Petrified Truth

Pronoun trouble, and more

Only Mark Steyn could work a spot-on allusion to Bugs & Daffy into a deadly take on Europe's addiction to American military strength.

In the old days, the headline "Germans Go On Offensive" would have caused palpitations among Czechs, Poles, Belgians, etc. But, in the case of this weekend's AP headline, Germans going on the offensive refers not to sending German troops to foreign countries, but keeping foreign troops in Germany. And it's the Germans having the palpitations, after press reports that the Pentagon plans to pull out half its troops.

Karl Peter Bruch, a state official in Rhineland-Palatinate who's lobbying the Americans to change their minds, put it this way: "We realised that our installations are in grave danger. And then came the question, what can we do to make us more attractive?"

"Our" installations? As Daffy Duck famously remarked after losing yet another verbal duel with Bugs Bunny and getting his bill shot off: "Hmm. Pronoun trouble." As to what Germany can do to make itself more attractive to the Yanks, how about this? Spend less time running around playing Mini-Me to Jacques Chirac's Doctor Evil. Just a thought.

When scholars come to write the final chapter in the history of the European continent, the six-decade US security guarantee will be seen as, on the whole, a mistake. Not for America, but the Continentals.

The so-called "free world" was, for most of its members, a free ride. Absolving wealthy nations of the need to maintain credible armies softens them: they decay, almost inevitably, into a semi-non-aligned status.

Even now, the likes of Mr Bruch see the US military presence in Europe in mainly economic terms - all those German supermarkets and German restaurants that depend on American custom. But, looked at in defence terms, if Don Rumsfeld wants a light, mobile 21st-century military, the last place to base it is the Continent: given that the term "ally" is now generally used in the post-modern meaning of "duplicitous obstructionist", it's not unlikely that any future Saddamesque scenario would see attempts to throw operational restraints around the use of US forces in Europe.

What happens when a country becomes just as militant and aggressive about the virtues of "soft power" as it once was about old-fashioned hard power?

Germany, like much of Europe, has a psychological investment in longer holidays, free healthcare, early retirement, unsustainable welfare programmes, decrepit military: the fact that these policies spell national suicide is less important than that they distinguish Europe from the less enlightened Americans.

The campaign continues

Via NRO's The Corner, a "freelance" campaign ad for President Bush, and a good one, too.

And, via the lovely and talented Moxie, watch Evan Coyne Maloney Pin the Tale on the Donkeys.

Pain at the pump

With gasoline prices headed "up, up, up," Democrats are fulminating about oil industry collusion, badgering President Bush to "do something," and continuing to allege dark dealings between Vice President Cheney and the energy industry over energy policy.

Today's Wall Street Journal has a useful summary of current factors in world oil supply and demand.

What has happened over the past 10 months to ruin forecasts of oil at $22 per barrel? The short answer is plenty.

Most important, demand has skyrocketed. Not only in the U.S., where economic growth has been gangbusters, but also in China, which has leapt ahead of Japan to become the second largest oil market in the world. While there is some debate about whether China is consuming oil or using it to build a strategic stockpile, the result is the same strong demand. China's growth has also sparked an economic recovery and higher oil demand in the rest of Asia. Count India, too, as an increasingly oil-thirsty economy.

This roaring demand has not been met with increasing production. Blame that mostly on OPEC. The oil cartel has been smarting over the fall of the dollar against the euro. That, of course, reduces dollar-denominated oil revenues and increases the incentive to keep supplies tight. With prices at or above $28 per barrel--the upper-bound of OPEC's target range--the Saudis, for example, ran a budget surplus for the first time in decades.

Inventories are also low. The U.S. has not yet recovered from the disruption in crude and refined products from Venezuela last year. And tight inventories exaggerate any changes in supply at the margin.

As the market got tighter, several events have injected uncertainty. Russian President Putin created some political risk by clamping down on the oil industry and arresting the former head of Russia's largest oil company, Yukos, and accusing a second company of tax fraud. There has been continued instability in Venezuela, Nigeria and Indonesia. It also hasn't helped that Royal Dutch Shell announced it was lowering, by 20%, its estimate of reserves. And there have been questions raised about the size of Saudi reserves and the possibility that Saudi production might be peaking.

Now throw in a big bunch of uncertainty ahead of tomorrow's OPEC meeting. Although OPEC only has a 33% market share, history shows it is able to generate more than its share of speculation. Several weeks ago, OPEC announced it would cut production, then two members balked, and now OPEC is hemming and hawing. Speculators have been going nuts.

Meanwhile, the Houston Chronicle describes the nation's refining capacity as "stagnant" -- something industry experts know well but about which the general public remains woefully ignorant.

Gasoline may cost 25 cents a gallon more during the summer than now, in part because the demand has outstripped what domestic plants can refine, but motorists shouldn't look for relief in the form of a building boom anytime soon.

Refiners admit the tight market has been good for bottom lines, but they have a long list of reasons not to start major plant expansions.

Normally, high profits inspire higher production capacity. But between now and year-end 2006, refiners say they will be spending billions of dollars on things other than expansion.

Industry officials all say the cost of meeting clean-fuel rules diverts money that could be used for new construction. To make matters worse, the methods used to take out sulfur to meet the specifications also reduce the amount of gasoline that can be made from a barrel of crude.

This burgeoning gap between a flat domestic supply and a growing demand from big gas-hungry vehicles has been filled by imported fuel. But even this source has been crimped by environmental rules that took effect Jan. 1 preventing some of this imported fuel from being sold here.

Although some companies are expanding plants, the barrel amounts involved are relatively small compared with the industry total. And there are some small refineries that may close rather than comply with the new rules.

No new refinery has been put up in the United States since 1976, and building one is out of the question, in [refining executive Bill] Greehey's view.

"Even if you could get the necessary permits, which I don't think you could, it's just too expensive to build a new grass-roots refinery anymore," he said.

That's right, folks -- not one new refinery built since 1976, mostly due to relentless opposition from environmentalists and other utopians who want higher prices in the vain hope of suppressing demand for gasoline-burning vehicles.

Karen's back

Karen Hughes is scheduled to be interviewed on The Charlie Rose Show tonight. She's always interesting, perhaps enough so to suffer through Rose's usually blockheaded questions.

Justice System II

So, yes, the jury experience Monday was as fascinating as usual.

I sincerely hope the dozen who were picked are able to render justice, whichever side "wins." I've served on four previous juries; we reached two acquittals and two convictions, but with various difficulties. It's hard, hard work.

Justice system

Today jury duty in downtown Houston beckons, which is never convenient but nevertheless an essential duty for free citizens of a democratic country. It's always interesting -- my own past jury service has included criminal cases of aggravated assault, drug dealing, spousal abuse, and evading arrest. Harris County publishes a Guide to Jury Duty.

Did you know that a citizen's right to a trial by jury can be traced back to both the United States Constitution and the Texas Declaration of Independence? Although the right to a jury trial is considered a fundamental safeguard of each American's constitutional liberties, the concept of a jury trial is hardly new, dating back to medieval England.

Your jury summons puts you in the center of this most basic right of all Americans. The United States and the State of Texas Constitutions guarantee a right to trial by jury for anyone accused of a crime, regardless of his or her race, religion, gender, national origin or economic status. Any time the facts of a civil or criminal case are in dispute, the parties have a right to have their case heard by a jury of fair and impartial citizens who will make decisions without bias or prejudice.

To Have a Jury Trial, There Must Be a Jury.

And to have a jury, citizens from all walks of life must be called upon to participate. Because you have received a jury summons, your are now part of this important process.

In a sense, it is an adventure. You have the opportunity to see the justice system in action, meet a wide range of people, and if you are chosen to serve on a jury, participate in one of this country's most fundamental processes.

Although your jury summons may disrupt your daily routine, we ask that participate with an open mind, patience, and an understanding of the essential role you have in our justice system.

Duelling

The two candidates in the Republican primary runoff for the new 10th Congressional District seem to be spending most of their efforts right now trying to question each other's party loyalty.

There has been more discussion about Democratic politicians than Republican issues in the GOP runoff between Ben Streusand and Mike McCaul for the 10th Congressional District.

Streusand has run ads tying McCaul to Democrats Bill Clinton and Janet Reno.

McCaul has countered with an ad noting that Streusand contributed campaign money to Democrats Bob Krueger and Ken Bentsen. And Streusand didn't vote for President Bush in the 2000 Republican primary, McCaul says.

The spate of Democrat-baiting has both candidates crying foul, each accusing the other of starting mudslinging that forced him to respond in kind.

"I am deeply disappointed that he has chosen to go completely negative," McCaul said. "He's not even running on his record. The voters are tired of this type of campaigning, and I think they will see it for what it is, a distortion of my career."

Streusand said, "He has attacked my Republican credentials. As a result, I attacked his."

Since they won't come out and say much about issues, we voters are left to intuit a choice based on biographies and supporters.

McCaul leads in endorsements from public officials, including former President Bush, Cornyn, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Harris County Sheriff Tommy Thomas and Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal.

Streusand has the support of prominent social conservatives, including Cathy Adams of the Texas Eagle Forum and Gary Bauer, president of American Values.

Streusand has picked up the endorsement of the third-place candidate, former state District Judge John Devine. McCaul has been endorsed by the fourth-place finisher, lawyer Dave Phillips.

Streusand's brochures are filling my mailbox and have done so for about a year, which is truly excessive. Every instinct says he's not who I want as my representative.

Planning a knockout blow

Always interesting Israeli intelligence website DEBKA is reporting that a terrorist alliance is planning a massive assault on Israel and discussing it openly.

No sooner had the tens of thousands of mourners dispersed after the ceremonies and demonstrations of strength marking the death of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin last Tuesday, March 22, in an Israeli missile attack, when a thousand Hamas top and middle-ranking activists dived underground.

Since then, known Hamas operatives have maintained perfect telephone silence, their relatives are in the dark about their whereabouts and contacts are maintained only through trusted couriers.

This situation presented the Hamas command center in Damascus with the problem of communicating urgent instructions to the men on the ground in the Gaza Strip... A way therefore had to be found for Hamas, Damascus, to impose its will on Hamas, Gaza.

The method finally hit on was to take to the airwaves.

Friday, March 26, therefore, the Hamas liaison man in Lebanon, Osama Hamdan, who managed the Mishaal-Rantisi compromise, was interviewed on Hizballah Radio Nur. On the assumption that the Gaza contingent in hiding were listening in case of coded messages, Hamdan addressed the Hamas “military” wing, the Izz el-Deen al-Qasseem Brigades, directly – not in code but in plain language.

Hamdan’s words freely translated are a directive from Damascus HQ to Muhammed Deif, commander of the Izz el-Deen al-Qassam, to muster an army of several hundred suicide killers to reach the hubs of Israeli cities and blow themselves up at the same moment. The Damascus Hamas command reckons that, even if not all the massacres come off, Israel will not be able to withstand a shock and casualties of the magnitude projected

This escalation fits in well with the intelligence gathered by Americans and Israelis on the spreading base of anti-Israeli terror from the double suicide attack carried out in Ashdod shortly before the assassination of Sheikh Yassin which caused the deaths of 10 Israeli port workers. Their experts conclude the attack was the work of Hizballah aided and abetted by al Qaeda.

A senior US intelligence official is quoted as saying: "The soldiers were members of Hamas. But the overall planning, the way the ship’s container was prepared, the weapons used and the level of advance intelligence invested in the attack all bear the marks of the two Islamic terrorist groups. We can expect many more combined terrorist assaults of this kind in the future."

Fresh air

New things of note in my little corner of the blogosphere, including linkers and linkees:

Jay Solo has morphed into a state of Accidental Verbosity.

Tobacco Road Fogey has re-formatted and seems to be posting more often.

Pervasive Light says this blog is a Daily Read, which is very flattering.

DocB's Raw Ramblings are indeed raw but also of interest.

Claudia at Freedom of Thought has posted something pertinent about poseur Richard Clarke.

Cranial Cavity is also firing with both barrels on lots of topics.

Signifying Nothing has become a daily read for me.

Congrats to all.

Uncivil war

Correspondent Romesh Ratnesar, veteran of Time's Baghdad bureau and elsewhere, notes politely but firmly that Richard Clarke has gone well beyond mere inconsistency.

The accounts of high-level conversations and meetings given by Clarke in various television appearances, beginning with the 60 Minutes interview, differ in significant respects from the recollections of a former top counterterrorism official who participated in the same conversations and meetings: Richard Clarke. In several cases, the version of events provided by Clarke this week include details and embellishments that do not appear in his new book, Against All Enemies.

Why?

While the discrepancies do not, on their own, discredit Clarke's larger arguments, they do raise questions about whether Clarke's eagerness to publicize his story and rip the Bush Administration have clouded his memory of the facts.

One cannot help but observe that the presence of serially inconsistent versions of "the truth" is a primary indicator that someone is lying -- it's just so hard to keep all those invented "facts" straight. Reality is so simple by comparison.

Lying, then or now

Savvy and serious-minded Member of Congress Porter Goss has also reached a conclusion about Richard Clarke:

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee is accusing former White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke of flat-out "lying" in his sworn testimony this week before the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Clarke’s testimony to our committee is 180 degrees out of line with what he is saying in his book," Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla., told Roll Call yesterday. "He’s either lying in his book or he lied to our committee. It’s one or the other."

Clarke's testimony before the 9/11 Commission mirrored the blistering portrait in his book, where he painted the Bush administration as asleep at the wheel in the war on terrorism.

"If he was lying to a congressional committee, he's got a big problem here," Goss warned.

The Florida Republican did not elaborate on how Clarke contradicted his previous testimony.

But his charges echo comments from former Navy secretary and 9/11 Commission member John Lehman, who read Clarke the riot act during his testimony on Wednesday.

"[Your book] is so different from the whole thrust of your testimony to us," said Lehman, referring to 15 hours of interviews Clarke gave the commission behind closed doors late last year.

"When you add to it the inconsistencies between what your promoters are putting out and what you yourself said as late as [last] August 5, you've got a real credibility problem," he added.

Lehman said that during the private debriefings, the bulk of Clarke's criticism was directed at the Clinton administration, not Bush.

Tag - you're it

Former terrorism official Richard Clarke's absurd and self-centered accusations about 9-11 and the war on terror are generating lots of heat from major media, folk who are apparently either too gullible to tell fact from fiction or are actively engaged in a thinly-veiled assault on President Bush and his team.

Rhetorical bomb-thrower Ann Coulter leaves no doubt about what she thinks, and zeroes in on an uncomfortable political truth as well.

Clarke claims, for example, that in early 2001, when he told President Bush's National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice about al-Qaida, her "facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before." (If only she used botox like Sen. Kerry!)

Sean Hannity has been playing a radio interview that Dr. Rice gave to David Newman on WJR in Detroit back in October 2000, in which she discusses al-Qaida in great detail. This was months before chair-warmer Clarke claims her "facial expression" indicated she had never heard of the terrorist organization.

But in deference to our liberal friends, let's leave aside the facts for now. A few months before Clarke was interpreting Dr. Rice's "facial expression," al-Qaida had bombed the USS Cole. Two years before that, al-Qaida bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In fact, al-Qaida or their allies had been responsible for a half dozen attacks on U.S. interests since Clinton had become president. (Paper-pusher Clarke was doing one heck of a job, wasn't he?) In the year 2000 alone, Lexis-Nexis lists 280 items mentioning al-Qaida.

By the end of 2000, anyone who read the paper had heard of al-Qaida. It is literally insane to imagine that Condoleezza Rice had not. For Pete's sake, even The New York Times knew about al-Qaida.

Rice had been a political science professor at Stanford University, a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, and a senior fellow of the Institute for International Studies. She had written three books and numerous articles on foreign policy. She worked for the first Bush administration in a variety of national security positions.

All this was while Clarke was presiding over six unanswered al-Qaida attacks on American interests and fretting about the looming Y2K emergency. But chair-warmer Clarke claims that on the basis of Rice's "facial expression" he could tell she was not familiar with the term "al-Qaida."

Isn't that just like a liberal? The chair-warmer describes Bush as a cowboy and Rumsfeld as his gunslinger -- but the black chick is a dummy. Maybe even as dumb as Clarence Thomas! Perhaps someday liberals could map out the relative intelligence of various black government officials for us.

Did Clarke have the vaguest notion of Rice's background and education? Or did he think Dr. Rice was cleaning the Old Executive Office Building at night before the president chose her -- not him -- to be national security adviser? If a Republican ever claimed the "facial expression" on Maxine Waters -- a woman whose face is no stranger to confusion or befuddlement -- left the "impression" that she didn't understand quantum physics, he'd be in prison for committing a hate crime.

As we know from Dr. Rice's radio interview describing the threat of al-Qaida back in October 2000, she certainly didn't need to be told about al-Qaida by a government time-server. No doubt Dr. Rice was staring at Clarke in astonishment as he imparted this great insight: Keep an eye on al-Qaida! We've done nothing, but you should do something about it. Tag -- you're it. That look of perplexity Clarke saw was Condi thinking to herself: "Hmmm, did I demote this guy far enough?"

Don't kneel before bombs

Outgoing Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar doesn't like accusations of being a liar, and he also has some important reminders for the incoming government and the world as well.

Spain has been one of the most active nations in the battle that democracies are waging against terrorism. This should continue to be the case. The defense of the liberties we enjoy is not just a fight for the United States or the United Kingdom to wage against their enemies. Terrorism hits wherever it can. There have been victims of many nationalities in New York, in Bali, in Mombasa, in Casablanca, in Istanbul, in Karbala--and in Madrid. No one is safe from terrorism, and no one should pretend that he is safe. Very recently, German and Dutch engineers were murdered in Iraq, for the crime of trying to lay pipes for drinking water. Terrorists have already threatened France for trying to ban wearing religious symbols in schools.

Ours is a battle between freedom, democracy and civilization, on the one hand, and terror on the other. If on September 11 we were all American, on March 11 the whole world was Spanish. Let's maintain this spirit. We cannot just abandon this battle; it is everyone's fight.

In the entire course of my political life, and especially during the eight years in which I have been prime minister, I have said that terrorism is not a local phenomenon, confined to particular areas or countries, to be confronted with domestic means alone. On the contrary, terrorism is a global phenomenon, one that crosses borders. And it gains in strength when we think that it is the problem of "others" and should be taken care of by "others."

The debates that followed the Madrid attacks have been about whether they were carried out by ETA or al Qaeda. It is obviously essential to find out who was behind the attacks. But all terrorism carries the same threat; all terrorist attacks are infused with hatred for liberty, democracy and human dignity. They feed on each other.

Up until the attacks of September 11, Spain took great pains to demonstrate to the outside world that terrorism was not an isolated phenomenon, that it shouldn't be fought by its immediate victims alone. Following the collapse of the Twin Towers, a new consciousness about the world-wide reach of terrorism finally emerged.

ETA or al Qaeda--the difference is important, to be sure, but the response to what has happened should be the same: firmness, political unity and international cooperation. Each and every democrat in the world was on those trains in Madrid. It has been an attack against all of us, against everything we believe in, and against everything we have built.

It is precisely for this reason that we must not send out confusing messages, messages that induce people to believe that we have to make concessions to those demanding that we kneel before bombs. This is not the moment to think about withdrawals of troops. And much less when the terrorists, with their message of death and destruction, have demanded that we surrender. To yield now would set a dangerous precedent that would allow our attackers to believe that they have imposed their conditions on us. It would allow our attackers to believe that they have won.

Rapids coming up

Columnist Robert Novak passes on to us some pointed commentary from private analysts Stratfor. The results from the Spanish electoral debacle will reverberate for months to come.

George Friedman, who runs the Stratfor private intelligence service, spotted a change in al-Qaida's outlook over the past year. The Islamist terrorist organization, which previously treated George W. Bush as largely irrelevant to its global designs, now has zeroed in on the president. Combining that change with the terrorist triumph in Spain points to an ominous trend in the war on terrorism -- and in the U.S. presidential election.

Failure of the Arab "street" to rise in response to the U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq has led to questions in the Arab world about al-Qaida's relevance. The coordinated attack on Madrid commuter trains showed al-Qaida still can create havoc. However, the global significance is the electoral defeat of Spain's conservative party. Headed for victory against the weak socialist opposition, the popular regime was voted out after the terrorist attack because it sent troops to Iraq.

After last week's stunning Spanish election, a Stratfor report said, "given the use of planted explosives in Madrid rather than suicide bombers, al-Qaida is likely planning to carry on with this tactic, particularly given the tremendous success of the operation in Spain." Britain, Italy, Portugal, the Netherlands, Poland, Hungary and Australia were listed as U.S.-aligned nations risking the Spanish punishment. Stratfor added: "A wave of attacks in those countries against soft targets . . . could shift the global balance."

A new al-Qaida strategy twist was hinted last Thursday when the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, which claimed responsibility for the Madrid bombings, offered a cease-fire if Spanish troops actually leave Iraq as promised by Zapatero. That first known possible al-Qaida offer to negotiate with the West pressures weak European governments who might prefer appeasement to the fate of Spain.

However, in Friedman's opinion, al-Qaida's big target will be the United States. He sees an attack earlier (in the summer) rather than later (in the autumn), when it might boost Bush's re-election chances. "The grand prize," said a Stratfor report, "would be triggering an election defeat for Bush -- something that clearly would demonstrate the group's influence over Western powers."

Credible Clarke?

Former (i.e., fired) counter-terrorism official Richard Clarke had some harsh words for President Bush this weekend on 60 Minutes, as well as in a forthcoming book. Since credibility is presumably the only reason why he should get such media attention, it's quite important to read via the valuable Power Line a well-linked summary of Clarke's career history and his linkages to the John Kerry campaign.

Their conclusion:

Richard Clarke is a bitter, discredited bureaucrat who was an integral part of the Clinton administration's failed approach to terrorism, was demoted by President Bush, and is now an adjunct to John Kerry's presidential campaign.

Payback time

Beleaguered Israel has struck back at one of its most bitter enemies.

Israeli helicopters fired missiles at Hamas leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin as he left a mosque near his house at daybreak Monday, residents said, and witnesses said he was killed.

Witnesses said Israeli helicopters fired three missiles at Yassin and two bodyguards as they left the mosque, killing them instantly. Hamas officials confirmed that he had been killed.

Yassin founded Hamas in 1987. He was held in Israeli prisons for several years before being released in 1994. In September 2002, Yassin escaped an Israeli missile strike on a Gaza building with a hand injury. Yassin lived in a modest house in the rundown Sabra neighborhood in Gaza City. Israel blamed him for inspiring Hamas bombers and attackers who killed hundreds of Israelis.

The ingrate

Vice President Dick Cheney spoke at the Ronald Reagan library Wednesday. Among other good points, he had some tough, specific things to say about presidential wannabe John Kerry and his sneering attitude towards our allies.

Senator Kerry speaks often about the need for international cooperation, and has vowed to usher in a "golden age of American diplomacy." He is fond of mentioning that some countries did not support America's actions in Iraq. Yet of the many nations that have joined our coalition - allies and friends of the United States - Senator Kerry speaks with open contempt. Great Britain, Australia, Italy, Spain, Poland, and more than 20 other nations have contributed and sacrificed for the freedom of the Iraqi people. Senator Kerry calls these countries, quote, "window dressing." They are, in his words, "a coalition of the coerced and the bribed."

Many questions come to mind, but the first is this: How would Senator Kerry describe Great Britain - coerced, or bribed? Or Italy - which recently lost 19 citizens, killed by terrorists in Najaf - was Italy's contribution just window dressing? If such dismissive terms are the vernacular of the golden age of diplomacy Senator Kerry promises, we are left to wonder which nations would care to join any future coalition. He speaks as if only those who openly oppose America's objectives have a chance of earning his respect. Senator Kerry's characterization of our good allies is ungrateful to nations that have withstood danger, hardship, and insult for standing with America in the cause of freedom.

What's underneath?

Columnist William Safire says the flat rock of the U.N.'s oil-for-food program in Iraq is being flipped over, and more disclosures are coming.

The cover-up in the office of the U.N. secretary general of a multibillion-dollar financial fraud known as the Iraqi oil-for-food program is beginning to come apart.

Now, thanks to evidence of systematic thievery on a huge scale, discovered by free Iraqis in Baghdad, the whole rotten mess of 10 percent kickbacks on billions in contracts is coming to light.

Under mounting pressure, this week the U.N. let it be known that its laughably titled Office of Internal Oversight Services would look into the matter. An internal whitewash? Not nearly good enough.

Will the Security Council appoint an independent counsel to clean house in an inept or corrupt Secretariat? No, because France and Russia had their hands in the kickback till.

But free Iraq, backed up by the U.S., is not helpless. Our Congress supplies 22 percent of the U.N. budget, and we have a right to an accounting. Chairman Henry Hyde, of House International Relations, calls this "an outrage" and will arrange for a G.A.O. briefing this week, to be followed by open hearings in April.

RIP

Two of the latest casualties of goon violence in Iraq were a pair of missionairies from Rowlett, Texas. It doesn't take much in the way of fabled Arab honor and courage to hit people like that. However, the faithful who volunteer to serve in the face of such unrelenting evil set an example for us all.

A pair of newlywed Texas missionaries were among the victims of an ambush in Mosul, Iraq, with one dying Tuesday after assailants fired automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades at their car.

David McDonnall, 29, of Rowlett, northeast of Dallas, was struck by bullets and shrapnel in the attack Monday. He died Tuesday morning on the way to a military hospital in Baghdad after military surgeons worked to revive him.

His wife, Carrie Taylor McDonnall, 26, also was hit by gunfire. She was being flown by helicopter to a German military hospital Tuesday afternoon and was listed in critical condition. She was the only survivor of the attack, which killed four.

The McDonnalls were part of a team from the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention that was building a water purification system in Mosul, Iraq's third largest city.

M&A

As noted earlier, there is apparently a perverse sort of merger & acquisition activity going on between the various groups of killers among the Palestinians. Now Hamas gets a piece of the action:

Palestinian officials speaking at a meeting in the Muqata this week presented a grim picture of the Palestinian Authority's situation in the Gaza Strip, highlighting in particular the PA's lack of control over many activists from the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, Fatah's military wing.

According to the reports, a significant segment of armed Fatah leaders in Gaza answer to senior Hamas officials. These Fatah leaders are not even taking the phone calls of the leadership in Ramallah.

Two major groups that have effectively stopped operating under Fatah are the Abu Reish Brigades, which has been carrying out attacks in Gaza regularly over the last few weeks in conjunction with Hamas activists, and the Saladin Alayubi group, the armed wing of an organization that had been considered closely linked to Arafat. It has only recently become known that some members of this group now refuse to take instructions from Arafat. Although they have not declared an overt revolt against him, their actions indicate that they have crossed over to Hamas, whose leaders understand that recruiting other militants can help Hamas widen its power base in Gaza and break down Fatah loosening hold on the Gaza Strip.

Long-suffering Israel must see only chaos ahead, much of it created by the ineptness and corruption of Yasser Arafat. The only thing their thuggish neighbors have in common now is their hatred for the Jews.

What's going down

There was a lot more commentary on Tuesday -- some good, some bad, and much repetitive -- about the utter wrongheadedness of the Spanish election, which handed a huge and unequivecal success to al Qaeda. Among those I had time to note:

The Washington Post surveys the European press and finds hints and signs of rationality (as unlikely as that sounds).

Sociologist Emilio Lamo de Espinosa says Europeans have been dreaming. Writing in Le Monde (in French), Lamo says Europeans have thought they would be spared because they haven't supported the Bush administration's policies.

"When the Americans declared war on terrorism, many of us thought they exaggerated. Many thought terrorism was not likely to occur on our premises, [inhabited by] peaceful and civilized Europeans who speak no evil of anybody, who dialogue, who are the first [to] send assistance and offer cooperation. We are pacifists, they are warmongers. . . . . Don't we defend the Palestinians? Are we not pro-Arab and anti-Israeli?"

"Can we dialogue with those who desire only our death and nothing but our death?" Lamo asks. "Dialogue about what? The manner in which we will be assassinated?"

The Rev. Donald Sensing notes a pertinent quotation from The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers:

Many commentators of all political stripes are figuring out that the words of Eowyn to Aragorn in Lord of the Rings 2 are true: "Those without swords may still die upon them."

Meanwhile, Israel's DEBKA says forget about affiliates, sympathizers, fellow travelers, and alliances of convenience between shadowy groups of terrorists and radicals -- it was bin Laden.

According to DEBKAfile’s exclusive counter-terror sources, the Madrid train bombings in which 201 Spanish commuters were murdered and 1,400 injured, were not the work of an al Qaeda offshoot or affiliate. Like the attacks in the United States, they were conceived, planned, orchestrated and directed by Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenant, Ayman Zuwahiri, in person, and aimed at a Western Achilles heel. The terrorist chiefs were convinced that a change of government in Madrid would engender the pullout of the Spanish 1,300-man troop contingent from Iraq, thereby weakening the solidarity of the US-led coalition and hurting President George W. Bush’s campaign for re-election.

Jay Solo just cuts to the bottom line, and asks his readers to place their bets:

Make your predictions...

Where will the pre-election attack(s) in the U.S. take place, how long before the election, and what form will they take? For purposes of this exercise, assume that the fact of an attack is just that.

Self-gelding

Pondering the Spanish electoral surrender to terror, Mark Steyn is even more pessimistic about Europe's blindness in the face of Islamic aggression.

"When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, naturally they will like the strong horse." So said Osama bin Laden in his final video appearance two-and-a-half years ago. But even the late Osama might have been surprised to see the Spanish people, invited to choose between a strong horse and a weak horse, opt to make their general election an exercise in mass self-gelding.

March 14 seems likely to be the date bequeathed to posterity, in the way we remember those grim markers on the road to conflagration through the 1930s, the tactical surrenders that made disaster inevitable. All those umbrellas in the rain at Friday's marches proved to be pretty pictures for the cameras, nothing more. The rain in Spain falls mainly on the slain. In the three days between the slaughter and the vote, it was widely reported that the atrocity had been designed to influence the election. In allowing it to do so, the Spanish knowingly made Sunday a victory for appeasement and dishonoured their own dead.

And, if it works in Spain, why not in Australia, Britain, Italy, Poland? In his 1996 "Declaration of War Against the Americans", Bin Laden cited Washington's feebleness in the face of the 1992 Aden hotel bombings and the Black Hawk Down business in Somalia in 1993: "You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew," he wrote. "The extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear." To the jihadis' way of thinking, on Thursday, the Spaniards were disgraced by Allah; on Sunday, they withdrew. The extent of their impotence and weaknesses is very clear.

Pass the ammunition

The Telegraph in London is crystal clear about the meaning of Sunday's election in Spain: isolationism and appeasement on the ascendency. Will the Spanish Left not recognize that they are side-by-side with all other Westerners in the jihadists' crosshairs? We'll see.

The thumping defeat inflicted upon the Right-wing Popular Party in yesterday's Spanish elections was a blow for the war on terrorism. Jose Maria Aznar, the outgoing prime minister, took big risks to back the United States after September 11, and most especially to send troops to Iraq. Even his decision to take on his home-grown insurgency in the Basque country went against the grain of much elite opinion. He may well have mishandled last week's terrorist atrocities in Madrid. But whoever was responsible - whether al-Qaeda or ETA - will be pleased to have intervened so successfully in a democratic ballot. Spaniards died in industrial quantities, and the first instinct of many voters was to take it out on their government. If terrorism has succeeded there, where will be next?

The election will be remembered as heralding the rise of ‘‘euro isolationism''. Large numbers of Spanish voters succumbed to the delusion that if Mr Aznar, had not lent support to the Anglo-American coalition, then their homeland would be safer. The credibility of the government was affected, as in this country, by the apparent failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This, in turn, impacted upon the public trust placed in their interpretation of who was responsible for last week's atrocities. It also appears that elements in the Spanish security forces were angered by what they considered to be their government's opportunism in initially blaming the more obviously unpopular target of Eta (rather than al-Qa'eda) and went over the heads of the Interior Ministry to speak to the opposition Socialists and to the press. They seem to have based their reasoning upon the need to alert Europe as a whole to the Islamist threat, but the effect appears to have been to hand victory for the Socialists who have taken a far less robust view of the war on terror.

Why do such wide swathes of Spanish - and, indeed, British opinion - take a "nothing to do with us, Guv'' view of international terrorism? Partly, it has been a failure of communication, not least of American public diplomacy. The European Left, no less than Islamist polemicists, has for years been besmirching the United States as the ‘‘Great Satan''; and, in the face of that, most American missions have for much of the time emitted little more than a pip-squeak. Above all, the Americans and sympathetic European governments have not managed to convey the idea that there is no policy shift which they might undertake that would appreciably alter Islamist behaviour. The idea abounds that if the West somehow withdrew from Iraq or transferred more wealth to the mases of the Maghreb that all of this would stop. De-ideologised, post-modern man is particularly bad at grasping the ideological nature of its foes. The fact that many Islamists believe in reversing the reconquista of the Iberian peninsula appears to have made little difference to millions of Spaniards. The desire not to take our enemies at face value, in word and deed, is the hallmark of much of contemporary Europe.

You can always find some, even many, with the view that we should not provoke the Islamic world and anything we do to protect ourselves from it will be provocative. Appeasement is nothing new and its futility seems lost in one of those great fogs that befuddle human minds.

ACZ, Eta, Hezbollah and their many lookalikes have one thing in common. They all partake of the satanic nature of the terrorist culture. They inhabit a different moral universe from us. This is not the Satan of the Old Testament who under God's strict watch goes on earth to test the goodness of men. This Satan is the revelation of the New Testament, a Satan that is evil incarnate, who can seize men's souls and turn them into his subordinates on earth.

"What are the causes (of the Madrid bombing)?" James Naughtie asked Spain's Foreign Minister Ana Palacio on the Today programme, as if it were a perfectly rational question. Showing admirable restraint, Palacio merely replied: "Terrorism cannot claim any cause." Naughtie might as well have asked what the causes of evil are. Perhaps next time.

Whether it is the IRA, Chechens in a Moscow theatre, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, the suicide bombers of Arafat's al Aqsa Martyrs, Hamas, Islamic Jihad or the now-defunct Irgun and Stern gangs, makes no difference. These groups deliberately target non-combatants, with the aim of killing and maiming them: they are terrorists. A bus mistakenly bombed by Nato in Serbia is not the same as a bus deliberately blown up in Jerusalem or a Shining Path car bomb in Lima. Such actions are not the tragic collateral damage of war but murder and damnation, even if the BBC won't say so. What astonishes is that the terrorist war against the West has been going on for more than 35 years now, and still the majority of Western countries are in denial.

By their own mad statements, the Islamists will not be content until all the lands they believe belong to the Muslim world are free of the infidel and the "humiliation of 80 years ago" is reversed, meaning the reversal of the end of the Ottoman Empire. Given their rather bloody interpretation of the command of the Koran to spread the word to all infidels, unless we pull ourselves together we shall find ourselves spread all over streets and railway lines. In the fight against Satan, it is traditional to have a deity onside. Let's pray by all means - and then pass the ammunition.

Mark Steyn is less metaphysical.

If Islamic terrorism were as rational as Irish or Basque terrorism, it would be easier. But Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah, summed it up very pithily: "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you." You can be pro-America (Spain, Australia) or anti-America (France, Canada), but if you broke into the head cave in the Hindu Kush and checked out the hit list you'd be on it either way.

So the choice for pluralist democracies is simple: You can join Bush in taking the war to the terrorists, to their redoubts and sponsoring regimes. Despite the sneers that terrorism is a phenomenon and you can't wage war against a phenomenon, in fact you can – as the Royal Navy did very successfully against the malign phenomena of an earlier age, piracy and slavery.

Or you can stick your head in the sand and paint a burqa on your butt. But they'll blow it up anyway.

Oh, and the Spanish aren't the only Westerners whose priorities are exactly backwards.

Spain rewinds

Looks like the Socialists have won the Spanish election, but without an outright majority. Spanish support for operations in Iraq will undoubtedly diminish, but we can hope the Socialists will otherwise continue to support the war on terror, especially now that it's come to their doorstep in dramatic fashion.

The opposition Socialists scored a dramatic upset win in Spain's general election Sunday, unseating conservatives stung by charges they provoked the Madrid terror bombings by supporting the U.S.-led war in Iraq and making Spain a target for al-Qaida.

It was the first time a government that backed the Iraq war has been voted out of office. Incoming prime minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has pledged to bring home the 1,300 troops Spain has stationed in Iraq when their tour of duty ends in July.

Ironically, the election outcome is being blamed on Prime Minister Aznar's support for the war in Iraq. But Israel's DEBKA is reporting that al Qaeda targetted Spain at least as far back as 2002, and that more attacks in Europe are coming. Aznar was right and history will eventually demonstrate that convincingly -- his real failing may have been that Spain's response was not vigorous enough.

According to data gathered by our experts, from December 2002, three months before the US invasion of Iraq, al Qaeda began issuing a stream of fatwas designating its main operating theatres in Europe. Spain was on the list, but not the first.

1. Turkey was first. Islamic fundamentalists were constrained to recover the honor and glory of the Ottoman caliphates which were trampled by Christian forces in 1917 in the last days of World War I.

2. Spain followed. There, al Qaeda set Muslims the goal of recovering their lost kingdom in Andalusia.

3. Italy and its capital were third. Muslim fundamentalists view Rome as a world center of heresy because of the Vatican and the Pope.

4. Vienna came next because the advancing Muslim armies were defeated there in 1683 before they could engulf the heart of Europe.

Meanwhile, evidence of the al Qaeda connection to the Madrid train bombings is piling up rapidly.

One of the three Moroccans arrested in the Madrid train bombings is linked to a suspected al-Qaida member jailed in Spain for allegedly helping plan the Sept. 11 attack in the United States, according to court documents reviewed by The Associated Press. It was the latest suggestion that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist group may have been involved in the bombings.

A Sept. 17, 2003 indictment calls Jamal Zougam, 30, a "follower" of Imad Yarkas, the alleged leader of Spain's al-Qaida cell who was jailed for allegedly helping plan the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington. Zougam has been arrested in the Madrid bombings. Yarkas, whose alias is Abu Dahdah, remains in Spanish custody.

The indictment targets Yarkas and 34 others, including bin Laden, for terrorist activities connected to al-Qaida. Zougam was not among those indicted.

Zougam was one of thousands of Moroccans put under surveillance by authorities after May terrorist bombings in the coastal city of Casablanca that killed 33 people and 12 bombers, a Moroccan official told AP, speaking on condition of anonymity.

A silent slow motion war

Wondering why gasoline prices are going up, up, up? Ed Lasky says it's because Saudi Arabia's rulers have decided George W. Bush is a threat to their ability to maintain power.

Saudi Arabia has launched an undeclared war on George W. Bush. This simple fact must be understood by policy and strategy elites, the press, and the general electorate. Otherwise, the Saudis may well succeed in their tacit campaign to sabotage the long term success of America’s war on terror, by engineering the electoral defeat of George W. Bush in November.

President Bush has provoked this response by proclaiming his intention to encourage democracy and liberalism in the Middle East, liberate the Arab masses from despotic rule, bring peace and prosperity to the region, and halt the spread of militant Islamic terror groups. Unlike past Presidents who, in varying degrees, paid lip service to these ideals, President Bush has acted decisively on them. His politically perilous actions, such as his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, his conditioning support for a Palestinian state on the cessation of terror, corruption, and dictatorship, and his active promotion and support for liberal groups in the Arab world, have aroused Saudi fears and provoked a quiet counterattack.

From the vantage point of the Saudis, Bush II is not just unreliable, but also a danger. He is a self-identified born-again Christian, and is closely allied with the religious wing of the Republican Party. In a theocratic nation which forbids the practice of Christianity, a leader linked to rival religion is anathema. In their eyes (as well as those of some of President Bush’s most ardent opponents) he may seem to be something of a theocrat himself, but from a longstanding historical rival religion.

When the President’s Christian moorings are combined with the exaggerated role that Jewish neo-cons supposedly have in the White House (once again the fevered imaginations of the Saudis bear some resemblance to those of the President’s most extreme domestic antagonists), trouble of the most fundamental sort looms for their regime. All along, the fanatic Wahabbi wing of the clergy has preached that a holy war exists with the West, and that accommodation with the infidels can only be a tactical pause in the eventual all-out war. From their perspective, it is easy to understand why George W. Bush -- the Christian “puppet of the Jews,” and thus the embodiment of Wahabbi nightmares -- needs to be removed from office.

How have the Saudis acted to destroy George Bush’s political career? By using the “oil weapon” to torpedo the American economy over the next eight months, and thereby weaken electoral support for George W. Bush’s candidacy in November.

Two elections, two realities

It's election day in Spain and observers are predicting a huge turnout at the polls thanks to the train bombings. One can only hope that Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's Popular Party will be returned -- they have been incredible allies in the war on terror.

Thursday's bombs are expected to prompt Spain's voters to turn out in their millions for elections on Sunday.

"One thing no-one will dispute is that we are now likely to see a massive turnout," said Charles Powell, senior European affairs analyst at the Madrid-based think tank the Elcano Royal Institute. "People are angry and upset, and they will demonstrate that by voting. It was going to be high anyway, but now I'd estimate it will be over 80%."

Professor Juan Pablo Fusi, historian at Madrid University, concurred. "These bombs are likely to increase turnout - to show that they agree with the government that the only way to defeat terrorism is through democracy, by voting.

Voters are also in action in Russia, where the presidential election is not in doubt, only the legitimacy. Chess master and pro-democracy spokesman Garry Kasparov says Vladimir Putin is returning Russia to authoriarianism.

With today's presidential elections in Russia, Vladimir Putin is on course to complete Russia's transition into an authoritarian state--and it will have happened while the West not only stood by, but nodded its benign approval.

Instead of waiting a few years to ask "who lost Russia?," the West must speak up now and ask more pertinent questions. Why is Mr. Putin suffocating the media? Why are business leaders who do not obey his orders being jailed? Why are the elections rigged in favor of Mr. Putin and his henchmen? Most importantly, what can the West do to help preserve and strengthen democracy in Russia?

According to watchdog groups, the December parliamentary elections in Russia were "free, not fair" and marked a "regression in the democratization process." The opposition had no chance to speak to the public via the state-controlled media, which totally dominates the market. The main Russian TV channels were uniformly positive about the pro-president party.

Today's election is shaping up to be an even more blatant mockery of the democratic process.

Around the ancient sea

Spain has made rapid arrests in connection with the horrific train bombings on Thursday.

Spain's interior ministry announced Saturday that five suspects — including three Moroccans possibly linked to extremist groups — were arrested in the Madrid bombings that killed at least 200 people. The five were arrested in connection with a cell phone inside an explosives-packed gym bag found on one of the bombed commuter trains.

The other two suspects had Indian passports, a ministry spokesman said. Also being questioned were two Spanish citizens of Indian origin.

The suspects "could be related to Moroccan extremist groups," Interior Minister Angel Acebes said. "But we should not rule out anything. Police are still investigating all avenues. This opens an important avenue."

Earlier, the interior ministry said that autopsies of the dead so far show no evidence of suicide bombings, suggesting that Islamic terrorists who use such tactics might not have been involved. Acebes told a news conference that the Basque separatist group ETA was still the No. 1 suspect in Thursday's bombings, but the government has not ruled out al-Qaida, which had threatened to target U.S. allies from the Iraq war, including Spain.

Note that Moroccans are involved, reminding me of the terrorist strike just last May in Casablanca, believed to have been conducted not by al Qaeda itself but by a local "franchise."

Meanwhile, it been reported that U.S. troops are operating in North Africa, hunting more terrorists affiliated with al Qaeda.

US special forces are hunting for Islamic militants linked to Al Qaeda along Algeria's southern border with Mali in a little-known military operation aimed at destroying a key North African recruiting hub for Osama bin Laden's global terrorist network, according to US and Algerian officials.

Small teams of elite US soldiers have been working with local security forces in recent months in the Sahara Desert in an effort to capture or kill members of the Salafist Group for Call and Combat, a radical Islamic organization that has pledged its allegiance to Al Qaeda and is suspected in terrorist plots in Europe and the United States, said the officials, who asked not to be identified.

The joint effort marks another front in the war on terrorism and a watershed in US-Algerian relations. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Washington stepped up military assistance to Algiers in its 12-year civil war against Islamic extremist groups. The US military involvement is also part of a larger US antiterrorism campaign in the vast, desolate Sahel region of North Africa -- which touches the nations of Mali, Mauritania, Niger, and Chad -- that US intelligence officials fear could become a primary training ground for radicals exporting terrorism around the world.

US government officials with access to official reports said the US special forces have been working with Algeria and neighboring countries to trap members of the Salafist group, which is on the US terrorism list. The group, also known by its acronym, GSPC, was founded in 1998 at the urging of bin Laden as an offshoot of the Armed Islamic Group, the violent domestic opposition to the Algerian government.

It appears to have eclipsed its parent organization as the country's main Islamic rebel group, while broadening its ties to other militants outside the country, US intelligence officials say.

Many of the group's members, estimated to be as high as 3,000 fighters, are believed to be veterans of bin Laden's Afghanistan training camps.

"Almost all the Al Qaeda cells that have been picked up in Europe have some link to this group," said Evan Kohlmann, a terrorism specialist at the Investigative Project, a think tank in Washington. "These are the descendants of the Al Qaeda training camps who have gone home."

Perhaps now the Mediterranean is the up-and-coming nexus of activity in the war on terror, and their war on all of us.

Spain's 9/11

Spain was cruelly victimized this week by terrorists who exacted a horrible toll in human life: almost 200 killed and over 1400 greviously wounded.

As they have so often in the past, the editorial page writers of The Wall Street Journal were among the most cogent on this terrorist outrage.

Madrid now joins Bali, Baghdad, Najaf, Karachi, Istanbul, Mombasa, Jerusalem, Riyadh, Casablanca and of course New York and Washington in the lineup of terror targets. With several months having lapsed since the last such carnage outside Iraq, we have sensed a complacency developing in some circles that perhaps the worst is over. The late-night comedians have begun to make fun of the "orange alerts," the Patriot Act is being assailed by liberals and libertarians, and voices in Congress are once again daring to propose less defense spending.

The danger is that we will once again return to the "law enforcement" mindset that dominated the world's handling of terrorism before 9/11. This view assumes that, however awful, terrorism is an endurable tragedy that can be prosecuted after the fact, like a murder in Chicago. John Kerry has been explicit in recommending this kind of policy.

This temptation is understandable but dangerous. Fighting a war, even one like the war on terror that is often in the shadows, is expensive and hard. It's not surprising that many Americans would like to return to the Roaring Nineties when terrorism was something that happened to other people--in Israel or somewhere far away. But that vacation from history ended on September 11.

The Madrid bombings are a reminder that terrorism remains the largest single threat to Western freedom and security. It threatens every country that refuses to cower in fear and dares to take the battle to the terrorists. We've made large strides in this war since 9/11, thanks in part to friends like the Spanish. Their current grief should inspire America's renewed determination.

Pondering what exactly happened, Jihadwatch points us to a 2001 report that ETA and al Qaeda had established a strategic alliance.

The Basque terrorist organization ETA and bin Laden's al-Qaeda cells have joined forces. Their shared goal: to organize and carry out an attack on the EU meeting scheduled for March 2002 in Barcelona, according to two Spanish publications, Tiempo and El Mundo.

According to the reports, which have been confirmed by Italian and French media, representatives of the two terrorist organizations have already met together three times in Brussels in December 2000; in Malaga, Spain in February 2001; and in Barcelona last July.

According to the European reports, the terrorists have planned a suicide attack on the meeting that would entail the use of five car bombs provided by ETA, and delivered by five al-Qaeda suicide drivers. European authorities consider this news credible, and have disclosed that Mohammed Atta--one of the terrorists responsible for the early September attack on the World Trade Center--may have also attended the July meeting between ETA and al-Qaeda in Barcelona.

Citizen diplomat and pundit Mansoor Ijaz also thinks this savage attack represents a new phase in the al Qaeda threat.

Mansoor Ijaz, a foreign-affairs analyst for Fox News, said the attacks had many of the hallmarks of an Al Qaeda operation. He said it was evidence the pan-Islamic terror organization may be "joining hands with local terrorists."

"This represents a dangerous mutated version of what Al Qaeda has been doing in other parts of the world," Ijaz explained, "hitting three simultaneous targets, not necessarily in the same city but in the same area, with multiple explosions at each location."

Ijaz said Madrid was part of "an emerging pattern," citing recent multiple bombings in Iraq that may have been Al Qaeda-inspired.

The President of the United States had simple but heartfelt words for Spain, our steadfast ally and friend.

The United States of America sends our prayers and sympathies to the Spanish people, who mourn the loss of life, who today weep for their loved ones, who wonder about their future now that there's been such tragedy.

The bombings in Spain are a grim reminder that there are evil people in the world who are willing to kill innocent life. I appreciate so very much your government's strong stand against terrorism and terrorist organizations like ETA. The United States of America stands firmly with you as we work to make the world more peaceful and more free.

Killers try to shake our will, they try to shake our confidence in the future. Spanish people will stand firm against this type of killing, and they'll have a friend with the American people... we ask for God's blessings for the people of your great country.

Jeff Jarvis notes something about the Spanish reaction.

After 9/11, I remember a nation -- and especially a city -- utterly stunned, in shock, silent except for grief and fear. Spain is reacting differently: with anger. God bless them. Sadly, the shock and surprise of these tragedies is gone after 9/11 and Bali and now 3/11. Anger is the sane response.

The mass media also took note of the massive public show of determination by the people of Spain.

More than eight million people took to Spain's streets in an unprecedented show of grief and fury at bomb attacks the day before on Madrid commuter trains that killed 199 people and injured more than 1,400, police said.

Thousands more marched in cities around the world - in London, Brussels, Washington, Mexico City, Caracas and Buenos Aires - to express their solidarity with the Spanish people and to denounce terrorism.

The demonstrations in Spain - vast seas of umbrellas in rain-soaked cities and towns - were by far the biggest the country has ever seen, easily beating the previous record set in February last year when the population protested against its government's support of the US war on Iraq.

"A people united will never be defeated," the crowd roared in unison in Madrid, where police said 2.3 million people had gathered.

Jarvis also calls attention to the calendar -- the 3/11 bombings in Spain would fall exactly 911 days after 9/11 in the U.S., except for the extra day of leap year. Rather than discounting the idea, I think it might have had symbolic significance for the bombers; the morons just blew their calculus by forgetting the leap year.

We can hope that the citizens of Spain, no strangers to terrorism, will strengthen their resolve and continue to help America take this war to the enemy -- an enemy of us all.

Sticking the pig

The loutish senior senator from Massachusetts, Edward Kennedy, bloviated again recently about President Bush's supposed deceptions over Iraq, this time to an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations.

The evidence so far leads to only one conclusion. What happened was not merely a failure of intelligence, but the result of manipulation and distortion of the intelligence and selective use of unreliable intelligence to justify a decision to go to war. The administration had made up its mind, and would not let stubborn facts stand in the way.

Today, speaking before the CFR a week later, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona has demolished Kennedy's recklessly partisan comments with a prosecuter's eye for detail -- point by point, blow by blow. I'm sure Kyl's response will receive about 1% of the attention that Kennedy received, so read the whole thing for yourself.

It is especially troubling that Senator Kennedy hints that the Bush administration took us to war for political reasons: "The politics of the election trumped the stubborn facts," he says. That charge, if more than just over-the-top bluster, would be close to an allegation of treason--suggesting that the president deliberately put our young men and women in harm's way for no purpose other than politics. Such a charge would not only sap the morale of the troops who are fighting even now; it would undercut our entire position in the war on terror generally and in Iraq specifically.

To claim: "It was pure, unadulterated fear-mongering, based on a devious strategy to convince the American people that Saddam's ability to provide nuclear weapons to al Qaeda justified immediate war" is likewise disrespectful, dangerous to morale, and hurtful to our effort to work with other nations in a common effort against despots and tyrants like Saddam Hussein.

When all is said and done, the most amazing claim in Senator Kennedy's speech is his conclusion that: "Congress would never have voted to authorize the war if we had known the facts."

Senator Kennedy voted against the war. He clearly thought he knew the facts, and, to him, they didn't support the war. How is it that he knew the facts, but his colleagues did not? He certainly made his case forcefully at that time. Is he saying now everyone who voted for the war was duped? Is he saying the members of the intelligence committee were duped?

Now, it is possible that not all of the intelligence these senators relied on was totally accurate. But my point is that these were the facts understood by everyone at the time: the United Nations, the intelligence services of our allies, senators on the Intelligence Committee, and the administration.

The reality is, no one was duped. We were all working off of the same data. Reasonable people reached different conclusions about what to do based on a commonly understood set of facts. There is nothing devious about that. One need not veer off into conspiracy theories to explain honest differences of opinion about policies.

Whopper ain't just a sandwich

At last, reporters are actually digging into some of John Kerry's more outrageous campaign statements. He's had a free ride for months and thought he could get away with an even bigger whopper. Perhaps not so.

Sen. John Kerry refuses to provide any information to support his assertion earlier this week that he has met with foreign leaders who beseeched him to prevail over President Bush in November's election.

The Massachusetts Democrat has made no official foreign trips since the start of last year, according to Senate records and his own published schedules. And an extensive review of Mr. Kerry's travel schedule domestically revealed only one opportunity for the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee to meet with foreign leaders here.

On Monday, Mr. Kerry told reporters in Florida that he'd met with foreign leaders who privately endorsed him.

"I've met with foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly," he said. "But, boy, they look at you and say: 'You've got to win this. You've got to beat this guy. We need a new policy.' Things like that."

The Kerry campaign declined to say where or when Mr. Kerry met with foreign leaders and discussed his presidential campaign, which officially began Sept. 2 last year. They refused to give any hints about the leaders such as what region, what continent or even which hemisphere they're from. The Kerry aides also have refused to say how many foreign leaders privately have endorsed their boss.

Coolness

Diehard Clemson fan Jeff Quinton, aka the Backcountry Conservative, got to eat a chili-cheese-a-plenty at The Beacon and watch the Tigers play baseball against the Wofford Terriers this week. Lucky guy.

MIA

Peggy Noonan casts her perceptive eye towards the presidential campaigns and she has some thoughts about what the media are up to.

The media this year are to an unusual degree--even for them--keen to give Mr. Bush a hard time and Mr. Kerry a boost. The daily anti-GOP pounding is taking a toll.

We all know the reasons the press is doing what it's doing--its biases, its need for a horse race. But this year the press is also taking it on itself to make up for the disparity in war chests. They don't think Mr. Kerry is going to catch up with the president in terms of money, and they're trying to even the score.

She has some tactical advice for both John Kerry and President Bush. She also has a few words for the missing-in-action Republican Party.

Mr. Bush needs backup. Hello congressional surrogates, that would be you. I heard a rumor the other day that Republicans are in control of the Senate and House. Could this be true? I ask because every day on the news Teddy Kennedy is at a hearing toasting the posties of some Republican or administration figure. Yesterday it was George Tenet. Mr. Kennedy was, as usual these days, hostile, provocative and showily contemptuous. Cable and the networks are loving it. Thursday it was Joe Biden yelling at steroid-using athletes for being the kind of people who used to knock him down.

Could a Republican please say something interesting?

President Bush needs his team to be alive and awake and hold its own hearings on issues that are important to Republicans on the ground.

GOP senators and congressmen seem to me to be acting not like they're excited by this moment in history but intimidated by it. As if they're thinking, "Oh no, we're in charge now and everyone will blame us when things go wrong!" They need a little spirit of 1994: "We'll make the very dome of this Capitol vibrate with our energy."

Guys: wake up. There's a battle outside.

Terror takeover

A news summary from the American Foreign Policy Council alerts us to a truly alarming story from beleaguered Israel: the Iranian takeover of Palestinian terrorism.

Israel is facing a fresh challenge from Lebanon’s terrorist powerhouse, Hezbollah. With Iranian support, the Shi’ite militia is said to have commenced a hostile takeover of Palestinian terrorist organizations. Using Iranian and Lebanese funds, Hezbollah has already succeeded in completely co-opting the “Al Aqsa Martyr’s Brigade,” a radical offshoot of Yasser Arafat’s Fatah party within the PLO, and has gained direct control over parts of the Islamist Palestinian Islamic Jihad organization. Simultaneously, the group has strengthened its hold on the West Bank and Gaza Strip through the establishment of independent, autonomous terrorist cells and the creation of an elaborate smuggling network designed to arm its growing cadres. This strategy, carried out under the direction of Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Revolutionary Guard, is dramatically expanding Hezbollah’s presence within the crumbling Palestinian Authority.

The full story from Israel newspaper Ma'ariv is available online -- the details are even scarier.

Two Iranian organizations are at the top of the command hierarchy that controls Palestinian terrorism: the Intelligence Ministry and the Revolutionary Guard. Beneath them are Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah and Imad Mughnieh, his deputy for the military affairs. Mughnieh heads a special group, “The Organization for Internal Operations” that is responsible for all activities in Israel and the territories.

The entire complex operation is managed from a small office that employs only a few people. Hezbollah assigned the task to a small group of veterans who were responsible for the military operations against the IDF in southern Lebanon. They have killed Israelis themselves and understand the needs of terrorists in the field and know how to get it to them. Now they are taking advantage of their knowledge and combat experience to operate the Palestinians by remote control.

Israel is still trying to map out how the organization works. It is involved in the finest details of terror attacks including training, finances and sending the bombers to their targets. The developing portrait reveals that Hezbollah has allocated several operators to guide the terrorist activities in the territories.

One of these is Kais Obeid, the Israeli Arab from Taibeh who was involved in kidnapping Elhanan Tennenbaum. Israeli intelligence officials claim that Obeid is very valuable to Hezbollah because he can connect them directly to the field, using e-mail, ordinary and cellular telephones and every other possible means of communication.

The curfews and closures on Palestinian cities and the focus on building the anti-terrorism barrier make it hard for terror cells from different cities to cooperate. This has created an absurd situation; only someone in Lebanon can see the whole picture and connect the suicide bomber in Jenin with the explosive vest in Nablus.

Remember, Iran just wants advanced nuclear technology for peaceful purposes...

Late-night Cheney

Apparently Dick Cheney brought down the house at the satirical Gridiron Club Dinner recently, often in response to questions purportedly asked by well-known members of the Washington press corps.

Lots of familiar faces here tonight. I always feel a genuine bond whenever I see Senator Clinton. She's the only person who's the center of more conspiracy theories than I am.

Dave Broder: "How would you accurately describe your role in this administration? Be honest." I would say that I am a dark, insidious force pushing Bush toward war and confrontation. . . .

Susan Page of USA Today asks, "What do you think of Senator John Edwards?" I think he's cute as a button. . . .

Terry Hunt of AP wants to know, "Has Senator Kerry had Botox treatments?" Terry, I have some guidance on that from Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz:

"The Administration takes this development seriously. Botox, of course, is related to the botulism toxin, which can be processed into high-grade biological weapons. We have dispatched Dr. David Kay . . . to search for the bio-warfare agents we believe hidden in Senator Kerry's forehead. If Senator Kerry has used botox as part of a wrinkle enrichment program, he is in violation of U.N. Resolution 752. Upon receiving Dr. Kay's report, the weapons of mass destruction that Senator Kerry so adamantly insists do not exist . . . may well be above his very nose."

Via The Daily Standard

"A Critique of Pure Hooah"

Jason Van Steenwyk, "the Nattering Nabob of Nebuchadnezzar," has been blogging, and blogging well, while from serving in Iraq. He's coming home later this month, but has some profundities to offer before he leaves. Here's one:

On Faith

I have seen the unshakable faith of the Mohammedan. And I have seen that faith shattered by the effects of American firepower.

I have also seen devout Christians become atheists and atheists turn to God in times of crisis. Personal faith is fragile, in the religious sense, anyway. Man's perception of God is a fickle and protean thing.

But there is no faith so lasting, so innocent, and so pure, as the enduring, simple faith that a Lance Corporal has that the weapon he is nonchalantly pointing at his foot is clear.