January 8, 2007
Jan 08 08:06 Wesley Clark: Negotiate With Iran Jan 08 09:41 Taxi Dispute Part of Larger Power Struggle Jan 08 11:38 Another Broken Democratic Campaign Promise Jan 08 15:21 Fiscally Moderate? Jan 08 16:08 President Bush Picks Fielding as White House Counsel Jan 08 16:47 Iran Threatens to Block Off Straits of Hormuz
Prior Years: 2006
Wesley Clark: Negotiate With Iran
Writing an op-ed in today's Washington Post, Wesley Clark has offered standard boilerplate advice on solving the 'Iraq problem': Negotiate with Iran. Here's specifically what he said:
Well before the 2003 invasion, the Bush administration was sending signals that its intentions weren't limited to Iraq; "regime change" in Syria and Iran was often discussed in Washington. Small wonder then that both countries have worked continuously to feed the fighting in Iraq.The Bush administration didn't "send signals that its intentions weren't limited to Iraq." They said it outrightly that anyone who wasn't with us was against us. Doesn't Clark remember that Iraq, Iran and North Korea were part of the President's "Axis of Evil" State of the Union Message address? People (AKA Democrats) howled that he wasn't nuanced enough for their likings.
Furthermore, it isn't realistic to think that Syria and Iran weren't going to jump into this war. Experts knew that Syria and Iran had far too much to gain from a destabilized, weakened Iraq. The longer Iraq stayed destabilized, the better the situation was for Iran and Syria. The longer they tied American down in Iraq, the more time Hezbollah had to defeat the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon. The longer they tied American down in Iraq, the more time Hezbollah had to defeat civil uprisings in Iran and Syria before they were swept out of power by the citizenry.
Dealing with meddling neighbors is an essential element of resolving the conflict in Iraq. But this requires more than border posts and threatening statements. The administration needs a new strategy for the region, before Iran gains nuclear capabilities. While the military option must remain on the table, America should take the lead with direct diplomacy to resolve the interrelated problems of Iran's push for regional hegemony and nuclear power, the struggle for control of Lebanon, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Isolating our adversaries hasn't worked.In advocating direct negotiations with Iran and Syria, Clark offers us the same nonsense that every other Democrat offers. They believe in the time-tested technique of the carrot-and-the-stick as long as the stick is a thin willow branch rather than a sturdy oak. Clark obviously doesn't believe in the Reagan Principle. Here's the definition of the Reagan Principle:
The Reagan principle teaches that you don't negotiate until you scare the daylights out of the people you're negotiating with. It's only at that time that they're willing to make significant, long-lasting concessions. Furthermore, the Reagan Principle teaches us that there shouldn't be a time when the United States can't get to the position of superiority to negotiate from.
Simply put, we should be working to get into a position of scaring the daylights out of Iran and Syria rather than limping to the negotiating table. Unfortunately, Democrats are whining so much about the war already that they've soured America on fighting a real war. It's almost impossible for President Bush to fight the war properly when one political party is opposed to virtually everything that's done in war. They've decried the amount of casualties since the toppling of Saddam's statue.
Since voting for the war, most Democrats have apologized for their vote or they've railed against the war. The truth is that Democrats voted for the AUMF because it was in their strategic best interests to do so, not because they believed in fighting. The lone exception to that was Joe Lieberman. Look what his steadfastness bought him: a primary defeat at the hands of a wet behind the ears prima donna rich boy. (Fortunately, the Connecticut Democrats who didn't wear tinfoil hats restored sanity to the process.)
This is what happens when a political party says that they'll support the troops but not their mission. That's what happens when Democrats play politics with war rather than standing for something positive. That's what happens when Democrats make decisions based on focus groups and calculations rather than on what's best for the longterm health of the country. Let's ask this a different way.
- Will negotiating with Iran from a position of weakness stabilize Iraq?
- Will negotiating with Iran from a position of weakness make the U.S. safer in the long term?
- Will head-to-head negotiation with Iran stabilize Lebanon?
Until we can answer those questions affirmatively, we should avoid the negotiating table at all costs.
Posted Monday, January 8, 2007 8:08 AM
No comments.
Taxi Dispute Part of Larger Power Struggle
Captain Ed has posted something on the fight taking place between the Somali cab drivers and the Metropolitan Airports Commission. That raised some red flags for me since I just wrote about the dispute here so I decided to do a little googling of the subject. What I found was a Strib article by Katherine Kersten.
Let's first look at what Captain Ed wrote:
The refusal of a large number of Islamic cabbies to transport passengers with alcohol in their luggage or service dogs for the blind and handicapped, and the local fatwa on which they rely for their position, has led to a showdown with the Metropolitan Airport Commission:Here's what Ms. Kersten wrote on the subject this past October:At a meeting Wednesday of the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), airport staff members asked the commission to give the go-ahead for public hearings on a tougher policy that would suspend the licenses of drivers who refuse service for any reason other than safety concerns.Ibrahim wants nothing of this supposed compromise:
Drivers who refuse to accept passengers transporting alcohol or service dogs would have their airport licenses suspended 30 days for the first offense and revoked two years for the second offense, according to a proposed taxi ordinance revision. ...
But Hassan Mohamud, imam at Al-Taqwa Mosque of St. Paul, and director of the Islamic Law Institute at the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, one of the largest Islamic organizations in the state, said that asking Muslims to transport alcohol "is a violation of their faith" as well as of the spirit of the First Amendment.
Mohamud, an attorney who teaches Islamic law at William Mitchell Law School in St. Paul, said, "Muslims do not consume, carry, sell or buy alcohol." Islam also considers the saliva of dogs to be unclean, he said.
Mohamud said he would ask airport officials to reconsider, adding that he hoped that a compromise could be worked out that would serve as a bridge between the American legal system and the cultural and religious values of the immigrants.It is not possible to massage this into further outrage, but there is plenty of need to wonder about wider meanings and consequences, not to mention why such a situation was allowed to drag on with no decisive action to date.Ibrahim has the right perspective on this issue. The Muslims who relocated to Minneapolis did not get forced into the position of driving cabs, a dangerous task at times as I can personally attest (I briefly drove a cab in Orange County, California eighteen years ago). They chose the job on their own, and by all accounts, have done rather well through their hard work. Part of the responsibility of taking those jobs is to follow the laws that apply to them, and free access to service dogs and people without prejudice are chief among those laws.
Even if one could dismiss such shenanigans as a humorous episode that escaped nationwide attention until recently and will soon go away, what of the next challenge?
What if Islamic drivers deny the right of transportation to women wearing short skirts, robed priests and rabbis, or homosexual couples, as indeed has happened in Minneapolis?
And what to do should conductors, pilots, and stewards on trains and planes insist they should not transport unveiled women or serve alcohol. How far off is the day when emboldened imams in neighborhoods where American Muslims are in the majority, such Dearborn, Mich., demand the broadcasting of the calls to prayer over loudspeakers at dawn and at other times.
This fatwa, issued by the Minnesota chapter of the Muslim Society, exists as an attempt to foist Islam onto Americans who have not chosen it. It will not end with service dogs and alcohol; as Ibrahim notes, it has already gone beyond both. They will eventually refuse service to vast swaths of the traveling public, which will render MSP's cabstands a huge bottleneck for those who must use the airport.
At the Starbucks coffee shop in Minneapolis' Cedar-Riverside neighborhood, a favorite Somali gathering spot, holidaymakers celebrating Eid, the end of Ramadan, filled the tables on Monday. Several taxis were parked outside.So what's the fuss about? Here's Ms. Kersten reported:
An animated circle of Somalis gathered when the question of the airport controversy was raised.
"I was surprised and shocked when I heard it was an issue at the airport," said Faysal Omar. "Back in Somalia, there was never any problem with taking alcohol in a taxi."
Jama Dirie said, "If a driver doesn't pick up everyone, he should get his license canceled and get kicked out of the airport."
Two of the Somalis present defended the idea that Islam prohibits cabdrivers from transporting passengers with alcohol. An argument erupted. The consensus seemed to be that only a small number of Somalis object to transporting alcohol. It's a matter of personal opinion, not Islamic law, several men said.
Ahmed Samatar, a nationally recognized expert on Somali society at Macalester College, confirmed that view. "There is a general Islamic prohibition against drinking," he said, "but carrying alcohol for people in commercial enterprise has never been forbidden. There is no basis in Somali cultural practice or legal tradition for that.
"This is one of those new concoctions."It is being foisted on the Somali community by an inside or outside group," he added. "I do not know who."
How did the MAC connect with the society? "The Minnesota Department of Human Rights recommended them to us to help us figure out how to handle this problem," Hogan said.Based on this reporting, here's what we know:
Omar Jamal, director of the Somali Justice Advocacy Center, thinks he knows why the society is promoting a "no-alcohol-carry" agenda with no basis in Somali culture. "MAS is an Arab group; we Somalis are African, not Arabs," he said. "MAS wants to polarize the world, create two camps. I think they are trying to hijack the Somali community for their Middle East agenda. They look for issues they can capitalize on, like religion, to rally the community around. The majority of Somalis oppose this, but they are vulnerable because of their social and economic situation."
- "There was never any problem with taking alcohol in a taxi" in Somalia.
- MAS, the U.S. branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, has issued a fatwa outlawing the carrying of alcohol.
- MAS is "an Arab Islamic group" seeking to intimidate the Somali Muslim groups by pitting group against group and individual against individual.
What I gather from all this is that MAS wants to create a major disruption so that John Conyers will write legislation that will give special 'protections' to Muslim taxi drivers who would bottle up traffic at airports nationwide. Let's remember that this is the airport where the imams were taken off of US Airways Flight 300 right after the midterm elections. Let's not forget that Conyers wrote a resolution condemning that incident. Let's not forget that that resolution would give Muslims special civil-rights protections. Let's also remember that this airport is either just inside Keith Ellison's district or possible a mile or two outside his district. (It's difficult to tell based on this particular map.)
It's also obvious that the Qu'ran is silent on this specific issue, though it definitely speaks to Muslims consuming alcohol.
The bottom line to this seems to be that MAS, an organization with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, seems to want to divide Somali taxi drivers in an attempt to expand their sphere of influence.
That hardly sounds like a matter of religious conviction. It's more like another step taken to build a worldwide caliphate.
Originally posted Monday, January 8, 2007, revised 05-Mar 9:22 AM
No comments.
Another Broken Democratic Campaign Promise
Drudge has the goods on the Democrats breaking one of their main campaign promises here. Here's what he's reporting:
Democrats ran to expand the work week in the House to 5 days.Does anyone take Democratic campaign promises seriously? Let's not forget how quickly Bill Clinton abandoned his pledge for "middle class tax cuts" in 1993. In fact, here's something I found on the subject:
But guess how long that lasted?
Not even one week!
"Culture Shock on Capitol Hill: House to Work 5 Days a Week" front-paged the WASHINGTON POST in December.
Majority leader Steny Hoyer said members of the House will be expected in the Capitol for votes each week by 6:30 p.m. Monday and will finish their business about 2 p.m. Friday.
Explained the POST: "Forget the minimum wage. Or outsourcing jobs overseas. The labor issue most on the minds of members of Congress yesterday was their own: They will have to work five days a week starting in January."
But on the morning after the night before, on the first full week of the new congress, Hoyer has pulled back from his vow!
A Hoyer press release obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT boldly declares: "Monday, January 8, 2007: The House is not in session."
Hill sources claim The House is taking Monday 'off' this week, because of the championship football game between Ohio State and the University of Florida.
And, of course, the following Monday is the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday.
100 hours...starting...soon
*MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUT "CENTRAL"That's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg of broken Democratic promises. Remember the myth circulated by Pelosi about " running the most ethical Congress " in history? Here's what we know about that broken promise:
"I want to make it very clear that this middle-class tax cut, in my view, is central to any attempt we're going to make to have a short-term economic strategy and a long-term fairness strategy, which is part of getting this country going again."
ABC News, Primary Debate, Manchester, 1/19/92
*MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUT NOT "CENTRAL"
"But to say that this middle class tax cut,...is the center of anybody's economic package, is wrong."
ABC News, Democratic Candidate's Debate, Dallas, 5/5/92
"I would emphasize to you that the press and my opponents always made more of the middle-class tax cut than I did."
ABC "Good Morning America", 6/6/92
- John Conyers has admitted to several ethics violations but Speaker Pelosi stated unequivocally that he'd still chair the House Judicial Committee.
- John Murtha is on CREW's list of Most Unethical Representatives but he's still chairing the influential Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. It's pretty noteworthy that Murtha makes CREW's list because the biggest contributors to their organization are George Soros & Peter Lewis, two of the biggest radical lefties known to man.
- Alan Mollohan is being investigated by the FBI but he chairs a subcommittee that handles the FBI's appropriations.
Posted Monday, January 8, 2007 11:40 AM
No comments.
Fiscally Moderate?
Believe it or not, that's what the Speaker of the Minnesota House, Margaret Anderson Kelliher, thinks according to this article:
Sitting amid the unpacked boxes in Majority Leader Tony Sertich's office, Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher and Sertich said the top priorities are "affordable and accessible health care," a stronger education system and property tax relief.This is too easy. If these DFLer's expect us to believe that they're fiscally responsible, then they must prove it by not proposing any new taxes. They should prove it by saying that increasing spending in one area is paid for by cuts in another area. In other words, they should adopt Nancy Pelosi's paygo system.
"Those are the big three," said Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis.
Add to those three a fourth element that may surprise some: fiscal responsibility.
"We're a fiscally moderate caucus," Kelliher said of the sprawling 85-member majority that now includes significant numbers of moderates from the suburbs, exurbs and rural areas.
After all, why should taxpayers believe that any level of government is so efficient that they can't find any waste in their budgets? Why should we believe that there's any justification for any tax increases when we've already got a $2 billion surplus?
I'm steadfast in believing that taxes will be the millstone around the Democrats' neck in 2008. They've proposed tax hikes in the Minnesota Senate. They're expected to propose tax hikes in the House. And they're thinking about increasing taxes in the U.S. House.
It'll be a particularly difficult to justify increasing taxes on the state level when we've got the second largest surplus in Minnesota's history. That's why conservatives must hold Democrats' feet to the fire on this issue. It's something they should shoot down ASAP before Democrats use it as a bargaining chip in budget negotiations at the end of the session.
I agree with Michael Broadkorb on Ms. Kelliher's quote: It's a keeper. I'd add that it'll be an electoral millstone around Democrats' necks in 2008.
Posted Monday, January 8, 2007 3:22 PM
No comments.
President Bush Picks Fielding as White House Counsel
That's the word according to this Time article. Here's what Time is reporting:
"He's the guy who helps you defend your position, stick to your principles, but tries to work out a reasonable compromise," the official said. "He's highly partisan, but he's highly regarded by everyone." The idea came from Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, and Administration officials said they regarded it as a savvy choice. The selection of Fielding, a member of the 9/11 commission from 2002 to 2004, comes as the White House is gearing up for a multitude of investigations, and likely subpoenas, from Democrats, who took control of both chambers of Congress last week with a vow to pursue aggressive oversight and deny the White House blank checks for Iraq or anything else.I'm not that familiar with Mr. Fielding but if he was Reagan's White House Counsel, then I've got to think that this is a great choice. If there's one thing that can be said about Reagan, it's that he had topnotch conservative legal minds working in his Counsel's office.
Fielding was persuaded to leave his lucrative position as a senior partner in the Washington law firm of Wiley, Rein & Fielding with "an appeal to patriotism" and an assurance that he would not just be the President's lawyer but would be deeply involved in Congressional strategy and negotiations, the official said. Fielding was Counsel to President Reagan from 1981 to 1986, deputy White House counsel from 1972 to 1974 and associate White House counsel from 1970 to 1972. He was Clearance Counsel for the Bush-Cheney Presidential Transition in 2000 and 2001, and has degrees from Gettysburg College and University of Virginia School of Law.
"The key for the Administration is going to be drawing the lines on these boundaries of executive privilege and access to documents and congressional oversight, drawing the lines around the really important issues and trying to be a little more flexible on the others," said a former colleague of Fielding. "They're not going to fold, because Fielding is a very serious, hard-nosed person, and he's a tough negotiator. But they're also going not to take a totally stonewall position. That doesn't mean they're going to cave in. What it means is they're going to negotiate and focus on the things that they're truly protecting and that are truly important."
Some of the people in Reagan's White House Counsel's office include Chief Justice John Roberts, conservative radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt & former 4th Circuit Court Judge J. Michael Luttig.
In other words, it was a who's who of conservative legal minds.
Posted Monday, January 8, 2007 4:09 PM
No comments.
Iran Threatens to Block Off Straits of Hormuz
That's the word according to this Jerusalem Post article. Here's what the article says:
A senior Iranian officer warned that if the West continues to threaten Iran's economy over its nuclear program, Tehran will discontinue the flow of oil via the Strait of Hormuz, Israel Radio reported Monday.The first thing I though of was this Ralph Peters op-ed. Here's what Col. Peters wrote:
According to the officer, 40% of the world's oil is transferred through the strait, and the world is dependent on Iran for a source of energy and a stable economy.
Iran's spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, added that Iran cannot allow itself to give up the right to develop its nuclear technology program.
WORD that Adm. William Fallon will move laterally from our Pacific Command to take charge of Central Command, responsible for the Middle East, while two ground wars rage in the region baffled the media. Why put a swabbie in charge of grunt operations?Democrats are loudly criticizing President Bush for everything he's done in the Middle East, whether it's the Taliban regrouping in Afghanistan or too much sectarian violence in Baghdad or "not winning the peace." This move shows that he's a step ahead with Iran. There's no convincing me that he didn't anticipate Iran threatening this when he started down the path of sanctions with Iran's mullahs.
There's a one-word answer: Iran.
ASSIGNING a Navy aviator and combat veteran to oversee our military operations in the Persian Gulf makes perfect sense when seen as a preparatory step for striking Iran's nuclear-weapons facilities, if that becomes necessary.
While the Air Force would deliver the heaviest tonnage of ordnance in a campaign to frustrate Tehran's quest for nukes, the toughest strategic missions would fall to our Navy. Iran would seek to retaliate asymmetrically by attacking oil platforms and tankers, closing the Strait of Hormuz, and trying to hit oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates.
Only the U.S. Navy, hopefully, with Royal Navy and Aussie vessels underway beside us, could keep the oil flowing to a thirsty world.
In short, the toughest side of an offensive operation against Iran would be the defensive aspects, requiring virtually every air and sea capability we could muster. (Incidentally, an additional U.S. carrier battle group is now headed for the Gulf; Britain and Australia are also strengthening their naval forces in the region.)
I'd further submit that this proves that he's got a plan for keeping the oil flowing through the Straits. This shouldn't be taken lightly because the unnamed senior Iranian officer is right: 40% of the world's oil is transferred through the strait. I would say that there's enough cushion in the world's production capacity to offset Iran's withholding its oil from the market, at least temporarily.
Posted Monday, January 8, 2007 4:48 PM
No comments.
