MAJOR AL QAEDA FIGURE ARRESTED

The Turkish police have apprehended Luai Sakra, a Syrian who once headed up an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan and is a close confidant of Zarqawi. He also gave logistical support to 9-11, and apparently knew about the London bombings beforehand:

The Turkish interrogators in Istanbul's high-security prison wanted to be polite; they wanted to show respect for Islam. They offered their prisoner, an Islamist named Luai Sakra, 31, a chance to pray during a pause in questioning.

They'd done the same thing with earlier suspects. The move was supposed to establish trust.

But this prisoner reacted a bit differently. "I don't pray," Sakra answered politely, "and I like alcohol." When the baffled officials didn't want to believe him, he elaborated: "Especially whiskey and wine."

It wasn't the only surprise the Syrian-born suspect presented to investigators. Turkish anti-terror officials held the suspected al-Qaida member for four days. Just after his arrest two weeks ago, Sakra admitted to planning strikes against Israeli cruise ships; he hoarded 750 kilograms of explosives for the purpose. When some of those explosives went up in flames in his Antalya apartment, he fled.

What Sakra told officials during his interrogation suggests a deep jihadist career. The Syrian, who knows weapons as well as he knows his whiskey and wine, has obviously played a far more important role in the terrorist underground than officials first suspected. According to his own testimony, he knew about the London bombings before they happened, and supported the pilots on 9/11.

"I was one of the people who knew the 9/11 perpetrators," Sakra reportedly said in passing during the interrogation, "and I knew the plans and times beforehand." He claims to have provided the pilots with passports and money.

These details, if true, close some gaps in the narrative of the worst terrorist assaults in history -- and they raise a question which German investigators have wrestled with in past week: Did Sakra -- who lived from September 2000 to July 2001 with his wife and two small children as an asylum-seeker in the southern town of Schramberg -- work with anyone else in Germany? Are there any unknown contacts still out there who know what he knows?

Western investigators accept Sakra's claims, by and large, since they coincide with known facts. On September 10, 2001, he tipped off the Syrian secret service -- which had chased him since 1999 for his role in a revolt in a Lebanon refugee camp -- that terrorist attacks were about to occur in the United States. The evidently well-informed al-Qaida insider even named buildings as targets, and airplanes as weapons. The Syrians passed on this information to the CIA -- but only after the attacks.

Sakra has also apparently taken part in combat in Fallujah and caliphascist beheadings inside Iraq:

A video allegedly recorded in Fallujah played an important role for Turkish investigators: Sakra boasted to an Istanbul magistrate that he'd attended the execution of a kidnapped Turkish truck driver in Iraq.

The video shows the death of driver Murat Yüce in August 2004, at the hands of armed, masked fighters for Zarqawi. Sakra gave a running commentary with a slight smile and no remorse: "Look, now they'll cut off his head. Soon they'll take that pistol off the table, so the blood won't ruin it." And, like a ballistics expert: "Blood wrecks the insides of a pistol."

He was picked up by the Turkish MIT several times in 2000 and 2001, including once in August 2001. The story says that the CIA tried buying Sakra into becoming an informant within al Qaeda in 2000, but given his bloody history that wouldn't have sat well with the Clinton ethos of the time, which forbade our intel agencies from dealing with anyone with blood on their hands.

IRAQ BODY COUNT FRAUD CONTINUES

It started here. But now it's another day, another anti-war canard from the left.

The DailyKos and other left-wing bloggers are featuring the map below (from the invaluable website icasualties.org) in an attempt to make a point about the deaths of U.S. servicemen and women in Iraq. The point is not entirely clear, but Kos appears to be suggesting that areas that voted for John Kerry in the last election have suffered more deaths in the war than areas that voted for George W. Bush -- hence, the blue areas are more patriotic than the red.

It appears to be a wildly invalid point in many ways. To take just one example, the casualties map also resembles a map of the concentration of the U.S. population; it's no surprise they would be similar.

I guess it's an attempt to assure us that Democrats in general now have the "absolute moral authority" to speak out in solidarity with Cindy Sheehan in favor of the "freedom fighters" who killed her son and against da Jooos, the Bush criminal syndicate and his secret nuclear genocide of civilians in Iraq. Because that's what being patriotic is all about, right?

In response:

A reader has posted a chart of American servicemen and women deaths in Iraq ranked by deaths per 100,000 population by state. For what it is worth, eight of the ten states with the highest death rates are red (although the state with the greatest loss is very-blue Vermont). In general, and with some notable exceptions, red states tend to be in the top half of the list, with blue states nearer the bottom.

And for even more context on the MSM-left's Iraq death count fetish, Powerline has a great post:

We are conducting an experiment never before seen, as far as I know, in the history of the human race. We are trying to fight a war under the auspices of an establishment that is determined--to put the most charitable face on it--to emphasize American casualties over all other information about the war.

...Here's some context: between 1983 and 1996, 18,006 American military personnel died accidentally in the service of their country. That death rate of 1,286 per year exceeds the rate of combat deaths in Iraq by a ratio of nearly two to one.

That's right: all through the years when hardly anyone was paying attention, soldiers, sailors and Marines were dying in accidents, training and otherwise, at nearly twice the rate of combat deaths in Iraq from the start of the war in 2003 to the present. Somehow, though, when there was no political hay to be made, I don't recall any great outcry, or gleeful reporting, or erecting of crosses in the President's home town. In fact, I'll offer a free six-pack to the first person who can find evidence that any liberal expressed concern--any concern--about the 18,006 American service members who died accidentally in service of their country from 1983 to 1996.

The point? Being a soldier is not safe, and never will be. Driving in my car this afternoon, I heard a mainstream media reporter say that around 2,000 service men and women have died in Afghanistan and Iraq "on President Bush's watch." As though the job of the Commander in Chief were to make the jobs of our soldiers safe. They're not safe, and they never will be safe, in peacetime, let alone wartime.

What is the President's responsibility? To expend our most precious resources only when necessary, in service of the national interest. We would all prefer that our soldiers never be required to fight. Everyone--most of all, every politician--much prefers peace to war. But when our enemies fly airplanes into our skyscrapers; attack the nerve center of our armed forces; bomb our embassies; scheme to blow up our commercial airliners; try to assassinate our former President; do their best to shoot down our military aircraft; murder our citizens; assassinate our diplomats overseas; and attack our naval vessels--well, then, the time has come to fight. And when the time comes to fight, our military personnel are ready. They don't ask to be preserved from all danger. They know their job is dangerous; they knew that when they signed up. They are prepared to face the risk, on our behalf. All they ask is to be allowed to win.

It is, I think, a reasonable request. It's the least that we--all Americans, including reporters and editors--can do.

But instead, these brave men and women are being nagged out of Iraq prematurely by the MSM-left's Nag-in-Chief and her gaggle of nagging supporters so the real torture and killing of civilians can safely take place once again.

MORE: Related hoax

For two years, Carbondale residents have been riveted by the writing of a little girl imploring her father in Iraq: "Don't die, OK?"

Only now are they learning there was never any danger of that.

The Daily Egyptian, Southern Illinois University's student-run newspaper, today will admit to its readers that the saga - of a little girl's published letters to her father serving in Iraq - was apparently an elaborate hoax perpetrated by a woman who claimed to be the girl's aunt. ...

Over the months, columns written by Kodee started to become a regular feature on the paper's editorial page. The columns, titled "Kenningsology," talked about her childhood, her newfound friends at the Daily Egyptian, her father, and even President Bush:

"I'm rily mad at you and you make my hart hurt,"' she purportedly wrote in one published letter to the president. "I don't think your doing a very good job. You keep sending soldiers to Iraq and it's not fair. Do you have a soldier of your own in Irak?"

WELDON DONS POKER FACE: ALL IN

When the Able Danger saga is done, Curt Weldon will deserve one of two things: a Congressional Medal of Freedom for his courage, or a straight jacket for his lunacy. There really isn't a middle ground for a man who says what he is now saying:

Rep. Curt Weldon predicted yesterday that members of the 9/11 Commission would have "egg all over their face[s]" when the truth comes out about briefings they received on an elite group of military intelligence analysts code named Able Danger.

"The 9/11 Commission is trying to spin this because they're embarrassed at what's coming out," Weldon told the Fox News Channel's "Fox & Friends" morning show.

"In two weeks with two staffers, I've uncovered more in this regard than they did with 80 staffers and $15 million of taxpayers' money!"

The Pennsylvania Republican said the truth would come out in hearings planned for this fall:

"This information will ultimately end up in a hearing. Senator Specter is preparing a hearing in the judiciary committee. I talked to Speaker Hastert yesterday on the House side. We will bring people in under oath, and they will swear and they will answer the questions."

Weldon also blasted Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita for repeatedly claiming he can't find any evidence to back up claims from Able Danger team members that they had identified lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta two years before the attacks.

Weldon said he told Di Rita: "Larry, don't ever go on national TV again and say what you said, when I know that [Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence] Steve Cambone is right now going through four boxes of materials."

"There's something very sinister that's going on here that really troubles me," Weldon complained.

And Weldon seems to be promising more to come. He just keeps putting up when shutting up would be the wise thing to do, if he doesn't actually have a there there. In poker terms, he has pushed all of his chips into the center of the table and is awaiting the skeptics' call or fold. You only do that when have a sure winning hand--or when you're bluffing mightily hoping to intimidate your opponent into folding his superior hand. But if Weldon is bluffing, so are two high-ranking military officers. Their motive, if they're not telling the truth, remains a mystery. Mac tried smearing them a couple weeks ago, but that went nowhere.

And the Pentagon remains bland, as predicted here. Its poker face betrays no hint of what's in its hand--yet.

BLUE STATE BLUES

I live in a blue state. On the way in to work every morning I drive through good neighborhoods, not so good neighborhoods, you name it. Just before getting to the office, I pull through a very upscale patch where the lawns are perfect, the cars are flashy and the houses are monstrous. Trophy wives jog through the neighborhood most good mornings, their perfect sweat never marring their perfect ensembles.

In that neighborhood, I don't recall seeing many, if any, American flags flying on any of the houses. Lots of Kerry signs and stickers--even some Kerry signs still planted as though the election didn't take place nearly a year ago now. But no American flags.

This morning, I did notice a new flag flying from one of the houses. No Old Glories in sight, mind you, but a pale blue thing now flies that wasn't there yesterday. It's the UN flag. Who in their right mind would fly a UN flag on their house?

That flag is a symbol of pettiness, lies and corruption, of world government by unelected bureaucrats, of giving a voice to tyrants and of troop misconduct during "peacekeeping" missions. It's the symbol of half-wars fought to stalemate in Korea and of Oil-For-Food payoffs to help Saddam. If any flag deserves burning, it's that one.

Yet it now flies in one of the swankest neighborhoods in the state, without a US flag in sight to counter it. Such are the values of the rich around here.

WAPO VS THE MULLAHS

A few days ago the Post caused a stir by reporting, based on anonymous sources, that Iran doesn't really have a nuclear weapons program:

Traces of bomb-grade uranium found two years ago in Iran came from contaminated Pakistani equipment and are not evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program, a group of U.S. government experts and other international scientists has determined.

"The biggest smoking gun that everyone was waving is now eliminated with these conclusions," said a senior official who discussed the still-confidential findings on the condition of anonymity.

Scientists from the United States, France, Japan, Britain and Russia met in secret during the past nine months to pore over data collected by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, according to U.S. and foreign officials. Recently, the group, whose existence had not been previously reported, definitively matched samples of the highly enriched uranium -- a key ingredient for a nuclear weapon -- with centrifuge equipment turned over by the government of Pakistan.

The group that the Post is relying on is a creation of the IAEA, famous most recently for turning a blind eye to pretty much every nuclear weapons issue that arises from the Middle East:

The IAEA had put together the group of experts in an effort to foster cooperation but also to eliminate the possibility that its findings would be challenged by the White House, officials said. In the run-up to the Iraq invasion in March 2003, the White House rejected IAEA findings that cast doubt on U.S. assertions about then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's arsenal. The IAEA findings turned out to be correct, and no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq.

The scientists' paymaster may be relevant to the substance of their findings.

Meanwhile, if you actually listen to the mullahs themselves, you get an entirely different story.

The following are excerpts from an interview with Iran's chief nuclear affairs negotiator, and Supreme National Security Council member Hosein Musavian, which aired on Iranian Channel 2 on August 4, 2005. To view this clip visit http://memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=805. To view several MEMRI TV clips on Iran's Defense Program, visit http://memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S5&P1=135.

Musavian: "Those [in Iran] who criticize us and claim that we should have only worked with the IAEA do not know that at that stage – that is, in August 2003 – we needed another year to complete the Esfahan (UCF) project, so it could be operational. They say that because of that 50-day [ultimatum], we should have kept [the UCF] in Esfahan incomplete, and that we needed to comply with the IAEA's demands and shut down the facilities.

"The regime adopted a twofold policy here: It worked intensively with the IAEA, and it also conducted negotiations on international and political levels. The IAEA gave us a 50-day extension to suspend the enrichment and all related activities. But thanks to the negotiations with Europe we gained another year, in which we completed (the UCF) in Esfahan.

---

Host: "Mr. Musavian, there is a point that our viewers might find interesting - the comparison between Iran's nuclear activity dossier and North Korea's.

[...]

"There is a belief that if we adopted the North Korean model, we could have stood much stronger against the excessive demands of America and Europe.

[...]

Musavian: "During these two years of negotiations, we managed to make far greater progress than North Korea. North Korea's most important achievement had to do with security guarantees. We achieved the same thing a year ago in the negotiations with the Europeans. They agreed to give us international guarantees for Iran's security, its national rule, its independence, [and] non-intervention in its internal affairs, [as well as] its national security, and for not invading it."

Esfahan is the site of Iran's largest nuclear facility, and is probably a nuclear weapons development center. The mullahs are playing the Europeans and the IAEA like a fiddle, using delaying tactics to keep the development program on track. Or at least that's the story they're peddling for domestic consumption.

Bottom line: The WaPo story is most likely bunk, crafted by the IAEA to discredit the US.

(thanks to Greg)

EVIL UNCHALLENGED

gets stronger.

1974 REDUX

Our leftist media gets beamed right into Iraq, to misinform them as much as it misinforms us. How much Reuters must love reporting the effect:

ROME, Aug 25 (Reuters) - Iraqi leaders are closely watching the growth of the anti-war movement in the United States and understand that Americans will become frustrated without more progress, Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari said on Thursday.

Our allies aren't the only ones noting the anti-war movement. You can bet Zarqawi and bin Laden are enjoying the spectacle as well.

Zebari, on a two-day trip to Italy, also said the next few months would "make or break" Iraq but that allies should stick together and not send what he called mixed or confused signals.

He said he sympathised with anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan and others who have lost loved ones in Iraq but that it would be "disastrous" if the protests led to any cracks in the coalition or premature withdrawal.

Zebari is right about what a disaster withdrawing from Iraq prematurely would cause, but Sheehan and the media and the Democrats don't care. They don't care. To them this entire war is nimby--not in my back yard--even when it was right down the street from their swank Manhattan pads. They're the party of billionaires and heiresses--if Iraq goes belly up, who cares? They never wanted to go there anyway. If the US gets blown up, who cares? They'll just move to Paris. If Paris gets blown up, who cares? They'll just move to Canada. Etc. They have disconnected themselves from any consequences their rhetoric might cause, as much as they are disconnected from reality and the plight of average people. If a million Iraqis died because these snooty leftists convinced enough Americans to demand a premature exit, these leftist elites would learn nothing from it and would not care at all. They would blame Bush and then just MoveOn to some other campaign of canards.

(thanks to Chris)

WHAT A WASTE OF TIME

Victor Davis Hanson will debate U.S. Foreign Policy with Arianna Huffington. If that harpy stays true to form, the debate will go something like this:

HANSON: Now Mrs. Huffington, your friend Cindy Sheehan has called President Bush "the world's biggest terrorist" while also calling the insurgentst in Iraq, whose crimes include driving bombs into crowds of Iraqi children, "freedom fighters." Is that your position as well?

HUFFINGTON: Let me tell you, dahling, that as a mother Cindy has the absolutel moral authority to speak. She has the freedom to speak. And she must be heard.

HANSON: But again, if I may, do you agree with Sheehan's characterization of the insurgents as "freedom fighters?"

HUFFINGTON: This President's lies took us to war! It is about time we heard an authentic voice, grounded in real moral clarity, speak the truth to this criminal administration and its horrible policies.

HANSON: Could you just answer the question?

MODERATOR: I'm afraid your time is up, Dr. Hanson. Your question, Mrs. Huffington.

Ad nauseum. That's nearly a word-for-word exchange that took place on Hannity today--him trying in vain to get her to answer a simple question, her letting those questions pass between her ears as she lurched from one idiotic talking point to another. I kept urging Hannity to just hang up on her, ban her from his show for life, etc, but of course I was only talking to myself. And he kept her on the show and let her keep spouting enemy bullet points and nonsense.

That's pretty much how the Hanson debate will go too. And it's a shame, really, that a real scholar such as Hanson has to debate someone whose sole qualification to opine is the fact that she's rich beyond most people's wildest dreams. She has no actual qualifications, just opinions. And money.

The debate is September 14 in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Blue state. No matter who says what, the audience will come away feeling that she won the dumb thing.

(via Ace)

BREAKDOWN

I was going write a long, careful post about this, but the truth is hardly anyone reads long posts all the way to the end. So I'll keep it short, knowing that I'll miss salient facts and side arguments. So be it.

Everyone on the right is worried, angry, and frustrated that the Bush administration isn't making the case for the war, that he's letting a very strange woman with a loose cannon mouth dictate his comings and goings, and that the war itself is in jeopardy. And it is. A majority now thinks the Iraq was was a mistake, and a significant plurality thinks Mr. Bush lied our way into that war.

That their beliefs are based on equal parts ignorance of history and the effect of the steady drip of lies from the Democrats, media and the left is largely irrelevant. That Mr. Bush could detonate the entire "Bush lied, people died" crapola with a simple request--have everyone with internet access Google "Clinton Iraq 1998" and see what they find--is true but meaningless. He's never made that request. He never will. I don't know why, and frankly I'm tired of carrying the administration's water on the war. And with this little blog I can only carry so much. All blogs put together, from InstaPundit to Michelle Malkin, can only do so much.

During the lowest points of the Clinton years, that scoundrel had about a half dozen surrogates who were everywhere, all the time, 24/7 it seemed, crafting clever lies and half-truths that kept Clinton in office. They literally kept the man in office. Polls showed at the outset that if it were proved that Clinton had done what he was accused of doing with Monica, never mind the subornation of perjury and the rest, he would have to leave office. His response was "Well, we have to win then." So he got his surrogates out and they won.

President Bush, who is ten times the man of Clinton with a hundred times the courage, has done some big, noble, courageous things on our behalf. We bloggers have tried to maintain support for him but most Americans still don't read blogs. We in the alternative press have tried to keep telling his story, but most Americans don't read the alternative press. What we can do is piddly stuff compared to what needs to be done.

What needs to be done? Well, the administration needs some big gun surrogates. It needs its aggressive spokesmen who, like Carville and Begala and their comrades, stick to a small set of talking points and hammer them 24/7 on the airwaves. These big guns must be already famous conservatives who can articulate the cause with passion and conviction, not a gaggle of bloggers and hangers on no one's ever heard of. Bloggers aren't enough. CNS News reporting the Code Pink attacks on Walter Reed aren't enough. We need bigger guns in this battle, or we'll lose.

David Frum--you criticized the administration's war communication. You're a famous former member of the administration. Well, if you believe in the war put your good name to work and help us win it. Our pundits are letting us down. They're letting the administration down, and they're letting our troops down.

I'm serious. Making comments on blog posts and syndicated columns is good, but not enough. Most Americans don't read that much, and they're certainly not reading political blogs. So get off your backsides and put your mouths and your brains to work. A breakdown of the entire war effort seems like it's on the horizon now, with the president's approval ratings at rock bottom and a majority turning, perhaps irrevocably but perhaps not, against the war. In the age of punditry and information when we're fighting a post-modern war, surrogates for the president are vital. So get out there and get yourselves into America's living rooms however you have to do it.

MORE: Powerline is wrong, O'Reilly is right. The President does not have until January 2009 to patch up Iraq enough to satisfy the American people. He has until next summer at the most, and here's why. There's a midterm next year. The Democrats are more vulnerable in both the House and Senate, but if the war's unpopularity continues to slide candidates and incumbents in both parties will be running away from it. They're running away from it now for the most part--when was the last time you heard either a GOP congressman or senator stand up unequivocally with the president on the war? Most of them have been mostly silent lately. Next year if we're hitting more than 60% thinking that we should withdraw, party won't matter all that much. The GOP will probably still control both houses, but their local polls will tell them that staying the course is politically problematic. So they'll start voting to defund the war, either by defunding training for the Iraqi security forces or be defunding the deployment itself, forcing DoD to bring the troops home.

Think it can't happen? It happened in 1974. And we were out of Vietnam a year later, and our South Vietnam allies, defunded and defanged, were overrun by the Communists.

It can happen next year, and if the administration doesn't turn the PR infowar around in the US fast, it probably will. The mediacrat left will see to it however they can.

One thing I think a lot of us pro-war bloggers misunderstood in 2003--I know I misunderstood it at the time--was that when the mediacrat left said Iraq would be another Vietnam, that wasn't a forlorn prediction. It was a threat. And they are making good on that threat.

(hat tip Robert)

SCOTT OTT

should become President Bush's next speechwriter.

RED STATE, BLUE STATE: COMPARE AND CONTRAST

Missouri (Bush 53%, Kerry 46% in 2004 election): Missouri Welcomes Home a Hero.

Washington State (Kerry 53%, Bush 46% in 2004 election): Caught on Tape: Soldiers Beaten in Seattle.

MORE: Saddamite UK MP George Galloway just announced a speaking tour of the US. Or, more precisely, parts of the US:

Starting September 13, Galloway will appear in Boston, New York, Madison, Wisconsin, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles before ending his tour, on September 24, in Washington, where he will speak at George Washington University.

All of those sites are blue, blue, blue, blue, blue, blue, blue, blue.

THE ACLU AND THE 'LIVING CONSTITUTION'

Stop the ACLU sifts ACLU statements and history to determine what Roger Baldwin's creation really thinks of democracy:

What the majority thinks doesn’t matter anymore. Former ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser made that clear when he said in an ACLU press release after Alaska voted for a constitutional amendment to preserve the traditional definition of marriage, “Today’s results prove that certain fundamental issues should not be left up to a majority vote.”

Rtwt.

REVIEWING THE NATIONAL REVIEW CRUISE

by Keith Curtis [I hope he's right about Hillary in '08--ed.]

I went on a cruise around the UK from the 10th to the 21st of July with my parents and the National Review. It had a bunch of great panelists, William F. Buckley, Robert Bork, editor Rich Lowry, NRO creator Jonah Goldberg and his cute daughter we’ve read about periodically in the G-File, and too many others to name. Each night we sat at a different table of 8 for dinner and got to meet different guests and 2 of the nights we sat with somebody ‘famous.’

It was on a 4 star cruise ship around the UK, starting at the white cliffs of Dover and stopping at 6 different places. On the days at sea, we had 4 hours of panels and an evening get-together. There were 450 of us on a boat of 1000, and we dominated the ship. I would tell the other guests that we were planning Jeb Bush’s election and the invasion of Syria. (It was amazing how many people hadn’t heard of National Review.) My mom retells the story of how she almost got into a fight with some rube lib about the Clintons on a cruise in the 90s and had to move tables, so it was refreshing that every guest you met was like-minded but also as interesting as the last.

The days at sea panels covered everything from the mainstream media, to then-upcoming Supreme Court nomination, the recent Britain bombings, and many other interesting topics. The topic discussed most was Hillary Clinton in 2008. Paul Johnson reminded everyone that a week is a long time in politics, but I don’t think it was appreciated by the crowd or even the NR folks.

I am very optimistic and went around telling everyone that Hillary won’t run because I don’t think she wants to re-live through the 1990s. What I can tell you about HillaryCare can fit in a thimble other than the memories of the deliberations being secret and her wanting to appease the insurance companies, but if she runs for President, I’ll get to hear about it, and she’ll get to defend it and it will be very boring for us and pointless for her. She must realize this, though we should remind her at every turn.

Furthermore, I told people not to worry because the way Bush is going, there won’t be any issues left to discuss in 2008. People on the cruise don’t realize this, but Bush’s successor, whoever he is, will be operating on a completely different set of issues as we are discussing today. Bush has 3.5 more years, with hopefully a more conservative Senate in 2006, and in that time, he and the Republican party, are going to pass tons of legislation on every issue which has been festering for the last 40 years or more in America today. People don’t seriously consider what Congress will be talking about this fall, but immigration and tax reform, medical malpractice, expanded HSAs, maybe NASA. And what about next spring and summer and fall? In 2008, we will have discussed and the Congress will pass legislation on most or all of the domestic issues of our time. Notice how we aren’t talking about the Death Tax or Forest Fires or whether nuclear power anymore? Bush will get through at least a version 1 of the backlog of legislation people have been talking for as long as anyone today has been in Washington. This means two things.

I believe Bush is failing for not spending enough time talking to the intellectuals from his base. The New York Times drives the agenda and if they want to talk about Abu Ghraib, then we all talk about it, but National Review and the rest of the intellectuals in our party have our own level of understanding and perspective and Bush needs to understand how we think and communicate with us on our level.

It is a tragedy how little support Bush’s domestic agenda got from the panelists. Jonah gave a very funny tirade about the flaws in Bush’s domestic agenda, from prescription drugs to No Child Left Behind and certainly everyone include Bush would agree that his legislation has flaws, but you get the feeling that they aren’t on board with most of it.

To take education as an example, we can’t do, as National Review presumably proposes, to just abolish the Department of Education tomorrow and make all schools private. However, we could ensure that we don’t have a generation where 20% of high-school educated kits cannot read by by having states create tests. Liberals believe you can fake tests which is why we haven’t had them up till now, but Bush has fought and won on that issue, one of the many many unrecognized achievements of his administration. And now that we have tests we can put our collective brainpower to building better tests. And now that we have tests, we can talk about why schools are failing which could eventually even lead to the abolishment of schools run by the State.

We also talked a lot about immigration. Here is another example where the level of understanding among even the panelists is very limited--no one had any actual ideas other than putting heat-seaking missiles onto UAVs. I believe we should have started with the premise of: what kind of economic incentives can we create in a guest worker program to make sure people return at the end? What about a 50% tax whose benefits they get only while they prove residence back in their home country? If the Right were on board, they could be arguing for stronger economic incentives, for perhaps also changing the rule which says that children of illegals are citizens, for removing certain levels of access to social services to whatever else we can think of which would cure any of the egregious abuses in the system.

And so my second point is that Bush is going to pass immigration, more Medicare, more education policy and a ton of other domestic legislation between now and 2008 because that is what he was built to do. We should understand the diamonds in the rough and work to get it more polished rather than only snarkly complaining from the sidelines.

In a sense there is a self-fulfilling prophecy from the Right about Bush’s agenda. Without all of us constructively discussing it, there will only be a small number of people in Bush’s administration and in Congress which will be making these decisions, and so the legislation ends up being less ambitious as it could be. Bush’s agenda could be even more successful if we accepted his (I believe correct) premises and added our great ideas.

In sum, I left depressed, but all in all it was very nice to be amongst so many funny conservatives, to sample a bunch of different charming cities in the UK, to eat like a king for 3 meals a day, and to have created so many memories, like one of watching Mark Steyn's sing "Hey, Big Spender!" I have a bunch of non-political pictures (including one of Mark singing) I have posted to http://keithcu.com/NRCruise.

IRAQI TET OFFENSIVE RUMOR

The Mesopotamian reports what might be the most disturbing thing I've read about the war in a while--the jihadis and Baathist bitter enders in Iraq are planning a Tet-style offensive:

As the dialogue between the different political blocks intensify concerning the Constitution and the noticeable shift in the Sunni mood towards the political process; the real enemy: Hard core Saddamists, Foreign Al-Qaeda type terrorists and the criminal local Mafia; are getting really desperate. There are rumors in the air about an impending massive terrorist campaign – massive number of car bomb attacks, mortar attacks, and sabotage of the basic services, water, electricity etc.

This threat of possible escalation must be taken seriously; because in the present situation on the ground it is not difficult to carry out, if the enemy decides to concentrate all his forces for one massive short campaign. Although we don’t like to compare with Vietnam but it is Tet-Offensive style of thinking.

On the one hand, attempting a Tet might result in catastrophic losses for the enemy, which would be to the good. But on the other hand, such a broad and lethal series of attacks would probably kick up the anti-war movement here and dishearten our allies in Iraq. The press would undoubtedly spin its outcome--however things turn out--as a serious defeat for the US and for President Bush. The 1968 Tet Offensive played out according to that script--big battlefield wins for the US and the near total destruction of the Vietcong, but a media-made defeat for the US from which we never recovered.

Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap, the architect of the original Tet Offensive and about whom I've written much before, has written several books about his guerilla strategies and is still alive. He's about 92 years old. I've often wondered if the insurgents in Iraq and al Qaeda itself haven't at least read his work, and might be communicating with him.

(thanks to Chris)

TRAITORS TAUNT WOUNDED G.I.'S

But we won't question their patriotism:

Anti-war protestors besieged wounded and disabled soldiers at Walter Reed Hospital in Washington, D.C, a new web report will claim!

CNSNews.com is planning to run an expose featuring interviews with both protestors and veterans, as well as shots of protest signs with slogans like “Maimed for a Lie.”

The conservative outlet will post video evidence of the wounded veterans being taunted by protesters, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Nope. Wouldn't want to question their patriotism at all.

(thanks to Chris)

GREATEST. MOVIE LINE. EVER.

Download it. Watch it. Laugh. Pass it on.

(thanks to JS)

SPECIAL INTEREST ALIENS

I have a new post up over at Immigration Blog about illegals other than Mexicans who are taking advantage of our insane border policies.

SUMMER OF SHEEHAN: ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER OUTRAGEOUS QUOTE

Democrats, do you think the head-choppers who are planting bombs near schools in Iraq are "freedom fighters?" Your new heroine does:

[CBS NEWS' MARK] KNOLLER: You know that the president says Iraq is the central front in the war on terrorism, don't you believe that?

[CINDY] SHEEHAN: No, because it's not true. You know Iraq was no threat to the United States of America until we invaded. I mean they're not even a threat to the United States of America. Iraq was not involved in 9-11, Iraq was not a terrorist state.

But now that we have decimated the country, the borders are open, freedom fighters from other countries are going in, and [U.S. troops] have created more terrorism by going to an Islamic country, devastating the country and killing innocent people in that country. The terrorism is growing and people who never thought of being car bombers or suicide bombers are now doing it because they want the United States of America out of their country. (my emphasis)

"Freedom fighters?" She's talking about the people who killed her son. She's talking about the people who go out of their way to kill civilians, who behead civilians and make snuff films for worldwide consumption. She's talking about the people who turned Fallujah into one gigantic death house.

If it wasn't clear before, it's clear now why the President is disinclined to meet with her again. She's on the other side in this war now. She's completely unhinged and, frankly, capable of attempting just about anything to get revenge for the death of her son. And she blames George W. Bush for that death--not the "freedom fighters" who actually killed him.

THANK YOU, MICHELLE

I just wanted to say a big thank you to Michelle Malkin for allowing me to guest blog for her for a couple of days. It was, as Rush often says, more fun than a human being should be allowed to have. Thank you, Michelle!

ILLEGALS TRESPASS, SUE, WIN PROPERTY OF U.S. CITIZENS

Details on that and other outrages are posted at Immigration Blog.

PAT ROBERTSON, IDIOTARIAN

A week or so ago I defended Pat Robertson from a lefty assusing him of being a wannabe head-chopper. Then the Rev has to go off and say that the US should assassinate Hugo Chavez.

Nice going, Pat. Did you ever stop to think that your comments will be used by the left and the media to portray all Christians as a bloothirsty mob? Thanks a lot. "Living down the idiotarian comments of Rev. Robertson" has just jumped up a few notches on my to-do list.

UPON FURTHER REVIEW: If Pat Robertson is an idiotarian, then so is George Stephanopolous:

Philosophers have long argued that there are times when murdering a murderer is not only necessary but noble. "Grecian nations give the honors of the gods to those men who have slain tyrants," wrote Cicero. Targeting Saddam also seems in accord with the "just war" principles first developed by Augustine and Aquinas. We've exhausted other efforts to stop him, and killing him certainly seems more proportionate to his crimes and discriminate in its effect than massive bombing raids that will inevitably kill innocent civilians. To those who argue that assassination is the moral equivalent of terrorism, Michael Walzer's "Just and Unjust Wars" reminds us that "randomness is the crucial feature of terrorist activity." Terrorists kill the innocent to coerce the powerful. Assassination, by contrast, is the least random act of war. Relaxing the moral norm against it is a regrettable but justifiable price to pay when confronted with someone like Saddam who is unique in his capacity to inflict evil on his own people and the rest of the world. It's one of the extremely rare circumstances where killing can be a humanitarian act that saves far more lives than it risks....

....Overcoming the practical difficulties is much more problematic. Experts like former CIA director Robert Gates have said that assassination is a "non-option" because Saddam is so elusive and well protected. That's the strongest argument against assassination. But it loses some force when stacked against the alternatives: an indefinite extension of th