Petrified Truth

Getting it done

For once, I agree with something emanating from the powers-that-be in Dallas.

In 2005, Houston became the heart of Texas.

For resilience, resourcefulness and good old Texas neighborliness on a scale that did the whole state proud, Houston is the 2005 Dallas Morning News Texan of the Year.

To this day, an estimated 150,000 survivors of hurricanes Katrina and Rita call the Houston area home, and surveys show that most of them plan to stay. When Katrina hurled them, battered and destitute, onto Houston's doorstep, Houston met the challenge with the largest shelter operation in the nation's history. Singling out Houston is no slight to the scores of other communities that opened their arms to the storms' victims, including those right here in North Texas. They, too, performed nobly and deserve vigorous applause. But the demands on Houston, by dint of simple geography, were of a stunningly higher magnitude.

Talk to the people at the center of the relief effort, and, over and over, you'll hear words that echo those of Issa Dadoush, the city of Houston's director of building services: "These are Americans. They're our neighbors. If not Houston, who else?"

Or, as Harris County Judge Robert Eckels said, "We had no choice. It was just something that needed to be done."

To get it done, "we" became far more than government. The extraordinary effort depended on churches, companies, nonprofits and tens of thousands of ordinary people. Commandeered by fate, they responded with the very qualities that distinguish a Texan of the Year: trailblazing, independence, staring down adversity, and affecting or influencing lives.

Year in Review

Our favorite movies of 2005, in rough order of preference:

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Serenity
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
Walk the Line
Batman Begins
Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit
Robots
The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith

Movies we missed but will see on DVD or PPV:

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Kingdom of Heaven
Because of Winn-Dixie
Pride and Prejudice
Zathura
Valiant
Chicken Little
Shopgirl
Howl's Moving Castle
Madagascar
Fantastic Four
March of the Penguins

Under-achievement award: Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith. It could have been, and should have been, great. George Lucas is just lost.

There and back again

Well, we've returned to Texas from our holiday trek to SC, spreading the 1,050-mile (not counting U-turns) drive over two days. Essentially we ate as much home cooking as we possibly could and left the Palmetto State when lifting a fork became no longer feasible.

So the lack of maintenance of levees around N.O. was entirely typical. The question is, what did they really do with all the tax money?

Al Qaeda eyes Houston?

The soft glow of the holidays and its accompanying buzz from too many desserts have served to blur the feeling of despondency we get watching the deeply irresponsible conduct of so many public officials during this time of war.

Are the defeatist Democrats and invertebrate Republicans awake?

There is no doubt that a number of operations -- many of which have been deemed serious -- have been disrupted inside the United States since the Sept. 11 attacks. Al Qaeda operations, funding and infrastructure have been eliminated brick by brick; however, our intelligence assessment indicates that although al Qaeda might have been seriously affected, it is not necessarily down for the count. If one believes -- which we do -- that al Qaeda has the operational capability or operators in place, the words "I call on mujahideen to concentrate their attacks on Muslims stolen oil" sound like a possible signal to go forth with an operation inside the United States, specifically Houston.

Why Houston?

First, we have long held that the Houston area is a logical target for al Qaeda because of the region's refineries and chemical plants and its very busy port. Furthermore, we have received what we believe to be credible reports that some of the facilities in the Houston area have been targets of suspected hostile pre-operational surveillance. We have also recently written that there is really only one target in the Western Hemisphere that, if damaged, could have a major effect on energy supplies: the Houston Ship Channel. The channel snakes from Galveston Bay through a network of refineries and petrochemical plants and into downtown Houston. The channel itself is not vulnerable, but if a large craft -- perhaps an oil tanker -- were sunk in it, it would block the United States' most vulnerable energy corridor. We do not think this vulnerability has escaped al Qaeda's attention.

Additionally, jihadist operators -- specifically the 1993 cell led by Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, the Blind Sheikh -- have used Houston as a safe-haven and for logistical staging. Ahmed Ajaj, who was convicted for his participation in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, lived in Houston before leaving the United States to attend bin Laden's Khalden training camp in Afghanistan. The investigation of the 1993 bombing revealed that Ajaj, Mahmoud Abouhalima, Ibrahim Elgabrowny and Abdel Basit (a.k.a. Ramzi Yousef) had a number of contacts in the Houston area. Later investigations of jihadist activity in the United States involving such people as Wadih el Hage, Abdul Hakim Murad and Ali Mohammed have also led authorities to learn of jihadist connections to the area. Notably, this later group -- el Hage, Murad and Ali Mohammed -- was also connected to the 1993 group of Ajaj, Abouhalima, Elgabrowny and Basit.

We discussed last summer our belief that Houston currently harbors an
operational jihadist cell that has gone to ground due to law enforcement pressure. We do not believe this cell has been neutralized or ferreted out by the FBI.

Though many people have focused on concerns about al Qaeda obtaining chemical, biological and radiological weapons, we remain skeptical of the group's efficacy in developing and employing chemical weapons. As seen in the case of Aum Shinrikyo's sarin gas attacks in the Tokyo subway, chemical weapons are very difficult to manufacture, transport and effectively employ. Comparing Aum Shinrikyo's attacks in Tokyo with al Qaeda's attacks in Madrid and London clearly shows that conventional explosives deliver far more "bang for the buck" than chemical and biological weapons.

That said, we still believe a strike on a major chemical plant -- hitting the right plant in the right place -- could cause a toxic cloud that would potentially kill thousands of citizens in a radius as big as 25 miles. Many people have held that al Qaeda would not necessarily pick chemical plant locations since the loss of life within the compounds would not be that large. However, in much the same way that the collapse of the World Trade Center caused more death and destruction than the initial impacts of the aircraft flown into it, the toxic cloud released by a chemical plant attack could carry with it a death toll that far surpasses that of the initial attack. If the right facility were attacked, the outcome could be more devastating than the Sept. 11 attacks and could rival the 1984 accident at the Union Carbide Corp. chemical plant in Bhopal, India, that killed thousands of people. This would be an "outside of the box" chemical attack that would far surpass an Aum Shinrikyo-type attack. And considering the complex logistics of acquiring nuclear material for a dirty bomb or radioactive detonation device for an attack in the United States, a chemical plant strike would be comparatively simple to carry out.

Another Angle on al-Zawahiri's Call to Action
12-21-05

By Fred Burton

In our Dec. 9 Terrorism Intelligence Report, we discussed an al Qaeda videotape that was made in September but whose full contents did not hit the news media until early Dec. 7. The tape created a firestorm over Al Jazeera's motivations and intentions in failing to include critical portions of the message in its initial broadcast. The contents of the videotape, which featured deputy al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, struck an industrial nerve; for the first time, a senior al Qaeda leader was heard calling specifically -- and offering ideological justification -- for strikes against energy infrastructure.

Although we at Stratfor would like to think we are perfect, it is important to admit when we have failed to consider other possibilities when evaluating and assessing the global threat from al Qaeda. As we have said before, the world of terrorism is murky. Very rarely can one draw a lucid picture of the shifts and signals, although as a company we take on the laborious task of making sense of the picture. After again discussing al-Zawahiri's statement -- and its implications -- we realized we had failed to consider one point that needs to be examined. In our Dec. 9 report we note that al-Zawahiri says on the videotape, "I call on mujahideen to concentrate their attacks on Muslims' stolen oil, from which most of the revenues go to the enemies of Islam, while most of what they leave is seized by the thieves who rule our countries."

We still believe that when al-Zawahiri told jihadists to target the "Muslims' stolen oil," he was not issuing a warning to the oil industry or the West but rather was giving al Qaeda supporters targeting guidance. It is important to note that this statement did not say exactly where the oil infrastructure was to be targeted. The assumption on our part -- which we are now rethinking -- was that al Qaeda followers would attempt to carry out this mandate where they can feasibly do so -- meaning within their local reach, namely the Middle East. We know al Qaeda has strength in the Middle East, so that's one logical area to beef up defenses around oil infrastructure; but we failed to look at the possibility that al-Zawahiri's comments could have been directed toward a sleeper operation or jihadist sympathizers inside the United States. We don't know that they have strength within the United States, but it is a possibility that should be seriously considered and evaluated in looking at the threat from 360 degrees.

Why the United States?

We have long believed that a small number of deeply embedded al Qaeda
sleeper agents are inside the United States and have gone to ground because of the U.S. counterterrorism community's relentless counterterrorism disruption activities. In addition to this, it has been well documented that organizations in the United States such as the al-Kifah Refugee Center, popularly known as the “Brooklyn Jihad Office,” have sent thousands of people from the United States to be trained and to fight in the jihad. Though many of these individuals did not formally pledge allegiance to Osama bin Laden or become part of the al Qaeda organization, they did become part of the wider jihadist movement. Many of them maintain connections with friends and fellow jihad veterans. Al Qaeda's Internet use and the proliferation of jihadist forums have made it possible for these jihad alumni to maintain or re-establish contact with the cause and their friends. In the past, jihadist operational planners have gone to places such as Brooklyn and mobilized jihad veterans to conduct attacks.

Al Qaeda also has used the Internet to introduce aspiring jihadists to its ideology through vehicles such as the Al-Battar Camp online magazine, which provides online training and instructional manuals. Thus, as al Qaeda's status changed from group to movement, individuals no longer needed to travel to Afghanistan to receive ideological indoctrination and paramilitary training.

There is no doubt that a number of operations -- many of which have been deemed serious -- have been disrupted inside the United States since the Sept. 11 attacks. Al Qaeda operations, funding and infrastructure have been eliminated brick by brick; however, our intelligence assessment indicates that although al Qaeda might have been seriously affected, it is not necessarily down for the count. If one believes -- which we do -- that al Qaeda has the operational capability or operators in place, the words "I call on mujahideen to concentrate their attacks on Muslims stolen oil" sound like a possible signal to go forth with an operation inside the United States, specifically Houston.

Why Houston?

First, we have long held that the
Houston area is a logical target for al Qaeda because of the region's refineries and chemical plants and its very busy port. Furthermore, we have received what we believe to be credible reports that some of the facilities in the Houston area have been targets of suspected hostile pre-operational surveillance. We have also recently written that there is really only one target in the Western Hemisphere that, if damaged, could have a major effect on energy supplies: the
Houston Ship Channel. The channel snakes from Galveston Bay through a network of refineries and petrochemical plants and into downtown Houston. The channel itself is not vulnerable, but if a large craft -- perhaps an oil tanker -- were sunk in it, it would block the United States' most vulnerable energy corridor. We do not think this vulnerability has escaped al Qaeda's attention.

Additionally, jihadist operators -- specifically the 1993 cell led by Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, the Blind Sheikh -- have used Houston as a safe-haven and for logistical staging. Ahmed Ajaj, who was convicted for his participation in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, lived in Houston before leaving the United States to attend bin Laden's Khalden training camp in Afghanistan. The investigation of the 1993 bombing revealed that Ajaj, Mahmoud Abouhalima, Ibrahim Elgabrowny and Abdel Basit (a.k.a. Ramzi Yousef) had a number of contacts in the Houston area. Later investigations of jihadist activity in the United States involving such people as Wadih el Hage, Abdul Hakim Murad and Ali Mohammed have also led authorities to learn of jihadist connections to the area. Notably, this later group -- el Hage, Murad and Ali Mohammed -- was also connected to the 1993 group of Ajaj, Abouhalima, Elgabrowny and Basit.

We discussed last summer our belief that Houston currently harbors an
operational jihadist cell that has gone to ground due to law enforcement pressure. We do not believe this cell has been neutralized or ferreted out by the FBI.

Though many people have focused on concerns about al Qaeda obtaining chemical, biological and radiological weapons, we remain skeptical of the group's efficacy in developing and employing chemical weapons. As seen in the case of Aum Shinrikyo's sarin gas attacks in the Tokyo subway, chemical weapons are very difficult to manufacture, transport and effectively employ. Comparing Aum Shinrikyo's attacks in Tokyo with al Qaeda's attacks in Madrid and London clearly shows that conventional explosives deliver far more "bang for the buck" than chemical and biological weapons.

That said, we still believe a strike on a major chemical plant -- hitting the right plant in the right place -- could cause a toxic cloud that would potentially kill thousands of citizens in a radius as big as 25 miles. Many people have held that al Qaeda would not necessarily pick chemical plant locations since the loss of life within the compounds would not be that large. However, in much the same way that the collapse of the World Trade Center caused more death and destruction than the initial impacts of the aircraft flown into it, the toxic cloud released by a chemical plant attack could carry with it a death toll that far surpasses that of the initial attack. If the right facility were attacked, the outcome could be more devastating than the Sept. 11 attacks and could rival the 1984 accident at the Union Carbide Corp. chemical plant in Bhopal, India, that killed thousands of people. This would be an "outside of the box" chemical attack that would far surpass an Aum Shinrikyo-type attack. And considering the complex logistics of acquiring nuclear material for a dirty bomb or radioactive detonation device for an attack in the United States, a chemical plant strike would be comparatively simple to carry out.

How Would Al Qaeda Carry Out Such An Attack?

There are a few likely attack scenarios:

1. Air attack. There is no doubt that passenger aircraft are more secure today than on Sept. 11, 2001; however, vulnerabilities remain, such as the use of cargo and private aircraft that take off from private airstrips around the nation. A fully fueled cargo Boeing 747 or a large general-aviation aircraft such as a Boeing Business Jet or Global Express nose-diving into a chemical plant could cause significant damage. We are highly skeptical that air assets could shoot these inbound missiles down in time to prevent an attack.

2. Internal sabotage. An al Qaeda sympathizer employed inside a chemical plant could be used wittingly or unwittingly to compromise security. The operator -- or sleeper -- could place homing devices or beacons for inbound air attacks, or sabotage a valve or other piece of critical equipment. The Bhopal accident reportedly was caused by a faulty valve.

3. Suicide attack. Though security is better today at major oil and chemical plants in the United States than it was prior to the Sept. 11 attacks, it is still possible for a suicide operative to drive a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device into many chemical plants.

Though striking a proper target or node within a chemical plant is still an issue, al Qaeda and other jihadist groups have an extraordinarily high number of engineers in their midst. Nidal Ayyad, who was convicted for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was a chemical engineer who worked for a large chemical company in Morristown, N.J.

Ayyad used his company affiliation to order chemicals for the truck bomb built and used in the 1993 attack -- a present-day al Qaeda member or jihadist sympathizer with similar qualifications employed at a chemical company would not have much difficulty pinpointing the exact place to strike.

One could argue that al Qaeda has had ample time and opportunity to carry out a follow-on attack since Sept. 11. The United States has invaded two countries, and the al Qaeda leadership has lost command-and-control capabilities. However, al Qaeda is an organization that adapts to security and counterterrorism measures and still manages to kill (as seen in Madrid, London, Bali and Amman).

There is no doubt the intent to strike remains, but it all boils down to operational capability. Can al Qaeda pull it off? We remain convinced it can. Why? Discussions with various counterterrorism officials in the United States have revealed that several terrorism suspects are currently under investigation in the United States, and many more are suspected of being embedded in the U.S. social fabric.

Unfortunately, it is reasonable to assume that the United States will not be able to stop all of the threats. For example, look at the recent hotel attacks in Jordan, which has the best intelligence service in the Middle East in our assessment (no offense intended to Israel's Mossad). The Jordanian GID has thwarted plots specifically directed at hotels in the past but was unable to stop the trifecta on the American hotels in Amman. Sooner or later, the FBI will also fail. The law of probability is against U.S. counterterrorism efforts. Shortly after the July 7 bombings in London, an anonymous British counterterrorism official told The Independent, "It is concerning that none were on the intelligence radar. There are quite probably others we do not know about out there. Over the past 10 years, we have been successfully disrupting a number of groups of people who could have carried out bombing attacks similar to those we have seen in the past few weeks. We can't disrupt them all. They only have to be lucky once -- and they have been. At some point there will be another suicide or bombing group." This maxim still applies to the United Kingdom -- and the United States.

Although security at many U.S. refineries, chemical plants and other sites initially was beefed up after Sept. 11, security at those sites has gradually relaxed. In the four and a half years since the Sept. 11 attacks, the economic implications of such security measures have been felt and security budgets have been dramatically reduced.

Whereas impatience and complacency have led Americans to let down their guard, al Qaeda values and uses patience in planning its attacks. Bin Laden himself said in his "Message to the American People" that al Qaeda will not quit or equivocate, and we believe him. Eight and a half years elapsed between the first World Trade Center bombing and the Sept. 11 attacks. There were several thwarted plots to hit the U.S. mainland between the two bombings, but al Qaeda patiently and intently continued toward its goal of striking big where it would hurt the United States the most. Just because several more attacks have been pre-empted since Sept. 11 does not mean the United States is in the clear. Even if the FBI can thwart the next major attack, there are others in the pipeline, and these plots will continue to threaten Americans as long as al Qaeda exists. The enemy is still patiently planning, and as the United States relaxes, it will become easier for it to attack successfully.

We hope we are wrong and that al-Zawahiri's message was not intended for a U.S. audience -- but consider this analysis an alternative to what has become the conventional wisdom.

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

A child was born

Thanks be to God

Here's Rev. Donald Sensing on the true meaning of Christmas.

When our Christmas season is over and we have returned to our usual routines, let us remember that the gospel we have and the salvation we are given is just that which we have been told. The grace of God is not mysterious or incomprehensible. It is just as we have been told in God’s Word:

A savior was born in Bethlehem two thousand years ago.

Like the shepherds, we live in a world when the memory of Christmas will be overcome by other events. The shepherds’ sheep would still get sick or be attacked by wolves. Our cars will still break down and we’ll still have bills to pay. On the outside, everything will seem the same. But now our lives are different. God is with us!

The glory of the Lord has shone around us, and through our doubts and fears there are heavenly words: Fear not, for behold, there are glad tidings of great joy. Unto you is born a Savior!

Home for the holidays

On the road for the holiday season: from Texas through Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia to South Carolina. Interesting to note the evidence of hurricane damage along the I-10 and I-12 corridors -- plenty of ruined buildings, shredded forests, and broken billboards.

Meanwhile, Merry Christmas to all.

Authority to protect

Here's The Wall Street Journal on the overheated and largely fake controversy over President Bush's use of the NSA to wiretap suspected al Qaeda terrorists.

Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold wants to be President, and that's fair enough. By all means go for it in 2008. The same applies to Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who's always on the Sunday shows fretting about the latest criticism of the Bush Administration's prosecution of the war on terror. But until you run nationwide and win, Senators, please stop stripping the Presidency of its Constitutional authority to defend America.

That is the real issue raised by the Beltway furor over last week's leak of National Security Agency wiretaps on international phone calls involving al Qaeda suspects. The usual assortment of Senators and media potentates is howling that the wiretaps are "illegal," done "in total secret," and threaten to bring us a long, dark night of fascism. "I believe it does violate the law," averred Mr. Feingold on CNN Sunday.

The truth is closer to the opposite. What we really have here is a perfect illustration of why America's Founders gave the executive branch the largest measure of Constitutional authority on national security. They recognized that a committee of 535 talking heads couldn't be trusted with such grave responsibility. There is no evidence that these wiretaps violate the law. But there is lots of evidence that the Senators are "illegally" usurping Presidential power--and endangering the country in the process.

I'd much rather have a President acting aggressively, but responsibly, than sit and wait for nuclear craters in Washington, D.C. and here in Houston. Or to watch Senators scurry for their private, secure bunker while the rest of us take it in the face.

It's bad enough that Democrats are now explicitly hungering for a chance to impeach President Bush if they win back the House next year, but it's even worse for Republicans to help foment a needless, reckless argument.

Winning the war of ideas

Here's an insightful essay by National Defense University professor James S. Robbins: Al-Qaeda Versus Democracy.

This spring, practically unnoticed by the mainstream media, the battle lines were formally drawn in the “war of ideas.” President George W. Bush used his January 2005 inaugural address to deliver an unapologetic tribute to freedom and the premises that undergird Western liberalism: liberty, the individual, and self-government. The policy of the United States, Bush proclaimed, is to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture.

In response, Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Osama Bin Laden’s chief lieutenant in Iraq, released an audiotape of his own. In it, he denounced the very principles President Bush has pledged to promote. “We have declared a bitter war against the principle of democracy and all those who seek to enact it,” Zarqawi announced. According to him, elections, representative government and popular sovereignty are “the essence of infidelity and deviation from the true path,” and any who seek to promote this “malicious ideology,” whether in Iraq or elsewhere, will be treated as infidels and put to death.

This frank exchange should serve as a useful primer for all of those who believe that the War on Terror is at its core a struggle against global privation, or a cross-cultural misunderstanding that can be settled by a search for common ground. Quite the opposite is true. We are engaged in an ideological conflict that resists compromise.

This can be difficult for people who live in liberal societies to appreciate; after all, compromise is at the core of democracy. But the radical Islamists are pursuing a universalist vision of the Sharia (Islamic law), or at least their interpretation of it, and utopians seldom seek the middle way. The voice of the people has no place in a political system that follows rules ordained by God. The public mood is variable, but the law is eternal. For Zarqawi and others of his kind, law was created to rule man, not vice-versa. And those who disagree have no place in their world.

...

Al-Qaeda’s opposition to liberal democracy has important implications for U.S. strategy in the Middle East, particularly its articulated objective of “countering the ideological support for terrorism.” That term, however, is something of a misnomer. It implies that al-Qaeda’s ideology boasts some level of support. In fact, al-Qaeda’s ideas are wildly unpopular, and even among Islamic radicals are considered extremist. The group promotes a distinct vision of social and political order that is irreconcilable with democracy. The points of disagreement are at such a fundamental level as to make compromise between the two systems impossible. And there is no way to negotiate a settlement, primarily because al-Qaeda seeks conquest, not conciliation. Furthermore, because al-Qaeda is pursuing a universal vision and sanctifies violence, peaceful coexistence is impossible. The group will resist violently the establishment of democracy anywhere in the region for as long as it is able to do so.

WMD and Iraq

A columnist in Ha'aretz reminds us that we don't yet have the last word on Iraq, weapons of mass destruction and intelligence failures. Things look different to some top intelligence and military officials in Israel.

[S]enior officials, who are intimately familiar with Israeli intelligence material, still believe that Iraq really did have weapons of mass destruction. Not nuclear weapons, of course. Israel never made this claim. The Americans indeed erred in inflating the insubstantial information on nuclear plans. But there were chemical and biological weapons. And if the Americans have decided otherwise, especially for political reasons, they are now making a second error on top of the first error.

Some of these officials have shared their views with their American contacts. "Why didn't we find the weaponry?" the Americans asked. The Israelis told them politely: because most of it was transferred to Syria before the war. Such suspicions have been openly published. All the intelligence services in the West are familiar with photographs of trucks sneaking across the border at night, accompanied by senior Iraqi officers. The problem is that the moment Israel turns an accusatory finger toward Syria, it is immediately suspected of ulterior, political motives. "They can think whatever they want," an Israeli officer says. "Perhaps it is impossible to change their opinion, but it is also impossible to change the truth. Material was transferred to Syria in the dark of the night, on the very eve of the war. Therefore, the Americans did not find it." And this, as suggested above, is the more polite explanation.

The other explanation is expressed in more intimate circles in order to avoid irritating the American friend. But in the course of two weeks, I heard it from three different Israelis who were in positions that had access to intelligence during the war. Some of them are still serving in such positions. "They simply don't know how to search properly," said one.

The lack of clarity about this crucial question, and the Bush administration's willingness to passively allow others to frame the debate, is a lingering mystery.

Stephen F. Hayes has been asking and getting stonewalled.

For the second time in recent weeks the Department of Defense has denied a request from The Weekly Standard to release unclassified documents recovered in postwar Iraq. These documents apparently reveal, in some detail, activities of Saddam Hussein's regime in the years before the war. This second denial could also be the final one: According to two Pentagon sources, the program designed to review, translate, and analyze data from the old Iraqi regime may be shuttered at the end of December, not just placing the documents beyond the reach of journalists, but also making them inaccessible to policymakers.

As a consequence, the ongoing debate over the Iraq war and its origins is taking place without crucial information about the former Iraqi regime and its relationships with presumed U.S. allies and known U.S. enemies. Despite the determined shredding and burning efforts of regime officials in the dying days of Saddam Hussein's government, much of this information still exists--in handwritten documents, in videotapes and audiotapes, in photographs and satellite images, on computer hard drives.

The result: Much of today's debate about the threat posed three years ago by Saddam Hussein's Iraq is based on past assessments by U.S. intelligence agencies that we now know had no real sources on the ground in Iraq. The Bush administration seems remarkably uninterested in discovering, now that we have reams of material from Saddam's regime, what the actual terror-related and WMD-related activities of that regime were. But as the political debate of recent weeks makes clear, answering these questions remains central to the debate over the war. More important, it cannot be the case that there's nothing helpful to the ongoing war on terror in these files.

Posted by Alan at 04:48 PM

Sharon stroke

Israel's Ariel Sharon has suffered a stroke today.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was rushed to hospital in Jerusalem on Sunday evening after suffering a minor stroke, the Israeli media reported.

According to Channel 2 television, 77-year-old Sharon was taken to Hadassah University Hospital, Ein Karem, after complaining of feeling unwell.

Channel 10 news said that the prime minister was unconscious when he arrived, but later regained consciousness. Channel 2 said that Sharon was in a confused state, and that he had been taken for a neurological scan.

A good deal for Islam

Sagacious Michael Ledeen is unimpressed with the conventional wisdom about Iran and its nuclear agenda, as exemplified by the Christian Science Monitor.

The Monitor says that "Reading the Islamic regime’s real intentions about harming Israel or assembling a nuclear weapon has been like watching a group of men wrestle in a tent–from the outside." But that is false. Even their own "pragmatist," Rafsanjani, loudly announced a few years ago that Iran would be delighted to drop an atomic bomb on Israel, even if there were a response in kind. It would be a good deal for Islam, Rafsanjani said, because half the world’s Jews would have been incinerated, while only a small fraction of the world’s Muslims would have died.

• Christian Science Monitor - Being Irate on Iran, but Wisely
• Technorati - Iran

Using a vital tool

President Bush struck back today at the posturing, short-sighted politicians who are trying to create a self-righteous uproar about his use of the National Security Agency to protect America.

To fight the war on terror, I am using authority vested in me by Congress, including the Joint Authorization for Use of Military Force, which passed overwhelmingly in the first week after September the 11th. I'm also using constitutional authority vested in me as Commander-in-Chief.

In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.

This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.

As the 9/11 Commission pointed out, it was clear that terrorists inside the United States were communicating with terrorists abroad before the September the 11th attacks, and the commission criticized our nation's inability to uncover links between terrorists here at home and terrorists abroad. Two of the terrorist hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf al Hamzi and Khalid al Mihdhar, communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn't know they were here, until it was too late.

The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after September the 11th helped address that problem in a way that is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities. The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time. And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad.

The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland. During each assessment, previous activities under the authorization are reviewed. The review includes approval by our nation's top legal officials, including the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President. I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups.

The NSA's activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA's top legal officials, including NSA's general counsel and inspector general. Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it. Intelligence officials involved in this activity also receive extensive training to ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent of the authorization.

This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties. And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I'm the President of the United States.

Talent crisis in oil & gas

Consultants Deloitte & Touche have analyzed how employment trends in the oil & gas industry are resulting in a potential crisis of expertise.

With booming demand and rising prices, the American oil and gas exploration and production upstream business may be facing a talent crisis, according to a new report from Deloitte Research. The talent shortfall could impact America’s ability to find and develop new oil and gas resources that are critically needed to keep pace with market demand.

“The gap between accelerated growth of upstream companies and available talent to do the work is widening at an alarming rate,” says James R. Sowers, director, Human Capital Advisory Services, Deloitte Consulting LLP. “We already are seeing some companies turning away exploration and production projects for lack of available employees. If left unchanged over the longer term, this trend could significantly impact oil and gas production.”

Since the wave of mergers and acquisitions starting in the 1980s, the U.S. upstream oil and gas industry has dropped an astounding 1.1 million jobs. Today, the average age in the oil and gas industry is 49, among the oldest of any industry, and within the next five years about 40-60 percent of these aging geoscientists and petroleum engineers will be eligible to retire. In addition, fears of layoffs, negative perceptions about environmental and the cyclical nature of the industry have proven to be strong deterrents in being able to attract the next generation of bright, talented workers.

So few Americans seem to know or care how one of our most vital industries has been hollowed out since the 1980s; they just prefer to howl when pump prices climb. Maybe if self-serving politicians would stop vilifying the industry at every turn, bright young people would want to work in an industry that makes the world go around.

Full report (pdf) via Deloitte Research.

Iraqis win big

So Iraqis turned out in droves to vote yesterday, obliterating the predictions of defeatist politicians and self-described "experts" in the U.S.

Turnout in what was a mostly peaceful election was overwhelming. Election officials estimated up to 11 million of the nation's 15 million registered voters took part in Thursday's vote, which would put overall turnout at more than 70 percent.

In the Shiite province of Najaf province, as many as 80 percent of the voters cast ballots for the four-year parliament. So many Sunni Arabs voted Thursday that ballots ran out in some places.

Much of the mainstream U.S. media was in a funk as predictions of doom did not come to pass, and much of their spin (aka "reporting") is as negative as they think they can get away with.

But millions of ink-stained Iraqi fingers say otherwise, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page is more insightful.

President Bush has done better at explaining his Iraq policy of late, but the most eloquent rebuttal to American defeatists came from the millions of Iraqis who voted yesterday for a new parliament. They are now practicing the democracy that the U.S. promised when it deposed Saddam Hussein. This is a great achievement.

Voter turnout was reportedly high across nearly all regions of the country, including such former no-go zones as Fallujah and Tal Afar in the Sunni Triangle. Terrorists managed only scattered attacks, far fewer than in the first round of elections in January.

The rap on January's vote was that Iraq's Sunni Arabs didn't participate, but this time they did and in huge numbers. The rap on October's referendum was that most Sunnis opposed the new Iraq constitution, but this time they voted to have a say in writing any changes to that charter. Jordan's King Abdullah and other neighboring Sunni leaders complain that Iraq's Sunnis are mistreated. But the truth is that yesterday's vote gave Iraq's Sunni Arabs a far larger voice in shaping their government than average Sunnis have in Jordan or Syria, Saudi Arabia or Egypt.

Another mark of success is that no one really knows which parties will emerge victorious. In that sense, the vote was more genuinely competitive than the average U.S. Congressional election.

Reaching lower

John Kerry further lowers the Democratic Party's "'too dumb for the Democrats' threshold." It's a talent, I guess. And destructive to our nation.

Bill's legacy

Wise Peggy Noonan makes a number of important points today about war, presidents, and communication, including this:

There is the sense sometimes with this White House that they learned more from Bill Clinton than from Ronald Reagan. What did Mr. Clinton and his spinners and handlers and media mavens and compulsive line-givers teach us? "It's all about Bill." He's the man, he's at the center, he's so brilliant. He had a tough childhood, he's building a legacy, it's Bill Bill Bill.

The Bush White House--and the president--have in the same way made Iraq a Bush drama. Bush won't cut and run, Bush has personal relationships, Bush is like Harry Truman, Bush will hold to his word. Look, he's landing on an aircraft carrier. It's all about Bush.

Modern White Houses think the man has to be the emblem of the actions. But thinking this way is not helpful, not in any serious way, and the Bush White House should stop it. Because it's mildly creepy; because it puts too much on your guy, which means he has to be lucky for everything to work, and nothing's worse to rely on in politics than luck. And most important because it's actually not about Bush, it's about America.

Ronald Reagan fought a war, but he didn't think it was about him, he thought it was about America. He didn't think it was about his principles; he thought it was about America's. He didn't land on aircraft carriers; he built them.

This war isn't about Bush, or shouldn't be, or can't be if it is to have meaning, and to end in success. It's bigger than that. It's bigger than him.

As usual, read the whole thing.

Resolve

Even in the face of constant mewling from the defeatist Left and invertebrate trembling from nervous Republicans, President Bush intends to finish the job in Iraq.

The constant headlines about car bombings and killings have led some to ask whether our presence in Iraq has made America less secure. This view presumes that if we were not in Iraq, the terrorists would be leaving us alone. The reality is that the terrorists have been targeting America for years, long before we ever set foot in Iraq.

We were not in Iraq in 1993, when the terrorists tried to blow up the World Trade Center in New York. We were not in Iraq in 1998, when the terrorists bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. We were not in Iraq in 2000, when the terrorists killed 17 American sailors aboard the USS Cole. There wasn't a single American soldier in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001, when the terrorists murdered nearly 3,000 people in the worst attack on our home since Pearl Harbor.

These acts are part of a grand strategy by the terrorists. Their stated objective is to drive the United States and coalition forces out of the Middle East so they can gain control of Iraq and use that country as a base from which to launch attacks against America, overthrow moderate governments in the Middle East, and establish a totalitarian Islamic empire that stretches from Spain to Indonesia. Hear the words of the terrorists. In a letter to the terrorist leader Zarqawi, the al Qaeda leader Zawahiri has outlined plans that will unfold in several stages. These are his words: "... Expel the Americans from Iraq. ... Establish an Islamic authority over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq... Extend the jihad wave to secular countries neighboring Iraq." End quote.

To achieve these goals, the terrorists are targeting innocent men, women, and children. The enemy has only the ability to create chaos for the cameras with spectacular acts of violence. They know they cannot defeat us militarily. So they're trying to break our will in the hopes of getting America to leave the battlefield early, and they cite Vietnam as a reason they can prevail. Zawahiri, in his letter to Zarqawi, wrote, "The aftermath of the collapse of the American power in Vietnam -- and how they ran and left their agents -- is noteworthy." In the past, al Qaeda has said that American pullouts of Lebanon and Somalia showed them that America is weak and could be made to run. And now the terrorists think they can make America run in Iraq. There's only one way the terrorists can prevail: if we lose our nerve and leave before the job is done. And that is not going to happen on my watch.

Watch the video (Real) via C-SPAN.

Worse than Nazis

Renowned Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis says he is more worried about America than about Iraq.

Bernard Lewis, the British-born Princeton University historian who was one of the intellectual fathers of the Bush administration policy of Mideast transformation, worries about Iraq's future ahead of this week's parliamentary elections.

But not for the reasons one might think.

Mr. Lewis's concern is less about insurgent and terrorist violence and more about growing U.S. domestic opposition to President Bush's Iraq engagement. "I would describe my position as one of cautious optimism," he says in an interview. "My optimism derives from events in the Mideast and my caution derives from observing the United States."

...

While Mr. Bush continues his U.S. campaign to rally support for his Iraq engagement, Mr. Lewis provides some dramatic context for why Americans ought to pay attention. U.S. officials, many of whom served during the Cold War, have likened the Mideast challenge to the democratic transformation of the former Soviet bloc. Mr. Lewis instead compares the threat to Europe at the beginning of World War II.

He believes the threat in some respects is greater than even that of the Nazis, as radical Islam is fanatical, violent, global in its reach and enjoys significant support. Beyond that, the terrorists have suicidal tendencies and nuclear potential. Another difference: The world's will to stand together is much more lacking now than it became then. "If Churchill and his team had to face the same sort of opposition as does President Bush, Hitler might well have won the war," he says.

Christmas spirit

Some things just never change.

Increasing broadband at home and restrictive internet usage policies at work haven't made a discernable dent this holiday season in employees' penchant for shopping online while at work.

Last week marked the unofficial start of the online holiday buying season for many retailers, with traffic to retail sites up approximately 9 percent from last year, according to tracking firm Hitwise. More than half of weekday traffic since the Monday after Thanksgiving, according to measurement firm Nielsen/NetRatings, has come from workplace internet users.

"It's as strong as ever," said NetRatings retail analyst Heather Dougherty. "Once they get over the Thanksgiving hump, they're ready to do their holiday shopping. Monday, they can't help but keep it going, even if they're at work."

Companies are growing more accepting of the idea that workers will fritter away part of the workday shopping online, according to purveyors of employee internet-monitoring tools. Most employers engage in some sort of monitoring of workplace internet access. But rather than block all shopping sites, employers preoccupied with productivity are more apt to set time limits on access.

"At one time, they were more adamant about not having anyone do any browsing or personal activity over the workday," said Susan Larson, vice president of threat analysis and research at SurfControl, a developer of monitoring applications. "Now there's a realization that there should be more of a work-life balance."

Well, "work-life balance" sounds better than "things are out of control around here," doesn't it?

Genocide in the making

Mark Steyn has been pondering the wild and intentionally provocative statements of Iran's so-called "president" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is swaggering these days in the special way that only despots with nuclear weapons can display.

Needless to say, the response of the diplomatic corps, including ours, has been vapid and weak. At the U.N., Iran's plans actually align with a no-longer disguised agenda to help escort Israel out of existence.

What does it mean when one party can talk repeatedly about the liquidation of an entire nation and the other party responds that this further "underscores our concerns," as if he'd been listening to an EU trade representative propose increasing some tariff by half a percent?

In Iran, President Ahmaddamytree figures that half the world likes his Jew proposals and the rest isn't prepared to do more than offer a few objections phrased in the usual thin diplo-pabulum.

We assume, as Neville Chamberlain, Lord Halifax and other civilized men did 70 years ago, that these chaps may be a little excitable, but come on, old boy, they can't possibly mean it, can they? Wrong. They mean it but they can't quite do it yet. Like Hitler, when they can do it, they will -- or at the very least the weedy diplo-speak tells them they can force the world into big concessions on the fear that they can.

Look at the broader picture. The State Department's Ereli noted that President Ahmageddon's comments appear "to be a consistent pattern of rhetoric that is both hostile and out of touch with values that the rest of us in the international community live by."

Is that even true? That the Iranian president is "out of touch" with the "values" of the "international community?" The Hudson Institute's lively "Eye On The U.N." Web site had an interesting photograph of how the "international community" marked Nov. 29 -- the annual "International Day Of Solidarity With The Palestinian People." Kofi Annan and other bigwigs sat on a platform with a map flanked by the "Palestinian" and U.N. flags. The map showed Palestine but no Israel. The U.N., in other words, has done cartographically what Iran wants to do in more incendiary fashion: It's wiped Israel off the map.

There has always been a slightly post-modern quality to sovereignty in the transnational age: We pretend the Syrian foreign minister is no different from the New Zealand foreign minister, and in so doing we vastly inflate the status of the former at the expense of the latter. But with Ahmadinejad we're going way beyond that. If a genocidal fantasist is acceptable in polite society, we'll soon find ourselves dealing with a genocidal realist.

John at Blogs of War has been watching Ahmadinejad too.

Smokin' Joe

Democrats and other assorted leftists, full of defeatist fervor over the war in Iraq, are turning their resentment against Sen. Joe Lieberman.

In public statements and a newspaper column, Lieberman has argued that Bush has a strategy for victory in Iraq, has dismissed calls for the president to set a timetable for troop withdrawal, and has warned that it would be a "colossal mistake" for the Democratic leadership to "lose its will" at this critical point in the war.

Lieberman's contrarian behavior is not out of character -- he is far more hawkish than the majority of Democrats, and he has vigorously backed invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein from the beginning. But the latest defense of Bush and his stinging salvos at some in his own party have infuriated Democrats, who say he is undercutting their effort to forge a consensus on the war and draw clear distinctions with Republicans before the 2006 elections.

Liberal political groups, including Democracy for America and MoveOn.org, are considering ways to retaliate, including backing a challenge to Lieberman in next year's Democratic primary. Former senator and Connecticut governor Lowell P. Weicker Jr., an opponent of the war, has vowed to run as an independent, absent a strong Democratic or Republican challenge to Lieberman.

Smokin' Joe isn't backing down.

[A]t a Tuesday news conference on Iraq, Lieberman gave his party a tongue-lashing for pressing Bush too forcefully.

"History will judge us harshly if we do not stretch across the divide of distrust to join together to complete our mission successfully in Iraq," Lieberman said. "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril."

Years ago, Lieberman would have been remarkably ordinary in his willingness to put America first during a time of war. Now he's rapidly becoming a pariah to his own party.

• Joe Lieberman - Our Troops Must Stay (WSJ)
• Joe Lieberman - official Senate site

Getting the word out

John at Blogs of War had a conversation today with two congressmen recently returned from the front lines in Iraq.

Their observations are a powerful counterpoint to the blatant defeatism being purveyed by much of the Democratic Party right now (defeatism so extreme that some Party experts say it's a risky political liability).

Immigration and acts of uncaring

Here goes Peggy Noonan, thinking again: this time about immigration and who gets to decide.

The questions I bring to the subject are not about the flow of capital, the imminence of globalism, or the implications of uncontrolled immigration on the size and cost of the welfare state. They just have to do with what it is to be human.

What does it mean that your first act on entering a country--your first act on that soil--is the breaking of that country's laws? What does it suggest to you when that country does nothing about your lawbreaking because it cannot, or chooses not to? What does that tell you? Will that make you a better future citizen, or worse? More respecting of the rule of law in your new home, or less?

If you assume or come to believe that that nation will not enforce its own laws for reasons that are essentially cynical, that have to do with the needs of big business or the needs of politicians, will that assumption or belief make you more or less likely to be moved by that country, proud of that country, eager to ally yourself with it emotionally, psychologically and spiritually?

When you don't earn something or suffer to get it, do you value it less highly? If you value it less highly, will you bother to know it, understand it, study it? Will you bother truly to become part of it? When you are allowed to join a nation for free, as it were, and without the commitment of years of above-board effort, do you experience your joining that country as a blessing or as a successful con? If the latter, what was the first lesson America taught you?

...

This is what I fear about our elites in government and media, who will decide our immigration policy. It is that they will ignore the human questions and focus instead, as they have in the past, only on economic questions (we need the workers) and political ones (we need the Latino vote). They think that's the big picture. It's not. What goes on in the human heart is the big picture.

Our elites are lucky people. They were born in a suburb, went to Yale, and run the world from a desk. Which means this great question, immigration, is going to be decided by people who don't know what it is to sleep on a bench. Who don't know what it is to earn your space, your place. Who don't know what it is to grieve the old country and embrace the new country. Who don't know what it is to feel you're a little on the outside and have to earn your way in to the inside. Who think it was without a cost, because it was without cost for them.

The problem with our elites as they make our immigration policy is not that they have compassion and open-mindedness. It is that they are unknowing and empty-headed.

MSM weltaunschaung

The savvy team at ABC's The Note is candid today about where conventional wisdom stands among the chattering classes.

Leaving aside for today the debate about whether the Old Media is liberally biased — and leaving aside for today the debate over what James Carville would call "the President's record of failure and corruption" — all of the Republican Party's problems boil down to this:

Between now and the State of the Union speech at the end of next month (both an eternity and an eye blink), the Old Media is rooting for certain things.

Let's be clear: not every journalist in every case is rooting for these things. But the dominant sweep of the tone of the coverage now and through January (and quite possibly beyond that) is based on press desires:

1. The President should cave in and bring the troops home from Iraq.

2. The moderate Republicans in the House should get to be more powerful than a locomotive, and pretty much dictate what goes in every bill.

3. Meaning: there should be no drilling in ANWR.

4. Senators Snowe and Collins should announce their opposition to Judge Alito's nomination.

5. Filibustering Supreme Court nominees is fine; the nuclear option is not.

6. The Fitzgerald investigation should widen to include more Bush Administration officials, but not other reporters.

7. Jack Abramoff should sing like Whitney Houston did early in her career — loud, strong, and long.

8. Republican civil war should break out over immigration.

9. The Frist probe should widen.

10. Tom DeLay should be convicted and lose his leadership post forever.

11. Despite all this, the President should be super nice to us during the photo receiving line at the media White House holiday parties.

How would Don Evans, Don Fierce, Don Sipple, Mary Matalin, Ken Duberstein, Ed Gillespie, Bill Kristol, Karen Hughes, Sig Rogich, and Mark McKinnon suggest the White House and its Hill allies solve this problem?

Perhaps we are about to find out.

Vigorous diplomacy

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had some choice words for America's witless critics today on the subject of how detainees in the War on Terror are handled.

International law allows a state to detain enemy combatants for the duration of hostilities. Detainees may only be held for an extended period if the intelligence or other evidence against them has been carefully evaluated and supports a determination that detention is lawful. The U.S. does not seek to hold anyone for a period beyond what is necessary to evaluate the intelligence or other evidence against them, prevent further acts of terrorism, or hold them for legal proceedings.

With respect to detainees, the United States Government complies with its Constitution, its laws, and its treaty obligations. Acts of physical or mental torture are expressly prohibited. The United States Government does not authorize or condone torture of detainees. Torture, and conspiracy to commit torture, are crimes under U.S. law, wherever they may occur in the world.

Violations of these and other detention standards have been investigated and punished. There have been cases of unlawful treatment of detainees, such as the abuse of a detainee by an intelligence agency contractor in Afghanistan or the horrible mistreatment of some prisoners at Abu Ghraib that sickened us all and which arose under the different legal framework that applies to armed conflict in Iraq. In such casesthe United States has vigorously investigated, and where appropriate, prosecuted and punished those responsible. Some individuals have already been sentenced to lengthy terms in prison; others have been demoted or reprimanded.

As CIA Director Goss recently stated, our intelligence agencies have handled the gathering of intelligence from a very small number of extremely dangerous detainees, including the individuals who planned the 9/11 attacks in the United States, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, and many other murders and attempted murders. It is the policy of the United States that this questioning is to be conducted within U.S. law and treaty obligations, without using torture. It is also U.S. policy that authorized interrogation will be consistent with U.S. obligations under the Convention Against Torture, which prohibit cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The intelligence so gathered has stopped terrorist attacks and saved innocent lives – in Europe as well as in the United States and other countries. The United States has fully respected the sovereignty of other countries that cooperate in these matters.

Because this war on terrorism challenges traditional norms and precedents of previous conflicts, our citizens have been discussing and debating the proper legal standards that should apply. President Bush is working with the U.S. Congress to come up with good solutions. I want to emphasize a few key points.

-- The United States is a country of laws. My colleagues and I have sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. We believe in the rule of law.

-- The United States Government must protect its citizens. We and our friends around the world have the responsibility to work together in finding practical ways to defend ourselves against ruthless enemies. And these terrorists are some of the most ruthless enemies we face.

-- We cannot discuss information that would compromise the success of intelligence, law enforcement, and military operations. We expect that other nations share this view.

Some governments choose to cooperate with the United States in intelligence, law enforcement, or military matters. That cooperation is a two-way street. We share intelligence that has helped protect European countries from attack, helping save European lives.

It is up to those governments and their citizens to decide if they wish to work with us to prevent terrorist attacks against their own country or other countries, and decide how much sensitive information they can make public. They have a sovereign right to make that choice.

Debate in and among democracies is natural and healthy. I hope that that debate also includes a healthy regard for the responsibilities of governments to protect their citizens.

Read the whole thing.

Walk the Line

Highly recommended: Walk the Line, James Mangold's rousing biopic about music legends Johnny Cash and June Carter.

• Walk the Line - official site
• Johnny Cash - official site
• Wikipedia - Johnny Cash
• Wikipedia - June Carter Cash
• Overlooked music - Johnny Cash - The Complete Sun Recordings 1955-1958

Defining nobility

Historian Victor Davis Hanson explains why he thinks the McCain Amendment strengthening prohibitions against "torture" is, in fact, a good idea.

Contrary to popular belief, throughout history torture has brought results -- either to gain critical, sometimes lifesaving intelligence or more gratuitously to obtain embarrassing confessions from terrified captives.

The question, then, for a liberal democracy is not whether torture in certain cases is effective but whether its value is worth the negative publicity and demoralizing effect on a consensual society that believes its cause and methods must enjoy a moral high ground far above the enemy's.

[W]e might as well admit that by forswearing the use of torture, we will probably be put at a disadvantage in obtaining key information and perhaps endanger American lives here at home. (And, ironically, those who now allege we are too rough will no doubt decry "faulty intelligence" and "incompetence" if there is another terrorist attack on a U.S. city.)

Our restraint will not ensure any better treatment for our own captured soldiers. Nor will our allies or the U.S. appreciate our forbearance. The terrorists themselves will probably disdain our magnanimity, as if we were weak rather than good.

But all that is precisely the risk we must take in supporting the McCain amendment -- because it is a public reaffirmation of our country's ideals. The United States can win this global war without employing torture. That we will not resort to what comes so naturally to Islamic terrorists also defines the nobility of our cause, reminding us we need not and will not become anything like our enemies.

Read the whole thing.

American conditions

Oh-so-sophisticated Europeans are in an uproar over the CIA's reported handling of captured terrorists. The Wall Street Journal is unimpressed by the Euros' claims of moral superiority, given their profit-driven blind eye towards events in Sudan and elsewhere.

In much of Europe's public debate, the true meaning of human rights has degenerated into a tool that gives anti-Americanism an aura of legitimacy. The real, horrendous human-rights violations in the Middle East, North Korea, China, Cuba, etc., are largely ignored or relegated to news blurs on the back pages. For front-page coverage, you need an American angle.

Anti-Americanism is so prevalent in Europe that it has permeated almost all areas of public discourse -- from arts to politics to economies. "American conditions" is a popular German slur against alleged social coldness in the U.S. -- one that former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder has "successfully" used to reject necessary economic reforms. And just as it has poisoned the economic debate in Europe, anti-Americanism also poisons the debate about how to deal with terrorism. Any measure that involves the U.S. is almost immediately tainted as being beyond the pale.

That's particularly true because in the public debate in Europe, as all too often in the U.S. as well, terrorism is still seen as a conventional threat. That it is decidedly not, one doesn't need to trust the Bush Administration alone. Here is what Europe's anti-terror czar, the Dutch Gijs de Vries, told us recently: "Bin Laden has called the acquisition of nuclear weapons by terrorists a religious duty. There is every reason to believe that here, as elsewhere, he is deadly serious about this."

Those decrying secret prisons and tougher interrogation methods (assuming the allegations have some validity) have yet to spell out what kind of "humane" treatment they would give to bombers whose mission it is to destroy Western civilization. If they can't, their complaints are hypocritical and intellectually shallow. How many bombing murders on European soil does it take for this realization to sink in?

It really appears that a nuclear attack by terrorists is the only thing that might shake off Europe's torpor. Unfortunately, that test might happen.

Revenge of the small-minded

Our brilliant state leaders are at it again, trying to get their ya-yas out against local educators who dared to challenge the brain-dead Republican ideas of school "reform" during the last legislative session in Austin.

As the "education lobby" came under scrutiny Wednesday by a House investigating committee, a research group reported that Texas school districts spent as much as $6.3 million on 161 lobby contracts this year.

Through their collective voices, school districts and teacher groups enjoyed exceptional influence at the Capitol this year as they defeated legislation they said provided inadequate new funding and intruded on local control.

That angered state leaders, including House Speaker Tom Craddick, who charged two committees with investigating the use by local governments and school boards of taxpayer money to lobby the Legislature.

The Public Justice Report noted that the education spending fell short of what one corporation spent on lobbyists this year, as much as $6.9 million.

"Yet few state leaders have denounced the SBC lobby (now called AT&T) which persuaded them to swallow a sweetheart special-session communications bill," said the report.

Gov. Rick Perry also has criticized the education community for demanding more money but resisting more accountability. In August he ordered school districts to disclose funds provided to any person or organization for lobbying or consulting.

Alief ISD does not hire lobbyists but does pay dues to the Texas Association of School Boards, which employs lobbyists. The association spent up to $650,000 on eight lobby contracts, according to the Public Justice report.

Sarah Winkler, a board member who often testifies at the Capitol and is reimbursed only for her travel expenses, said she is offended by the investigation.

"The whole reason they're looking into this is they do not want school boards and superintendents to go to Austin and advocate for their school districts," she said. "That's part of my job, to get the resources students in our district need to be successful."

It wouldn't be necessary to expend district resources on lobbyists if so-called "conservatives" hanging around their own trough in Austin would stop pursuing absurd notions of "reform" that wrest control of education out of the hands of local (and more accountable) officials.

If the Texas Democrats can find some decent candidates, they might get my vote next year, for the first time in recent memory. These drugstore cowboy conservatives are blowing it.

Related: