, when it became decidedly clear that I should – or risk hurting more people – is that I paid attention to myself.

Every time I was tempted to lust, I noticed it, caught it, dealt with it. I called it what it was, and then just let it disappear on its own. A huge and vital difference exists between superficial admiration – of yourself, or others – and integral admiration. In loving ourselves fully, we no longer need anything from the "outside" world of lustful desire, recognition from others, or physical satisfaction. Our drives become intrinsic to our very essence, unbridled by neurotic distractions.

Homosexuality allows us to avoid digging deeper, through superficiality and lust-inspired attractions – at least, as long as it remains "accepted" by law. As a result, countless miss out on their truest self, their God-given Christ-self.

Homosexuality, for me, began at age 13 and ended – once I "cut myself off" from outside influences and intensely focused on inner truth – when I discovered the depths of my God-given self at age 30.

God is regarded as an enemy by many in the grip of homosexuality or other lustful behavior, because He reminds them of who and what they truly are meant to be. People caught in the act would rather stay "blissfully ignorant" by silencing truth and those who speak it, through antagonism, condemnation and calling them words like "racist," "insensitive," "evil" and "discriminatory."

Healing from the wounds caused by homosexuality is not easy – there's little obvious support. What support remains is shamed, ridiculed, silenced by rhetoric or made illegal by twisting of laws. I had to sift through my own embarrassment and the disapproving "voices" of all I'd ever known to find it. Part of the homosexual agenda is getting people to stop considering that conversion is even a viable question to be asked, let alone whether or not it works.
In my experience, "coming out" from under the influence of the homosexual mindset was the most liberating, beautiful and astonishing thing I've ever experienced in my entire life.
Lust takes us out of our bodies, "attaching" our psyche onto someone else's physical form. That's why homosexual sex – and all other lust-based sex – is never satisfactory: It's a neurotic process rather than a natural, normal one. Normal is normal – and has been called normal for a reason.

Abnormal means "that which hurts us, hurts normal." Homosexuality takes us out of our normal state, of being perfectly united in all things, and divides us, causing us to forever pine for an outside physical object that we can never possess. Homosexual people – like all people – yearn for the mythical true love, which does actually exist. The problem with homosexuality is that true love only comes when we have nothing preventing us from letting it shine forth from within. We cannot fully be ourselves when our minds are trapped in a cycle and group-mentality of sanctioned, protected and celebrated lust.

God came to me when I was confused and lost, alone, afraid and upset. He told me – through prayer – that I had nothing at all to be afraid of, and that I was home; I just needed to do a little house cleaning in my mind.

I believe that all people, intrinsically, know the truth. I believe that is why Christianity scares people so much. It reminds them of their conscience, which we all possess.

Conscience tells us right from wrong and is a guide by which we can grow and become stronger and freer human beings. Healing from sin and ignorance is always possible, but the first thing anyone must do is get out of the mentalities that divide and conquer humanity.

Sexual truth can be found, provided we're all willing and driven to accept that our culture sanctions behaviors that harm life. Guilt should be no reason to avoid the difficult questions.
Homosexuality took almost 16 years of my life and compromised them with one lie or another, perpetuated through national media targeted at children. In European countries, homosexuality is considered so normal that grade-school children are being provided "gay" children's books as required reading in public schools.

Poland, a country all-too familiar with the destruction of its people by outside influences, is bravely attempting to stop the European Union from indoctrinating its children with homosexual propaganda. In response, the European Union has called the prime minister of Poland "repulsive."

I was repulsive for quite some time; I am still dealing with all of my guilt.
As a leader in the "gay rights" movement, I was given the opportunity to address the public many times. If I could take back some of the things I said, I would. Now I know that homosexuality is lust and pornography wrapped into one. I'll never let anybody try to convince me otherwise, no matter how slick their tongues or how sad their story. I have seen it. I know the truth.

God gave us truth for a reason. It exists so we could be ourselves. It exists so we could share that perfect self with the world, to make the perfect world. These are not fanciful schemes or strange ideals – these are the Truth.

Healing from the sins of the world will not happen in an instant; but, it will happen – if we don't pridefully block it. God wins in the end, in case you didn't know.

2007-07-09T00:03:00.000-07:00

July 8, 2007

U.S. Aborted Raid on Qaeda Chiefs in Pakistan in ’05
By MARK MAZZETTI

WASHINGTON, July 7 — A secret military operation in early 2005 to capture senior members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas was aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials.
The target was a meeting of Qaeda leaders that intelligence officials thought included Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden’s top deputy and the man believed to run the terrorist group’s operations.
But the mission was called off after Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, rejected an 11th-hour appeal by Porter J. Goss, then the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, officials said. Members of a Navy Seals unit in parachute gear had already boarded C-130 cargo planes in Afghanistan when the mission was canceled, said a former senior intelligence official involved in the planning.
Mr. Rumsfeld decided that the operation, which had ballooned from a small number of military personnel and C.I.A. operatives to several hundred, was cumbersome and put too many American lives at risk, the current and former officials said. He was also concerned that it could cause a rift with Pakistan, an often reluctant ally that has barred the American military from operating in its tribal areas, the officials said.
The decision to halt the planned “snatch and grab” operation frustrated some top intelligence officials and members of the military’s secret Special Operations units, who say the United States missed a significant opportunity to try to capture senior members of Al Qaeda.
Their frustration has only grown over the past two years, they said, as Al Qaeda has improved its abilities to plan global attacks and build new training compounds in Pakistan’s tribal areas, which have become virtual havens for the terrorist network.
In recent months, the White House has become increasingly irritated with Pakistan’s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, for his inaction on the growing threat of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
About a dozen current and former military and intelligence officials were interviewed for this article, all of whom requested anonymity because the planned 2005 mission remained classified.
Spokesmen for the Pentagon, the C.I.A. and the White House declined to comment. It is unclear whether President Bush was informed about the planned operation.
The officials acknowledge that they are not certain that Mr. Zawahri attended the 2005 meeting in North Waziristan, a mountainous province just miles from the Afghan border. But they said that the United States had communications intercepts that tipped them off to the meeting, and that intelligence officials had unusually high confidence that Mr. Zawahri was there.
Months later, in early May 2005, the C.I.A. launched a missile from a remotely piloted Predator drone, killing Haitham al-Yemeni, a senior Qaeda figure whom the C.I.A. had tracked since the meeting.
It has long been known that C.I.A. operatives conduct counterterrorism missions in Pakistan’s tribal areas. Details of the aborted 2005 operation provide a glimpse into the Bush administration’s internal negotiations over whether to take unilateral military action in Pakistan, where General Musharraf’s fragile government is under pressure from dissidents who object to any cooperation with the United States.
Pentagon officials familiar with covert operations said that planners had to consider the political and human risks of undertaking a military campaign in a sovereign country, even in an area like Pakistan’s tribal lands, where the government has only tenuous control. Even with its shortcomings, Pakistan has been a vital American ally since the Sept. 11 attacks, and the militaries of the two countries have close ties.
The Pentagon officials said tension was inherent in any decision to approve such a mission: a smaller military footprint allows a better chance of a mission going undetected, but it also exposes the units to greater risk of being killed or captured.
Officials said one reason Mr. Rumsfeld called off the 2005 operation was that the number of troops involved in the mission had grown to several hundred, including Army Rangers, members of the Navy Seals and C.I.A. operatives, and he determined that the United States could no longer carry out the mission without General Musharraf’s permission. It is unlikely that the Pakistani president would have approved an operation of that size, officials said.
Some outside experts said American counterterrorism operations had been hamstrung because of concerns about General Musharraf’s shaky government.
“The reluctance to take risk or jeopardize our political relationship with Musharraf may well account for the fact that five and half years after 9/11 we are still trying to run bin Laden and Zawahri to ground,” said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University.
Those political considerations have created resentment among some members of the military’s Special Operations forces.
“The Special Operations guys are tearing their hair out at the highest levels,” said a former Bush administration official with close ties to those troops. While they have not received good intelligence on the whereabouts of top Qaeda members recently, he said, they say they believe they have sometimes had useful information on lower-level figures.
“There is a degree of frustration that is off the charts, because they are looking at targets on a daily basis and can’t move against them,” he said.
In early 2005, after learning about the Qaeda meeting, the military developed a plan for a small Navy Seals unit to parachute into Pakistan to carry out a quick operation, former officials said.
But as the operation moved up the military chain of command, officials said, various planners bulked up the force’s size to provide security for the Special Operations forces.
“The whole thing turned into the invasion of Pakistan,” said the former senior intelligence official involved in the planning. Still, he said he thought the mission was worth the risk. “We were frustrated because we wanted to take a shot,” he said.
Several former officials interviewed said the operation was not the only occasion since the Sept. 11 attacks that plans were developed to use a large American military force in Pakistan. It is unclear whether any of those missions have been executed.
Some of the military and intelligence officials familiar with the 2005 events say it showed a rift between operators in the field and a military bureaucracy that has still not effectively adapted to hunt for global terrorists, moving too cautiously to use Special Operations troops against terrorist targets.
That criticism has echoes of the risk aversion that the officials said pervaded efforts against Al Qaeda during the Clinton administration, when missions to use American troops to capture or kill Mr. bin Laden in Afghanistan were never executed because they were considered too perilous, risked killing civilians or were based on inadequate intelligence. Rather than sending in ground troops, the Clinton White House instead chose to fire cruise missiles in what became failed attempts to kill Mr. bin Laden and his deputies — a tactic Mr. Bush criticized shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Since then, the C.I.A. has launched missiles from Predator aircraft in the tribal areas several times, with varying degrees of success. Intelligence officials say they believe that in January 2006, an airstrike narrowly missed killing Mr. Zawahri, who hours earlier had attended a dinner in Damadola, a Pakistani village.
General Musharraf cast his lot with the Bush administration in the hunt for Al Qaeda after the 2001 attacks, and he has periodically ordered Pakistan’s military to conduct counterterrorism missions in the tribal areas, provoking fierce resistance there. But in recent months he has pulled back, prompting Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to issue stern warnings in private that he risked losing American aid if he did not step up efforts against Al Qaeda, senior administration officials have said.
Officials said that mid-2005 was a period when they were gathering good intelligence about Al Qaeda’s leaders in Pakistan’s tribal areas. By the next year, however, the White House had become frustrated by the lack of progress in the hunt for Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahri.
In early 2006, President Bush ordered a “surge” of dozens of C.I.A. agents to Pakistan, hoping that an influx of intelligence operatives would lead to better information, officials said. But that has brought the United States no closer to locating Al Qaeda’s top two leaders. The latest message from them came this week, in a new tape in which Mr. Zawahri urged Iraqis and Muslims around the world to show more support for Islamist insurgents in Iraq.
In his recently published memoir, George J. Tenet, the former C.I.A. director, said the intelligence about Mr. bin Laden’s whereabouts during the Clinton years was similarly sparse. The information was usually only at the “50-60% confidence level,” he wrote, not sufficient to justify American military action.
“As much as we all wanted Bin Ladin dead, the use of force by a superpower requires information, discipline, and time,” Mr. Tenet wrote. “We rarely had the information in sufficient quantities or the time to evaluate and act on it.”

Bernard Shaw Comments On the Effects Of Fox On CNN

2007-06-06T23:30:00.000-07:00

Bad news
(http://www.suntimes.com/business/feder/413792,CST-FIN-feder05.article)

June 5, 2007

BY ROBERT FEDER Sun-Times Columnist

For two decades -- until his retirement in 2001 -- Bernard Shaw was the front-and-center face of CNN.

As one of its original anchors, the Chicago native set the tone for serious, insightful journalism on television's first 24-hour cable news operation.

So it pains him deeply to see what has become of the proud brand he helped create.

Asked what he now thinks of CNN, Shaw told WTTW-Channel 11's John Callaway: "I try not to. I'm very, very disappointed with the way the news management at my favorite network has gone. CNN has fine women and men working there. Lou Dobbs, one of the leaders there.

"Unfortunately, Fox News is the ratings leader . . . on the cable side of the business, and what Fox puts on the air is not news."

What Fox does, he said, is "commentary, personal analysis."

Calling himself "very straitlaced [and] very old-fashioned," Shaw said: "When anchors are reporting the news, they should report the news and allow the viewers at home to decide what they think about issues.

"I don't want to hear an anchor's personal opinion about anything. Just report the news.

"But CNN continues to ape many of the on-air mannerisms of the Fox News Network, and I don't like that," he said.

Shaw was in Chicago last week to help his University of Illinois alma mater kick off a $2.25 billion fund-raising campaign. He was interviewed by Callaway on Channel 11's "Friday Night."

DIALING : OPENING AT 'NINE FM'

• Joey Fortman has resigned after three years as morning personality at "Nine FM," the Newsweb Radio combo of WDEK-FM (92.5), WKIE-FM (92.7) and WRZA-FM (99.9).

She's moving to Philadelphia with her husband, Matt Nahigian, who was named program director of WPEN-AM. He had been program director of Sporting News Radio, formerly based in north suburban Northbrook.

No date has been set for Fortman's last broadcast here. Station bosses say they're looking at options for the morning show.

• Kenard "K2" Karter, production assistant and weekend personality at WGCI-FM (107.5), has been promoted to music director at the Clear Channel Radio urban-contemporary station. He succeeds Tiffany Green, who left last February.

"I come from very humble beginnings and feel extremely blessed to have this opportunity to work alongside [program director] Kris Kelley," Karter said.

A Chicago native and graduate of Illinois State University, Karter will continue on the air from 2 to 6 a.m. Sunday.

• Donnie "The Freakin' Puerto Rican" Devoe, afternoon host at Crawford Broadcasting's urban contemporary WPWX-FM (92.3), faces disorderly conduct charges after an incident last week at a south suburban Calumet City restaurant.

Devoe, whose real name is Miguel Garcia, allegedly threatened patrons at a Pepe's Mexican Restaurant.

TRACKING: 'STOP THE VIOLENCE'

• News anchors Ron Magers and Cheryl Burton will moderate a panel discussion about violence against children in Chicago at 6:30 p.m. Wednesday on ABC-owned WLS-Channel 7.

"Stop the Violence: A Search for Solutions" will feature a dialogue among community leaders, law enforcement officials and victims' families. The half-hour special will air without commercials.

• The plight of former Chicago news anchor and reporter Mary Nissenson is featured in a new documentary by filmmaker Darryl Roberts. "America the Beautiful," which focuses on the country's obsession with beauty, in part recounts Nissenson's botched cosmetic surgery in 1995.

As a result of her face-lift and brow lift, she suffered permanent nerve damage and has been unable to work outside her home because of severe pain.

Nissenson is expected to make a rare public appearance when Roberts' documentary is screened June 16 at the Maui Film Festival in Hawaii.

Liberals show both faces while reinventing history...

2007-05-25T21:56:00.000-07:00

This is a compelling video that reveals the Liberal leadership’s change of heart and their reinvention of history…

Thanks to my friend Jay for sharing this video.

Click here

This was definitely a keeper video. Please share it with your friends and spread the word. May you all have a blessed Memorial Day weekend. Remember those who fought and who died to and to those serving in uniform protecting our freedoms. God bless all of them and their families.

2007-05-25T21:53:00.000-07:00

That's Enough From The Peanut Gallery

Former President Hurls Insult From The Cheap Seats; Ignores Own Foreign Policy Track Record

______________________________________________________

Former President Jimmy Carter Recklessly Lashes Out At President On Foreign Policy:

"Former President Carter Says President Bush's Administration Is 'The Worst In History' In International Relations, Taking Aim At The White House's Policy Of Pre-Emptive War And Its Middle East Diplomacy." ("Carter Blasts Bush On His Global Impact," The Associated Press, 5/20/06)

FLASHBACK: Foreign Policy Under Carter Administration:

"Carter's Foreign Policy Is Widely Considered A Failure." (Peter Beinart, Op-Ed, "The Rehabilitation Of The Cold-War Liberal," The New York Times, 4/30/06)

During A Commencement Address In 1977, Carter Claimed "We Are Now Free Of That Inordinate Fear Of Communism." "Four years ago, at another Notre Dame commencement, President Carter delivered what became one of his best-known and controversial statements: '...We are now free of that inordinate fear of communism which once led us to embrace any dictator who joined us in that fear. I'm glad that's being changed.'" (Lou Cannon, "'The Gipper' Returns to Notre Dame," The Washington Post, 5/18/81)

During His First Visit To A Communist Country In 1977, Carter Claimed "Old Ideological Labels Have Lost Their Meanings." "Carter, making his first official visit to a Communist country, left the plane in a light snow flurry and a bitter wing that snapped the Polish and American flags flying for the occasion. ... In his arrival statement, Carter said: 'It is a world in which old ideological labels have lost their meanings and in which the basic goals of friendship, peace, justice, human rights, and individual freedoms loom more important than ever.'" (Stephen H. Miller, The Associated Press, 12/29/77)

In 1979, 60 Americans Were Held Hostage In Iran For 444 days. "The U.S. and Iran broke relations in 1979 after Iranian students stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held its occupants hostage for 444 days." ("American Delegation Of Peace Activists Arrive In Tehran," The Associated Press, 3/4/07)

"Iranian Demonstrators Threatened ... To Execute Some 60 Americans Held Hostage At The U.S. Embassy In Tehran ..." (The Associated Press, 11/6/79)

"The Seizure Of The Hostages And The Carter Administration's Inability To Free Them Had Eroded The Influence Of The United States Abroad ... And Left Him Appearing Confused And Ineffectual To The American People." (Nicholas M. Horrock, Op-Ed, "The Hostage Effect Are Iranians Seeking Repeat Role In U.S. Election History?" Chicago Tribune, 10/9/88)

In 1980, The U.S. Rationed Gasoline Because Of Strained Relations In The Middle East. "The Gasoline rationing plan is now legally in place." (Editorial, "Ready For Rationing?" The Washington Post, 8/5/80)

The Stalemate On Peace Negotiations In The Middle East Led To Gas Rationing. "[T]he United States still remains dependent upon the Arab members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries for nearly 40 percent of its oil imports, and the continuing stalemate on Middle East peace negotiations has increased the threat of future supply problems." (Peter Behr, "Assessing Energy Conservation," The Washington Post, 9/21/80)

Prior To Rationing, Shortage Of Gas Caused Long Lines At Gas Stations. "In June 1979, when an oil shortage panic created long lines at U.S. gas stations ..." (Nicolas B. Tatro, "Hints Of Saudi Dissatisfaction Over Ties To United States," The Associated Press, 2/19/81)

In 1979, U.S. Ambassador To Afghanistan Was Murdered By Terrorists. "The U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Adolph (Spike) Dubs, was killed ... when Afghan police stormed the Kabul hotel room where he was being held by terrorist gunmen who had kidnapped him a few hours earlier." (John M. Goshko and Richard M. Weintraub, "U.S. Ambassador To Afghanistan Is Kidnapped, Slain In Shootout," The Washington Post, 2/15/79)

In 1979, The U.S. Embassy In Pakistan Was Attacked And Burned; One Marine Killed. "Moslem mobs 'shouting kill the American dogs!' stormed and burned the U.S. Embassy ... The State Department in Washington said one Marine was shot and killed and about 100 Americans were rescued from the roof of the burning building by Pakistani troops and taken to the British Embassy." (Mohammed Aftab, The Associated Press, 11/21/79)

2007-05-25T21:52:00.001-07:00

Edwards' Troop Profiteering

John Edwards Campaigns By Politicizing And Profiting Off The Troops

______________________________________________________

Today, Former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) Will Deliver A Major Speech On Military Policy:

Edwards Is Scheduled To Deliver A "Major Policy Address On Military Policy And National Security" At The Center On Foreign Relations. (John Edwards For President Website, www.johnedwards.com, Accessed 5/21/07)

Edwards' Military Policy Has Turned Ending The War In Iraq Into A Money-Making Campaign Scheme:

The Politico's Ben Smith: "Edwards Supporters, For Instance, Are Regularly Informed That They Should Stop The War By Making Out A Check To John Edwards For President." (Ben Smith, "War And Politics In Obama's Canvass," The Politico's "Democrats '08 Blog," www.politico.com, 5/19/07)

The Edwards Campaign Is Selling T-Shirts And Bumper Stickers To Help "End The War." David Bonior, Edwards' Campaign Manager: "I remember when it seemed like there was nothing we as individuals could do to help bring an end to the war in Iraq. But times have changed. ... First you can order a free 'Support the troops. End the war.' bumper sticker. ... Or, if you're able to chip in $20 to cover production, shipping and handling, we'll also send you a 'Support the troops. End the war.' t-shirt." (John Edwards For President, "Show Your Patriotism Proudly," Press Release, 5/17/07)

Click Here To View The John Edwards T-Shirts And Bumper Stickers For Sale To "End The War."

The Edwards Campaign Has Also Asked Supporters To Help End The War By Paying For Its TV Ads. "This is the moment of truth on Iraq. ... I asked my staff to create an emergency television ad that would bring the people's voice directly to Congress. ... But I need your help: We need to raise $100,000 in 24 hours to air this ad. ... [I] need you to chip in whatever you can afford right now ..." (John Edwards For President, "Emergency Ad To End The War," Press Release, 5/2/07)

And Its Newspaper Ads: "This is the critical moment in our effort to end the war. ... Last night, my staff put the [petition] signatures into a full page ad for The Washington Post and now we need to raise $29,559 to rush it into print and keep the pressure on. We need 1,000 people to contribute $29.56 to make it happen. Can you chip in your $29.56 today?" (John Edwards For President, "Every Desk And Doorstep In D.C.," Press Release, 5/10/07)

Edwards Wants To Turn A Day Of Memoriam Into A Day Of Political Protest:

Edwards' Plan To Remember The Troops On Memorial Day: Protest The War. "Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards is calling on his supporters to turn this year's Memorial Day into a day of antiwar activism, saying that the best way to honor the troops is to demand an end to the Iraq war." (Anne Kornblut, "Edwards Campaigns To Make Memorial Day An Antiwar Statement," The Washington Post, 5/13/07)

Edwards' New Anti-War Website Calls For Protesting At Memorial Day Parades. "At a picnic or with family and friends, make signs that say 'SUPPORT THE TROOPS - END THE WAR.' Bring them to your local Memorial Day parade." (John Edwards For President's "Support The Troops. End The War." Website, www.supportthetroopsendthewar.com, Accessed 5/14/07)

"Democrat John Edwards' Call For Voters To Speak Out Against The Iraq War On Memorial Day Weekend Has Drawn Criticism From A Leader Of The American Legion, Who Called The Effort 'Revolting.'"("American Legion Leader Rebukes Edwards," The Associated Press, 5/15/07)

Paul Morin, National Commander Of The American Legion: "[Memorial Day] should be above politics. Period. Yet one presidential candidate has blatantly violated the sanctity of this most special day. ... [The Edwards campaign] e-mail recommends that Americans bring signs with the message 'Support the troops, End the War' to local Memorial Day parades. Revolting is a kind word for it. It's as inappropriate as a political bumper sticker on an Arlington headstone." (The American Legion Website, www.legion.org, Accessed 5/22/07)

Edwards Doesn't Sound Like He Supports The Troops:

"Presidential Hopeful John Edwards On Monday Repeated His Call For Americans To Speak Out Against The War In Iraq This Weekend And Said All Young People Should Serve Their Country, 'Not Just Poor Kids Who Get Sent To War.'" (Philip Elliott, "Edwards Touts Plan To End War In Iraq," The Associated Press, 5/21/07)

When Edwards Refuted His Iraq Vote In 2005, He Said: "We've Reached The Point Where The Large Number Of Our Troops In Iraq Hurts, Not Helps, Our Goals." (Former Sen. John Edwards, Op-Ed, "The Right Way In Iraq," The Washington Post, 11/13/05)

In 2003, Edwards Voted Against The $87 Billion Reconstruction Package To Fund The Troops And Rebuild Iraq And Afghanistan. (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Edwards Voted Nay)

Edwards May Have Fallen Victim To His Own 2002 Observation:

Edwards: "Many People In This Town Are So Accustomed To Fighting Political Wars That They Lose Sight Of The Real Wars We Must Fight And Win." (Sen. John Edwards, Remarks At The Center For Strategic And International Studies, Washington, D.C., 10/7/02)