March 13, 2007
Mar 13 02:33 CAIR to AG Gonzales: Free Sami al-Arian Mar 13 09:52 Pelosi & Murtha Ridiculed....TWICE!!! Mar 13 10:25 "Surge Doomed To Fail Mar 13 11:03 Just Say No To Phyllis Kahn Mar 13 15:50 Andy, I Respectfully Disagree Mar 13 17:43 Pelosi Gets Cool AIPAC Reception
Prior Years: 2006
CAIR to AG Gonzales: Free Sami al-Arian
Last Friday, CAIR posted an action alert. Here's the content of the alert:
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is calling on American Muslims and other people of conscience to contact Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to ask that he free Dr. Sami Al-Arian, a former Florida professor currently on a hunger strike in federal detention to protest his treatment by U.S. authorities.You've got to admire CAIR's writer for how deftly he spins the Al-Arian story, avoiding altogether what Al-Arian is convicted of. If CAIR won't tell you, I will. Last August, I wrote about what Dr. Al-Arian admitted doing:
Al-Arian is being held in a medical facility in North Carolina after initiating his water-only hunger strike on January 22. He began his protest after being given a sentence of up to 18 months for refusing to testify before a grand jury in Virginia. His physical condition is deteriorating daily. A family member told CAIR that he has lost 45 pounds since beginning his protest and now spends most of his time in a wheelchair.
Al-Arian's attorneys say an earlier plea agreement freed him from further cooperation with the government. Supporters also say the government's actions amount to a form of harassment. Federal authorities say they will soon begin force-feeding Dr. Al-Arian.
- In court papers unsealed Monday, al-Arian admits to raising money and lending support to Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
- He admits to knowing that the PIJ "achieved its objectives by, among other means, acts of violence."
- And he admits that he has been lying about it since the allegations first emerged in 1995. "Defendant is pleading guilty because defendant is in fact guilty," reads the agreement al-Arian signed.
Furthermore, Al-Arian shouldn't be released if Al-Arian chooses to go on a hunger strike. I understand that the prison he's being held in shouldn't let him starve himself but once that requirement is met, their responsibilities are met.
This is just another example of CAIR's advocacy on behalf of admitted terrorists. Here's another portion of CAIR's action alert:
In 2005, a Florida jury rejected federal charges that Al-Arian operated a cell for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Al-Arian later pleaded guilty to a lesser charge and was scheduled for release and deportation in April.Even though a jury found that Al-Arian didn't operate a cell for PIJ, it shouldn't be ignored that Al-Arian signed documents stating that he was guilty of raising funds for an organization that "achieved its objectives by, among other means, acts of violence." He also signed a statement that he plead guilty because he was guilty.
I agree with Joe Kaufman that the U.S. government should shut CAIR down. They've complained when the Treasury Department shut down the Holy Land Foundation. They complained when an LA billboard proclaimed bin Laden as "the sworn enemy," finding this depiction "offensive to Muslims." They're also handling the imams' case against U-S Airways.
That doesn't sound like an organization that touts itself as a civil rights organization.
Posted Tuesday, March 13, 2007 2:34 AM
No comments.
Pelosi & Murtha Ridiculed....TWICE!!!
Captain Ed is all over a Washington Post editorial chastising Pelosi and Murtha for Murtha's Slow Bleed 3.0 plan. If that isn't bad enough, Ted Koppel ridiculed them Sunday on Meet the Press. First let's look at the Washington Post editorial:
In short, the Democratic proposal to be taken up this week is an attempt to impose detailed management on a war without regard for the war itself. Will Iraq collapse into unrestrained civil conflict with "massive civilian casualties," as the U.S. intelligence community predicts in the event of a rapid withdrawal? Will al-Qaeda establish a powerful new base for launching attacks on the United States and its allies? Will there be a regional war that sucks in Iraqi neighbors such as Saudi Arabia or Turkey? The House legislation is indifferent: Whether or not any of those events happened, U.S. forces would be gone.Where have we heard it before that abandoning the Iraqis would create a vacuum into which al Qa'ida and Iran would naturally migrate into? Let's also ask why the Washington Post is so late in figuring this out. Why didn't they write about this last fall? Didn't the truth matter then? Is it that they were too busy digesting the Democrats' talking points to figure it out? I think we know the answer to that question, don't we?
Let's look at Koppel ridiculing the Democrats:
MR. RUSSERT: Ted Koppel, what do you see?You know that you're heading in the wrong direction when Ted Koppel is ridiculing your policy for being shortsighted and delusional, which is what he did, just not in those words. Democrats have talked about getting out of Iraq, then sending troops to Afghanistan to "fight the real war" on terror. Koppel is essentially saying that the "real war" is in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. He repeated what President Bush has said countless times: that this is a long war. This war is one that requires steadfastness and the right planning and execution. It requires boots on the ground, actionable, concise intelligence and the halting of the terrorist money supplies.
MR. KOPPEL: I see a lot of wishful thinking going on here in Washington right now. I mean, when Congress talks about, first of all, setting these, these milestones-and the irony is if the Iraqis successfully meet the milestones, the implication is we stay. If they fail to meet the milestones, we leave. It doesn't make any sense at all. It ought to be the other way around. If they fail, we stay because they need us; if they succeed, we can start to pull out again. So I, I have this feeling that, on the one hand, the Democrats are making a great deal of hay out of-out of saying, "We have to get out of Iraq," and, indeed, we do at some point or another, but the notion that the war will be over when we pull out of Iraq and even after we pull out of Afghanistan, you heard what General Abizaid had to say, it's not going to be over. It's going to be a different war, but the war continues.
MR. RUSSERT: Our children's children's war.
MR. KOPPEL: Exactly.
Of course, the Democrats' plan is lacking in all of those areas.
That isn't the only thing that Murtha's and Pelosi's plan is missing. It's also missing a spine, which is required if you're interested in winning the war. They aren't interested in winning the war because their campaigns are fueled by contributions from the anti-war Nutroots crowd. They've convinced themselves that they must march to the Nutroots' orders if they hope to get the campaign contributions that they'll need to win. The sad truth is that if they chose a tack that's based on winning, they'd appeal to a much larger section of Americans. In doing so, they'd marginalize the Nutroots, too.
When everything is said and done, Democrats are being painted into a tight corner. That corner will get tighter if the surge keeps yielding the positive results, too. Democrats should be utterly frightened by that possibility. If the surge shows lasting positive results, swing voters will abandon the Democrats en masse, which would eliminate the Democrats' majorities and end Ms. Pelosi's speakership.
Posted Tuesday, March 13, 2007 9:53 AM
No comments.
"Surge Doomed To Fail
That's the title of this column, written by H.D.S. Greenway in this morning's Boston Globe. Here's Greenway's opening declaration:
WHAT THE president and proponents of the "surge" in Iraq have underestimated is the loathing Iraqis have of foreign troops bursting into their houses, shoot-to-kill checkpoints, and the humiliation occupation brings. Foreign troops legitimize insurgency.Greenway is so sure of his beliefs that he's ignoring the reports from Iraq:
Coalition forces have detained about 700 members of the Mahdi Army , the largest Shiite militia in Baghdad, the top U.S. commander in Iraq said Monday.That doesn't sound particularly impressive by itself. The thing is that it isn't the only statistic that's being reported:
On Saturday, President Bush said he was sending 2,200 more military police to Iraq for detainee operations. A White House memo said 16,000 suspected insurgents are already being held by allied forces.
They're rounding up so many insurgents that they're importing more MP's? If that doesn't catch your eye, then you're comatose. When was the last time you heard of a military importing MP's to keep up with the demand? I don't ever recall it happening. Does this mean that Mr. Greenway doesn't read USA Today? Here's a section of Greenway's column that informs us on why he thinks that the surge isn't working:
The Washington Post's Joshua Partlow recently wrote about how American soldiers tried to be friendly and kind. "During their six-hour patrol they handed out Iraqi newspapers and packets of gum...But machine gun-toting Americans rooting through bedrooms, inspecting weapons, and demanding identification cards clearly unsettle some residents."What makes me think that the soldier Partlow quoted was a soldier that Richard Engel talked with? This isn't meant to be a 'kinder, gentler' form of warfare. It's meant to kill or capture the insurgents and terrorists. There's a reason why "War is hell" is a cliche. Fighting a 'kinder, gentler war' won't eliminate the terrorists or insurgents. If we don't eliminate them, the Iraqi government won't have a chance to stabilize.
They do more harm than unsettle. One US soldier told Partlow: "I was here the last time, in the beginning. Now that's totally changed. They don't even respect us anymore. They spit at us, they throw rocks at us. It wasn't like that before."
If the goal is to play nice, as Greenway suggests, then we're faced with an ongoing and strengthening insurgency in Iraq.
It's time that people like Mr. Greenway realized (admitted might be a better word) that we need to kill people to win wars. We can't afford to lose this war. Isn't it time to get on with winning?
Posted Tuesday, March 13, 2007 10:26 AM
No comments.
Just Say No To Phyllis Kahn
The more I read about Phyllis Kahn's proposed legislation, the less impressed I am with it. The Strib is reporting that Kahn's latest proposal is to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would let municipalities decide whether non-residents can vote in local elections such as school board or city council elections. The measure wouldn't let non-residents vote for Minnesota state House or Senate elections. Similarly, they wouldn't be able to vote in U.S. Senate or House or presidential elections.
Should Minnesota's Constitution be amended to allow people who are permanent residents, but not U.S. citizens, to vote in local elections? That's the question Rep. Phyllis Kahn, DFL-Minneapolis, and some fellow DFLers want to submit to Minnesotans in the 2008 election.She later justifies her constitutional amendment this way:
Kahn said the amendment would allow local units of government to decide whether they would authorize permanent residents to vote in local elections, including for mayor and school board. It would not include state or federal races.
Permanent residents pay taxes on property, on income and on the goods and services they buy, she said. "It's one of the basic principles that the country was founded on, which is no taxation without representation," Kahn said of the proposal. "This gives them a very limited right to help control their destiny, at least on local issues."Isn't Ms. Kahn aware that the Minnesota legislature also votes on taxation issues? If she's that concerned with people's right of "no taxation without representation", why doesn't her constitutional amendment allow them to vote in Minnesota state legislative races? Why wouldn't her constitutional amendment allow them to vote for governor?
The fact is that her constitutional amendment would get blown out of the water if she took such an approach. She thinks, rightly, that her constitutional amendment has a better shot at winning if she does it a little bit at a time. Kahn's saying that, when all else fails, take the incrementalist approach.
For people asking why she isn't asking for non-residents to vote in presidential elections, the answer is simple: Those rules are set by the U.S. Constitution, not Minnesota's Constitution.
Posted Tuesday, March 13, 2007 11:03 AM
Comment 1 by The Gentle Cricket at 13-Mar-07 01:38 PM
Furthermore, why doesn't she propose to allow those people under the age of 18 with jobs the right to vote?
Andy, I Respectfully Disagree
Andy has written a post about how he doesn't trust Rudy Giuliani. The disappointing thing is that I question Andy's logic for not trusting him:
I'm really having a tough time thinking that it is OK to have a Republican lead our nation, who only shares one issue with us. The war on terror, as important as that is, is not the only thing.First of all, Rudy isn't just with us on defeating the terrorists. He's also with conservatives on what type of justices he'd appoint. He's also a tax-cutter, something that conservatives certainly stand for. I'd also respectfully take issue with Andy saying that the war on terror isn't the only thing. If we don't defeat the jihadists, everything else is irrelevant. PERIOD.
I'd also disagree with this opinion:
Rudy was a guy I thought I could support at first. Not my first choice, but if this was all that I had the option of. I'm far from one of the evangelical/Christian conservatives that certain ink stained wrenches in the MSM stereotype and pigeon hole us center righters as, but honestly, I know a lot of people who have turned themselves into hypocrites who fall into that category. These people used to spew and lecture about social values trumping all else like they were all preachers. They were the single issue social conservative voters, but they are now Rudy's loudest cheerleaders.If I use this paragraph as the basis for my opinion, then I'm one of the hypocrites. No, I don't take Andy's words personally but I do have to respond respectfully to them.
The truth is that I've never been a single issue voter. That's how the Agenda Media & other Democrats tried characterizing all Christian conservatives. That characterization might fit the Phyllis Schlaflys & Pat Buchanans of the world but it doesn't fit the majority of Christian conservatives. To be fair, there are significant numbers of Christian conservatives who are single issue voters but they aren't a majority of Christian conservatives. They're just the loudest.
I'd further disagree that that segment are "now Rudy's loudest cheerleaders." Christian conservatives certainly are some of Rudy's loudest cheerleaders but the single issue Christian conservatives are still single issue voters. I know because a couple of them are part of my BPOU. I've talked with a couple of them & they've told me that they won't change.
I'd also point out that the world changed on a clear September morning. We had to dramatically change our thinking because of that day. Only a stubborn-minded, illogical person would think that life's priorities didn't get changed that dreadful morning. They did.
In all fairness to Andy, there's another dynamic at play these days. Christian conservatives could afford to be more idealistic when we were at relative peace. A good portion of that idealism was stripped away when the jets crashed into the Pentagon & the Trade Center buildings. We can't afford to have a Democrat in the White House now because they'd put innocent civilians in harm's way with their policies.
They've got a track record of wanting to gut the Patriot Act, eliminate the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program & of not fighting the jihadists where they live. Democrats are on record as saying that their notion of homeland security is adding first responders, which is implicitly saying that they wouldn't fight terrorist but they'd have lots of people ready to clean up after more terrorist attacks.
That isn't the type of world I want to live in. That isn't the world I want my niece & nephew to live in. Not doing everything we can to prevent the slaughter of innocent civilians isn't the type of attitude that I'd describe as pro life. It's one thing when terrorists attack our military. Militaries are paid to stand in harm's way. Innocent civilians should be protected at all costs because they didn't sign up to be targets.
As for Andy saying that he wants Fred Thompson to run, I'd simply say that I'd love it too. In fact, I told King that as early as last year's State of the Union Address. I think that he'd be fabulous.
Finally, I'd ask Andy to cite something specific on how Giuliani hasn't been trustworthy. I'd ask Andy to look at Rudy's record of accomplishments as mayor. He dramatically reduced crime. He cut taxes. He led the city back from the brink of permanent bankruptcy without raising taxes. Call me crazy but that doesn't sound liberal to me.
Posted Tuesday, March 13, 2007 4:14 PM
Comment 1 by Kevin at 14-Mar-07 12:34 AM
And I would argue that there are candidates besides Rudy that would take the War on Terror very seriously, and would represent us better in every other way, but you're not considering them.
Pelosi Gets Cool AIPAC Reception
The Hill magazine is reporting that AIPAC attendees gave John Boehner an enthusiastic response while giving Nancy Pelosi a cool reception:
Members of the main pro-Israel lobbying group offered scattered boos to a statement by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) that the Iraq war has been a failure on several scores. The boos, mixed with some polite applause, stood in stark contrast to the reception House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) received minutes earlier. Most of the crowd of 5,000 to 6,000 stood and loudly applauded Boehner when he said the U.S. had no choice but to win in Iraq.Anyone who attends an AIPAC meeting knows that Democrats won't vigorously defend Israel anymore than they're fighting other jihadists.
Pelosi said the U.S. military campaign in Iraq had to be judged on three accounts: whether it makes the U.S. safer, the U.S. military stronger and the region more stable. "The war in Iraq fails on all three counts," Pelosi said. Some of the crowd applauded before catcalls and boos could be heard. A spokesman for AIPAC argued the boos were in response to those clapping for Pelosi.Anyone who thinks that the catcalls were in response to the applause Ms. Pelosi got should call me. I have a bridge out east I've been trying to sell. As for Ms. Pelosi's three benchmarks, it's impossible to say that the Democrats' policies would meet those criteria. Leaving Iraq certainly wouldn't stabilize the region. Their policies might make the U.S. military stronger temporarily but it wouldn't make it stronger over the long run. Finally, pulling out of Iraq anytime soon would put the U.S. in danger because Iran and al Qa'ida would quickly fill the power vacuum. That isn't just my opinion, either:
MR. KOPPEL: I see a lot of wishful thinking going on here in Washington right now. I mean, when Congress talks about, first of all, setting these, these milestones-and the irony is if the Iraqis successfully meet the milestones, the implication is we stay. If they fail to meet the milestones, we leave. It doesn't make any sense at all. It ought to be the other way around. If they fail, we stay because they need us; if they succeed, we can start to pull out again. So I, I have this feeling that, on the one hand, the Democrats are making a great deal of hay out of-out of saying, "We have to get out of Iraq," and, indeed, we do at some point or another, but the notion that the war will be over when we pull out of Iraq and even after we pull out of Afghanistan, you heard what General Abizaid had to say, it's not going to be over. It's going to be a different war, but the war continues.As I said this morning, you know that Ms. Pelosi's having a difficult time when the Washington Post criticizes her and John Murtha for their 'Slow Bleed' plan. Why should it be difficult to believe that AIPAC attendees would hold their opinions to themselves?
Posted Tuesday, March 13, 2007 5:45 PM
No comments.
