Bringing People Together

The proposed Ground Zero Victory Mosquescraper is bringing people together already:

"Five years ago, the ADL honored me with its Hubert H. Humphrey First Amendment Freedoms Prize," Zakaria writes in next week's Newsweek. "I was thrilled to get the award from an organization that I had long admired. But I cannot in good conscience keep it anymore. I have returned both the handsome plaque and the $10,000 honorarium that came with it. I urge the ADL to reverse its decision. Admitting an error is a small price to pay to regain a reputation."

Hey, forget that this Imam recently helped fund the Gaza peace flotilla, he's a bridge-builder, dammit.

The real question is this--if Zakaria is right and this mosque represents the beginning of a Muslim reformation then it ought to become the biggest al Qaeda target on the planet. So we'll see how many fatwas flow. A nice big threat from Zawahiri or Shukrijumah--or nothing at all--might expose the real truth.

Tariq Aziz Speaks

It took 7 years (and a miraculous recovery!) but somebody in the lefty media finally got an interview with Tariq Aziz. And he didn't disappoint...

"I was encouraged when [Obama] was elected president, because I thought he was going to correct some of the mistakes of Bush. But Obama is a hypocrite. He is leaving Iraq to the wolves."

Ouch. But after the invasion Aziz once told reporters:

"When we succeed in deterring them, when we succeed in inflicting too many losses on them, and in the end they will find themselves obliged to stop and withdraw. That's a great victory."

"We can end this war when the invaders withdraw totally and unconditionally from the Iraqi territory. Nothing less.

And now he begs Obama to stay? OK then. BTW, this..

Aziz says the events of 9/11 were shocking to him and Saddam. "We were against that at the time, but we were not speaking to the American government. Saddam Hussein called me and said he would like me to write a letter to Ramsey [Clark, a former US attorney general] and say that we condemn the attack. I did that."

..makes no real sense. Even Arafat knew it wasn't good form to apologize to a guy like Ramsey Clark and call it an apology to America. That was an in-your-eye statement. His two open letters to the American people were basically more apt, echoing many of the same beefs expressed by bin Laden, Michael Moore, Reverend Wright and Imam Rauf.

It was Aziz who once tried to bribe UN weapons inspector Rolf Ekeus into showing Iraq as disarmed. Quite the elaborate ruse. And why did Saddam kill his own son-in-law for defecting to Jordan and admitting they had weapons if the goal was to make people believe they had weapons? The defecting makes sense, but the killing? Again, a fairly complex acting job, and if nothing else indicative of a barbaric ruthlessness.

Bottom line, Aziz is a professional liar. It's one of the reasons Bush and Blair and others never took their word on anything. After all--they have now admitted to lying about WMDs, both of having them and not.

Saving Detroit

Prez is making the victory rounds in the rust belt over the auto bailout, shoring up union support and cramming his finger in the eyes of the faith-less GOP:

Even more than he did during a swing through Michigan last week, he suggested that his adversaries were virtually un-American in standing against his policies.

But the heartland is an appropriate place to make more strawman arguments. Not everyone on the right was against an auto bailout--some believed the industry was so interrelated that "saving it" was required--the ultimate too big to fail. The question was how to save it.

Back in the late 70s president Carter bailed out Chrysler. Lee Iaccoca took the conditional loan:

Congress passed the bill 21 December 1979, but with strings attached. Congress required Chrysler to obtain private financing for $1.5 billion -- the government was co-signing the note, not printing the money -- and to obtain another $2 billion in "commitments or concessions [that] can be arranged by Chrysler for the financing of its operations." One of those options, of course, was reduce employees wages; in prior discussions, the union had failed to budge, but the contingent guarantee moved the union.

Bolded to indicate concessions were a crucial part in getting the bailout and turning the company around (it paid off the note in 1983). The entire thing was much more hands-off.

Several years prior the government had bailed out six eastern railroads, forming a quasi-government corporation called "Conrail". By the early to mid 80s the line was turning a profit and in 1987 the government sold its shares, getting back about 1.9 billion. Again, that profitability was brought on in large part by paring down unneeded routes and trimming excess personnel, wages and restrictions.

Overall, the entire rail industry was saved by Carter's de-regulation (Staggers Act) in 1980, which forced railroads to aggressively compete for business while allowing them to remove the obstacles to financial success. Removing featherbedding, in other words. Several didn't make it, like Rock Island lines and Milwaukee Road. Many miles of track were abandoned. The world didn't stop.

Meanwhile, the current administration is making a big to-do out of this factoid:

Ford, Chrysler and G.M. are all now profitable again, the first time in six years that all three big American automakers have been in the black at the same time. The auto industry added 55,000 jobs over the last year, the first net gain in a decade, and its exports were up 57 percent in the first four months of the year.

But why couldn't they make a profit in 2006 and 2007, both better economic years than this one? How much can be attributed to bankruptcy proceedings allowing (or forcing) concessions, lowering wages and overhead? Obama is touting the federal freebees; conservatives should be applauding the success and pointing to the greater efficiencies that made it possible and how the debacle could have been avoided. After all, not every major industry has required a bailout through this great Bush depression.

Pre-Wikileak

The Wikileak documents start in 2004--does anyone wonder why? Surely the action items, reports and contacts go back to at least late 2001. What would have been discovered by going back to the days of Dalton Fury and the CIA laser tag teams? It's strange because the left in general has a soft spot for claiming UBL's Tora Bora escape was a conspiracy, and Assange seems to fit that mold perfectly.

But how about further back, before we were even there? I've posted on it before but surprisingly this BBC story is still intact after almost 9 years, a report published September 18, 2001 quoting a Pakistani foreign minister as saying the US (and perhaps the west in general) had a pre 9/11 plan to attack Afghanistan no later than October 2001 if the Taliban wouldn't give up bin Laden:

Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.

Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin.

Mr Naik told the BBC that at the meeting the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden and the Taleban leader, Mullah Omar.

The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah.

Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place.

Bin Laden would have been "killed or captured"

He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation and that 17,000 Russian troops were on standby.

Why did no US media organization ever question the Bush administration about this? Surely such a plan, if it existed, was to have been in retaliation over the Cole bombing but it seems to go against the general consensus that Bushco was asleep at the switch on terrorism in the months leading up to the attack. George Tenet said nothing about it in his memoirs.

On the other hand it's not hard to see why the Bush folks wouldn't want the media dwelling too much on it since a US attack could have prevented 9/11, the criticism and second guessing being that Bush waited too long. And obviously he did.

Of course, assuming truth would also mean at least some in the Paki government knew about our plans beforehand--so in light of what Wikileaks suggests did they warn bin Laden? According to Slick himself they'd likely done it before, and UBL seemed ancy to get the attack going in the summer of 2001. If someone in the Pakistan government indeed warned bin Laden of our coming attack, and he sped up 9/11, where does that leave us now?

And what of the A.Q. Khan factor? Khan was the father of Paki nuke program and a prominent national hero. It was alleged that some of his former comrades met with AQ in Kandahar in mid 2001 supposedly regarding nukes. Whether they were acting as surrogates is unknown, but Khan was put under house arrest after 9/11. He's out now. And Mullah Omar is still whereabouts unknown, presumably.

Anyway, just some food for thought. It always helps to know who the enemy is, sometimes a tough chore in this war. At least for us rubes.


SAY WHAT? 8/3/10

The Gallup poll headline is a real jaw-dropper:

In U.S., New High of 43% Call Afghanistan War a "Mistake"

So apparently almost half of Americans polled now believe it was mistake to defend ourselves after getting attacked. Gallup should have included a few more questions, like "what else could America have done", etc. They are blaming Wikileaks for that higher number, btw.

Had Gallup put this another way--such as "are we spinning our wheels in this effort, and is it worth it"--perhaps that would have been more descriptive.

It's worth saying again--we cannot 'end a war' by leaving the battlefield. Wars have three possible outcomes-- win, loss, stalemate. Stalemates involve staying on the battlefield as we are in South Korea; wins are obvious; losses always occur if we leave, as in Vietnam. This isn't rocket science. If we leave Afghanistan the Taliban/AQ will win. The Pakistanis will win. The Iranians will win. Terrorism as a tactic will win. And it will be used again.

Team Obama definitely understands the eventualities and their place in history should they throw down the sword before victory. But as the above indicates, perhaps it's time to identify the real enemies and adjust tactics. This was promised, after all. And if it can't be done then maybe we'll have to settle for losing--so long as everyone understand what it means.

Yes Media Matters, it Sounds Weird

The M&M crew is all atwitter over a WaPo reviewer's criticism of Christiane Amanpour's 'In Memoriam' segment yesterday on "This Week":

"We remember all who died in war this week, and the Pentagon released a list of eleven US service members killed in Afghanistan"

Here's the clip that has them in a twit:



And here's the WaPo column. According to them his apparent dislike for Amanpour over Jake Tapper, and the fact he pointed out her poor choice of phrasing clearly makes him a dastardly neocon or something.

But one might think the leader of the reality-based community would recognize grammar errors. "In war" connotes all war, not just our war on terror, or the war in Afghanistan specifically. Also, using the word "and" between the first sentence and the second acts to disassociate the Pentagon's list of fallen troops and her memoriam. Better: "We remember all those who died in battle this past week fighting the war in Afghanistan. The Pentagon released a list...", or, "we remember all who died in the war in Afghanistan this week, and the Pentagon released a list..", etc.

Of course that would leave no doubt Amanpour specifically meant to memorialize just our soldiers and not anyone who died in war (which could include Talibanis). There are always several wars going on all over the world but most Americans only care about the ones our guys/gals are involved in. "This Week" is an American show. And that's the main question here--whether this seasoned and professional journalist parsed her wording carefully so as not to offend anyone overseas as she brings a new and admittedly international perspective to the show or just used poor grammar, as MM evidently seems to be saying.

Victory in Iraq

The "stupid war" is over. Obama will today be heralding the fact that all combat troops are set to be out of harm's way by the end of the month -- as he planned and promised. Forget the fact that Bush set all this up with the Iraqi government before leaving.

Political calculations:
Obama, by taking full responsibility for the pullout (and Bush none) will soon own the consequences. If Izzat and the boys decide to re-energize AQ in Iraq it will be hard for Obama to return 100 percent of the blame to Bush (although he'll most certainly try) after taking the draw-down champagne for himself. So today, in a way, represents Obama's "mission accomplished" flag on the carrier.

Obama will also try to take full credit for any successes from here forward, making sure he credits 'US troops' and not Bush/Cheney. As the New York Times points out, Obama has never fully acknowledged the success of the surge yet if things remain stable going forward it'll be much harder to overlook when the architect of the surge (and the man who once betrayed the left) remains pivotal to success in Afghanistan.

National implications:
Americans need to hope and pray the Iraqis can form a government and maintain peace and security. It's in our vital interests, and those of the free world, to have progress in this region and pull it away from a terrorist breeding ground. That goes without saying of course, but it's worth considering a middle east with Saddam still in the middle of it and the effect on the stability of the free world. Obama rarely opines about the demise of the Butcher.

Regional implications:
Unless America's ultimate goal was chaos in the region to help balance the powers, one would think a stable independent Iraq would continue to put pressure on surrounding Arab and Persian powers to reform. In the meantime, should Iraq become a client state of the Iranian Mullahs all bets are off, but the Mullahs have to first get past al-Douri and the Baathists--and to some extent Iyad Allawi and his coalition, who no doubt have the backing of Saudi Arabia or other Arab states who want no part of any absolute Persian control in Baghdad.

Happily Ever After

Yes, Chelsea Clinton's wedding is being treated like royalty while Jenna Bush's was not--yawn, just another day in MSM America. And yes, apparently the Sahalis didn't crash the big event, meaning Hillary did a better job of "ops-sec" than did the White House. It's just too bad Socks wasn't around to see it all.

Speaking of marriage, here's something from email..

My wife and I were sitting at a table at her high school reunion, and she kept staring at a drunken man swigging his drink as he sat alone at a nearby table. I asked her, "Do you know him?" "Yes", she sighed, "He's my old boyfriend.... I understand he took to drinking right after we split up those many years ago, and I hear he hasn't been sober since."

"My God!" I said, "Who would think a person could go on celebrating that long?" And then the fight started...

Such gems are what the new Mrs. Mezvinsky has to look forward to one day. Anyway, mazeltov to the happy couple!

SATURATION COVERAGE 8/1/10

Except for the story about "Fast Talkin' Eddie" Mezvinsky, Chelsea's new father-in-law and a former Iowa Congressman who recently served five years in the federal pokey for a Bernie Madoff-like scam (using his relationship with the Clintons):

After pleading guilty to 31 of 69 charges of bank fraud, mail fraud and wire fraud in 2001, Mezvinsky went on to serve federal prison time and was released April 11, 2008. Mezvinsky was a Philadelphia lawyer and self-styled international businessman who in some ways was a pioneer scam artist. Before the Nigerian advance fee scam became a ubiquitous experience in Americans' email in-boxes, Mezvinsky was deftly executing the scam in real time, convincing victims to hand over large amounts of cash based on his close connections to the Clinton family.

Mezvinsky would later claim that he was suffering from bipolar disease, which led him to the life of crime. In all, the FBI says Mezvinsky took in about $10 million, and described him as a one-man crimewave. It was a far fall for the former Democratic congressman, who raised 11 children, most of the adopted, with his wife, Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky.

Sounds like a generous sentence or really really good behavior. Trying to imagine somebody like Fast Talkin' Eddie associated with the Bush daughter's wedding.