Petrified Truth

Crossroads

Nice: KUHT, our local PBS station, is showing the 2005 Cream reunion concert during their pledge drive tonight.

Playing a full concert together for the first time in 37 years earlier this year at London's Royal Albert Hall, Jack Bruce, Ginger Baker, and Eric "Slowhand" Clapton showed they can still burn. Good for them.

Deep space news

The headline from astronomers reads: "Possible Miniature Solar System Discovered."

Interesting. Then the story says:

Astronomers have discovered what they believe is the birth of the smallest known solar system. Peering through ground- and space-based telescopes, scientists observed a brown dwarf — or failed star — less than one hundredth the mass of the sun surrounded by what appears to be a disk of dust and gas.

The brown dwarf — located 500 light years away in the constellation Chamaeleon — appears to be undergoing a planet-forming process that could one day yield a solar system, said Kevin Luhman of Pennsylvania State University, who led the discovery.

The new finding is the smallest brown dwarf to be discovered with planet-forming properties. If the disk forms planets, the resulting solar system will be about 100 times smaller than our own, scientists said.

Pretty cool. But -- admit it -- when you read the headline, didn't you immediately think of Men in Black and that galaxy in a jewel hanging around the neck of a cat?

Another way?

So, former top gun Randy "Duke" Cunningham, an eight-term Republican member of Congress from San Diego, has pleaded guilty to bribery charges and resigned his office in disgrace.

"The truth is I broke the law, concealed my conduct, and disgraced my office," the 63-year-old Republican said at a news conference. "I know that I will forfeit my freedom, my reputation, my worldly possessions, most importantly, the trust of my friends and family."

Investigators said Cunningham, a member of a House Appropriations subcommittee that controls defense dollars, secured contracts worth tens of millions of dollars for those who paid him off. Prosecutors did not identify the defense contractors.

Cunningham was charged in a case that grew out of an investigation into the sale of his home to a defense contractor at an inflated price.

In court documents, prosecutors said Cunningham admitted receiving at least $2.4 million in bribes paid in a variety of forms, including checks totaling over $1 million, cash, antiques, rugs, furniture, yacht club fees and vacations.

John at Blogs of War rants thusly:

I'd like to look to Washington and see a hint of integrity, men and women with real ideas founded on firm principals, but I just don't see it. They all, Republicans and Democrats alike, continue to spew the same truth-obscuring white noise and line their pockets.

Kathryn Jean Lopez at NRO fears wider damage.

Get clean or meet your electoral doom, guys. I wouldn't care so much (about Republicans losing--taking bribes and lying about it we can all hate) if it weren't ideas that are ultimately the casualties (and some pretty big ones when you consider some of the nonsense that goes on there and issues in the hopper). Numbers do sometimes matter. Even in the Senate. Nevermind honesty and responsibility in government.

Ideas and issues seem to the last thing on Republicans' minds right now, and haven't been seen in the Democratic Party in years.

Anyone interested in forming a third party? Let's call it the Reality Party and start building.

National treasure

History comes alive: a Canadian filmmaker is battling American treasure hunters over a watery grave.

Nearly two hundred years after the almost forgotten War of 1812 between Britain and the then fledgling United States, a new skirmish has broken out over the fate of a British warship wrecked off the coast of Nova Scotia and believed to contain precious artefacts hauled from the sacked White House in Washington.

American divers sparked the dispute after they recently located the wreck of what many believe is HMS Fantome, a British Navy brig that led a convoy of ships from Washington to Halifax after British troops stormed the American capital and burned down the White House.

A Halifax-based documentary film-maker and marine explorer, John Chisolm, has launched a campaign to petition the Canadian provincial government in Nova Scotia to rescind the permit it has given to a Massachusetts marine exploration company to explore the wreck, on the grounds that its divers are plundering important treasures.

Mr Chisolm argues that before anything else is taken, he or someone else should be authorised to visit the wreck and properly photograph it and determine what remains.

"We are not asking for the moon," he said. "We are just saying that before some silverware or other artefacts from the White House turn up on eBay we should stop for a second and figure out what we should be doing with the wreck."

If he gets no answer soon from the Nova Scotian government, Mr Chisolm intends going to the site himself to start work on exploring the wreck before nothing is left. Never mind, he says, that the gathering winter weather makes things "a little nutty out there right now".

The existing White House was built to replace the one that the British set alight. Only two items were saved for certain from the conflagration, according to historians. One was a painting of George Washington rescued by the then First Lady, Dolly Madison. The other was a jewellery box given to President Franklin Roosevelt in 1939 by a Canadian who said that one of his forebears had taken it from Washington.

Sleep tight, if you can

As if I needed another reason NOT to go back to New York City, now there's this:

Bedbugs are back and spreading through New York City like a swarm of locusts on a lush field of wheat.

Infestations have been reported sporadically across the United States over the past few years. But in New York, bedbugs have gained a foothold all across the city.

"It's becoming an epidemic," said Jeffrey Eisenberg, the owner of Pest Away Exterminating, an Upper West Side business that receives about 125 bedbug calls a week, compared with just a handful five years ago. "People are being tortured, and so am I. I spend half my day talking to hysterical people about bedbugs."

Last year the city logged 377 bedbug violations, up from just 2 in 2002 and 16 in 2003. Since July, there have been 449. "Its definitely a fast-emerging problem," said Carol Abrams, spokeswoman for the city housing agency.

Iran rolls along

The picture on Iran's deadly activities is becoming more and more clear.

U.S. intelligence agencies are convinced that Iran is working to build nuclear weapons in secret based on a confidential report produced last week by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and on information from a former Iranian opposition figure.

Administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the intelligence on the Iranian nuclear program is circumstantial, but includes information on the country's missile program and work on a nuclear payload-sized warhead for the Shahab-3 missile.

"In terms of Iran's pattern of behavior, it's a very clear picture that they are hiding and deceiving the world about their nuclear-arms program by claiming it is for peaceful purposes," one official said. "They have clearly lied, and they keep getting caught in one lie after another."

Even the EU is being forced to acknowledge Iran's duplicity, but the will to act is still not there.

The European Union yesterday accused Iran of having documents that show how to make nuclear warheads and joined the United States in warning Tehran it faced referral to the U.N. Security Council for sanctions.

Iran, meanwhile, suggested it was considering a compromise to reduce tensions.

Britain, in a statement on behalf of the 25-nation bloc, offered new negotiations meant to lessen concerns over Iran's insistence that it be in full control of uranium enrichment -- a pathway to nuclear arms.

"But Iran should not conclude that this window of opportunity will remain open in all circumstances," according to a statement read by Peter Jenkins, the chief British delegate to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), outside a closed meeting of the board.

Diplomats described the statement as a threat of Security Council referral.

Not much to the EU's threat, is there?

Michael Ledeen says we should, indeed must, support the forces within Iran (and Syria) who are willing to attempt a democratic revolution from within

The main arguments against this policy are that the repressive regimes in Damascus and Tehran are firmly in control; that any meddling we do will backfire, driving potential democrats to the side of the regimes in a spasm of indignant nationalism; and that the democracy movements are poorly led, thus destined to fail. The people who are saying these things — in the universities, the State Department, National Security Council and the Intelligence Community — said much the same about our support for democratic revolution inside the Soviet Empire shortly before its collapse. They forgot Machiavelli's lesson that tyranny is the most unstable form of government, and they forgot how much the world changes when the United States moves against its enemies. Most experts thought Ronald Reagan was out of his mind when he undertook to bring down the Soviet Empire, and hardly a man alive believed that democratic revolution could bring down dictators in Georgia, the Ukraine, and Serbia. All these dictatorships were overthrown by a small active proportion of the population; in Iran, according to the regime's own public opinion polls, the overwhelming majority hate the mullahs. Why should it be more difficult to remove the Iranian Supreme Leader and the Syrian dictator than it was to send Mikhail Gorbachev into early retirement?

What is the alternative? If we do not engage, we will soon find ourselves facing a nuclear Iran that will surely be emboldened to increase its sponsorship of al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Jamaah Islamiah, and Hamas, and will redouble its efforts to shatter Iraq's fragile democratic experiment. Which is the more prudent policy? Cautiously defending Iraq alone, or supporting the revolutionaries against the terror masters?

Active support of the democratic forces in the Middle East would be the right policy, even if there were no terror war, and even if Iran were not a shallow breath away from atomic weapons. It is what America is all about.

Happy Thanksgiving

Here is President Bush's proclamation for Thanksgiving Day 2005:

Thanksgiving Day is a time to remember our many blessings and to celebrate the opportunities that freedom affords. Explorers and settlers arriving in this land often gave thanks for the extraordinary plenty they found. And today, we remain grateful to live in a country of liberty and abundance. We give thanks for the love of family and friends, and we ask God to continue to watch over America.

This Thanksgiving, we pray and express thanks for the men and women who work to keep America safe and secure. Members of our Armed Forces, State and local law enforcement, and first responders embody our Nation's highest ideals of courage and devotion to duty. Our country is grateful for their service and for the support and sacrifice of their families. We ask God's special blessings on those who have lost loved ones in the line of duty.

We also remember those affected by the destruction of natural disasters. Their tremendous determination to recover their lives exemplifies the American spirit, and we are grateful for those across our Nation who answered the cries of their neighbors in need and provided them with food, shelter, and a helping hand. We ask for continued strength and perseverance as we work to rebuild these communities and return hope to our citizens.

We give thanks to live in a country where freedom reigns, justice prevails, and hope prospers. We recognize that America is a better place when we answer the universal call to love a neighbor and help those in need. May God bless and guide the United States of America as we move forward.

We are indeed thankful for all that, and for the love of our family, now located across the fruited plain of this great land, even coast to coast, but always in our thoughts.

That said, we are proud to be in Texas.

Can turkeys fly?

I'm thankful all year long for the quiet insights of Peggy Noonan*, who says this about the current political quagmire trapping both Republicans and Democrats:

I have a view on what Washington itself should do. It should get serious. We have men and women in the field, on the ground, putting themselves in harm's way for us, for our country, for our system, for the way we do things and what we are in history. They deserve--they require and have earned--our gravest sincerity and seriousness.

Democrats who are thoughtful and not just in it for the game should come forward and explain why they backed the Iraq invasion, and what has changed, what they feel is at stake, and what they feel will be the repercussions of unsteadiness or ambivalence or withdrawal, or what will potentially be gained by a declaration of mistake. Republicans should stop with the "How dare you question us at such a dramatic moment, what's wrong with you?"

This is not a mere domestic political battle. We need a serious presentation, one not weighed down with slogans--I cannot tell you how tired people are of "They hate us because we're free"--about what victory will look like, and mean, and be achieved, and what price we will pay for not achieving it. We need to hear, in statements that are not at all emotional or full of passive aggressive push-pull, how the world and the United States are better for our being there. And this is not too much to ask.

*Author of a splendid new book, John Paul the Great : Remembering a Spiritual Father .

Mohamed Atta and Iraq?

Independent investigative journalist Edward Jay Epstein has been examining the shadowy history of a possible pre-9/11 meeting in Prague between lead hijacker Mohamed Atta and Iraqi official Ahmad al-Ani.

To sort out the confusion, I met earlier this month in Prague with Jiri Ruzek, chief at the time of the Czech counterintelligence service, BIS. Mr. Ruzek is in a position to know what happened. He personally oversaw the investigation of Iraq's alleged covert activities that began, with full American collaboration, nearly two years before Mr. Bush became president and resulted, some five months before the 9/11 attack, in the expulsion of Ahmad al-Ani, the Iraqi intelligence officer alleged to have met with Atta.

...

Soon after he arrived in March 1999, [al-Ani] was picked up by U.S. countersurveillance cameras. The interest in him intensified after the BIS learned from its penetration of the embassy that he was attempting to acquire explosives and contact foreign-based Arabs. Then, on April 9, 2001, the BIS's source in the embassy reported that al-Ani had gotten into a car with an unknown foreign Arab. After the car managed to elude BIS surveillance, concern mounted that he was in the process of recruiting his bomber, and, since the BIS could not find the mystery Arab, Mr. Ruzek decided to act pre-emptively. He recommended to Foreign Minister Kavan that al-Ani be immediately expelled from the Czech Republic. He was given 48 hours to get out of Prague on April 19--and he returned to Baghdad.

On Sept. 11, Mohamed Atta's picture was shown on Czech television, and the next day the BIS's source in the Iraqi Embassy dropped a bombshell. He told his BIS case officer that he recognized Atta as the Arab who got in the car with al-Ani on April 9. Mr. Ruzek immediately relayed the secret information to Washington through the CIA liaison. The FBI sent an interrogation team to Prague, which, after questioning and testing the source, concluded that there was a 70% likelihood that he was not intentionally lying and sincerely believed that he saw Atta with al-Ani. The issue remained whether he had mistaken someone who resembled Atta for the 9/11 hijacker. Meanwhile, records were found showing that Atta had applied for a Czech visa in Germany in 2000, and made at least one previous trip to Prague (from Bonn, by bus, on June 2, 2000, flying to Newark, N.J., the next day).

Less than a week after Mr. Ruzek shared the BIS's confidential information with American intelligence, it was leaked.

Mohamed Atta's been investigated thoroughly. Where was he during this time?

The FBI... established that Atta checked out of the Diplomat Inn in Virginia Beach and cashed a check for $8,000 from a SunTrust account on April 4, 2001, and was seen again in Florida on April 11, 2001. But it could not account for his movements during this period (or how he used that money), though there was no record of Atta using his passport to travel outside the U.S.

Where is al-Ani now? Why, he's in custody in Iraq.

Al-Ani was captured by the CIA in Baghdad in 2003, and he remains in detention in Iraq. Though no one has been allowed to interview him, he told the CIA that he was not anywhere near Prague at the time of the meeting. Although Mr. Ruzek termed al-Ani's claim of being elsewhere "pure nonsense," the CIA had evidently found it could go no further with the vexing case.

Normal people would think that the CIA would move swiftly to resolve such a critical question: a possible direct link between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the 9/11 plotters. Has al-Ani even been interrogated? We just don't know (yet). But a lot of vested interests would benefit from his continued silence. And Mohamed Atta ain't talking.

• Edward Jay Epstein - web site

Battle in the Beltway

George Friedman, head of Austin-based consultancy STRATFOR, examines the political debate over Iraq now embroiling Washington, and takes the opportunity to examine root causes.

Whatever the origin of the war... we can pinpoint the moment at which the Bush strategy first ran into trouble. In mid-April 2003, just a few weeks after the fall of Baghdad, guerrilla attacks in the form of small bombings began to take place. By May 2003, attacks were occurring daily. It started to become clear that a guerrilla war had been launched.

When people talk about intelligence failures, they inevitably speak about the WMD issue. That was trivial, however, compared to the failure of the U.S. intelligence community to discover that the Baathists had planned for continued warfare after the fall of Baghdad. Indeed, they did not even resist in Baghdad. Understanding that defeating the United States conventionally was impossible, they focused on mounting a guerrilla war after U.S. forces had occupied the country.

The guerrilla campaign was not spontaneous. It came together much too quickly and escalated far too efficiently for that to be the case. The guerrillas clearly had access to weapons caches, possessed a rudimentary command, control and communications system, and had worked out some baseline tactics. They were too widely dispersed in their operations to be simply a pick-up game. Somebody had set these things in place. That meant that someone should have detected the plans.

...

The administration's position in Iraq is complex but not hopeless. Its greatest challenge is in Washington, where Bush's Republican base of support is collapsing. If it collapses, then all bets will be off in Iraq. Bush's challenge is to stabilize Washington. In fact, from his point of view, Baghdad is more stable than Washington right now. The situation inside the Beltway has now become a geopolitical problem. If Bush can't pull it together, the situation in Iraq will come apart. But to forge the stability he needs in Washington, the president will have to explain what he is doing in Iraq. And he is loath to admit, from his own mouth, that he is making deals with the enemy.

Iraq: The Battle in the Beltway

By George Friedman

With President George W. Bush's poll ratings still in the doldrums, the debate in Washington has become predictably rancorous. For their part, the Democrats continue to insist that Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction to justify the invasion of Iraq, despite the fact that Bill Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998 on the basis of similar intelligence. The Bush administration didn't manufacture evidence on WMD: If evidence was manufactured, it was manufactured during Clinton's administration -- and the Democrats know this. On the other hand, the Bush administration has slammed the Democrats' criticism of the war, with one congresswoman charging a Democratic congressman -- a congressman who served for 37 years in the Marine Corps and was awarded the Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts while in Vietnam -- with cowardice for advocating a withdrawal. Republicans know better.

The current debate is making both sides look stupid. But lest we despair about the fate of the republic, it should be remembered that political debate in the United States has rarely been edifying and, during times of serious tension, has been downright incoherent. What is important about the current debate is not so much its content -- there is precious little of that -- as the fact that it serves as a barometer of the current situation in Washington as well as in Iraq. What the debate is telling us is that we have come to a defining moment in the war and in U.S. policy toward the war. That means that it is time to step back and try to define the root issues.

Intelligence Failures and Guerrilla War

Whatever the origin of the war -- and Stratfor readers are aware of our views on why the war was begun -- we can pinpoint the moment at which the Bush strategy first ran into trouble. In mid-April 2003, just a few weeks after the fall of Baghdad, guerrilla attacks in the form of small bombings began to take place. By May 2003, attacks were occurring daily. It started to become clear that a guerrilla war had been launched.

When people talk about intelligence failures, they inevitably speak about the WMD issue. That was trivial, however, compared to the failure of the U.S. intelligence community to discover that the Baathists had planned for continued warfare after the fall of Baghdad. Indeed, they did not even resist in Baghdad. Understanding that defeating the United States conventionally was impossible, they focused on mounting a guerrilla war after U.S. forces had occupied the country.

The guerrilla campaign was not spontaneous. It came together much too quickly and escalated far too efficiently for that to be the case. The guerrillas clearly had access to weapons caches, possessed a rudimentary command, control and communications system, and had worked out some baseline tactics. They were too widely dispersed in their operations to be simply a pick-up game. Somebody had set these things in place. That meant that someone should have detected the plans.

There were two reasons for this intelligence failure. First, detecting the kinds of preparations being made is not easy. The United States was heavily dependent on networks created by the Shiite leader Ahmed Chalabi, and the guerrillas were Sunnis. We suspect that the sourcing prior to the war blinded the United States to preparations being made in Sunni territory. Second, and more important, Washington had a predetermined concept about Iraq and Iraqi resistance, which many shared.

The United States had fought the Iraqis during Desert Storm, and emerged with a complete lack of respect for the Iraqi forces. Just as the Israelis had developed a concept of the capabilities of the Egyptian forces in the 1967 war -- a concept that proved to be disastrously incorrect by the 1973 war -- so the Americans had reached a set conclusion about Iraqi forces. Moreover, they had drawn political conclusions: Saddam Hussein's regime was unpopular and its fall would be greeted with emotions ranging from indifference to joy. Thus, the Americans focused on what they expected to be a conventional military campaign that would create a blank slate on which the United States could draw a new political map.

There was another side to this. The American experience in guerrilla warfare was fixed in Vietnam. The lesson of Vietnam was that the United States was defeated by two things: first, sanctuaries for the guerrillas that the United States could not attack -- including a complex logistical system, the Ho Chi Minh Trail -- and second, the terrain and vegetation of Vietnam, which prevented effective aerial reconnaissance and placed U.S. forces at a tactical disadvantage. Iraq's topography did not offer sanctuary or cover. Therefore, a full-scale insurgency would be impossible to mount.

The United States had failed to learn important lessons from the Israeli situation, in which guerrilla warfare -- incorporating wildly unconventional means such as suicide bombers -- was waged without benefit of sanctuary or clear supply lines. But more importantly, the Americans had failed to take into account that while Iraq could not field a large, effective conventional force, guerrilla warfare requires a much smaller number of troops. Moreover, they failed to consider that the behavior of forces defending Iraq's seizure of Kuwait during Desert Storm might be different than the behavior of forces resisting American occupation of Iraq proper.

Intelligence failures occur in every war, and this one was certainly much less significant than, for instance, the failure at Pearl Harbor. But this failure was conjoined with the administration's assumption that, given the character of the Iraqi soldier and the nature of Iraqi society, Iraqi resistance would not be sustained. That error, coupled with the intelligence failure, generated today's crisis. The problem is an intelligence failure overlaid by a misconception.

Insurgency and Inertia

If intelligence failures are a constant reality in war, the measure of a military force is how rapidly it recognizes that a failure has occurred and how quickly it adjusts strategy and tactics. In this case, the administration's concept about Iraq blocked the adjustment: The Bush administration's position, as pronounced by Donald Rumsfeld, was that the guerrillas did not constitute an organized force and that they were merely the "dead-enders" of the Baathist government. This remained the administration's position until July 2003.

That meant that for about three months, as the guerrillas gained increasing traction, there was no change in U.S. strategy or tactics. Strategically, Washington continued to view Iraq as a pacified country on which the United States could impose a political and social system, much as it did with Japan and Germany after World War II. This had a specific meaning: The Baathists had been the ruling party in Iraq; therefore, driving former Baathists out of public life, a process that mirrored what happened in Germany and Japan, was the strategy. Tactically, since there were no guerrillas -- only criminals and remnants of the former regime -- no military action had to be taken. U.S. forces remained in an essentially defensive posture against a trivial threat.

The decision to force the Baathists out of public life had two effects. First, it drove the Baathists closer to the guerrillas. They had nowhere else to go. Second, it stripped Iraq of what technocrats it had. After a generation of Baath rule, anyone with technical competence was a member of the Baath party. That meant that the United States had to bring in contractors to operate Iraq's infrastructure. But if we assume that the Baathists over time could be replaced by other Iraqis with sufficient training, then this was a rational policy.

The administration realized its error in June and July 2003. It replaced CENTCOM commander Gen. Tommy Franks earlier than scheduled with Gen. John Abizaid. The problem was that the insurrection, by then, had taken root. It is not clear that there was ever a point when the insurrection could have been stopped, but certainly, the three-month lag between the opening of the guerrilla war and the beginning of an American response had made it impossible to simply stop the insurrection.

At the same time, the insurrection had a basic weakness: It was not an Iraqi insurrection, but a Sunni insurrection. To underscore a point that most Americans seem unable to grasp, most of Iraq never rose against the Americans. The insurrection was confined to the Sunni regions and -- despite some attempts to expand it -- the Shia and Kurds were not only indifferent, but completely hostile, to the aspirations of the Sunnis. If the American Achilles' heel was its inability to force a military solution to the insurrection, the weakness of the Sunnis was their inability to broaden the base of the insurrection.

However, once it was established that the insurrection was under way, the American conception collapsed.

Reaction: Negotiations

First, the view of the Iraqis as essentially passive following the war gave way to a very different picture: The Sunnis were in rebellion, and the Shia were confidently preparing the way for a government they would dominate. Iraq was not Japan. It was not a canvas on which a contemporary MacArthur could overlay a regime. It was not even an entity that could be governed.

This led to the second shift. The United States could not unilaterally shape Iraq. The other side of this coin was that the United States had to make deals with a variety of Iraqi factions -- and this meant not only the Shia, Sunnis and Kurds, but also factions within each of these groups. Indeed, the United States had to deal not only with the Iraqi Shia, but also with the Iranians, who had real influence among them. The United States had to try to split that community -- which in turn meant dealing with former Baathist officials who were supporting the fight against the United States. In other words, the United States had to deal with its enemies.

When you don't win a war, you can end it only through negotiations, and those negotiations will take place with the people you are fighting -- your enemies. At the first battle of Al Fallujah, the Americans made their first public deal with the Baathists. Indeed, the American strategy turned into a political one: U.S. forces were fighting a holding battle with the guerrillas while negotiating intensely with a dizzying array of people that, prior to July 2003, the United States would have had arrested.

The American concept about Iraq is long gone. The failure to identify the intentions of the Baathists after the war is now history. But the essential problem remains in Washington's public posture:

1. The administration cannot admit what is self-evident: it does not have the ability, by itself, to break the back of the Sunni insurrection. To achieve this, the United States needs help from non-jihadist Sunnis -- Baathists -- as well as the Shia. U.S. troops cannot achieve the mission alone.

2. In order to get this help, the United States is going to have to make -- and is, in fact, making -- a variety of deals with players it would have regarded as enemies two years ago, and must make concessions that would seem to be unthinkable.

These negotiations are constant. The United States is doing everything it can to get former Baathists into the political process -- people who were close to Hussein. It is working intently with people like Ahmed Chalabi who were close -- some say very close -- to the Iranians. It is cutting deals left and right like a Chicago ward boss.

This is, of course, precisely what the United States must do. Its best chance at a reasonable outcome in Iraq is to split the Sunni community between jihadist and Baathist, and then use the Baathists to counterbalance the Shia -- without alienating the Shia. It takes the skill of an acrobat, and the fact is that Bush has not been too bad at it. The war itself has become a side show. U.S. troops are not in Iraq to win a war. They are there to represent U.S. will and to act as a counterweight in the political wheeling and dealing. War is politics by other means, so being shocked by this makes little sense. Still, the numbers of U.S. troops are irrelevant to the real issue. Doubling them wouldn't help, and cutting them in half wouldn't hurt. The time for a military solution is long past.

Battle in the Beltway

The problem with the hysteria in Washington is this: In all the negotiations, in all the promises, bribes and threats, the one currency that counts is the American ability to deliver. The ability to craft a deal depends on the ability of Bush to threaten various factions, and to make guarantees that can be delivered on. There is a pretty good chance that some sort of reasonable settlement can be achieved -- not ending all violence, but reducing it substantially -- if the United States has the credibility it needs to make the deals.

The problem the Bush administration has -- and it is a problem that dates back to the beginning of the war -- is its inability to articulate the reality. The United States is not staying the course. It has not been on course -- if by "course" you mean what was planned in February 2003 -- for two years. The course the United States has been on has been winding, shifting and surprising. The fact is that the administration has done a fairly good job of riding the whirlwind. But the course has shifted so many times that no one can stay it, because it disappeared long ago.

Having committed the fundamental error -- and that wasn't WMD -- the Administration has done a sufficiently good job that some sort of working government might well be created in Iraq in 2006, and U.S. forces will certainly be withdrawn. What threatens this outcome is the administration's singular inability to simply state the obvious. As a result, the Democrats -- doing what opposition parties do -- has made it appear that the Bush administration is the most stupid, inept and incompetent administration in history. And the administration has been reduced to calling its critics cowards.

The administration's position in Iraq is complex but not hopeless. Its greatest challenge is in Washington, where Bush's Republican base of support is collapsing. If it collapses, then all bets will be off in Iraq. Bush's challenge is to stabilize Washington. In fact, from his point of view, Baghdad is more stable than Washington right now. The situation inside the Beltway has now become a geopolitical problem. If Bush can't pull it together, the situation in Iraq will come apart. But to forge the stability he needs in Washington, the president will have to explain what he is doing in Iraq. And he is loath to admit, from his own mouth, that he is making deals with the enemy.

This report may be distributed or republished with attribution to Strategic Forecasting, Inc. at www.stratfor.com.

Corruption

Watching Vice President Dick Cheney speak this morning at the American Enterprise Institute on Iraq and the dishonest debate over the use of prewar intelligence.

Transcript to come.

UPDATE: The White House has posted the transcript of VP Cheney's statement.

What is not legitimate -- and what I will again say is dishonest and reprehensible -- is the suggestion by some U. S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of his administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence.

Some of the most irresponsible comments have come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein. These are elected officials who had access to the intelligence materials. They are known to have a high opinion of their own analytical capabilities. And they were free to reach their own judgments based upon the evidence. They concluded, as the President and I had concluded, and as the previous administration had concluded, that Saddam Hussein was a threat. Available intelligence indicated that the dictator of Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and this judgment was shared by the intelligence agencies of many other nations, according to the bipartisan Silberman-Robb Commission. All of us understood, as well, that for more than a decade, the U.N. Security Council had demanded that Saddam Hussein make a full accounting of his weapons programs. The burden of proof was entirely on the dictator of Iraq -- not on the U.N. or the United States or anyone else. And he repeatedly refused to comply throughout the course of the decade.

...

The flaws in the intelligence are plain enough in hindsight, but any suggestion that prewar information was distorted, hyped, or fabricated by the leader of the nation is utterly false. Senator John McCain put it best: "It is a lie to say that the President lied to the American people."

American soldiers and Marines serving in Iraq go out every day into some of the most dangerous and unpredictable conditions. Meanwhile, back in the United States, a few politicians are suggesting these brave Americans were sent into battle for a deliberate falsehood. This is revisionism of the most corrupt and shameless variety. It has no place anywhere in American politics, much less in the United States Senate.

...

In light of the commitments our country has made, and given the stated intentions of the enemy, those who advocate a sudden withdrawal from Iraq should answer a few simple questions: Would the United States and other free nations be better off, or worse off, with Zarqawi, bin Laden, and Zawahiri in control of Iraq? Would we be safer, or less safe, with Iraq ruled by men intent on the destruction of our country?

It is a dangerous illusion to suppose that another retreat by the civilized world would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone. In fact such a retreat would convince the terrorists that free nations will change our policies, forsake our friends, abandon our interests whenever we are confronted with murder and blackmail. A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be a victory for the terrorists, an invitation to further violence against free nations, and a terrible blow to the future security of the United States of America.

Via indispensable C-SPAN, here's the video (Real) as well.

Fallout

Here's one important dimension of the effects of the reprehensible conduct of opportunistic Democrats and invertebrate Republicans: looming demotivation of our own troops in Iraq.

Pentagon officials say they are increasingly worried that Washington's political fight over the Iraq war will dampen what has been high morale among troops fighting a tenacious and deadly enemy.

Commanders are telling Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that ground troops do not understand the generally negative press that their missions receive, despite what they consider significant achievements in rebuilding Iraq and instilling democracy.

The commanders also worry about the public's declining support for the mission and what may be a growing movement inside the Democratic Party to advocate troop withdrawal from Iraq.

"They say morale is very high," said a senior Pentagon official of reports filed by commanders with Washington. "But they relate comments from troops asking, 'What the heck is going on back here' and why America isn't seeing the progress they are making or appreciating the mission the way those on the ground there do. My take is that they are wondering if America is still behind them."

An even more vital aspect is acute awareness by the enemy of signs of weakness -- they are highly tuned into our political debates, because that's their real battlefield of choice.

Zarqawi has assumed room temp?

Here's hoping this comes true.

U.S. forces sealed off a house in the northern city of Mosul where eight suspected al-Qaida members died in a gunfight some by their own hand to avoid capture. A U.S. official said Sunday that efforts were under way to determine if terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was among the dead.

In Washington, a U.S. official said the identities of the terror suspects killed in the Saturday raid was unknown. Asked if they could include al-Zarqawi, the official replied: "There are efforts under way to determine if he was killed."

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information.

On Saturday, police Brig. Gen. Said Ahmed al-Jubouri said the raid was launched after a tip that top al-Qaida operatives, possibly including al-Zarqawi, were in the house in the northeastern part of the city.

During the intense gunbattle that followed, three insurgents detonated explosives and killed themselves to avoid capture, Iraqi officials said. Eleven Americans were wounded, the U.S. military said. Such intense resistance often suggests an attempt to defend a high-value target.

American soldiers controlled the site Sunday, and residents said helicopters flew over the area throughout the day. Some residents said the tight security was reminiscent of the July 2003 operation in which Saddam Hussein's sons, Odai and Qusai, were killed in Mosul.

Israeli site DEBKA adds this:

US forces and forensic experts are examining the bodies of eight high-ranking al Qaeda leaders in Mosul to find out if their chief Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is among them.

A sample of his DNA is in American possession for a match-up.

The bodies they are trying to identify are of 7 men and one woman, who blew themselves up Sunday, Nov. 20, after their hideout in northern Iraq was under siege by a large US force, backed by tanks and helicopters. The bodies are burned black and unrecognizable. Four Iraqi security officers were killed and 10 injured in the operation.

UPDATE: Still no definitive answer, but now the White House is downplaying the idea. That's too bad.

Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman, said reports of al-Zarqawi's death were "highly unlikely and not credible."

CIA successes

Here's a report in the Washington Post about the CIA's work to establish counter-terrorism partnerships with foreign governments.

The CIA has established joint operation centers in more than two dozen countries where U.S. and foreign intelligence officers work side by side to track and capture suspected terrorists and to destroy or penetrate their networks, according to current and former American and foreign intelligence officials.

The secret Counterterrorist Intelligence Centers are financed mostly by the agency and employ some of the best espionage technology the CIA has to offer, including secure communications gear, computers linked to the CIA's central databases, and access to highly classified intercepts once shared only with the nation's closest Western allies.

The Americans and their counterparts at the centers, known as CTICs, make daily decisions on when and how to apprehend suspects, whether to whisk them off to other countries for interrogation and detention, and how to disrupt al Qaeda's logistical and financial support.

The network of centers reflects what has become the CIA's central and most successful strategy in combating terrorism abroad: persuading and empowering foreign security services to help. Virtually every capture or killing of a suspected terrorist outside Iraq since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks -- more than 3,000 in all -- was a result of foreign intelligence services' work alongside the agency, the CIA deputy director of operations told a congressional committee in a closed-door session earlier this year.

The initial tip about where an al Qaeda figure is hiding may come from the CIA, but the actual operation to pick him up is usually organized by one of the joint centers and conducted by a local security service, with the CIA nowhere in sight. "The vast majority of successes involved our CTICs," one former counterterrorism official said. "The boot that went through the door was foreign."

The centers are also part of a fundamental, continuing shift in the CIA's mission that began shortly after the 2001 attacks. No longer is the agency's primary goal to recruit military attaches, diplomats and intelligence operatives to steal secrets from their own countries. Today's CIA is desperately seeking ways to join forces with other governments it once reproached or ignored to undo a common enemy.

Pretty interesting. Nonetheless, read the whole thing and note that (a) it's based on leaks that will almost certainly NOT be prosecuted, and (b) the sources' primary motivation seems to be to make unfavorable comparisons of current CIA chief Porter Goss with the departed George Tenet, while (c) shoring up the Agency's overall rep at the same time.

Being bookish

A columnist at Inside Higher Ed gazes affectionately, if more than a bit cluelessly, at those learned and helpful folk working away in the citadel of learning: the librarians.

This part is about right:

Bookish or no, librarians exist to serve. . . the community, the public, the world. (Pick one.) Damned if this isn’t pretty much what they try to do, in just about every library on every campus I’ve known.

In this, they are at times shockingly in contrast to comparable figures situated either above or below them. Faculty labor under no comparable imperative to be helpful — to students, to visitors, to anybody; office doors can easily shut, or chairs swivel to a back wall. Staff often seem under some imperative to be unhelpful; the secretary at the dean’s office or the clerk at Human Services can send just about anybody away steaming with anger at having been treated rudely. One simply does not hear such stories about librarians. The contrasts are striking. Perhaps they are explained by the difference between a library and all other buildings. None focuses a campus like a library. No building is comparably open to all and none so wholly represents — no, literally possesses — the very rationale of the college or university itself.

Allies

How the Euros are responding to recent terrorists attacks:

The British are feeling the pinch in relation to recent bombings and have raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." Londoners have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies all but ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorised from "Tiresome" to a "Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was during the great fire of 1666.

Also, the French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide". The only two higher levels in France are "Surrender" and "Collaborate." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively paralysing the country's military capability.

It's not only the English and French that are on a heightened level of alert. Italy has increased the alert level from "shout loudly and excitedly" to "elaborate military posturing". Two more levels remain, "ineffective combat operations" and "change sides".

The Germans also increased their alert state from "disdainful arrogance" to "dress in uniform and sing marching songs". They also have two higher levels: "invade a neighbour" and "lose".

Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual and the only threat they worry about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.

No word yet on John Kerry's analysis of the situation.

His Shallow Materials

Here's a scholarly, devastating critique of Philip Pullman's ambitious but warped re-telling of Milton's Paradise Lost, the three novels known collectively as His Dark Materials. One wonders if the readers of Pullman's "anti-Christian fantasy for children" really understand what they are being told by this angry author.

Oddly absent from all of this Miltonic scaffolding is the Son, Jesus, referred to only twice in [His Dark Materials], and then only obliquely, although we do see various servants of the church crossing themselves. Pullman simply doesn’t deal with the significance of Jesus, as human, son of God, or even idea. Christ’s courage, love, and sacrifice are simply ignored, and the church that Pullman creates is all evil. What Pullman attacks, therefore, lacks even the substantiality of a straw man. Pullman’s decision not to include Christ in his version of Paradise Lost is not only a cosmic cop-out, but a clue to the weakness of his story, which is ultimately shallow.

Tip via NRO's The Corner.

Not to be dismissed

President Bush's speech last week on terrorism and the war in Iraq was widely described by the media only in terms of its perceived tactical purpose: to salvage a supposedly sinking presidency. Political tactics aside, little or no attention was paid to the substance of a tough, very specific speech.

So, don't be a dupe; read the full text yourself. Here's a sample:

All these separate images of destruction and suffering that we see on the news can seem like random, isolated acts of madness -- innocent men and women and children who have died simply because they boarded the wrong train, or worked in the wrong building, or checked into the wrong hotel. Yet, while the killers choose their victims indiscriminately, their attacks serve a clear and focused ideology -- a set of beliefs and goals that are evil, but not insane.

Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; and still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it's called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism, subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom. These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Hindus and Jews -- and against Muslims, themselves, who do not share their radical vision.

Many militants are part of a global, borderless terrorist organization like al Qaeda -- which spreads propaganda, and provides financing and technical assistance to local extremists, and conducts dramatic and brutal operations like the attacks of September the 11th. Other militants are found in regional groups, often associated with al Qaeda -- paramilitary insurgencies and separatist movements in places like Somalia, the Philippines, Pakistan, Chechnya, Kashmir and Algeria. Still others spring up in local cells -- inspired by Islamic radicalism, but not centrally directed. Islamic radicalism is more like a loose network with many branches than an army under a single command. Yet these operatives, fighting on scattered battlefields, share a similar ideology and vision for the world.

We know the vision of the radicals because they have openly stated it -- in videos and audiotapes and letters and declarations and on websites.

...

Some might be tempted to dismiss these goals as fanatical or extreme. They are fanatical and extreme -- but they should not be dismissed. Our enemy is utterly committed. As Zarqawi has vowed, "We will either achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to the eternal life." And the civilized world knows very well that other fanatics in history, from Hitler to Stalin to Pol Pot, consumed whole nations in war and genocide before leaving the stage of history. Evil men, obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience, must be taken very seriously -- and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply.

Or, watch the speech via C-SPAN (Real).

Then read Norman Podhoretz's incisive article in Commentary, "Who is Lying About Iraq?"

Figaro, Figaro

More culture tonight, this time both high-quality AND tuneful: Mozart's The Marriage of Figaro, courtesy of the Houston Grand Opera.

• Video - HGO director Anthony Freund discusses Figaro
• Wikipedia - The Marriage of Figaro
• Houston Chronicle - Charles Ward's preview and performance review

Remember the veterans

Today is Veteran's Day, but it is worth recalling that it was originally established as Armistice Day: a day to commemorate the armistice that finally ended the fighting on the Western Front of the long, bloody "Great War"-- World War I.

Here in the U.S. it's easy to overlook the impact that this terrible conflict had on an entire generation in Europe.

During the course of World War One, eleven percent (11%) of France's entire population were killed or wounded! Eight percent (8%) of Great Britain's population were killed or wounded, and nine percent (9%) of Germany's pre-war population were killed or wounded! The United States, which did not enter the land war in strength until 1918, suffered one-third of one percent (0.37%) of its population killed or wounded.

The casualties were concentrated on young men, of course. I've read estimates that as much as one-third of that generation's men were killed or wounded, on all sides.

Author and former soldier J.R.R. Tolkien felt the war's impact keenly, and it had a profound influence on his life and writing.

"One has personally to come under the shadow of war to feel fully its oppression; but as the years go by it seems now often forgotten that to be caught in youth by 1914 was no less hideous an experience than to be involved in 1939 and the following years. By 1918 all but one of my close friends were dead."

The memorable scenes of Frodo, Samwise, and Gollum inching their way through the haunted Dead Marshes before the Black Gate of Morder seem right out of Tolkien's memories of the trenches and blasted landscapes of the Western front.

In his spare time off duty, in the barracks behind the front, and often disturbed by music from gramophones (as he would later say), Tolkien started writing in a notebook the beginning of a mythology that he initially called The Book of Lost Tales. He would never finish this book, although most of it would eventually be published as The Silmarillon.

In those months Death was omnipresent. Bodies of British and German soldiers lay unburied, stinking and rotting, around him in No Mans Land. Writing became for Tolkien a way to deal with this brutality and barbarity around him. He wrote whenever he found an opportunity, "in huts full of blasphemy and smut, or by candle light in bell-tents, even down in dugouts under shell fire".

Here in America, we've set aside November 11 as Veteran's Day, a day to honor living veterans. But it's important to remember the deep sacrifices made by our friends and allies in Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and elsewhere. Keep them in your thoughts, too.

Don't mess with a Texas grandma

Here's the unexpurgated 911 tape of a close encounter between a pistol-packing, 66-year old grandmother from Arlington, Texas and the unfortunate fugitive who unwisely chose her house as an impromptu hideout. Bad idea.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram tells the tale:

A 66-year-old grandmother shot an intruder in her north Arlington home early Wednesday as he grabbed for her gun, she told police.

Susan Gaylord Buxton said the training she received to earn her concealed-handgun permit saved her life.

"If I didn't have a gun to protect myself, I probably wouldn't be here," she said.

The man, identified as Christopher Lessner, 22, was under police guard Wednesday at Harris Methodist Fort Worth, where he was being treated for a leg wound, said Christy Gilfour, Arlington police spokeswoman.

Buxton said she used a .38-caliber revolver. Gilfour confirmed that the woman has a gun permit.

Buxton said she could have killed the man because her concealed-carry instructors taught her to aim for the torso. But she said she aimed for his leg. He was hit in the upper leg, police said.

"He said, 'Ow, you shot me!''' Buxton said.

Police said the woman fired another shot but missed.

Our 14-year old daughter is inspired, and wants to obtain a personal firearm as soon as possible.

Sloppy spooks

Former CIA case officer Reuel Marc Gerecht remains deeply unimpressed by the crocodile tears being shed over the so-called "outing" of the CIA's Valerie Plame.

Truth be told... the agency doesn't care much at all about cover. Inside the CIA, serious case officers have often looked with horror and mirth upon the pathetic operational camouflage that is usually given to both "inside" officers (operatives who carry official, usually diplomatic, cover) and nonofficial-cover officers (the "NOC" cadre), who most often masquerade as businessmen. Yet Langley tenaciously guards the cover myth--that camouflage for case officers is of paramount importance to its operations and the health of its operatives.

Know the truth about cover--that it is the Achilles' heel of the clandestine service--and you will begin to appreciate how deeply dysfunctional the operations directorate has been for years. Only a profoundly unserious Counter-Proliferation Division would have sent Mr. Wilson on an eight-day walkabout in Niger to uncover the truth about uranium sales to Saddam Hussein and then allowed him to give an oral report.

The revealing of Valerie Plame's true employer has in all probability hurt no one overseas. You can rest assured that if her (most recent) outing had actually hurt an agent from her past, we would've heard about it through a CIA leak.

Langley's systemic sloppiness--the flimsiness of cover is but the tip of the iceberg of incompetence--has repeatedly destroyed agent networks and provoked "flaps" with some of our closest allies. A serious CIA would never have allowed Mr. Wilson to go on such an odd, short "fact finding" mission. It never would have allowed Ms. Plame potentially to expose herself by recommending such an overt mission for her mate, not known for his subtlety and discretion. With a CIA where cover really mattered, Mr. Libby would not now be indicted. But that's not what we have in the real world. We have an American left that hates George W. Bush and his vice president so much that they have become willing dupes in a surreal operational stage-play. You have to give credit to Langley: Overseas it may be incompetent; but in Washington, it can still con many into giving it the respect and consideration it doesn't deserve.

Cornered

This is no software blog (John at Blogs of War is more interested), but this news reported by The Wall Street Journal will eventually affect us all. Microsoft often performs well when it feels threatened.

Microsoft Corp. Chairman Bill Gates has endorsed a radical reshaping of how his company develops software and services, citing an internal memo that says much about the challenges Microsoft faces, and underscores the rise of an emerging technical leader at the company.

In an email dated Oct. 30 sent to top Microsoft executives and engineers, Mr. Gates said the software giant needs to better address technologies and trends that are fueling a new wave of money-making on the Internet. "The next sea change is upon us," Mr. Gates wrote.

The core of Mr. Gates's email, which was examined by The Wall Street Journal, is a memo from Ray Ozzie, Microsoft's chief technology officer, who describes some of Microsoft's missed opportunities and also tips a hat to companies such as Google Inc., Salesforce.com Inc., Skype Technologies SA and other start-ups that have pioneered Internet services.

The memo by Mr. Ozzie is a window to the announcement in September that Microsoft would reorganize into three major business divisions, each tasked with adding new online services to the company's existing product lines.

It also confirms the role that Mr. Ozzie is playing in pushing the newly formed groups to create online services that can be paid for by subscription or through advertising. Last week, Messrs. Gates and Ozzie announced a step toward that goal -- new online services coupled with Microsoft's Windows operating system and Office suite of software.

In his memo, Mr. Ozzie directs each of Microsoft's three business units to start mapping out a strategy for developing their own services -- two of which were announced last week. He also describes a plan to appoint by Dec. 15 top executives at each of the three business groups.

Hi-Medium-Lo

Moving through time and space:

Odd transitions over a period of 48 hours.

Raising the stakes

I think this can now qualify as an intifada, even though the AP can't bring itself to mention the "M" word (barely) until paragraph seven. "Youths" indeed.

Rioting by French youths spread to 300 towns overnight and a man hurt in the violence died of his wounds, the first fatality in 11 days of unrest that has shocked the country, police said Monday.

As urban unrest spread to neighboring Belgium and possibly Germany, the French government faced growing criticism for its inability to stop the violence, despite massive police deployment and continued calls for calm.

On Sunday night, vandals burned more than 1,400 vehicles, and clashes around the country left 36 police injured, setting a new high for overnight arson and violence since rioting started last month, national police chief Michel Gaudin told a news conference.

Australia, Austria, Britain, Germany and Hungary advised their citizens to exercise care in France, joining the United States and Russia in warning tourists to stay away from violence-hit areas.

Alain Rahmouni, a national police spokesman, said the man who was beaten died at a hospital from injuries sustained in the attack, but he had no immediate details of the victim's age or his attacker.

The man was caught by surprise by an attacker after rushing out of his apartment building to put out a trash can fire, Rahmouni said.

Apparent copycat attacks spread outside France for the first time, with five cars torched outside Brussels' main train station, police in the Belgian capital said.

The mayhem started as an outburst of anger in suburban Paris housing projects and has fanned out nationwide among disaffected youths, mostly of Muslim or African origin, to become France's worst civil unrest in more than a decade.

Related:

The stupids

Savvy political observer Jim Hoagland is unimpressed with the Democrats' new strategy to cripple President Bush over the Iraq war.

I was so stupid that I let our idiot president and an Arab con man fool me on a life-and-death issue.

As a campaign theme for elections in 2006 and 2008, that proposition may lack a little something. Yet Democrats who supported the invasion of Iraq but now cannot support the consequences of their vote are flirting with it. To them, good night, and good luck.

Near Armageddon

The more the experts dig, the more interesting evidence they find that corroborates the ancient texts.

Israeli archaeologists said Saturday they have discovered what may be the oldest Christian church in the Holy Land on the grounds of a prison near the biblical site of Armageddon.

The Israeli Antiquities Authority said the ruins are believed to date back to the third or fourth centuries and include references to Jesus and images of fish, an ancient Christian symbol.

"This is a very ancient structure, maybe the oldest in our area," said Yotam Tepper, the head archaeologist on the dig.

The dig took place over the past 18 months at the Megiddo prison in Israel's northern Galilee region, with the most significant discoveries taking place in the past two weeks, Tepper said. Scholars believe Megiddo to be the New Testament's Armageddon, the site of a final war between good and evil.

Tepper said the discovery could reveal more about an important period of Christianity, which was banned until the fourth century.

"Normally, we have from this period in our region historical evidence from literature, not archaeological evidence," he said. "There is no structure you can compare it to. It is a very unique find."

UPDATE: Here's a better article by the Washington Post.

Vertebrate or invertebrate?

William Kristol points out correctly that no Administration can succeed when it's acting like a helpless victim. That's never more crucial than during a time of war when a reprehensible and irresponsible opposition demonstrates over and over that it will stop at nothing to claw its way to political advantage.

Last Tuesday, Harry Reid took to the floor of the Senate and asserted that the Bush administration had "manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions." This is a serious charge; if it were true, it might well be an indictable offense. But it is, in reality, a slander. Shouldn't the president defend his honor?

After all, the bipartisan Silberman-Robb commission found no evidence of political manufacture and manipulation of intelligence. The administration's weak and disorganized attempts to respond to Joe Wilson's misrepresentations put the lie to the existence of any campaign to "destroy" opponents of the war. In fact, the administration has done amazingly little to confront, and discredit, attacks from antiwar Democrats.

It was a shock last week when White House spokesman Scott McClellan emerged for a few moments from his defensive crouch to point out that Clinton administration officials and Senate Democrats also believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Will he, and others in the administration, return to this theme? Will they call the now antiwar Democrats on their disreputable rewriting of history? Incidentally, are the Democrats ready to defend the proposition that we should have left Saddam in power? Is it okay with them if Zarqawi drives us out of Iraq? Will the administration challenge them as to what their alternative is? Will the administration take the time to put spokesmen forward, and recruit surrogates, to make the case for victory? Or do they enjoy being punching bags at the White House?

Chinese espionage

This is rotten news: China's been harvesting military secrets from the U.S., using Chinese-born naturalized U.S. citizens. It's no surprise that they would try, but disappointing that they could succeed so thoroughly.

Four persons arrested in Los Angeles are part of a Chinese intelligence-gathering ring, federal investigators said, and the suspects caused serious compromises for 15 years to major U.S. weapons systems, including submarines and warships.

U.S. intelligence and security officials said the case remains under investigation but that it could prove to be among the most damaging spy cases since the 1985 one of John A. Walker Jr., who passed Navy communication codes to Moscow for 22 years.

The Los Angeles spy ring has operated since 1990 and has funneled technology and military secrets to China in the form of documents and computer disks, officials close to the case said.

Key compromises uncovered so far include sensitive data on Aegis battle management systems that are the core of U.S. Navy destroyers and cruisers.

China covertly obtained the Aegis technology and earlier this year deployed its first Aegis warship, code-named Magic Shield, intelligence officials have said.

The Chinese also obtained sensitive data on U.S. submarines, including classified details related to the new Virginia-class attack submarines.

Officials said based on a preliminary assessment, China now will be able to track U.S. submarines, a compromise that potentially could be devastating if the United States enters a conflict with China in defending Taiwan.

Suggestion: Congress concern itself with improving the protection of our critical military secrets more than it worries about the faked outrage of Joe Wilson and his friends. China is a threat; government functionaries with names like "Scooter" are not.

Charles and Camilla make the rounds

Gerard Baker, Washington correspondent for The Times, has been observing the visit of Great Britain's Prince Charles and his royal consort, Camilla. It's been, well, undramatic.

The truth is that this has been one of the most anonymous royal trips that I can recall. It’s the first official visit by the heir to the throne in two decades, but a poll in USA Today found 81 per cent of Americans expressed no interest whatsoever in the event.

The good news, then, for the royals is that their worst fears, that an America still in thrall to the Diana cult, would rise up in the spirit of 1776 and throw the monarchical chump out of the country, have not been realised. The bad news is that this is probably because nobody has noticed he’s here.

Not since the third Adam and the Ants comeback tour has so much energy been expended by so many to so little attention. The Prince and the Duchess have proceeded ceremoniously from one event to the next like harlequins at a convention for the colour-blind.

The papers and the nightly news have reported the visit, but it has generally ranked below items about the baby giant panda’s first steps at the National Zoo and yet another shake-up at CNN.

And yet the Prince and his courtiers should not be downhearted. That he is being ignored is an encouraging sign. It means that Americans, like the Prince himself, have finally grown up. All those years of Diana mania, all that breathless media coverage of the royal marital chaos seem so 1990s. In an America still hung over from all that excess, it’s reassuring to be able to pay no attention to a Prince who is just a harmless old bore with slightly batty ideas and a dowdy wife.

Memorials

Via The Wall Street Journal, here's an exploration of how the Internet is changing how we remember our fallen veterans.

The Iraq conflict is the first Internet war, replete with emails, satellite-based 3-D maps and even blogs by troops. But the Web is also playing a sadder role: commemorating the war's casualties through online tributes choked in grief.

From the start of the war, a number of newspapers and television networks have kept up-to-date honor rolls on their Web sites showing the American soldiers who have been killed -- the number passed the 2,000 mark last week, as coming Veterans Day ceremonies will surely note.

These memorial sites pack some strong emotions; even at "thumbnail" size, the pictures have much more impact than simply reading a list of names....

No one knows how long these tribute pages will be around. Web sites tend to come and go, and while there are some people in technology who are beginning to think about the problem of archiving today's Internet for future generations, there is always the chance these sites will end up a decade or two hence as dead bits on a hard drive lost in some dusty warehouse.

Families intent on preserving a Web tribute for their children's children should print it out and put it in a scrapbook. The Web is best at amplifying and articulating current concerns and preoccupations...before moving on to the next thing.

But if ephemeral, the Web is also extremely personal. The Vietnam Veteran's Memorial lists the name of every soldier who died in that war. These Web sites go the next step, telling us not just the soldiers' names but what they, their families and their friends looked like, the clothes they wore and the rooms they lived in.

Traditional monuments, those made with granite, seem so cold and impersonal by comparison. Perhaps they will be designed differently from now on because of the manner in which people are grieving today on the Internet. It's yet another example of how the Internet changes everything.

Related:

Democrats' political theater

Frustrated by their failure to get Karl Rove's scalp from the "Plamegate" special prosecutor last week, Senate Democrats started a round of parliamentarian guerrilla war today.

The U.S. Senate went into a rare closed session today after Democrats invoked a seldom used rule to back their demands for greater oversight by the Republican-controlled body, particularly on the Bush administration's use of intelligence in taking the country to war in Iraq.

The unexpected shutdown immediately provoked a furious reaction from Senate Republicans, who denounced it as a stunt and an affront.

The closed session lasted a little more than two hours before Republicans mustered a vote to resume meeting in open session.

Republicans complained that going into closed session interrupted important business.

But Democrats said they were prepared to invoke Rule 21 daily to put pressure on the GOP leadership for the intelligence investigation and other oversight matters.

Durbin said it was the first time that Rule 21 had been invoked in more than 25 years. Although closed sessions have been held from time to time more recently -- the Senate shut its doors last year to discuss intelligence-gathering -- the previous closures were done by agreement of both parties.

Durbin added, "We're serving notice on [Senate Republicans] at this moment: Be prepared for this motion every day until you face the reality. The Senate Intelligence Committee has a responsibility to hold this administration accountable for the misuse of intelligence information. They have promised this investigation. We will continue to make this request until they do it."

Majority Leader Bill Frist seemed shocked that his rivals would stoop so low.

Frist angrily denounced the move, charging that "the United States Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership." He told reporters that he has never as majority leader "been slapped in the face with such an affront to the leadership of this grand institution."

Frist called the closed session "a pure stunt" by Reid, Durbin and the Democratic leadership. "This is an affront to me personally," he said. "It's an affront to our leadership. It's an affront to the United States of America. And it is wrong."

Frist sharply criticized Reid personally, saying he could never trust the Democratic leader again.

Which is more useless? The Democrats' inability to create any coherent political strategy beyond unending opposition, or Republicans' unwillingness to recognize the reality of an ongoing knife fight with a relentless and unscrupulous enemy?

According to Hotline On Call, here's what created the excuse for a rumble: a report last week from the National Journal.

Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, overruling advice from some White House political staffers and lawyers, decided to withhold crucial documents from the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004 when the panel was investigating the use of pre-war intelligence that erroneously concluded Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, according to Bush administration and congressional sources.

[A]dministration officials said in interviews that they cannot recall another instance in which Cheney and Libby played such direct personal roles in denying foreign policy papers to a congressional committee, and that in doing so they overruled White House staff and lawyers who advised that the materials should be turned over to the Senate panel.

Administration sources also said that Cheney's general counsel, David Addington, played a central role in the White House decision not to turn over the documents. Addington did not return phone calls seeking comment. Cheney's office declined to comment after requesting that any questions for this article be submitted in writing.

Reported before Fitzgerald's decision not to indict Karl Rove, this was a non-issue. But after the no-bill, it's a constitutional crisis. Sure.