March 27, 2004

Skeleton in Clarke's closet

Former counterterrorism official and now tell-all author Richard Clarke was at it again yesterday, scorching Bush administration officials in testimony before the national Sept. 11 commission.
     We'd like to know how Clarke squares his contention that he was the only one in the Bush administration truly committed to thwarting terrorism before the Sept. 11 attacks with this: It was Clarke who personally authorized the evacuation by private plane of dozens of Saudi citizens, including many members of Osama bin Laden's own family, in the days immediately following Sept. 11.
     
Clarke's role was revealed in an October 2003 Vanity Fair article. "Somebody brought to us for approval the decision to let an airplane filled with Saudis, including members of the bin Laden family, leave the country,'' Clarke told Vanity Fair. "My role was to say that it can't happen unless the FBI approves it. . . And they came back and said yes, it was fine with them. So we said `Fine, let it happen.' ''

Vanity Fair uncovered that the FBI never fully investigated the passengers on those privately chartered flights (one of which flew out of Logan International Airport after scooping up a dozen or so bin Laden relatives.) But Clarke protested to Vanity Fair that policing the FBI was not in his job description.

Isn't that convenient?
     

So, it was 2-faced Clarke who authorized this and NOT President Bush!
How many times have I heard people disparage Bush with this accusation and use it as "proof" of his alleged cozy relationship with the House of Saud?
I don't know how I missed the Vanity Fair article last fall, but I'm delighted to be able to put another "talking point" anecdote of the Left in the "history's unmarked grave of discarded lies."
     

Daschle threatens to block all Bush judicial nominees

Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle threatened yesterday to block all of President Bush's judicial nominees unless Mr. Bush promises to not appoint federal judges while Congress is on recess.
[Here's the Catch 22 of it all: President Bush had to resort to making recess appointments because Senate Dims were filibustering his nominees, invoking the "cloture rule" which had never been done before Bush!--Jen]
    
"We will continue to cooperate in the confirmation of federal judges," said Mr. Daschle, who faces re-election in South Dakota in November,
[What an idiot! Hopes this makes his opponent look even better. Go Thune!]
"but only if the White House gives assurance that it will no longer abuse the process and that it will once again respect our Constitution's essential system of checks and balances."
[You know, President Bush doesn't owe any Senator that kind of power or deference, pal!--J.T.]

 Mr. Bush has used his recess appointment powers, outlined in the Constitution and used since George Washington's administration, to place two of his nominees on federal appeals benches this year without the typically required Senate approval. Both judges had been filibustered by Democrats for at least 10 months.
   
 The threat brought immediate outrage from Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
[Yea, Sen. Cornyn! Texas loves you!]
    
"While sitting in my office listening, I was astonished to hear the minority leader talk about the president's use of recess appointments," Mr. Cornyn said. "The only reason the president had to use the power that is very clearly conferred upon him in the U.S. Constitution is because of this unprecedented obstruction by the Democratic minority in the Senate."
   
 Mr. Bush appointed judges Charles W. Pickering of Mississippi to the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals and William H. Pryor to the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Both judges were among six Bush nominees Democrats filibustered on the Senate floor, preventing them from getting a final up-or-down vote. Each of the blocked nominees appears to have enough support for final confirmation if given a final vote.
    
One of them, Washington attorney Miguel Estrada, withdrew his name from consideration last fall after being filibustered for eight months.
    
Committee Chairman Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican, said Democrats should stop playing games and give the nominees simple up-or-down votes.
    
"It is the unprecedented filibusters by the Democrats that necessitated the recess appointments that the Democrats are now criticizing," Mr. Hatch said.

Quite right, Senators Hatch and Cornyn!
I hope President Bush treats this like the hot air and empty threats from the Dims that it is.
Now that they've brought it up, I think it's a perfect time for the Dimocrat obstructionists in the Senate like Schumer, Leahy and Uncle Teddy to explain how those wonderful memos that Manual Miranda found help them "Bork" Bush's nominees by branding them as "Nazis" and such like.
In the case of the beleaguered Hispanic judicial nominee Miguel Estrada, Ted Kennedy's memo to his fellow Dim Judiciary committee members simply gave as the reason for Estrada's unsuitableness "He's a Latino."
(Folks, I can't make this stuff up and neither can Karl Rove! Glad we don't have to!)

Musharraf vows to 'eliminate' al-Qaeda, says Zawahiri on the run

Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has vowed that he would "eliminate" al-Qaeda and said that the terror network's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was on the run.
[More good news!--Jen]

Musharraf spoke during an interview with ABC News, one day after an audio tape -- attributed to Zawahiri -- urged Pakistan's military to support al-Qaeda and sweep Musharraf from power.

"Now as far as if he's taunting me well, I would like to say that I'm going to eliminate all of them," Pakistan's leader said, referring to Zawahiri and al-Qaeda loyalists.

"I mean, Zawahiri is on the run. For heaven's sake, it's just one tape. Let's not get excited," Musharraf said on Saturday.

"It's very clear we'll eliminate them, and the tribal elders are cooperating," he added.

The call was made in a tape broadcast by the Arab Al-Jazeera television network late Thursday and attributed to Al-Qaeda deputy Ayman Al-Zawahiri in a recording described by US intelligence as "probably authentic."

The tape called on Pakistan's military to "not obey orders" and overthrow Musharraf's administration, which it calls a "traitor government."

Pakistan's military and government have poured scorn on the tape.

Furious Islamists took to Pakistan's streets Friday to protest the 11-day military operation against tribal fighters and Al-Qaeda militants along Pakistan's northern border with Afghanistan, as rebel tribesmen at the centre of the battle refused to hand over hostages until troops withdraw.

Sadly, the terrorists executed at least some of those hostages and these Pakistani crowds will have "Muslims killing Muslims" to be furious about.
As for President Musharraf and his Army, who took many casualties, but also took about 150 bad guys as prisoners, nice job!
We'll get Zawahiri next time for sure.

Did the Oklahoma bomber have help from al-Qa'ida's explosives expert?

Richard Clarke's book Against All Enemies has not just pushed the Bush administration deep on to the defensive over its approach to terrorism. It also pokes a stick into another hornet's nest by asking whether the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing was not in some way linked to al-Qa'ida.

Nobody, least of all Mr Clarke, is suggesting that al-Qa'ida carried out the bombing, which was pinned primarily on Timothy McVeigh, with help from his old army buddy Terry Nichols. But his book stirs up some troubling unanswered questions about Mr Nichols' many trips to the Philippines in the years preceding the bombing and raises the possibility that he received explosives training from Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind behind the first World Trade Centre bombing in 1993.

Hmmm. This could be very interesting.
I've heard lots of rumblings about the likely Islamist connection with the OKC blast ever since it happened: I'll never forget the authorities stopping "Middle Eastern-looking" men in a rented car behaving oddly on the day of the bombing here in Dallas.
Let's hope that Nichols tell us something to get a "deal" during his upcomong trial.
Due to the FBI having mishandled or lost some of the evidence of this case and the fact that Timothy McVeigh went to his execution so quickly with no real explanation as to why he did it, we may never really know.
All I can say is that it looked like a typical Islamist truck or car bomb (like some in liberated Iraq, the first WTC blast, Bali, etc.) and the rubble of the Murrah building resembled the U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa 3 years later almost exactly.
If you read McVeigh's bio, he "changed" in his loyalties when he served in Operation Desert Storm.
I think he was "turned" overseas and either became a Muslim or became so full of hatred against the United States that he embraced the goals of the radical Islamic world.
Don't forget that we now know that the Saudis have funded and dispatched Waahab Islamist clerics to infiltrate our military's chaplain program as well as that of U.S. prisons. (See below for a reference to Jose Padilla, who converted to Islam in prison.)
His (and Nichols's) loyalty to a "great cause" like Islamist jihad would explain McVeigh's willingness to kill children as well as other innocents in that building and to consider them merely "collateral damage."
It's my opinion that the entire "cell" that planned and carried out the OKC bombing was never caught, simply because the FBI stopped when McVeigh turned himself in.
And as so many have pointed out, the OKC John Doe #2 looks exactly like jailed would-be "dirty bomber" and IslamoFascist Jose Padilla.
As I said earlier, we may never know with certainty, but if this Al Queda/Abu Sayaf connection proves true, the OKC bombing would have been our second attack on American soil by Islamist terrorists after the first WTC bombing.

Syria seeks our help to woo US (March 27, 2004)

SYRIA has appealed to Australia to use its close ties with Washington to help the Arab nation shake off its reputation as a terrorist haven and repair its relations with the US.

Secret talks between the two nations have been under way for months but have become more urgent as rogue nations reconsider their role in allowing terrorists to thrive, in light of the US determination to take pre-emptive military action.
[Woohoo! The Bush Doctrine works!--Jen]
[...]
Australia's close relationship with Washington, and its much higher profile in the Middle East, have prompted Syrian Foreign Minister Farouq al-Shara'a and parliamentary speaker Mahmoud Al-Ibrache to appeal to Canberra to help bring their country back in from a US-imposed diplomatic freeze.
[...]
Drawing on the British-sponsored return of Libya to the international fold, Australia is demanding that Syria take a tougher role against terrorists, particularly those using the nation as a base for operations into Iraq.

Australia also has called on the former Soviet client state to abandon any pursuit of weapons of mass destruction before it returns to the fold.

Syria has supported the war on terror but the Bush administration has been sceptical about its commitment, fearing Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were smuggled across the border before the US-led invasion last year.
[...]
The overtures to Syria are seen as a response to the West's determination to confront rogue nations that may either pose a threat themselves or pass on weapons to terrorists.

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer last night welcomed Syria's commitment to broadening dialogue with the international community.

"We would like to see Syria follow Libya's example in making a genuine return to the international community," he said through a spokesman.

"But Syria must abandon any effort to attain weapons of mass destruction, act to control the flow of terrorists across its border with Iraq and step up support for the war on terror."

Syria's Melbourne-based honorary consul, Antonios Zyrabi, confirmed to The Weekend Australian last night that Syria wanted Australia to help it come in from the diplomatic cold.

Exxxxcellllllent news!
Syria is indeed a country that needs to come in from the cold!
Bashir Assad has a miserable human rights record, as did his father; the Syrian people could really use a lot of those democratic reforms that countries like Australia and America like to export.
And Syria probably is the hiding place for Saddam's WMDs, not to mention the HQ for Baathist loyalists right now, as well as being a center for Hezbollah outside of Iran.
Assad has been the de facto ruler and occupier of Lebanon, out of which Islamist terrorists operate on a para-military basis conducting attacks against Israel from the Bekka Valley.
Funnily enough, the U.S. was about to impose economic sanctions on Syria when the Israelis assassinated the Hamas leader Yassin.
We thought we'd wait until tensions in the region "calmed down," but maybe sanctions won't be necessary if the Ozzies can finesse this and bring them to the negotiating table on the quiet, as the UK did for Libya.
Hope so--Syria's definitely a major trouble spot in the region and getting them fully on board in the WOT would be terrific.

March 26, 2004

A President's Job

The 9/11 hearings: We're all Bush Doctrine believers now.

Give President Bush's critics credit for versatility. Having spent months assailing him for doing too much after 9/11--Iraq, the Patriot Act, the "pre-emption" doctrine--they have now turned on a dime to allege that he did too little before it. This contradiction is Mr. Bush's opportunity to rise above the ankle biting and explain to the American public what a President is elected to do.

[This is more of the Left's "Bush can't do anything right" approach. By applying it Liberally, shall we say?, they hope to so tie the President's hands that he can't do anything at all. What an opposition. And it's American citizens' lives that hang in the balance!--Jen]

Any President's most difficult decision is how and when to defend the American people. As the 9/11 hearings reveal, there are always a thousand reasons for a President not to act. The intelligence might be uncertain, civilians might be killed, U.S. soldiers could die, and the "international community" might object. There are risks in any decision. But when Presidents fail to act at all, or act with too little conviction, we get a September 11.

This is the real lesson emerging from the 9/11 Commission hearings if you listen above the partisan din. In their eagerness to insist that Mr. Bush should have acted more pre-emptively before 9/11, the critics are rebutting their own case against the President's aggressive antiterror policy ever since. The implication of their critique is that Mr. Bush didn't repudiate the failed strategy of the Clinton years fast enough.
[...]
But this election is about leadership. And a President who takes the oath to protect America has to make difficult, often life-or-death, decisions based on imperfect information. In a world of terrorism and (still unsolved) anthrax attacks on the U.S. Capitol, a President doesn't have the luxury of waiting for French approval or proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In Iraq, the burden was on Saddam--a proven supporter of terrorists, user of WMD and enemy of America--to show he had destroyed the weapons we know he once had. He didn't, and so Mr. Bush acted to protect America and prevent another September 11.

Thank you, WSJ!
This is what I've been saying for over 2 years!
[I had my 2nd blogiversary on Wednesday and forgot to notice, so upset had Dick Clarke's testi-lying made me!]
President Bush will invariable state in his speeches that he had to choose between the word of a madman (Saddam Hussein) and protecting the security of the American people and he chose to protect us.
Great call! And it was the correct call.
As I've said on several occasions, I don't know where those WMDs are now, but they're not in Iraq in that madman's hands and that makes me feel that much safer.
Now, if only we can apply the Bush Doctrine to Syria, Iran, North Korea and Saudi Arabia...just to name the rogue states that are our most immediate concern.

Bush Pokes Some Fun During Media Dinner
The President's enemies and the Left (which are certainly overlapping sets, if not congruent ones) are having a cow, because they say that his joking about not finding WMDs in Iraq wasn't appropriate.
Let me say here--and not for the first time--that Leftists have no sense of humor.
President Bush was mainly laughing at himself:
he made the jokes, because he can't believe we haven't found Saddam's WMDs in Iraq!
We know they were there.
Bush all but said to Tim Russert in that infamous interrogation when he was asked about our failure to find Iraq's WMDs, " I know. I can't understand why we didn't find them myself!"
One of these days, we *will* find out what happened to those WMDs; if we don't find them buried or destroyed in Iraq, they'll turn up in Syria, Iran or Saudi Arabia.
And those who hate Bush will now get on his case for anything, anything at all because they are consumed with hate for him!
I thought the Left would groan about this remark more than the others:

[...]
I am sorry Laura couldn't be here. And I'm sorry Secretary Rumsfeld is not here, either. The guy constantly surprises me. Do you know what Rummy's favorite TV show is? "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy." (Laughter.) My Cabinet could take some pointers from watching that show. In fact, I'm going to have the Fab Five do a make over on Ashcroft. (Laughter.)

The Lying Liberal Left is so convinced that AG Ashcroft (and Bush, too) is a homophobe that I thought this was hilarious!
All told, Bush was charming and very funny and if some people can't take a joke, too bad!

The European Union said on Thursday it will not recognize any unilateral change in Israel's borders from before the 1967 Middle East war.

The EU took the stance in an apparent bid to reject any effort by Israel to use the security barrier it is building in the West Bank to change borders unilaterally.

Israel says the barrier is vital to keep out Palestinian suicide bombers, but the Palestinians have branded it a land-grab that deprives them of territory they want for a state.

"The European Union will not recognize any change to the pre-1967 borders other than those arrived at by agreement between the parties," said a draft statement approved by EU foreign ministers for issue on Friday at a bloc summit.

The statement condemned Israel's "extra-judicial killing" of Hamas's spiritual leader and founder Ahmed Yassin on Monday and said a cycle of violence had taken the region further away from a negotiated settlement.

It urged President Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority to do more to fight terrorism and for Israel to reverse its settlement policy, dismantle settlements built since March 2001 and reverse construction of the barrier.
[I believe that PM Ariel Sharon has indeed been having settlements dismantled. As for "reversing construction" of the fence, I wouldn't hold my breath, EUrope.--Jen]

The EU reiterated a policy set last month that any unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip must be a step toward a two-state solution, must not involve a transfer of settlement activity to the West Bank and must involve an organized and negotiated handover to the Palestinian Authority.

This isn't right and it's not fair!
First of all, Israel won and the Paleostinians lost the land in question fair and square in the 6-Day War.
In 1973, Israel fought for and took even more land in the Yom Kippur War.
The only time that this land was supposedly negotiated away by "agreement between the parties" was in "land for peace" deals like Camp David in '79 and '00 and Oslo.
Well, the Israelis have never gotten any peace, so why should they give up the land that is rightfully theirs?
And the Paleos haven't taken the one and only required step on the "road map" to a 2-state "solution" which is to dismantle their terror groups and to eschew terror as their only weapon!
And I don't think they ever will.
The EU has condemned the Israelis and taken the side of the "Palestinians" so many times, that I doubt they paid much notice to this latest BS, especially when the whole world knows that the EU is "all hat and no cattle."
All they do is talk. (Look at what they're not doing to fight terrorism-All they give out is more tough talk and appointing a Terrorism Tzar to handle problems like big attacks.
Oooh, betcha Al Queda is shaking in their sheiks!)
The EU is never to back Israel's right to exist, much less to defend herself from those who would murder her citizens and the Israelis know it.
If only the EU would quit giving money to the PA, it may actually bring Arafat and his gang of murderers much, much closer to giving up terror.
But that's too logical and if there's anything the EU is not, it's logical.

March 25, 2004

EU agrees anti-terrorism measures

[...]
Spain's newly elected Prime Minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who has threatened to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq, is not attending the summit as he is yet to form his government.

His election could, however, herald a breakthrough in discussions on the EU's proposed constitution that broke down amid acrimony in December.

Spain and Poland had refused to accept the proposals for a new system of voting on EU decisions.

But Spain's new leaders appear prepared to compromise; the Poles, says the BBC's Chris Morris, are sensing which way the wind is blowing and do not want to be isolated.

"There was a unanimous agreement to finish the negotiations at the latest by the June (17-18) summit," an EU diplomat was quoted as saying by Reuters news agency on Thursday evening.

Streamlining EU institutions is seen as vital if administrative and political gridlock is to be avoided after the 10 new countries join the 15-member bloc on 1 May.

The leaders will also discuss what until the Madrid bombs was going to be the summit's main theme: economic reforms aimed at making the EU the world's most dynamic economy by 2010.

What could be worse than that Zapatero guy?
His Socialist "leadership" of Spain has been a disaster and it's only been a couple of weeks!
Not only does he want to pull Spain's troops out of the Iraq Coalition, but he also announced that Spain was ready to sign the "most excellent" EU constitution.
Spain (under Aznar) and Poland had previously fought signing because it gave unequal voting weight to France and Germany (who want to be the de facto rulers of the EU), to the detriment of smaller countries like Poland and Spain.
Now that Zapatero's given in--Heaven knows why and Zappo's not saying--Poland can't hold out alone.
But what the BBC's not saying is that the real objector to signing this dreadful constitution will and should be Great Britain and when this issue comes to the fore, it will be a moment of truth for Tony Blair.
Most Brits are against it, even though Tony has tried and tried to sell them on it.
If he tries to sign it on the U.K.'s behalf, look for Britain to go Tory and elect Michael Howard, who's already publicly stood against signing it.
Britain doesn't want to surrender her sovereignity and why should she?
Among other things, signing this constitution would prohibit any member countries from helping the U.S. "unilaterally" (particularly if Jacques Chirac has anything to say about it) and God knows what it would do to NATO!
As for the EU attaining "most dynamic economy by 2010," good luck with that.
Not only will our unofficial American boycott of Weasel goods, services and tourism continue, but they'd have to beat out the Chinese, too.
(And that's not going to happen.)
Furthermore, you don't get a vibrant economy under any form of Socialism, which is where the EU's heading in spades!
The new Soviet European Union--I can't believe we fought and lost thousands of men over there in WWI and WWII and protected them against the "evil empire" of the U.S.S.R. so that they could devolve to this, its pink cousin!

FBI Warns Texas Oil Refineries of Possible Attack

The FBI warned the Texas oil industry that it may be a target of possible terror attacks, but the agency has no specific, corroborated details about any potential threats, FBI officials said on Thursday.

One official said the advisory, based on intelligence the FBI has received, went to the industry and law enforcement officials in Texas "out of an abundance of caution." The official said the FBI in the past year processed 7,000 threats, and added, "These communications go out on a daily basis."

"The alert mentioned threats to pipelines and facilities in Texas to coincide with the election in November," said a petroleum industry source in Texas who has seen the notification.

The source said there have been at least a half dozen of these types of warnings from the FBI in Texas since last summer.
[Don't believe it. They've been worried about these being hit since 9/11!--Jen]

The Houston Chronicle first disclosed the advisory, which it said went out on Wednesday. It quoted a local FBI spokesman as saying the agency's Houston office has been meeting with officials of local law enforcement agencies and oil refineries.

Here's a big thank you to all the people down on the coast whose job is to watch and stay alert!
Your fellow Texans appreciate your vigilance.

Economy Grows at Solid 4.1 Percent Pace
Back to the drawing board, Dims!
There goes almost the entire Lurch platform.

March 24, 2004

Bush chided for oil prices
It's so easy to blame President Bush--everybody does it for everything under the sun.
But Ed Lasky at The American Thinker eloquently explains why the blame is misplaced and should rightfully be put on the Sauds, because they have a horse in the race for the White House in 2004 (and it isn't Bush!):
The Saudi War on George Bush

[...]
How have the Saudis acted to destroy George Bush’s political career? By using the “oil weapon” to torpedo the American economy over the next eight months, and thereby weaken electoral support for George W. Bush’s candidacy in November.
 
The Saudis have traditionally been a swing producer within OPEC, acting to ensure oil prices remain “just so -- not too high, not too low” by increasing or decreasing their marginal production. Oil prices which are too high may encourage conservation and the development of alternative energy supplies. Prices which are too high also weaken the Western economies where Saudi Arabia’s investments must be parked.
 
However, this historical concern seems to have been trumped by Saudi short term desires to inflict as much pain on the American economy as it can, by raising oil prices in the run-up to November.
 
By restricting OPEC output since the end of hostilities in Iraq, the Saudis have forced oil prices up over the past several months. The American economic recovery is being slowly, almost imperceptibly, throttled. From a low of $23.61 per barrel in May, 2003, average crude oil prices have risen rather steadily, to $31.03 last month, up nearly one-third in eight months. If this rate of increase continues over the next eight months, the economic consequences for America will be grim.

As our Blogfather would say, "Read the whole thing." because there are too many Americans who believe that Bush and the Sauds are in a love relationship, which just isn't the case at all.
On the contrary, the Sauds are America's enemy and we are theirs, we're just not talking about it openly:

The Bush Administration, which still needs to deal with the Saudis, and many other repressive Arab regimes on the receiving end of Saudi largesse, undoubtedly perceives what is going on, but is constrained by the norms of diplomacy from openly acknowledging the reality of the situation. Voices urging accommodation with the Saudis are still heard within the State Department and elsewhere in the foreign policy apparatus. 

 Neither the Bush Administration nor the Saudis can afford to have explicit and open conflict disrupt important ongoing common interests. Third parties also depend on the smooth flow of oil to markets. Nobody wants a cessation of Saudi oil exports or any other extreme measures, which could cripple America economically, and disrupt our military readiness, not to mention the disastrous consequences for poorer countries.

Nevertheless, it appears to be the case that the Saudis are engaged in a silent slow motion war with George W. Bush’s Administration, aimed at limiting his Presidency to a single term. If they continue with this plan, Republicans can take nothing for granted in November.

Note that this fine article appeared one day before the Madrid bombings and the ensuing surprise victory of the anti-WOT Socialist Zapatero where the world saw that the Islamists could actually effect the outcome of a national election by staging a big terror attack.
The bottom line is that Bush is facing an all out assault on his re-election campaign from both the IslamoFascists (Sauds) and the Democrats (Liberal Left).
Fasten your seat belts, but keep the Faith!
Bush is going to win and we're going to deal with the murderous Saudis someday soon.
(If the President is in any way responsible for the gas price hikes, it's because the Federal Government is topping off our Strategic Petroleum Reserve--essential for wartime.)
And among other reasons for them to hate Bush, the Sauds know that both Iraq's and Libya's oil industries are going to be pumping oil to the West again, as a direct outcome of our successful prosecution of the WOT, and will not want to go along with Saudi plans (as head of OPEC) to keep oil prices artifically high by limiting production.

Hat tip: Charles Johnson the Fab over at Little Green Footballs.

Supreme Court Takes Up'Under God' Case
Hope your prayers are going up with mine that the USSC decides this dreadful case in the right way to keep "under God" in the pledge!
I'm also praying for the black heart of Michael Newdow (the atheist petitioner), too, because I know it's not right to hate someone but without Heavenly assistance, I can't help it!
Because of his personal bitterness, he wants to try and take away the acknowledgment of the Almighty's blessing of and omnipotence over this land which from its founding has been so dedicated.
Our first general, George Washington, called America a "shining city on a hill," comparing our new country to Jerusalem, and it was Pres. Eisenhower who saw fit to reaffirm America's Judeao-Christian Faith-based foundation when he put "under God" into the Pledge (with Congressional approval, of course) in 1954--this from the general who oversaw our victory over Nazism in Europe.

President Bush, our wartime President, invokes the Lord's blessing almost every time he speaks, but one of the most striking references came when he spoke to the National Endowment for Democracy about the Iraq situation on November 6, 2003:

[...]
"...as we meet the terror and violence of the world, we can be certain the Author of freedom is not indifferent to the fate of freedom.

Now that we're at war again, now is not the time to forget the God and Father of us all and that He is on our side in ways great and small.
When I said the pledge as a child, these words meant a lot to me and how I felt about my country.
I dare say that today's children are no different.
The Left would love nothing better than to destroy all of these things, especially belief in God and love of country from an early age.
In fact, this is just another battle in our [Culture] War on the Homefront--belief in God is THE enemy to the Liberals, as seen in their assault on these words in the Pledge, the institution of traditional marriage (through these "gay marriages") and the mere presence of the Ten Commandments, the touchstone of our system of laws, in courthouses.

Our nation's school children have already suffered from having prayer in schools taken away from them.
Let's hope and pray that the Supreme Court doesn't allow the Godless, Liberal Left to prevail this time or any other time in the future.

Security Council fails to agree on statement on Yassin killing

Israel accused the United Nations on Tuesday of hypocrisy for convening a debate over the assassination of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and not condemning Palestinian suicide bombings of its civilians.

The 15-member Security Council held a debate on Monday's killing of Yassin by Israel after Arab ambassadors and the United States failed to agree on a statement criticizing Israel.

"Not one resolution, not one presidential statement has been adopted by this Council to specifically denounce the deliberate massacre of our innocent civilians," Israel's UN ambassador Danny Gillerman said in a speech to the council.

Gillerman said Yassin had helped direct or inspire 425 attacks that killed 377 Israelis and wounded 2,076 in the past three and a half years.

He said the council was coming to the defense of "a godfather of terrorism ... it is the ultimate hypocrisy."

The Palestinian observer to the United Nations, Nasser al-Kidwa, opened the debate by asking the council to condemn Monday's killing of Yassin outside a Gaza mosque.

"We strongly condemn this new Israeli crime and hold the occupying power and the Israeli leadership legally and politically responsible for this crime and ... the consequences that this crime entails," al-Kidwa said.
[What's the meaning of this? Are the Paleos asking for the UN to look the other way when they retaliate? Unreal.--Jen]

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan condemned the killing. Other countries also condemned the assassination and many said it was an extrajudicial slaying that broke international law.
[Again, I must tell you, there ain't no such animal as "international law." And if you get real persistent, I'll have to call President Bush's lawyer and he'll tell you the same thing.--J.T.]

But diplomats were unable to reach a compromise between the United States and Algeria, representing Arab nations, on a Security Council statement.
[Actually, Algeria isn't on the S.C. to "represent" Arab nations, anymore than the United States is on it to represent Christian nations. Algeria should be representing Algeria, not the Arab League.]

If a council vote on the measure is vetoed by the United States, the Arab group can present the same resolution to the 191-member UN General Assembly, where there are no vetoes and resolutions vetoed in the council have been passed before.
[Yeah, most of them against Israel for defending herself also. I'm sure this is what will happen so that all the 3rd world thugs and Socialist toadies can make a big show of solidarity with their "Palestinian" brothers and one against poor little Israel. Bustards!]

The U.S. said any text had to both be balanced and criticize Hamas, which is bent on the destruction of Israel.

The U.S. ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, said Yassin's assassination did not help the peace process.

"We are deeply troubled by this action by the government of Israel," Negroponte told reporters. "We didn't think it contributed to the peace process and had the effect of escalating tensions.
[Well, Amb. Negroponte, we can't publicly condone murder, even that of Israel's "Bin Laden," although we can smirk a bit, can't we?]

U.S. President George W. Bush said on Tuesday Israel had the right to defend itself against Hamas but urged the Israeli government to keep "the consequences in mind."

Yes, it's the usual, ineffective bluster from the UN.
I am way past tired of those bureaucratic phonies, thieves and accessories to mass murder (most of the time of their own people)!

March 23, 2004

Rantisi calls Bush No. 1 enemy of Islam

Hamas on Saturday scoffed at US President George W. Bush's decision to freeze assets of six of its leaders and five nongovernmental organizations, saying the movement does not have money in the US or Europe.
[Uh-huh. Riiiiiiiiiiiggggghhhhhtttt.--Jen]

Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi denounced Bush as "the number one enemy of Islam" and accused him of seeking to steal money belonging to Islamic charities. He said the order to freeze the assets would have no impact on Hamas.
[ Between the actions of the U.S. and those of Sharon's like targeting Hamas and bagging Yassin, they are squealing! Great job, President Bush and PM Sharon!]
[...]
Bush on Friday directed the Treasury Department to block and freeze any assets in the US of six top Hamas officials, including spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, and five Hamas-linked NGOs abroad. He also appealed to the international community to freeze the assets, in an effort to thwart Hamas's fundraising capabilities.

The move was prompted by Tuesday's bus bombing in Jerusalem, which both Hamas and Islamic Jihad took credit for.

"By claiming responsibility for this despicable act of terror on March 19, Hamas has reaffirmed that it is a terrorist organization committed to violence against Israelis and to undermining progress toward peace between Israel and the Palestinian people," Bush said in a statement. "I call upon all nations supportive of peace in the Middle East to recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization and to take all appropriate actions to deny it support."

Bush told reporters Friday that the US would not abandon its efforts to broker a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians.

"We'll just keep working the issue. If the Palestinians want to see their own state, they've got to dismantle terrorist networks," he said.

And yet, in defiance of Bush's message, Hamas and their "brother" jihadi groups are threatening, even promising, more violence and more death both to Israelis and to Americans:

Report: al-Qaida letter vows revenge on US
Hizbullah says will retaliate for Palestinians
Thousands protest Yassin's killing in Nazareth
Al-Jazeera web poll: 61% for attacking Israelis abroad
You can guess what that Al-Jizz poll implies--open season on Jews (and Gentiles) in the USA and Europe.
To go back to the original article about Bush freezing terrorist funds:

The Treasury Department believes that most of the assets Bush directed frozen are abroad, meaning that the directive will prove largely meaningless unless the international community agrees to take action. So far the EU has resisted pleas from the US to designate Hamas in its entirety as a terrorist organization, arguing that its charitable wing provides crucial social services.
[Hah! That's rich! I've seen so many Hamas soup kitchens and hospitals in the Paleostinian areas, haven't you?--J.T.]

The individuals named were: Yassin, Imad Khalil al-Alami, Usama Hamdan, Khaled Meshal, Musa Abu Marzook, and Rantisi.

The groups named by the Treasury include the < b>France-based Committee de Bienfaissance et de Secours aux Palestiniens; the Switzerland-based Association de Secours Palestinien; the UK-based Palestinian Relief and Development Fund; the Palestinian Association in Austria; and the Lebanon-based Sanabil Association for Relief and Development.

In December 2001, the US froze the assets of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development*
[*Right in my back yard in Richardson, TX--Yikes!]
, which was collecting millions in donations from the US and funneling them to Hamas.
Since Hamas is designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the State Department, US financial institutions already must block assets of the group or its agents.

Bush's announcement came shortly after tens of thousands of Palestinians poured into the streets of Gaza City on Friday to march in a fiery funeral procession for Ismail Abu Shanab, a leader of Hamas assassinated Thursday by Israel.

"Abu Shanab, rest in peace. Our armies will go forward. We are the men of the dark night," the mourners shouted through loudspeakers.
Palestinian journalists estimated the crowd at about 100,000, one of the largest to turn out for a funeral of a Palestinian since the beginning of the violence.[I guess the JPost means the Intifada here.]

Hundreds of black-hooded armed men from Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Fatah attended the funeral carrying rifles, grenades, pistols, shoulder-held grenade launchers, and a few mortar shells.
"The road map is being buried. Only martyrdom operations will remain," a Hamas activist told the crowd.

"With your body, you opened the door for suicide bombers to target Israel," shouted another activist.

Rantisi, who marched in the funeral flanked by armed bodyguards, said, "We love martyrdom and we seek martyrdom.. Our leaders and followers will continue to fight until we achieve martyrdom." Rantisi said that even if Israel kills all of the Hamas leaders, "another leadership will arise and continue the fight until victory."

While it's easy to want to jump on the Israelis for "making the terrorists mad," we should not and should still be OK with the fact that Israel is successfully targeting these Hamas killers for assassination and has taken the gloves off to fight their part of the Global War on [Islamist] Terror.
There are 3 salient factors about our present situation, as it unfolds primarily in the Holy Land, that are extremely interesting to me:
One, who knew that Yassin was such a revered, indeed beloved, "spiritual" leader until he was taken out?
Even one of our America-friendly Iraqi bloggers, Zeyad was upset at his death as were some of his friends, one of whom dubbed Yassin the Muslim "Pope".
You can only imagine their reaction if the Good Guys get Arafat or Bin Laden (which we will someday soon).
Irate Muslims in Iraq over the killing of Hamas's chief preacher of jihad and death in "Palestine?" How interesting.
The Wahhab Sunnis, with all those Saudi millions, have been been busy the last decade or so, spreading the word, it seems.
Which brings me to the second thing of crucial importance and that is, as a reaction to the IDF's hit on Yassin, Al Queda has threatened to punish America. [See above for related article.]
No, the headline didn't read "Hamas threatens Israel" (although that one exists by the bushelful).
If you needed it--which by this late date you certainly should not--this is conclusive proof that Islamist terrorists are linked, working together to effect their jihad, and that the USA is no less a target of theirs today than is Israel.
The latest Al Queda fatwa against America as payback for the Yassassination bypasses Israel and directly puts the USA in the crosshairs for "encouraging" Israel to defend herself.
I know we're supposed to be scared, but we've been under AQ's fatwa since 1998, at least.
Israel's been beseiged since 1948.
SSDD.
Lastly, while he never actually says it (because he doesn't have to?), President Bush talks about Hamas and the terrorist groups in "Palestine" as being our Enemies and defends Israel's actions as our ally in the WOT, the "silent" member of our Coalition.
I've wanted him to formally declare this for a long time and the events of the last few days lead me to believe that that day is fast approaching.
Pray for the peace of Jerusalem, but for there to be a peace, there must first be a complete and total victory.
Go IDF!

US to deploy destroyer as missile defense ramps up

The U.S. Navy said it would deploy a guided missile destroyer in the Sea of Japan in September as part of a U.S. effort to deploy an anti-missile shield to protect against attacks from countries like North Korea by the end of 2004. Navy Secretary Gordon England said the destroyer -- equipped to track potential enemy missiles -- would remain in the Sea of Japan "on a virtually continuous basis" as "part of the president's directive to accelerate the fielding of a ballistic missile defense operational capability." Chris Taylor, spokesman for the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency (MDA), said a total of seven Navy destroyers -- including the one in the Sea of Japan -- would be equipped with long-range missile tracking and surveillance capability by the end of 2004. Fifteen would be equipped by early 2006. By the end of 2005, the Navy would have three Aegis cruisers equipped with the Standard Missile 3 system to shoot down short- or medium-range missiles launched against U.S. or allied targets, Taylor said at a conference sponsored by MDA and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. (Al-Reuters)

Here's a big shout out to all of you in the U.S. Navy who are a part of this one...accompanied by a big Thank You to our president for getting the job done!
America thanks you and so do millions of other people in Asia.
And as for Homeland defense:
Missile defense milestone

[...]
In about 90 days, the first interceptor will be lowered into its silo at Fort Greely, Alaska, and shortly thereafter will be put on alert to begin defending the country. By the end of the year, six interceptors will be on duty in Alaska and four at Vandenberg AFB in California.
    
President Bush ordered an initial defense to be ready by Oct. 1, but the Missile Defense Agency plans to put the system on alert as soon as the capability exists to defend against a single missile, probably sometime this summer.
[Thank you, President Bush! Excellent news!--Jen]
    
Ten more interceptors will be added in Alaska next year, plus 10 ship-based interceptors. Another 10, perhaps at a third site yet to be determined, are in the 2005 budget to be operational in 2006.
   
 In less than one term, President Bush has gone from zero missile defenses to a system that will grow to more than 40 interceptors over the next three years. If he wins a second term, the system will be improved steadily in block upgrades to become a layered complex of land- and sea-based defenses, supported by space-based sensors and communications, to stop missiles in any phase of flight.
[And if J. F'in Kerry a/k/a Lurch wins the White House, look for this whole program to be mothballed in favor of more "health care" and "jobs" programs.--J.T.]

With oceans on both sides of the country, sea-based defenses are important but could not even be considered under the ABM treaty. President Bush's withdrawal from that treaty made sea-based defenses possible.
['member how the Dims raked President Bush over the coals for that one?]
   
 Next year, the big ABM radar now being installed on a seagoing platform on the Texas Gulf coast will sail around Cape Horn to the North Pacific, where it will operate near Adak Island, Alaska. Such a floating radar can go where the threat is greatest and avoids the need for another country to approve a radar base. A second sea-based radar is to be added later, probably in the North Atlantic.
    
In addition, the SPY-1 radars on up to 20 Aegis cruisers and destroyers are being upgraded for missile defense duty. The Navy plans to have five SM-3 interceptors on three Aegis cruisers "on alert" by early next year. Ten more interceptors will be added by the end of 2005, and 40 more over the next two years.
    
The SM-3 is a 3-stage interceptor that can stop the kind of missiles North Korea has tested. Aegis ships will play an important role in a worldwide network of missile defenses on land and sea. And allies that often dragged their feet, ranging from Japan and Taiwan to Canada, Australia and India, are now lining up to join the effort.
    
But why is all this necessary, considering the Soviet collapse and Russia's change to a friendly nation? In the 1990s, a new threat emerged as China, India, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea tested ballistic missiles of increasingly greater range. India and Pakistan also tested nuclear weapons, and North Korea, Iran and Libya were secretly developing them.

Finally, North Korea's launch of a three-stage missile that could be modified to reach the U.S. mainland brought home the danger even to many opponents of missile defense.
    
Yet, President Bill Clinton continued embracing the ABM Treaty and declined to deploy defenses. When President Bush took office, he reversed that policy and began explaining the need for missile defenses to Russia and the allies.
   
 Then September 11, 2001, showed the U.S. homeland was no longer safe. And three months later, Mr. Bush announced his withdrawal from the ABM treaty.
    
Since then, military action has enhanced diplomatic efforts to control the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Iraq has been forcibly disarmed, and this helped Libya decide to end its weapons programs. Libya's cooperation has revealed a global black market in nuclear technologies.
   
 Iran and North Korea are now negotiating, but both have missiles and nuclear programs, and both are unpredictable. Russia still has thousands of aging nuclear weapons and missiles that may fail (as three did in a recent exercise), and which are vulnerable to theft or diversion. China keeps producing missiles and threatening war over Taiwan.

The dangers remain. But missile defenses will protect this country and its allies, while reducing the value of such weapons to those who seek them. Ronald Reagan was right when he started the SDI program 21 years ago. And George W. Bush is right in making missile defense a reality.

I think I need to include the U.S. Air Force in on that shout out---We love you guys, too!
I spent my 5th and 6th years of life worrying if I'd be bombed out of my little bed by the Soviets and I don't think that fear has ever left me.
Only the enemy has changed and the technological ease that rogue states now have to make that a reality.
SDI is an absolute must and it's yet another reason to praise President Bush's superb leadership!
He should make a big deal in the press of these systems going online in his latest campaign ads, at the GOP Convention, whenever and whereever.
This will give Americans a much greater sense of security and also give the enemies of this country a warning: "Don't even think about it. We can shoot down your missiles and you'll be 'outed' as a bad guy and targeted for punishment!"

[Tip of the hat and a deep bow to Rantburg,my home away from blog home! Get there or be square!]

March 22, 2004

Voters reject Islamist party

Voters gave their secular prime minister a huge election victory yesterday, smashing a fundamentalist Muslim party that had wanted to impose an Islamic state in this Southeast Asian country.
[...]
Many voters -- especially the Chinese and Indian minorities -- had feared Islamic fundamentalism was on the rise in Malaysia, a country that has detained scores of suspected terrorists in the past two years, some linked to al Qaeda.
[...]
In another surprising result, imprisoned former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim's party lost all five of its seats -- disappearing as fast as it burst onto Malaysia's political scene five years ago, when Anwar was dumped as Mr. Mahathir's anointed successor.
    
Even Azizah Ismail, Anwar's wife, lost her parliamentary seat.
    
The result reflected how much support for Anwar has faded since he was convicted on sodomy and corruption charges and sentenced to 15 years in prison. He says the charges were fabricated to prevent him from challenging Mr. Mahathir, who denies it.
    
The only winner among opposition parties was the Democratic Action Party, a nonreligious, multiethnic group that was largely sidelined during a campaign dominated by debate about the role of Islam. It won at least seven parliamentary seats.

Well, Huzzah for Malaysia!
Good on you!
Who would have thought that the Malaysians were so much smarter politically and more far-sighted than the Spanish?
These elections results--along with the death of Yassin in "Palestine" and the possible death of al-Zawahiri in Pakistan-- are very good news for the start of what may be a good week for the race...the human race!

George Smith, Sr. Fellow of GlobalSecurity.org, outlines precisely why the Bush Administration gave this week's Liberal media darling Richard Clarke the heave-ho and explains that it was Clarke who was the one who didn't recognize the real threat Al Queda posed, not President Bush and not NSA Dr. Rice:
Richard Clarke's Legacy of Miscalculation
And Dr. Condi Rice stands up for herself and reiterates what she knew and when she knew it, thank you, in this WaPO op ed in her own inimitable prose:
9/11: For The Record

I don't know about you, but I'm sick and tired of these ex-Bush Administration officials like Clarke and O' Neill, who are bitter and jealous, that "come forward" to tell tales out of school to the Liberal media about the alleged failings of said administration.
IMO, they are nothing but tools of the Left who want to bash Bush and sell books full of innuendo and just plain lies.
This is the "Left Wing Attack Machine" in full cry.
And let's not forget one of the Kings of Useful Idiocy, Jimmy Peanut with his attack in the British press on Bush and Blair both: 'Their war was based on lies'.
To see a former President engage in this kind of media assault is simply disgraceful, to the point of being vomit-making.
Coming from Jimmuh, who's not only never met a Leftist leader he didn't like (except for perhaps Tony Blair, whom I'm sure Jimmuh thinks is a "Tory"), but also the man who vies with Bill Clinton for the title of Worst U.S. President Ever, it is beyond unconscionable!
Clarke was "let go" and Jimmuh didn't get a second term--'Nough said.
So shut up, the pair of you.
You had your chance and you blew it.

March 21, 2004

Hamas Spiritual Leader Killed in Israeli Strike
Let the ululating be heard throughout the lands, swarm the cars and hand out the candy--this mean old man is dead and won't be spreading his "sermons" of hate and murder anymore!
We can only hope that Arafish is next and soon.
Mazeltov, IDF and praise God, for his Justice is great!

President Bush Reaffirms Resolve to War on Terror, Iraq and Afghanistan
[There is also a video of this speech at the White House website.]

[...]
We are representing 84 countries united against a common danger, and joined in a common purpose. We are the nations that have recognized the threat of terrorism, and we are the nations that will defeat that threat. Each of us has pledged before the world: We will never bow to the violence of a few. We will face this mortal danger, and we will overcome it together.

As we meet, violence and death at the hands of terrorists are still fresh in our memory. The people of Spain are burying their innocent dead. These men and women and children began their day in a great and peaceful city, yet lost their lives on a battlefield, murdered at random and without remorse. Americans saw the chaos and the grief, and the vigils and the funerals, and we have shared in the sorrow of the Spanish people. Ambassador Ruperez, please accept our deepest sympathy for the great loss that your country has suffered.

The murders in Madrid are a reminder that the civilized world is at war. And in this new kind of war, civilians find themselves suddenly on the front lines. In recent years, terrorists have struck from Spain, to Russia, to Israel, to East Africa, to Morocco, to the Philippines, and to America. They've targeted Arab states such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Yemen. They have attacked Muslims in Indonesia, Turkey, Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan. No nation or region is exempt from the terrorists' campaign of violence.

Each of these attacks on the innocent is a shock, and a tragedy, and a test of our will. Each attack is designed to demoralize our people and divide us from one another. And each attack must be answered, not only with sorrow, but with greater determination, deeper resolve, and bolder action against the killers. It is the interest of every country, and the duty of every government, to fight and destroy this threat to our people.

There is no dividing line -- there is a dividing line in our world, not between nations, and not between religions or cultures, but a dividing line separating two visions of justice and the value of life. On a tape claiming responsibility for the atrocities in Madrid, a man is heard to say, "We choose death, while you choose life." We don't know if this is the voice of the actual killers, but we do know it expresses the creed of the enemy. It is a mind set that rejoices in suicide, incites murder, and celebrates every death we mourn. And we who stand on the other side of the line must be equally clear and certain of our convictions. We do love life, the life given to us and to all. We believe in the values that uphold the dignity of life, tolerance, and freedom, and the right of conscience. And we know that this way of life is worth defending. There is no neutral ground -- no neutral ground -- in the fight between civilization and terror, because there is no neutral ground between good and evil, freedom and slavery, and life and death.

The war on terror is not a figure of speech. It is an inescapable calling of our generation. The terrorists are offended not merely by our policies -- they are offended by our existence as free nations. No concession will appease their hatred. No accommodation will satisfy their endless demands. Their ultimate ambitions are to control the peoples of the Middle East, and to blackmail the rest of the world with weapons of mass terror. There can be no separate peace with the terrorist enemy. Any sign of weakness or retreat simply validates terrorist violence, and invites more violence for all nations. The only certain way to protect our people is by early, united, and decisive action.
[Heads up, Spain! He's still talking to you.--J.T.]

In this contest of will and purpose, not every nation joins every mission, or participates in the same way. Yet, every nation makes a vital contribution, and America is proud to stand with all of you as we pursue a broad strategy in the war against terror.

We are using every tool of finance, intelligence, law enforcement and military power to break terror networks, to deny them refuge, and to find their leaders. Over the past 30 months, we have frozen or seized nearly $200 million in assets of terror networks. We have captured or killed some two-thirds of al Qaeda's known leaders, as well as many of al Qaeda's associates in countries like the United States, or Germany, or Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or Thailand. We are taking the fight to al Qaeda allies, such as Ansar-al-Islam in Iraq, Jemaah Islamiya in Indonesia, and Southeast Asia. Our coalition is sending an unmistakable message to the terrorists, including those who struck in Madrid: These killers will be tracked down and found, they will face their day of justice.

Our coalition is taking urgent action to stop the transfer of deadly weapon and materials. America and the nations of Australia, and France, and Germany, and Italy, and Japan, and the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, Canada, Singapore, and Norway have joined in the Proliferation Security Initiative all aimed to bind together, to interdict lethal materials transported by air or sea or land. Many governments have cooperated to expose and dismantle the network of A.Q. Khan, which sold nuclear secrets to Libya, Iran and North Korea. By all these efforts, we are determined to prevent catastrophic technologies from falling into the hands of an embittered few.

Our coalition is also confronting the dangerous combination of outlaw states, terrorist groups, and weapons of mass destruction. For years, the Taliban made Afghanistan the home base of al Qaeda. And so we gave the Taliban a choice: to abandon forever their support for terror, or face the destruction of their regime. Because the Taliban chose defiance, our coalition acted to remove this threat. And now the terror camps are closed, and the government of a free Afghanistan is represented here today as an active partner in the war on terror.

The people of Afghanistan are a world away from the nightmare of the Taliban. Citizens of Afghanistan have adopted a new constitution, guaranteeing free elections and full participation by women. The new Afghan army is becoming a vital force of stability in that country. Businesses are opening, health care centers are being established, and the children of Afghanistan are back in school, boys and girls.

This progress is a tribute to the brave Afghan people, and to the efforts of many nations. NATO -- including forces from Canada, France, Germany, and other nations -- is leading the effort to provide security. Japan and Saudi Arabia have helped to complete the highway from Kabul to Kandahar, which is furthering commerce and unifying the country. Italy is working with Afghans to reform their legal system, and strengthening an independent judiciary. Three years ago, the people of Afghanistan were oppressed and isolated from the world by a terrorist regime. Today, that nation has a democratic government and many allies -- and all of us are proud to be friends of the Afghan people.

Many countries represented here today also acted to liberate the people of Iraq. One year ago, military forces of a strong coalition entered Iraq to enforce United Nations demands, to defend our security, and to liberate that country from the rule of a tyrant. For Iraq, it was a day of deliverance. For the nations of our coalition, it was the moment when years of demands and pledges turned to decisive action. Today, as Iraqis join the free peoples of the world, we mark a turning point for the Middle East, and a crucial advance for human liberty.

There have been disagreements in this matter, among old and valued friends. Those differences belong to the past. All of us can now agree that the fall of the Iraqi dictator has removed a source of violence, aggression, and instability in the Middle East. It's a good thing that the demands of the United Nations were enforced, not ignored with impunity. It is a good thing that years of illicit weapons development by the dictator have come to the end. It is a good thing that the Iraqi people are now receiving aid, instead of suffering under sanctions. And it is a good thing that the men and women across the Middle East, looking to Iraq, are getting a glimpse of what life in a free country can be like.

There are still violent thugs and murderers in Iraq, and we're dealing with them. But no one can argue that the Iraqi people would be better off with the thugs and murderers back in the palaces. Who would prefer that Saddam's torture chambers still be open? Who would wish that more mass graves were still being filled? Who would begrudge the Iraqi people their long-awaited liberation? One year after the armies of liberation arrived, every soldier who has fought, every aid worker who has served, every Iraqi who has joined in their country's defense can look with pride on a brave and historic achievement. They've served freedom's cause, and that is a privilege.

Today in Iraq, a British-led division is securing the southern city of Basra. Poland continues to lead a multinational division in south-central Iraq. Japan and the Republic of Korea -- of South Korea have made historic commitments of troops to help bring peace to Iraq. Special forces from El Salvador, Macedonia, and other nations are helping to find and defeat Baathist and terrorist killers. Military engineers from Kazakhstan have cleared more than a half a million explosive devices from Iraq. Turkey is helping to resupply coalition forces. All of these nations, and many others, are meeting their responsibilities to the people of Iraq.

Whatever their past views, every nation now has an interest in a free, successful, stable Iraq. And the terrorists understand their own interest in the fate of that country. For them, the connection between Iraq's future and the course of the war on terror is very clear. They understand that a free Iraq will be a devastating setback to their ambitions of tyranny over the Middle East. And they have made the failure of democracy in Iraq one of their primary objectives.

By attacking coalition forces -- by targeting innocent Iraqis and foreign civilians for murder -- the terrorists are trying to weaken our will. Instead of weakness, they're finding resolve. Not long ago, we intercepted a planning document being sent to leaders of al Qaeda by one of their associates, a man named Zarqawi. Along with the usual threats, he had a complaint: "Our enemy," said Zarqawi, "is growing stronger and his intelligence data are increasing day by day -- this is suffocation." Zarqawi is getting the idea. We will never turn over Iraq to terrorists who intend our own destruction. We will not fail the Iraqi people, who have placed their trust in us. Whatever it takes, we will fight and work to assure the success of freedom in Iraq.

Many coalition countries have sacrificed in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Among the fallen soldiers and civilians are sons and daughters of Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. We honor their courage, we pray for the comfort of their families. We will uphold the cause they served.

The rise of democratic institutions in Afghanistan and Iraq is a great step toward a goal of lasting importance to the world. We have set out to encourage reform and democracy in the greater Middle East as the alternatives to fanaticism, resentment, and terror. We've set out to break the cycle of bitterness and radicalism that has brought stagnation to a vital region, and destruction to cities in America and Europe and around the world. This task is historic, and difficult; this task is necessary and worthy of our efforts.

In the 1970s, the advance of democracy in Lisbon and Madrid inspired democratic change in Latin America. In the 1980s, the example of Poland ignited a fire of freedom in all of Eastern Europe. With Afghanistan and Iraq showing the way, we are confident that freedom will lift the sights and hopes of millions in the greater Middle East.

One man who believed in our cause was a Japanese diplomat named Katsuhiko Oku. He worked for the Coalition Provision Authority in Iraq. Mr. Oku was killed when his car was ambushed. In his diary he described his pride in the cause he had joined. "The free people of Iraq," he wrote, "are now making steady progress in reconstructing their country -- while also fighting against the threat of terrorism. We must join hands with the Iraqi people in their effort to prevent Iraq from falling into the hands of terrorists." This good, decent man concluded, "This is also our fight to defend freedom."

Ladies and gentlemen, this good man from Japan was right. The establishment of a free Iraq is our fight. The success of a free Afghanistan is our fight. The war on terror is our fight. All of us are called to share the blessings of liberty, and to be strong and steady in freedom's defense. It will surely be said of our times that we lived with great challenges. Let it also be said of our times that we understood our great duties, and met them in full.

May God bless our efforts.

Another moving Bush speech and one that was much needed after the events of the last few weeks, particularly in the wake of the election debacle and terrible terror attacks in Spain.
This speech touched and inspired me, but listen to the reaction of Iraqi blogger Alaa at The Mesopotamian:

I have just listened to President Bush’s speech on CNN. I just couldn’t leave the keyboard without saying something. Because the warmth of the Presidents’ words of friendship and commitment to our people really did make my eyes moisten. Not even the openly hostile report by the CNN reporter could spoil the feeling.

God will be on the side of good men, and it is clear for this middle-aged man who the good men are.

Hail dear El Bush. Thanks to you and all the Coalition men and women. Long may live our alliance and friendship. Victory by the Grace and Help of Allah is assured.

Alaa

Excuse me while I dry my eyes, too.
Beautiful, Alaa and You're welcome.

The World of Megaterrorism

Read carefully the statement that claimed responsibility for the Madrid massacres. Al Qaeda puts everyone, from the Crusaders to the Jews, all countries who sent troops not just to Iraq but to Afghanistan as well, in their gun sights. In other words, all of Europe--Berlin and Paris, no less than Rome, London or Warsaw. France merits special condemnation for its ban on the Islamic veil in public schools.

Mad is the European who thinks himself immune for having opposed Saddam Hussein's overthrow. No accommodation provides insurance against attack. No public building, no train platform, no sidewalk is spared by the Islamist butchers. "Death train," "death's black smoke," "the wind of death," the bleak metaphors fly over the borders in the name of al Qaeda. The bombs in Madrid, they say, are the "answers to the crimes you have committed worldwide . . . in Iraq and in Afghanistan."

In manipulating the Spanish election, terrorism proclaims its gospel and applies it in practice. The perfect timing of March 11 is the monstrous example. Little does it matter that the 201 dead and the 1,500 wounded were working-class people, most likely opposed to an intervention in Iraq--as were some 90% of the Spanish. The "human material" has no value for the terrorists who prove the strength of their convictions and the power of their weapons with the murder of the disarmed, whoever they may be and whatever they may think, whether believers or not. It was an encore, as everyone said: On this March 11, 2004, Europe lived its own September 11, the horror of Manhattan all over again.

Except this time the assassins can proclaim they have won. It took them three days to sway popular opinion. The Popular Party of Jose María Aznar, the expected winner, got trounced. "Punished!" they said. But by whom? What's the point of political campaigns, meetings, reports, programs and debates if within a few hours, the bombing of packed train cars can reverse the result? This final landslide, which no polls had predicted, is entirely due to the Atocha station catastrophe and the terror it spread. How could the terrorists not assume that they are the decision-makers, and that terrorism is now stronger than democracy? If the Socialists brought to govern Spain keep their pledge (made before the massacre) to withdraw from Iraq, they will confirm the killers' innermost conviction: Crime pays--and the greater the horror, the more efficiently.

"But of course not," object the wishful thinkers, Mr. Aznar lost because his alliance with George W. Bush was unpopular. Nonsense! The alliance was just as unpopular three days before the elections, but the Popular Party was still favored then, and his opponents did not hope to win back many "antiwar votes." Without the bombs, without the bloodbath, the shouts of "Aznar assassin" would have sounded ludicrous. But Madrid's ground zero panicked the minds and awoke the demagogues, ready to invert responsibility. Were there not already weak minds--Lenin's "useful idiots"--who eagerly claimed that Mr. Bush and the CIA had planned the fall of the Twin Towers?
[M. Gluckmann nails it with the "useful idiots" reference. The rout of Aznar and the victory of Zapatero was so sudden, so decisive and so predictable as a product of the bombings that I'm beginning to have strong suspicions that Zapatero and his Socialist Party may have worked with the bombers to make it happen. The Socialists had everything to gain and nothing to lose.--Jen]

With hundreds of dead, more than a thousand wounded and the threat of another imminent terrorist attack, Mr. Aznar did not see, know and understand everything within 24 hours. Should a head of government be blamed for not being God? Should he be imagined plotting a Machiavellian scheme to cheat his people without cheating himself, as some kind of extra-lucid devil pulling the strings of a conspiracy as huge as it would be absurd? Stop this delirium.

One rule, one and only one firm rule must impose itself on Europe after this tragedy. In the event of another electoral hijacking, voting must be immediately postponed. The governed and the governing must both be given the time to recover their right minds. They must be able to assess and address the horror, its antecedents and its consequences; cool down before undertaking an informed vote. Let a people abruptly thrown in the abysses of hell maintain the suspense for a fortnight or two, so that it can exercise its sovereign power with sovereignty!

Right at the moment, fearing to confront the true culprit, a virtual culprit was caught in Spain. Mr. Aznar replaced Osama bin Laden. A magic trick--an exercise in exorcism. With no grip on the true mastermind, some voters find imaginary guilt and decide to symbolically kill through the ballots their own head of government. Illusionists arise to face the blackmailers, a consoling witchcraft dreams of itself as a worldwide antiterrorist operation. In front of the candles lighted for the victims, banners cursed the demons: In small case the Basque terrorists "ETA," then "bin Laden," in bigger letters "Bush," while the huge letters spelled "Aznar." The world is upside down.

"Not in the least," object the sincere or the false naïfs: The conservative government destroyed itself by hiding the truth and pointing to ETA instead of al Qaeda. What a miserable alibi. As soon as the news broke, every single Spaniard--backed by 20 years of bloody memories--including the Socialist winner Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, and even a majority of Basques, were inclined to follow the ETA trail. Within 48 hours, the police, the intelligence services, the press and the ministers rectified their initial assumptions. As they were going to the ballot, the voters had heard of everything that was known, and Spanish democracy and its institutions had worked.

But some of the protesters were still waving around the lie of a "state lie;" and numerous voters, perfectly well informed, changed their minds and chose to bow down without regrets to the blackmail of their fellow citizens' assassins. A minute of silence, followed by a night of rejoicing for the electoral winners. What a short memory. Al Qaeda--oh sorry! "the Arab resistance," to use the words of the spokesman of Batasouna/ETA--has waged its elections campaign with corpses, and the ballot box has granted its diktat. Whether we like it or not: "Welcome to the world of megaterrorism!"

Time has come for decisions. Either Europe unifies to resist the engineers of the apocalypse, following Tony Blair. Or it poses as an opponent of the United States, following the pseudo-"camp of peace" led by Jacques Chirac, Vladimir Putin and the hesitating Gerhard Schroeder. The "viva la muerte" chanted by the Islamist legions vindicates Tony Blair. But the terror they spread, petrifying European citizens, threatens to lead to resignation after resignation.

Rome, Paris, Athens, Warsaw, Berlin . . .? Don't ask who's next! "Never ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee." Hemingway the anti-Francoist was quoting John Donne, an 18th century poet. Bin Laden's mercenaries take their inspiration from the Spanish fascist Millán Astray: "You want life, we want death." Will Mr. Zapatero find the voice of Miguel de Unamuno, the independent thinker of Salamanca who denounced the fascist general's "cry of necrophilia," and stand up to today's nihilist killers? It is never too late to prevent a disaster.

The Left, in the case of Spain Zapatero's Socialists, were the only ones who stood to gain besides the terrorists from the Madrid bombings.
Likewise with yesterday's "peace" rallies:
Worldwide protests mark Iraq war
.
We know that these anti-war marches are funded and organized by the Left (like ANSWER is by the Communist Party) and it doesn't take much trouble to find the protest signs with the hammer and sicle on them.
As with Spain, the only ones who stand to gain from rallying and channelling the masses in these rallies are the Leftists...and the IslamoFascist terrorists.
As I've said here more than once, the Left and the Islamists have made common cause with each other, pretending that one won't get rid of the other once they attain power.
These "protester" crowds' signs might as well say not just "Welcome to the World of Megaterrorism" but also "Megaterrorists Welcome!"
Tragically stupid.
They're not protesting Bush and America, they're making it known that they will submit by the thousands to terrorist murder and oppression willingly and almost happily.
Were they any signs anywhere on the planet condemning Saddam Hussein and announcing his deposal as a very good thing, especially for the people of Iraq?
And even if we've found no WMDs in Iraq so far, there's at least one place in the Middle Eastern hotbed of jihad where we know WMDs aren't and where a madman who's used them in the past no longer holds absolute autocratic power, but is in jail awaiting trial for his innumerable crimes against humanity and that's Iraq!
Yet, the protesters aimed all their hate and vitriol at President Bush, who led a just war only as a last resort to deal with Saddam's evil.
The Left also gets its talking points confused: they maintain that there's no Al Queda/Islamist link to Saddam, yet when Al Queda took credit for the Madrid bombings as "punishment" for Spain backing the U.S.-led Coalition in Iraq fighting the terrorists, Spaniards voted for the Leftist Socialist who promised to remove the troops from Iraq so there wouldn't be another such "retaliation."
If Al Queda doesn't connect the 2 things, why change Spain's committment?
I'm afraid Mr. Gluckmann is a little too reasonable and sanguine in his appeal to his fellow EUropeans; the outcome of the Spanish election combined with the large crowds in "Old EUrope's" capitals yesterday shows that there are too many useful idiots in the other countries of Western Europe who will give the same response to a terror attack that Spain did.
All we have left to us now is to wait, worry and pray: it's just a matter of time before the evildoer jihadis hit Rome, Berlin, Brussels or London.
Madrid was a success for them after a long, dry spell and they need--and tragically, will likely carry out--another big hit to put even more of the Continent in their corner.
Big turnouts at "peace rallies" and an election which was visibly "thrown" to appeasement and accomodation of the terrorists have signed the death warrant for hundreds, if not thousands (but one hopes, not millions) of EUropeans someday soon.
In one corner of the world yesterday, there were no anti-war protests and the people celebrated life, instead of death by living their lives freely:
That was in Iraq itself.

Probe ordered over Big Ben protest

A BRITISH government minister demanded Sunday an investigation into how two anti-war protestors managed to dodge security to scale London's Big Ben clock tower, admitting it was a "huge embarrassment".

Leader of the House of Commons Peter Hain said Saturday's incident raised questions about security at the Houses of Parliament at a time when Britain is on alert for possible terrorist attacks in the wake of the Madrid bombings.

"It is a huge embarrassment, both to the House authorities and the policing arrangements," he told BBC television.

"Twenty or 30 years ago an audacious protest like that by Greenpeace would have been seen for exactly that. But what if these had been suicide bombers?

"So I am very disturbed about it and I want an urgent report as Leader of the Commons about how it happened."

I could not agree more!
Not only would a world (not to mention a national British) historical treasure be destroyed, but if IslamoFascist terrorists could get a dirty bomb and set it off from up there, it could disperse radiation all over central London!
Big Ben would be a juicy target for the Islamists, too, as they loathe time-pieces and clocks, according to Islam expert Bernard Lewis in his excellent book What Went Wrong.
Lewis relates that part of the reason that Islamic culture is able to remain in the 7th Century and not join the world of the 21st Century is that they set little store by keeping time.