Mark Helprin on Bush's Ghastly Legacy

From today's Wall Street Journal:

The administrations of George W. Bush have virtually assured such a displacement by catastrophically throwing the country off balance, both politically and financially, while breaking the nation's sword in an inconclusive seven-year struggle against a ragtag enemy in two small bankrupt states. Their one great accomplishment -- no subsequent attacks on American soil thus far -- has been offset by the stunningly incompetent prosecution of the war. It could be no other way, with war aims that inexplicably danced up and down the scale, from "ending tyranny in the world," to reforging in a matter of months (with 130,000 troops) the political culture of the Arabs, to establishing a democracy in Iraq, to only reducing violence, to merely holding on in our cantonments until we withdraw.

This confusion has come at the price of transforming the military into a light and hollow semi-gendarmerie focused on irregular warfare and ill-equipped to deter the development and resurgence of the conventional and strategic forces of China and Russia, while begging challenges from rivals or enemies no longer constrained by our former reserves of strength. For seven years we failed to devise effective policy or make intelligent arguments for policies that were worth pursuing. Thus we capriciously forfeited the domestic and international political equilibrium without which alliances break apart and wars are seldom won.

The pity is that the war could have been successful and this equilibrium sustained had we struck immediately, preserving the link with September 11th; had we disciplined our objective to forcing upon regimes that nurture terrorism the choice of routing it out with their ruthless secret services or suffering the destruction of the means to power for which they live; had we husbanded our forces in the highly developed military areas of northern Saudi Arabia after deposing Saddam Hussein, where as a fleet in being they would suffer no casualties and remain at the ready to reach Baghdad, Damascus, or Riyadh in three days; and had we taken strong and effective measures for our domestic protection while striving to stay within constitutional limits and eloquently explaining the necessity -- as has always been the case in war -- for sometimes exceeding them. Today's progressives apologize to the world for America's treatment of terrorists (not a single one of whom has been executed). Franklin Roosevelt, when faced with German saboteurs (who had caused not a single casualty), had them electrocuted and buried in numbered graves next to a sewage plant.

Austin Powers Shoe-Throwing Prefigured Iraqi Incident

(ht Joe Garofoli, sfgate.com)

Cheney Misses Meaning of Iraqi Shoe-Throwing

In an interview with Jonathan Karl of ABC News, the Vice President provided evidence that the Bush administration simply does not understand how to conduct public diplomacy:

KARL: What did you think when you saw that shoe flying at the President?

CHENEY: I thought the President handled it rather well. He had some good moves, the way he ducked and avoided the shoe. And then what was his response -- that it was a size 10. I guess he could see that as it went by. No, I think it was an incident where an Iraqi reporter threw shoes at the President -- I don’t attribute any special significance to it.

Here's a link to some recent significance in Latin America: Latin Leaders Joke About Bush Shoe Attack:

COSTA DO SAUIPE, Brazil (Reuters) - Latin American leaders meeting in Brazil this week couldn't resist poking fun at U.S. President George W. Bush over his recent shoe-throwing incident in Iraq.

"Please, nobody take off your shoes," Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva joked to reporters at the start of a news conference on Wednesday.

An Iraqi journalist had hurled his shoes at Bush at a news conference in Baghdad on Sunday, calling him a dog.

VOA Promotes Iraqi Shoe-Thrower, Saudi Offer of $10 Million, Anti-US Website

Here's some incredible VOA coverage. Instead of demanding that the Saudi government arrest the millionaire as an accomplice to an assault on the President of the United States (btw, where is the Secret Service in all this?), VOA treats the story as a joke--and then plugs a website where viewers can throw shoes at a virtual President.

Shame on the VOA, shame on James Glassman, author of Dow 36,000 and America's Top Propagandist, and shame on President Bush for letting things come to this low state. Maybe they should change the name of the broadcaster to the Voice of Anti-America?

I hope Obama will be more on the ball when it comes to anti-Americanism:

A Saudi Arabian man has offered $10 million for the shoes of an Iraqi journalist hurled at U.S. President George Bush in Baghdad Sunday.

Middle Eastern news agencies reported on Mohamed Makhafa's offer Wednesday. He is quoted telling Cairo's al-Safwa Television that the footwear hurled at the U.S. president's head is the "shoe of dignity" with high "moral value."

Meanwhile, Reuters news agency reports that an Egyptian man is offering his 20-year-old daughter in marriage to the shoe-thrower, Muntazer al-Zaidi.

Reuters reports the young woman Amal Saad Gumaa said she likes the idea of being attached to a man she finds so honorable.

Thousands of Iraqis have taken to the streets in support of Zaidi, who has achieved something of a folk hero status since the incident.

The shoe-tossing has also inspired an online game (www.SockAndAwe.com) that lets players throw brown laced-loafers at Mr. Bush. The site says more than 17 million cyber-shoes have struck the president's virtual head as of Wednesday.

Bernard Madoff's Political Contributions

From the FEC Website:

Presented by the Federal Election Commission
Individual Contributions Arranged By Type, Giver, Then Recipient
Contributions to Political Committees

MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10021

SCHUMER, CHARLES E
VIA SCHUMER '98
06/29/1998 -300.00 20020161719

MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD MADOFF INVESTMENTS

LAUTENBERG, FRANK R
VIA LAUTENBERG FOR SENATE
02/18/2004 1000.00 24020260913

WYDEN, RONALD LEE
VIA WYDEN FOR SENATE
03/25/2003 2000.00 23020191985
03/25/2003 2000.00 23020191985

MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10021
MADOFF INVESTMENTS/CHAIRMAN

MATHESON, JAMES
VIA MATHESON FOR CONGRESS
10/18/2004 250.00 24991330031

MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10021
MADOFF SECURITIES

CORZINE, JON S
VIA CORZINE 2000 INC
08/24/1999 1000.00 20020031614

MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10021
SELF-EMPLOYED/BANKER

HOOLEY, DARLENE
VIA HOOLEY FOR CONGRESS
10/15/2004 250.00 24981483366

MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10022

CROWLEY, JOSEPH
VIA CROWLEY FOR CONGRESS
08/26/1998 -500.00 98033513368

MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENT SECUR

SCHUMER, CHARLES E
VIA SCHUMER '98
03/31/1998 300.00 98020080361

SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION FUND A
12/20/1999 2000.00 20035043217
12/20/1999 2000.00 20035342406
11/03/2000 2000.00 20036554275

MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BOND BROKER

CROWLEY, JOSEPH
VIA CROWLEY FOR CONGRESS
08/04/1998 500.00 98033513348

MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10022
CHAIRMAN

CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM
VIA HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR US SENATE COMMITTEE INC
01/13/2000 1000.00 20020140293

MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10022
SELF EMPLOYED/INVESTOR

MERKLEY, JEFFREY ALAN
VIA JEFF MERKLEY FOR OREGON
04/24/2008 2300.00 28020233434

MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021

FROST, MARTIN
VIA MARTIN FROST CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
10/15/2004 250.00 24981593976

MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD L MADOFF INVEST SEC

DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
05/09/2005 25000.00 25020223064

MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENTS

SCHUMER, CHARLES E
VIA FRIENDS OF SCHUMER
04/08/2002 1000.00 22020572030
04/08/2002 1000.00 22020572029
08/18/2004 1000.00 24020682386
08/18/2004 1000.00 24020682387

MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD L MADOFF/CHAIRMAN

GEPHARDT, RICHARD A
VIA GEPHARDT FOR PRESIDENT INC.
09/23/2003 2000.00 23992120817

MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD MADOFF INC

OBEY, DAVID R
VIA A LOT OF PEOPLE FOR DAVE OBEY
03/10/2000 1000.00 20035482353

MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD MADOFF INVESTMENT SEC

FOSSELLA, VITO
VIA COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT VITO FOSSELLA
04/20/2000 1000.00 20035843717

MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
MADOFF INVESTMENTS

MARKEY, EDWARD J MR.
VIA MARKEY COMMITTEE, THE
05/15/1998 1000.00 98033264489

MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
MADOFF INVESTMENTS/CHAIRMAN

MARKEY, EDWARD J MR.
VIA MARKEY COMMITTEE, THE
06/17/2004 2000.00 24961871421
06/17/2004 2000.00 24961871421

MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
SELF-EMPLOYED

D'AMATO, ALFONSE M
VIA FRIENDS OF SENATOR D'AMATO (1998 COMMITTEE)
09/21/1998 1000.00 98020221244

MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENT

TAUZIN, WILBERT J II
VIA BILLY TAUZIN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE THE
05/05/1998 1000.00 98033280117

MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENT SECUR

SCHUMER, CHARLES E
VIA SCHUMER '98
05/22/1998 1000.00 98020153371
05/22/1998 1000.00 98020153371

MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BERNARD L MADOFF PC

RANGEL, CHARLES B
VIA RANGEL FOR CONGRESS
10/23/1998 1000.00 98034023088

MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BERNARD L. MADOFF INVEST. SEC./CH

DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
09/30/2006 25000.00 26020872891

MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BERNARD L. MADOFF INVEST.-SEC./CH

DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
05/04/2007 25000.00 27020190980
09/12/2008 25000.00 28020611133

MADOFF, BERNARD L MR.
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT SECU

SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION FUND A
09/22/2005 5000.00 25971371439
10/17/2006 5000.00 26950709195

SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
05/24/2007 5000.00 27990166821

MADOFF, BERNARD L MR.
NEW YORK, NY 10021
MADOFF (BERNARD L.) INVESTMENT SE

SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION FUND A
07/08/2004 5000.00 24962139131

MADOFF, BERNARD L.
NEW YORK, NY 10021

SAUL, ANDREW MARSHALL
VIA SAUL FOR CONGRESS INC
12/05/2007 -2300.00 28990305541

MADOFF, BERNARD L.
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT/CHAI

SAUL, ANDREW MARSHALL
VIA SAUL FOR CONGRESS INC
07/10/2007 2300.00 27931355510

MADOFF, BERNARD L.
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BERNARD L. MADOFF P.C./CHAIRMAN

RANGEL, CHARLES B
VIA RANGEL FOR CONGRESS
08/30/2001 1000.00 22991228121

MADOFF, BERNARD L. MR.
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT SECU

SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
08/20/2008 5000.00 28933110755

MADOFF, BERNARD MR.
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURIT

BRADLEY, BILL
VIA BILL BRADLEY FOR PRESIDENT INC
04/26/1999 1000.00 20990130846

Total Contributions: 161050.00

Joint Fundraising Contributions

These are contributions to committees who are raising funds to be distributed to other committees. The breakdown of these contributions to their final recipients may appear below

MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENT SECUR

VICTORY IN NEW YORK
10/30/1998 1000.00 98020270881

MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD MADOFF INVESTMENT/CHAIRMA

LAUTENBERG NJ VICTORY COMMITTEE
07/20/2007 300.00 27931343375
07/20/2007 2300.00 27931343375
07/20/2007 5000.00 27931343376

Total Joint Fundraising: 8600.00

Recipient of Joint Fundraiser Contributions

These are the Final Recipients of Joint Fundraising Contributions

MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD L MADOFF INVEST SEC

DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
10/30/1998 1000.00 98020270462

MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD MADOFF INVESTMENT

LAUTENBERG, FRANK R
VIA LAUTENBERG FOR SENATE
07/20/2007 300.00 27020400524
07/20/2007 2300.00 27020400525

Recipient Total: 3600.00

TRY A: NEW QUERY
RETURN TO: FEC HOME PAGE

Will Obama Throw Rahm Emanuel Over The Side?

Today's Chicago Sun-Times reports 21 contacts between Rahm Emanuel and Blagojevich over Valerie Jarrett as well as other candidates for Barack Obama's Senate seat. They also ran this photo of Blago with Rahm. Which means Rahm Emanuel is now on the "hot seat."

If Obama is unable to keep a lid on the scandal, the price for this screw-up may be the withdrawal of Congressman Emanuel as the next White House Chief-of-Staff...at least until things blow over.

President-elect Barack Obama's incoming chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, was pushing for Obama's successor just days after the Nov. 4 election, sources told the Chicago Sun-Times.

Emanuel privately urged Gov. Blagojevich's administration to appoint Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett, and the Sun-Times learned Tuesday that he also pressed that it be done by a certain deadline.

Jarrett was initially interested in the U.S. Senate post before Obama tapped her to be a White House senior adviser, sources say.

The disclosure comes days after Obama's camp downplayed Jarrett's interest in the post.

Unlike The Wall Street Journal Editors, Asharq Alawsat Understands Shoe-Thrower

From Tariq Alhomayed's column in Asharq Alawsat:

If the Iraqi man who threw his shoes at US President George W Bush on Sunday was just an ordinary citizen who took such action on one of Baghdad’s streets then perhaps it could be argued that he simply has no decency. But for a television reporter to take such action is a matter that should be condemned.

The reporter could have asked the American president a difficult or uncomfortable question as Bush stood next to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, but instead he chose to use shoes over words, forgetting that journalism does not debate and communicate using violence and vulgarity.

What we saw in the press conference was nothing but an insult to the profession of journalism and an indicator that the nature of journalism has been misunderstood. A journalist is not a Mujahid nor is he a fighter; he is the one who communicates information...

The Wall Street Journal Editors Miss Shoe Assault's Meaning

Today's Wall Street Journal editorial celebrates the violent attack on the US President during a news conference:

On Sunday, as everyone in the world now knows, a young Iraqi TV reporter named Muntander (sic) al-Zaidi took the opportunity of a press conference to throw his shoes at George W. Bush and call the President a "dog." Congratulations, Iraq: You really are a free country...

Earth to Paul Gigot, Bill McGurn, James Taranto and other Journal editors: Throwing shoes at people is not a sign of freedom, any more than rioting or looting.

It is a violent act, it incites further disorder, it is disrespectful to the peaceful exchange of ideas, and it undermines the democratic process.

Not to mention that the Baghdad shoe-throwing has diminished American prestige globally.

In addition, as pointed out in a post below, it is a federal crime punishable by a fine and up to ten years prison time in the United States.

Do Journal editors really believe that the US is not a free country? Or have Journal editors not realized what freedom of speech means? What part of "speech" don't you understand? For example, "fighting words" are not protected speech anywhere in the USA--much less throwing things at people. That's not speech--that's violence. Look at the velocity behind those thrown shoes in the video. Luckily, President Bush has good reflexes. But throwing those shoes was no different from throwing a couple of punches.

There is a world of difference between words and things.

Are Journal editors seriously suggesting reporters start throwing things at Barack Obama? How do you think the Secret Service would react if the Journal's Washington Bureau Chief threw his shoes at the President-Elect at a press conference?

My own "Golden Rule" for Journal editorial writers: Don't advocate that others do things you would not do yourselves....

BTW, Journal editors might note that the shoe-thrower reportedly was inspired by Che Guevara, not known for his love of a free press:

Alternatively described by sources as a leftist, and a nationalist, his brother said, “Muntazer is a nervous guy especially, whenever he sees violence and Iraqi people dying, but he calms down very fast afterwards. “We as a family hate occupation in all of its forms. And Muntazer hates it too. We all have the same attitude regarding the American forces occupying Iraq. I think that Bush did destroy Iraq and he did kill Iraqis.”

With pictures of Che Guevara hanging in his bedroom, Al-Zaidi’s mom told France24 that it was always her son’s dream to hit Bush with a shoe, “and he did fulfill his dream in the end,” she said.

Dirgham says that what his brother did gave back a sense of dignity to all Iraqis who had been affected by the U.S. occupation. “The behaviour of my brother was very spontaneous. It reveals what all the Iraqi people want, which is to humiliate the tyrant. My brother hates everything that has to do with American occupation as a fact and the Iranian occupation as a concept.”

Another source that did not want to reveal his name, and worked with Muntazer at a local Iraqi channel called Al Diar, said that Zaidi promised a lot of journalist friends that he was going to throw a show at Bush when he had a chance. But no one believed him.

Corruption 101 at the University of Chicago

Here's David Henderson's explanation of the distinction between what George Washington Plunkitt called "honest graft" and Gov. Blagojevich's case, with regard to administrative staff promotion at the University of Chicago (ht Arnold Kling):

In 2005, shortly after her husband became a U.S. Senator, Michelle Obama was promoted to vice-president of the University of Chicago Hospitals, with a salary increase from $121,910 to $316,962. One of her bosses said she was "worth her weight in gold." In 2006, Obama requested a $1 million earmark for his wife's employer. How upset have people got about this? But take away the explicit exchange and the crass language and she and her husband did what he Illinois Governor did. Yet where's the outrage?

Technorati's State of the Blogosphere 2008

Here.

Siberian Computer Geek Crowned Miss World 2009

Russian computer science student Kseniya Sukhinova was crowned in South Africa, according to Moscow News:

Tutors at the university in northwest Siberia where the new Miss World studies praised her academic record on Monday, happily complaining that the news of her victory almost disrupted classes.

Sukhinova is a fifth-year student studying cybernetic systems in the Oil and Gas University in Tyumen, a center of the region's oil and gas industry located over 2,000 kilometers from Moscow. She is one of only five women in the 27-student group.

"It is a very difficult discipline, but Sukhinova's grades are all A's and B's," university deputy president Veronika Yefremova said.

Arianna Huffington on the Meaning of Madoff's Ponzi Scheme

Arianna says Madoff's downfall reveals the whole Bush era has been one big Ponzi scheme:

Ignoring warning after warning is an essential element of the "Who Could Have Known?" excuse, as are rewriting history and shamelessly disregarding the foresight shown by those who sounded the alarm bells.

We're seeing the same ingredients in the Madoff affair. "We have worked with Madoff for nearly 20 years," said Jeffrey Tucker, a former federal regulator and the head of an investment firm facing losses of $7.5 billion. "We had no indication that we...were the victims of such a highly sophisticated, massive fraudulent scheme." It's a sentiment echoed by Arthur Levitt, the former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission: "I've known [Madoff] for nearly 35 years, and I'm absolutely astonished."

Who Could Have Known?

Well, Harry Markopolos, for one. In 1999, after researching Madoff's methods, Markopolos wrote a letter to the SEC saying, "Madoff Securities is the world's largest Ponzi Scheme." He pursued his claims with the feds for the next nine years, with little result.

Jim Vos, another investment adviser who had examined Madoff's firm, says: "There's no smoking gun, but if you added it all up you wonder why people either did not get it or chose to ignore the red flags."

The answer comes from Vos's cohort Jake Walthour Jr., who told HuffPost blogger Vicky Ward: "In a bull market no one bothers to ask how the returns are met, they just like the returns."

Hasn't the "Who Could Have Known?" excuse been exposed as a sham enough times to render it obsolete?

Apparently not. Here come the Bush Legacy Project's revisionists expecting us to believe that everyone thought Saddam had WMD -- even though many were on record saying he didn't.

In the wake of 9/11, Condi Rice assured us nobody "could have predicted" that someone "would try to use an airplane as a missile." Except, of course, the government report that in 1999 said, "Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House."

Madoff Ponzi Scandal a Shonda for American Jewish Community

Bloomberg reports that victims of Bernard Madoff's scheme reportedly include a number of prominent Jewish charities, in addition to Palm Beach machers who could afford to lose millions:

The Robert I. Lappin Charitable Foundation in Salem, Massachusetts discontinued operations on Friday because it invested with Madoff. This year the nonprofit sent 124 local teens to Israel.

Elie Wiesel’s Foundation

Madoff appeared to handle all the investments of the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity, the foundation of the 80-year-old Nobel Prize winner and Auschwitz survivor, according its 2006 tax return. The foundation sponsors an annual ethics contest and after-school programs for Ethiopian Jews in Israel, among other programs. Treasurer Elisha Wiesel, Wiesel’s son, didn’t return a call.

The Madoff fiasco will pummel Jewish causes and education. Yet all nonprofit sectors may feel the strain. Last year, the $19 million Madoff Family Foundation donated $50,000 to New York’s Public Theater, where Madoff’s 44-year-old son, Mark, is a trustee. The year before, it gave $30,000 to the Robin Hood Foundation, a charity popular on Wall Street, according to the Madoff’s foundation tax return.

A Public Theater spokesman didn’t return an e-mail from Bloomberg News. Mark Madoff didn’t return a call or respond to an e-mail. Robin Hood Executive Director David Saltzman declined to comment.

Less to Give

“Will it affect my philanthropy?” said Joyce Z. Greenberg, a retired financial adviser in Houston who had money with Madoff for two decades. “It will.”

Greenberg is a donor to the Jewish Heritage Program of the World Monuments Fund, which has supported conservation in 20 countries. Greenberg and others are waiting for an accounting of how much, if any, of their investments they’ll salvage.

SAR Academy, an orthodox Jewish school in Riverdale, New York, which extends from kindergarten through high school, had over a third of its $3.7 million endowment with Madoff, according to an e-mail circulated by the school.

Did Senator Chuck Schumer Destroy Wall Street?

The New York Times seems to think so:

“He is serving the parochial interest of a very small group of financial people, bankers, investment bankers, fund managers, private equity firms, rather than serving the general public,” said John C. Bogle, the founder and former chairman of the Vanguard Group, the giant mutual fund house. “It has hurt the American investor first and the average American taxpayer.”

As Reverend Jeremiah Wright once said, "America's chickens...are coming home to roost."

Bush Reaction to Shoe-Throwing Assault Betrays Democracy

Australia's The Age carried this headline:

"Bush hails shoe attack as win for democracy"

Bush's first reaction to the Iraqi journalist's assault upon him--and the USA he represents--reminds one of Donald Rumsfeld's response to the looting of Baghdad in 2003:

"...recognize that you pass through a transition period like this and accept it as part of the price of getting from a repressed regime to freedom."

Rumsfeld's statement was symptomatic of a misunderstanding of the nature of freedom and transition--since neither the US nor any civilized country permits rioting as a price of freedom.

Likewise, President Bush obviously does not understand the significance of the shoe assault upon him in Baghdad. The Age reported that he treated it as a joke:

The US President laughed off an incident in Baghdad on Sunday when he was nearly hit by an angry Iraqi reporter's shoes.

The journalist, Muntather al-Zaidi, 28, a correspondent for the Iraqi station al-Baghdadia, shouted in Arabic: "This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog!" He then threw a shoe at Mr Bush, who ducked and narrowly avoided it.

Zaidi then threw his other shoe, shouting in Arabic: "This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq!" Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's security agents jumped on Zaidi and hustled him out of the room. He was detained on unspecified charges.

Mr Bush tried to brush off the incident. "All I can report is it is a size 10," he said. He also called the incident a sign of democracy in the country, saying, "that's what people do in a free society, draw attention to themselves", as Zaidi's screaming was heard outside.

Bush is wrong about both the principle and the facts at issue. People in a free society--such as the USA--are not permitted to throw shoes at the President. In the USA, assaults on the President are a federal crime under US Code, Title 18, Ch. 84, Sec. 1751:

(e) Whoever assaults any person designated in subsection (a)(1) [the President or Vice-President] shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than ten years,
or both.

Bush's feckless and thoughtless response to the Iraq attack reveals, as did Rumsfeld's 2003 remarks, the underlying conceptual failures that have doomed his "democracy promotion" efforts around the world. For, unfortunately, President Bush himself clearly does not understand that the journalist who threw his shoes at Bush had also attacked democracy.

Meanwhile, according to the BBC, Iraqi supporters of al-Zaidi are demonstrating in Baghdad in support of his shoe assault on the US Presdient, using Bush's own comments;

Officials at the Iraqi-owned TV station, al-Baghdadiya, called for the release of their journalist, saying he was exercising freedom of expression.

Time for US Public Diplomacy Heads to Roll...

Can't afford to wait for the Obama inaguration. Whoever set this up, made up the guest list, and allowed the reporter to throw shoes at President Bush needs to be publicly humiliated him-and/or herself--everyone involved from top to bottom, and that includes JAMES GLASSMAN, author of Dow 36,000 and America's Top Propagandist.

Yes, the Fox anchor is right--Bush did a good duck, impressive even. But this never should have happened in the first place... (plus why didn't a Secret Service agent throw him/herself in front of the President?). Bush comes out OK in the reflexes department, not so OK in the intelligence, planning and information department. He's lost some face...and unfortunately, so has the USA. Bloomberg reported:

“This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq,” shouted the man, later identified by the Associated Press as Muntadar al-Zeidi, a correspondent for Al-Baghdadia television, an Iraqi- owned station based in Cairo, Egypt.

...And according to TBS Journal:"Baghdadia TV is considered a moderate Sunni channel..."

More on the station from Eye Raki :

Al-Baghdadiya

Today, there are over a dozen Iraqi sattelite channels that are broadcasting from inside and outside Iraq. We have all sorts of channels, some that broadcast only a few hours a day, others 24/7. Some that are funded by the US, others that condemn American presence and even show footage of attacks on American soldiers. Some that represent ethnic groups in Iraq, others sects. Some broadcast from Iraq, others from outside.

I dont generally spend much time watching most of these channels, but i do flick through them every now and then. The other day I was watching the "news" on Al-Baghdadiya, a channel that broadcasts from Egypt. It was showing Iraqi's in Ramadi complaining about the American seige on the city (that started about 3 weeks ago). It was the funniest thing i have ever seen on an Iraqi channel, of course the conditions that the people in that city are living in are nothing to laugh about, but what was comic was the fact that the people being interviewed were being coached to say what the reporter wanted them to say. You can even hear the reporter saying "say there is no government" and an old women then says "There is no government here, they dont care about us", then the reporter says "petrol"...and the women says "we dont have petrol here in the city, its hard to get around'. The reporter then says "American occupation" and the women than rants about the Americans who are besieging the city.

The official mission statement I found via LinkTV's website makes Al-Baghdadiya sound like something that a US government agency or supported NGO might be funding:

In addition the channel aims at: Educating tolerance, helping to re-establish a healthy Iraqi society and environment, emphasizing the Iraqi identity through the cultural and social heritage, helping to improve and modernize Iraqi society besides respecting spiritual and social values, staying up to date with scientific developments worldwide, and improving the aesthetical values of broadcasting.

Inquiring media studies scholars want to know: How does throwing shoes at President Bush "improve the aesthetical values of broadcasting?"

More on the shoe-throing reporter's possibe motivations from MEB Journal :

Kidnapped. Muntadhar Al Zaidi, correspondent for the independent Al Baghdadiya television station, said he spent more than two days blindfolded, barely eating and drinking, after armed men forced him into a car as he walked to work in an area of central Baghdad. He never learned the identity of the kidnappers, who beat him until he lost consciousness – and then questioned him closely about his work, but did not demand a ransom. Al Baghdadiya broadcasts from Cairo and is often critical of the government and U.S. military presence in the country.

Why American Democracy Promotion Failed

I heard part of this panel on CSPAN radio yesterday, and found the papers online at the Hudson Institute website. Zeyno Baran raised a question that Michael McFaul, Carl Gershman, Larry Diamond, and other so-called "democracy experts" didn't seem able to answer;

I think the biggest mistakes took place in the broader Middle East region. I was at first very confused about some of the policies; now I understand that the US simply does not understand Islamism, even though it has been an active and increasingly powerful counter-ideology over at least three decades. Islamism is not compatible with democracy; Muslims can be democrats. There is a huge difference.

The prevailing view—that Islamists should be co-opted into existing political systems—simply will not work. The fallacy in this policy of appeasement lies in assuming that an individual or group that sounds moderate in fact is moderate. Often, Islamists are willing to make superficial concessions while continuing to hold an uncompromising worldview.

The academics, analysts and policy makers who argue that a movement like the Muslim Brotherhood today is “moderate” seem to disregard its ideology, history, and long-term strategy. They even seem to disregard the Brotherhood’s own statements. It is true that most affiliates of this movement do not directly call for terrorist acts, are open to dialogue with the West, and participate in democratic elections. Yet this is not sufficient
for them to qualify as “moderate,” especially when their ideology is so extreme. Turning a blind eye to the Brotherhood and its ideological extremism—even if done for the sake of combating violent extremism and terrorism—is a direct threat to the democratic order.

Unfortunately, since 9/11, the US has alienated many of its allies and strengthened enemies in the Muslim world. This is one of the reasons why the US lost the support of the secular movement within Turkey, which is traditionally the domestic constituency most closely allied to the West. It (correctly) perceives US policy as promoting a “moderate Islamist” government in their country—one that can serve as a model for the Muslim world. Yet even the current political leadership coming from an Islamist past opposes to be called “moderate Islamist” and instead prefers “Muslim
democrat” as a description.

Shilbey Telhami also made a clear point:

One would think that since we have so much power and influence to persuade governments in the region even to go along with wars they don’t like, we can also persuade them to reform themselves out of power. This is a naive view. First, for us, the promotion of democracy will always be only a part-time job; for the regimes in the region, staying in power is their full time job—and they know far more about their surroundings than we will ever be able to learn. That alone is a challenge. But there is a far bigger challenge when we are engaged in two demanding wars for the conduct of which we need all the help we can get.

When you are at war, your military and intelligence considerations trump the aid that USAID provides, or the talking points about democracy that your Ambassadors will go through with usually un-empowered subordinates of powerful autocratic rulers. In the war on terrorism, for which good intelligence is paramount and our own capabilities have been demonstrably low, cooperating with the intelligence services in the countries we are trying to reform is essential. Sometimes we can tell good intelligence form bad, but at other times we cannot see that regimes use the relationship to target their own opposition groups. Our military needs the cooperation of the regional military forces for transit, special operations, and basing of forces. In other words, when you are fighting two wars and have over 220, 000 troops to protect, your biggest institutional allies in every country in which you operate are the intelligence and military services—the very backbone of the authoritarian regimes that we are trying to weaken. In other words, our heavy military feet always trump our waving democracy hands.

This suggests that our efforts for transformative reform in the region are not likely to succeed so long as we are at war and have heavy military presence. But we can do more to shrink the gap between public opinion and governments as a prelude to incremental reform. This can only be done by putting forth a new vision for a broader and credible foreign policy that addresses regional concerns beyond democracy itself. It starts with reforming ourselves and restoring our credibility particularly of issues of human rights. It proceeds by working with international institutions to uphold commonly accepted norms and demanding compliance across the board. It pushes for credible reform in which the public can trust, concentrating on areas in which governments in the region may have incentives to cooperate, even if reluctantly. And it ends with the recognition that the power of our example must be restored as one of our greatest assets when it comes to inspiring democracy and human rights around the world.

I had to chuckle when moderator George Stephanopolous asked McFaul and others what the US should do if Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak (characterized by Larry Diamond with the Islamist epithet "Pharonic") placed his son into the Egyptian presidency--during the reign of George Bush the Second, while Joseph Biden has admitted placing a temporary replacement into his Senate seat to keep it warm for his son, after Barack Obama has nominated Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State (not to mention Chicago's current Blagojevich scandal)...as NY sportscaster Warner Wolf used to say: "Give me a break..."

iPhone's App Store Gold Rush

From Newsweek:

Apple won't say how much money the App Store is taking in, nor will it say how many of the 300 million downloads were free apps and how many were apps that cost money (most apps are free; the others cost anywhere from a buck to $10). Apple gets a 30 percent cut of any revenue generated by apps. But for Apple right now the money isn't the point. The big thing is the race to become the dominant mobile-computing platform, the way IBM-standard PCs running Microsoft operating software—first DOS and then Windows—came to dominate personal computing in the 1980s and early 1990s. The mobile-computing space looks a bit like the early days of personal computers, when different operating systems were competing to be king. A half-dozen smartphone platforms compete in the market, including Symbian (used by Nokia), Windows Mobile, the BlackBerry and Google's Android. Yet another is on the way from Palm, maker of the Palm Pilot and the Palm Treo. Next year Palm will introduce an entirely new operating-system platform for mobile computing. Whichever platform draws the most developers will likely rule the market. Right now "it's a 100-yard dash and Apple is already 75 yards down the track while the other guys are still trying to get out of the blocks," says Ken Dulaney, analyst at researcher Gartner in San Jose.

Half the fun of owning an iPhone is trying out all the cool new apps you can put on it, and developers are cranking things out at a feverish pace. "It's kind of a gold rush," says Brian Greenstone, who runs a tiny outfit (it's just him and a few freelancers) called Pangea Software in Austin, Texas, that has created several hit games for the iPhone, including Cro-Mag Rally and Enigmo. Greenstone, 41, has been writing games for Apple's computers for 21 years. But he says he's never seen anything like the iPhone apps phenomenon, which this year will deliver $5 million in revenue for him. "It's crazy. It's like lottery money. In the last four and a half months we've made as much money off the retail sales of iPhone apps as we've made with retail sales of all of the apps that we've made in the past 21 years—combined." Business is so good that Greenstone won't even bother writing for the Mac anymore. Besides, Greenstone says, iPhone apps are easy to create: some get cranked out in just two weeks by a single developer. "Some kid in his bedroom can literally make a million bucks just by writing a little app," Greenstone says.

What Borat Didn't Tell You About Kazakhstan...

It has Ghengis Khan as an ancestral ruler--and a film industry developed by the USSR. They combine in Mongol-- a slow but memorable epic and coming-of-age story, directed by Sergei Bodrov that someone I know and yours truly watched the other night. Somehow the scenes of young Temujin (Ghengis Khan's boyhood name) communicating with wolves and dogs went deep into the unconscious. Well worth getting from Netflix. A bit too much "ultra-violence" for the videogamers out there, but I fast-forwarded through that stuff. On the other hand, lots of beautiful horses, landscapes, costumes, Asian actors (from Japan, China, & Kazakhstan) as well as yurts. Plus, the film seems to be in Mongolian, which is not something one hears everyday...

Camille Paglia on Hillary Clinton

From Salon:

As for Obama's appointment of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, what sense does that make except within parochial Democratic politics? Awarding such a prize plum to Hillary may be a sop to her aggrieved fan base, but what exactly are her credentials for that position? Aside from being a mediocre senator (who, contrary to press reports, did very little for upstate New York), Hillary has a poor track record as both a negotiator and a manager. And of course both Clintons constantly view the world through the milky lens of their own self-interest. Well, it's time for Hillary to put up or shut up. If she gets as little traction in world affairs as Condoleezza Rice has, Hillary will be flushed down the rabbit hole with her feckless husband and effectively neutralized as a future presidential contender. If that's Obama's clever plan, is it worth the gamble? The secretary of state should be a more reserved, unflappable character -- not a drama queen who, even in her acceptance speech, morphed into three different personalities in the space of five minutes.

Given Obama's elaborate deference to the Clintons, beginning with his over-accommodation of them at the Democratic convention in August, a nagging question has floated around the Web: What do the Clintons have on him? No one doubts that the Clinton opposition research team was turning over every rock in its mission to propel Hillary into the White House. There's an information vacuum here that conspiracy theorists have been rushing to fill.

Daniel Pipes on Mumbai Attacks

From DanielPipes.org:

If terrorism ranks among the cruelest and most inhumane forms of warfare, excruciating in its small-bore viciousness and intentional pain, Islamist terrorism has also become well-rehearsed political theater. Actors fulfill their scripted roles, then shuffle, soon forgotten, off the stage.

Indeed, as one reflects on the most publicized episodes of Islamist terror against Westerners since 9/11 – the attack on Australians in Bali, on Spaniards in Madrid, on Russians in Beslan, on Britons in London – a twofold pattern emerges: Muslim exultation and Western denial. The same tragedy replays itself, with only names changed.

Muslim exaltation: The Mumbai assault inspired occasional condemnations, hushed official regrets, and cornucopias of unofficial enthusiasm. As the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center notes, the Iranian and Syrian governments exploited the event "to assail the United States, Israel and the Zionist movement, and to represent them as responsible for terrorism in India and the world in general." Al-Jazeera's website overflowed with comments such as "Allah, grant victory to Muslims. Allah, grant victory to jihad" and "The killing of a Jewish rabbi and his wife in the Jewish center in Mumbai is heartwarming news."

Such supremacism and bigotry can no longer surprise, given the well-documented, world-wide acceptance of terror among many Muslims. For example, the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press conducted an attitudinal survey in spring 2006, "The Great Divide: How Westerners and Muslims View Each Other." Its polls of about one thousand persons in each of ten Muslim populations found a perilously high proportion of Muslims who, on occasion, justify suicide bombing: 13 percent in Germany, 22 percent in Pakistan, 26 percent in Turkey, and 69 percent in Nigeria.

A frightening portion also declared some degree of confidence in Osama bin Laden: 8 percent in Turkey, 48 percent in Pakistan, 68 percent in Egypt, and 72 percent in Nigeria. As I concluded in a 2006 review of the Pew survey, "These appalling numbers suggest that terrorism by Muslims has deep roots and will remain a danger for years to come." Obvious conclusion, no?

Western denial: No. The fact that terrorist fish are swimming in a hospitable Muslim sea nearly disappears amidst Western political, journalistic, and academic bleatings. Call it political correctness, multiculturalism, or self-loathing; whatever the name, this mentality produces delusion and dithering.

Nomenclature lays bare this denial. When a sole jihadist strikes, politicians, law enforcement, and media join forces to deny even the fact of terrorism; and when all must concede the terrorist nature of an attack, as in Mumbai, a pedantic establishment twists itself into knots to avoid blaming terrorists.

Politico: Valerie Jarrett Was Blagojevich's Senate Bargaining Chip

Ben Smith reports on the Obama advisor's role in the fall of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich:

The transition hasn't yet responded to questions about Rod Blagojevich's indictment, but the key question is whether the transition was talking to prosecutors, whether Obama and Valerie Jarrett knew that Blagojevich had offered her the Senate seat in exchange for a labor job, and how she, the transition, or SEIU handled the solicitation of a bribe. (The existence of a transcript suggests that the SEIU official -- Andy Stern, the president, had met with Blagojevich just before the election on the subject, though nobody is identified in the complaint -- was wearing a wire.)

One piece of speculation: Jarrett's abrupt withdrawal from consideration for the Senate seat suggests Obama's circle aware of the investigation.

It is clear from the complaint that Obama refused to offer Blagojevich anything for appointing Jarrett.

"ROD BLAGOJEVICH said he knows that the President-elect wants Senate Candidate 1 for the Senate seat but 'they’re not willing to give me anything except appreciation. F*** them,'" says the complaint.

Arianna Huffington on Bush's Reverse Darwinism

From today's Huffington Post:

Among its myriad failings, the Bush administration has repeatedly gotten it wrong when it comes to getting it right. Over the last eight years, there has consistently been no penalty for those who have gotten things - even the most important things - wrong, and no reward for those who have gotten things right.

Call it Bush Darwinism: survival of the unfittest.

Over the weekend, Barack Obama made an encouraging move to reverse that unintelligent design by appointing retired General Eric Shinseki to be the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. While having had a long and distinguished career, Shinseki is most famous for getting it right when it came to Iraq - and for suffering the consequences typical in the Bush administration for getting it right: being shown the door.

"Separate but Equal" in American Higher Education?

Mark S. Langevin teaches political science at the University of Maryland's University College. He published an oped in today's Baltimore Sun arguing that adjunct faculty are part of a "separate but equal" system in American higher education:

In some ways, UMUC is similar to the East Louisiana Railroad car that Homer Plessy boarded on June 7, 1892. Just as railroads served to propel the U.S. toward progress in the 19th century, UMUC plays a key role in creating a future of global opportunities for thousands of adult students in Maryland and throughout the world, offering bachelor's and master's programs, a doctoral program and a multitude of certificate programs and numerous online offerings. Last year, UMUC enrolled more than 90,000 students in three continents. UMUC could grow by 50 percent in the next decade, by far the largest increase in the University System of Maryland. Unfortunately, the burden of such expansion will fall upon those least able to afford it: students and faculty.

UMUC resident students pay 400 percent more toward their educational expenses than the state's share. At College Park and Frostburg State, students pay only 80 percent of what state taxpayers do. Multiplying the inequality, only 33 percent of UMUC undergraduates receive financial aid, compared with a majority of students enrolled at peer institutions. It gets worse. UMUC has no tenured faculty, only a tiny team of full-time professors with short-term contracts lost among the legions of part-time faculty. More than 80 percent of UMUC faculty are contracted one course at a time.

UMUC's faculty model doubles down on inequality by forcing students to the back of the higher-education bus along with their part-time professors who earn only a third of what full-time professors at peer schools in Maryland earn for comparable work.

Shinseki Good Choice for VA

The Chicago Sun-Times explained why in its lede:

The very man rejected by the Bush administration for warning that Iraq would be no cakewalk is President-elect Barack Obama's choice to be Veterans Affairs secretary.

Eric Shinseki, 66, was Army chief of staff when months before the Iraq war was launched, he warned that several hundred thousand troops would be needed -- more than the Bush administration planned.

He also warned that ethnic rivalries would break out and that American troops would face a long, difficult clean-up afterward. Bush administration officials repudiated Shinseki's remarks.

But on Sunday, Obama said, "He was right."

My guess this appointment might indicate that Shinseki may be in line for the Defense Secretary job, when Gates steps down...

My Bas Relief of Anton Chekhov as a Young Man

Based on Levitan's portrait:

From 20081207

Yet One More Reason Hillary Should Not Be Secretary of State

Today's story in the NY Times about Bill Clinton's recent $200,000 speech for a suspicious Malaysian businessman embroiled in controversy and legal problems:

Mr. Clinton promoted the Petra Group’s new deal on Friday, telling the audience, “One of the biggest rubber shoes and boots manufacturers, Timberland, is replacing the soles of its shoes it makes with this man’s green rubber technology.”

Mr. Clinton often praises companies that pay him to speak. In 2001, he received $125,000 from an Illinois management consulting company called International Profit Associates. It was later revealed that the Illinois attorney general was investigating accusations of deceptive marketing tactics by the company.

After a start-up Web search site named Accoona donated $700,000 worth of stock to his foundation, Mr. Clinton praised the company at a corporate event in December 2004.

“I hope you all get rich,” he told Accoona executives, “but, remember, you are doing something good for humanity as well.”

Another Reason Hillary Should Not Be Confirmed as Secretary of State

From the AP, this story of what looks like a corrupt practice:

The Clintons plan a New York City fundraiser this month, which will give donors a final chance to buy some face time with the future secretary of state.

Aides said the New York senator will try to avoid doing anything that suggests she is leveraging her new post for fundraising advantage. But the appearance of a conflict of interest is always possible when people give campaign money to politicians.

"If nothing else, there's the embarrassment element," said Brad Smith, a former Federal Election Commission chairman. "A secretary of state trying to raise campaign money is kind of ugly."

Obama's team sent an e-mail Friday, signed by Vice President-elect Joe Biden, asking supporters to help Obama fulfill a pledge to whittle Clinton's campaign debt."

This story reminds one of the continuing scandal surrounding Hillary fundraiser Norman Hsu reported in November by the San Jose Mercury News:

A state appeals court Tuesday upheld a three-year prison term for disgraced political donor Norman Hsu, whose hefty campaign contributions to prominent politicians amid a life on the lam at one point thrust his name into last year's presidential primary campaign.

In a unanimous ruling, the San Francisco-based 1st District Court of Appeal rejected Hsu's bid to overturn his fraud conviction and sentence, which dated back to a 1992 San Mateo County criminal case involving a $1 million investment scam. A San Mateo County judge sentenced Hsu to the three-year prison term in January, prompting the appeal.

Hsu's troubles came to light after news reports revealed he was a fugitive on the San Mateo County charges, skipping bail in 1992 after pleading no contest to the fraud allegations. Hsu had been a major fundraiser for prominent Democrats, including Sen. Hillary Clinton, and his plight attracted nationwide attention. Many of the politicians who received contributions from Hsu returned the money or gave it to charity after the revelations.

Is Afghanistan Lost?

Just found this announcement for an upcoming Harvard University seminar in my inbox

Is Afghanistan Lost?
A panel discussion on Afghanistan: Development, Human Rights and Security

Date: December 8, 2008
Time: 1:30-3:00pm
Location:
Malkin Penthouse, 4th Floor
Littauer Building
Harvard Kennedy School
79 John F. Kennedy St.
Cambridge, MA. 02138

Moderator:

Samantha Power, Anna Lindh Professor of Practice of Global Leadership
and Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School

Panelists:

Steve Coll, President, New America Foundation, author of Ghost Wars:
The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the
Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001, which won a Pulitzer Prize in
2005 and The Bin Ladens: An Arabian Family in the American Century

Mark Garlasco, Senior Military Analyst, Human Rights Watch

Maleeha Lodhi, Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics,
former Pakistani Ambassador to the U.S.

Barnett Rubin, Director of Studies, Center for International Conflict,
New York University, author of The Fragmentation of Afghanistan: State
Formation and Collapse in the International System and The Search for
Peace in Afghanistan: From Buffer State to Failed State

Sponsored by the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Carr Center for
Human Rights Policy, the University Committee on Human Rights, Harvard
Law School Human Rights Program, and the Initiative on contemporary
state and society in the Islamic world.

More from Dawn:

PARIS, Dec 4: France has invited a dozen states to a conference on Afghanistan on Dec 14 to enlist the support of neighbouring countries in a stepped-up effort for peace, officials said on Thursday.

“Apart from Afghanistan and its immediate neighbours (Pakistan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan), India and China have been invited as countries from the region,” said a French foreign ministry spokesman.

The United Nations special representative for Afghanistan, Kai Eide, has been invited to the informal ministerial meeting along with representatives of the United States, Britain and Russia, he said.

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana was also due to attend the Paris talks, six months after a donors’ conference in France, which currently holds the EU presidency, raised $20 billion for reconstruction in Afghanistan.

French officials see Pakistan, alleged to be the staging ground for Taliban attacks, as key to stabilising Afghanistan, which remains mired in poverty and violence more than six years after US-led forces drove the extremist militia out of Kabul."

Caroline Kennedy for US Senate

ABC News has reported speculation that NY Governor Patterson may appoint Caroline Kennedy to Hillary Clinton's Senate Seat. Sounds good to me (this blog recommended her for VP). Full disclosure: Caroline danced with a schoolmate of mine at a mixer about 35 years ago...he said she was very nice. (ht Huffington Post)

This just in...

Google just let me know about this item on Courthouse News Service from October:

CIA Info On Uzbek Massacre Demanded

WASHINGTON (CN) - Conservative culture critic Laurence Jarvik sued the CIA in a federal FOIA complaint demanding information on Uzbekistan's massacre of protesters on May 13, 2005, and events before and after the slaughter.

After wrangling over fee waivers, Jarvik says he agreed to pay the fees, but the CIA refuses to cough up any documents. Jarvik, known as a critic of the Public Broadcasting System, is represented by Matthew Simmons of Bethesda, Md.

EU Human Rights Court Upholds French Secularism

According to this report from the Irish Times(ht Althouse):

Europe's human rights court today threw out a complaint by two French Muslim girls who were expelled from their school for refusing to remove their headscarves during sports lessons.

France, which takes secularism in state schools very seriously, passed a law in 2004 banning pupils from wearing conspicuous signs of their religion at school after a decade of bitter debate about Muslim girls wearing headscarves in class.

"The court observed that the purpose of the restriction on the applicants' right to manifest their religious convictions was to adhere to the requirements of secularism in state schools," the European Court of Human Rights said.

The two girls were 11 and 12 when they were expelled in 1999. After French courts ruled against them, they complained to the European court that their school had violated their freedom of religion and their right to an education.

The court, based in the eastern French city of Strasbourg, rejected both complaints by a unanimous ruling of seven judges.

N

Putin Offers Olive Branch to Obama

During his annual call-in TV show:

OLEG BELAN: Good afternoon, Mr Putin. Nenets Autonomous Area. I am Oleg Belan and I am a deputy of the regional assembly.

Do you think our relations with the United States will change after the election of Barack Obama as President? Will they become more pragmatic and constructive? Thank you.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: The question should be directed first and foremost to the new US Administration. Usually, when there is a change of power in any country, especially such a superpower as the United States, such changes do take place. We very much hope that the changes will be positive.

We see these positive signals. What are they? Look at the meeting of NATO foreign ministers: both Ukraine and Georgia have been denied a Membership Action Plan. We already hear at the level of experts, the people who are close to the President elect and the people around him, his aides, that there should be no hurry, that relations with Russia should not be jeopardised. We already hear that the practicability of deploying the third position of missile defence in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic should be considered once again.

We hear that the relations with Russia should be built with respect for our interests. If these are not just words, and if they are translated into practical policies, then of course we will react in kind and our American partners will immediately feel it.

Obama: Permission Granted--India May Bomb Pakistan

According to the Washington Times, President-Elect Obama has given the green light to India (unlike President Bush): "President-elect Barack Obama declared Monday that India 'would be within its rights if it took retaliatory action against militants hiding inside Pakistan.'"

Lucette Lagnado on Chabad in Mumbai

From today's Wall Street Journal:.

I still remember the rabbi's first sermon, about the Valley of Dry Bones -- that amazing biblical passage where the dead come to life again. I thought of the hopelessness I had felt on 9/11, the collective hopelessness, but then, listening to the story of how even a bunch of bones had been brought back to life, I too felt a sense of possibility again. And safety.

I thought of that sense of safety and comfort as I watched the horrific events unfold in Mumbai, and specifically at the Chabad House.

I am absolutely certain that Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and his pregnant wife Rivka, massacred by the terrorists, had also set up a safe-haven. Theirs was a retreat for Jews living in and around Mumbai or even those who were merely passing through.

I would venture that's one of the secrets behind the Chabad movement's extraordinary growth -- that they build little sanctuaries for lost Jews, alienated Jews, secular Jews, Jews who have no interest in traditional religion.

Chabad has redefined religion in part by getting away from the notion of large, formal temples to establishing places of worship that are small, intimate and, above all, deeply comforting; they have made religion personal.

And so, even as some other branches of Judaism and other religions have withered, they have ventured to the far corners of the earth: Siberia, Alaska, Kiev, Odessa, Ho Chi Minh City. But no matter where the Chabad house the philosophy is always the same -- to bring even the most alienated Jews back into the fold.

You go to a Chabad house and you can count on being invited to Friday night dinner by the rabbi and his wife. The model emphasizes old-fashioned notions of community and home -- the sense that religion is not a once-a-year affair but a way of life.

Memo to Obama: To Solve Financial Crisis, Declare a Jubilee Year

Debt relief for developing economies was all the rage in the 20th century. The IMF and World Bank forgave oodles of debt, with the support of Margaret Thatcher among others. Now, an item on Sudden Debt suggests that the USA practice IMF debt forgiveness on herself. I'll go one step farther...IMHO, it is time for a Jubilee Year::

The biblical requirement is that the Jubilee year was to be treated like a Sabbatical year, with the land lying fallow, but also required the compulsory return of all property to its original owners or their heirs, except the houses of laymen within walled cities, in addition to the manumission of all Israelite indentured servants.[7] The biblical regulations state that the Jubilee was only to come into force after the Israelites had gained control of Canaan,[8] presumably because it would otherwise require the Israelites to return the land to the Canaanites within 50 years; similar nationalistic concerns about the impact of the Jubilee on land ownership have been raised by Zionist settlers.[9] From a legal point of view, the Jubilee law effectively banned sale of land as fee simple, and instead land could only be leased for no more than 50 years; the biblical regulations go on to specify that the price of land had to be proportional to how many years remained before the Jubilee, with land being cheaper the closer it is to the Jubilee.[10]

Since the 49th year was already a sabbatical year, the land was required to be left fallow during it, but if the 50th year also had to be kept fallow, as the Jubilee, then no new crops would be available for two years, and only the summer fruits would be available for the following year, creating a much greater risk of starvation overall;[11] Judah haNasi contended that the jubilee year was identical with the sabbatical 49th year.[12] However, the majority of classical rabbis believed that the biblical phrase hallow the fiftieth year,[13] together with the biblical promise that there would be three years worth of fruit in the sixth year,[14] implies that the jubilee year was the 50th year.[15] The opinion of the Geonim, and generally of later authorities, was that prior to the Babylonian captivity the Jubilee was the intercalation of the 50th year, but after the captivity ended the Jubilee was essentially ignored, except for the blast of the shofar, and coincided with the sabbatical 49th year;[16] the justification given for this lapse of adherence to the Jubilee was that the Jubilee was only to be observed when the Jews controlled all of Canaan, including the territories of Reuben and Gad and the eastern half-tribe of Manasseh.

Basically it means cancelling debts. To those holding mortgage-backed securities...tough luck.

Chabad Tribute to Slain Mumbai Rabbi

At Chabad.org, Jonathan Mark writes:

Someone wondered: What effect would the Mumbai attack by Islamic terrorists have upon Chabad's presence in dangerous places?

I never met Rabbi Gavriel Noach Holtzberg or Rebbetzin Rivkah Holtzberg, martyrs of the Mumbai massacre, but I met more than a thousand of their spiritual brothers and sisters, the shluchim and shluchot, the Rebbe's emissaries, and here's what they always told me when the situation was darkest.

Chabad doesn't quit. They stood their ground in Czarist Russia, and they didn't quit after the Holocaust, and they didn't abandon Crown Heights after the 1991 riot. Chabad doesn't quit even in Islamic countries that might blow up any minute, such as Morocco, where Chabad teachers still operate in a city called "Gazablanca."

The Chabad idea of activism is to enlist for a lifetime job in Siberia, or Beijing, or Mexico, or MumbaiThey were working in the spiritual and anti-Semitic ruins of East Berlin when religion was criminalized, before the wall fell, and they were working in the Jewish ruins of Dnepropetrovsk before that Ukrainian city was open to the West and their activity could have meant a trip to the gulag. Chabad is still in the Congo amidst Africa's "world war," and they're still working in inner city neighborhoods where experts say "there are no Jews there anymore," except there are.

They didn't sign up to be American "clergy" whose idea of activism is announcing how their partisan politics are – surprise! – identical to Torah values. No, the Chabad idea of activism was to enlist for a lifetime job in Siberia, or Beijing, or Mexico, or Mumbai, a life in the trenches, on the front lines—the first wave in G‑d's infantry.

Even as I write this, Chabad is planning to re-open the Chabad House at 5 Hormusji Street, the now-famous Nariman building in Mumbai.

Jews don't run. Chabad doesn't run. Tonight, in India, Rabbi Tzvi Rivkin and Rebbetzin Noa will be open for Friday night davening and hosting people for Shabbos meals on Brunton Cross Road in Bangalore; Rabbi Baruch Shanhev and Rebbetzin Rachel Tova will be open for davening and Shabbos meals on Club House Road in Manali; Rabbi Guy Efraim and Rebbetzin Maya will be open for davening and Shabbos meals in Anjuna Village; and tonight, you can bet on it, there will be Shabbos in Mumbai.

Jews lit candles in the Warsaw Ghetto until they ran out of wicks, and tonight Jewish women in Mumbai will be lighting Shabbos candles not a second after 5:42 p.m., India time. That's what Jews do. That's what Chabad does.

Maybe some Jews will be understandably less inclined to backpack in India, or to do business in India, but plenty of Jews will still pass through Mumbai and Chabad will be there when they do.

There's a war on — a spiritual war as much as a shooting war — and Chabad knows it. The Lubavitcher Rebbe is their Churchill, even from the Other World. Good men and women will die, but Chabad will never surrender. They call their youth group Tzivos Hashem, the Army of God. The Holtzbergs were in it when they were young. Their two-year-old baby, Moishele, will be in it soon enough.

When the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, died in 1994, all the experts wondered how soon would Chabad fold.

Good men and women will die, but Chabad will never surrenderThis is what Chabad did. A Chabad carpenter sawed wood from the Rebbe's lectern to build a casket; a Chabad burial society gently poured water over the Rebbe's body and wrapped him in a shroud; straw was placed on the floor and the Rebbe's body was placed on it; and then they drove to the cemetery and laid the Rebbe in the ground. That night they davened Maariv. The next morning they showed up for Shachris. Then, over the next 15 years, they sent out several hundred shluchim and shluchot – including the Holtzbergs — representing the Rebbe.

Chabad did what they had to do when the Rebbe died and they'll do the same now.

Man Bites Dog: David Horowitz Defends Barack Obama

From FrontPage:

Conservatives need to get a grip. My email box is full of right wing trash talk (sorry, I'm peeved this morning) about Obama's fake birth certificate, his alleged covert Islamism and Hillary's scandals. Worse, we were running a frontpage story on this last wild goose until I canned it.

Since not everybody is following me at this point, let's take them one at a time. First, the birth certificate. Is Obama a legitimate president of the United States? Well, let me put it to you this way: 64 million Americans voted to elect Barack Obama. Do you want to disenfranchise them? Do you think it's possible to disenfranchise 64 million Americans and keep the country? And please don't write me about the Constitution. The first principle of the Constitution is that the people are sovereign. What the people say, goes. If you think about it, I think you will agree that a two-year billion dollar election through all 50 states is as authoritative a verdict on anything as we are likely to get. Barack Obama is our president. Get used to it.

And what could conservatives be thinking when they push this issue as though it were important (as The American Thinker did last week)? Do we want to go challenging the legitimacy of an election that involved 120 million voters? Have we become deranged leftists like Al Gore who would attack the one binding thread that makes us a nation despite our differences? The mystique of elections is the American covenant. Respect it. Barack Obama is the president of the United States. Get used to it.

I'm not even going to go into the Hussein idiocy. Obama spent 20 years in Reverend Wright's Trinity Church. There is much that was wrong with that, but being a Muslim isn't one of them.

And the Hillary thing. Get real. Please. Obama was elected in large part by a leftist crusade for hope and CHANGE. Now, as president-elect he has just formed the most conservative foreign policy team since John F. Kennedy, one well to the right of Bill Clinton. Where is your gratitude for that? What is more relevant in his Hillary Clinton pick -- her prickly past or the fact that except for Joe Lieberman, she is the Democrat most identified with support for the Iraq War?

Perhaps I should repeat that. Hillary Clinton is the Democrat MOST IDENTIFIED WITH REMOVING SADDAM HUSSEIN BY FORCE. She lost a presidency over it. So whatever low opinion you may have about Hillary, on foreign policy she is the very best choice for that position that conservatives could expect to get. Even better, because the ONLY issue that really divided Hillary and Obama was the Iraq War. So this is President Obama's way of saying, ok now that I'm in office I'm going to put my anti-war commitments aside and put the defense of the country first. And in case you didn't get that, I'm going to keep George Bush's Secretary of Defense in place, and I'm going to appoint a conservative Marine general as my National Security Advisor.

Maybe some conservatives out there have forgotten, but Clinton's Secretary of Defense Les Aspin was an anti-Vietnam activist. So were his two National Security Advisers, Tony Lake and Sandy Berger. In fact they met Clinton in the anti-war movement. Conservatives should be cheering right now, not chasing red herrings.

Moshe Yalon: Forget Oslo to Forge Israeli-Palestinian Peace

From Azure.co.il (ht LGF):

The strategy outlined in this paper is not particularly uplifting. I doubt that it will thrill the public or win prestigious international awards. It requires, after all, diligence and a good deal of patience. Its enactment would mean giving up expectations of reaching an immediate “solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian problem, and instead adopting a more pragmatic attitude that focuses, at least in the short term, on “managing” the conflict. Yet this new strategy is no less ambitious than the former one. It, too, strives to end Israel’s control over the Palestinians and to establish a new, safer, and more stable order west of the Jordan River. Unlike the Oslo paradigm, however, it begins by laying the foundations for the establishment of this new order, and only then proceeds to build from the bottom up. The policy proposed here rests on the understanding—which has so far eluded Israeli statesmen—that in our geopolitical arena, “the realities on the ground shape agreements, not the other way around,” as Guy Bechor, an Israeli expert in Middle Eastern affairs, once said.

This article has focused only on the constructive aspect of the approach I am recommending. The other, more demanding and no less important aspect is dealing with radical Islamic terrorism. It is important to remember that the regime established by Hamas in Gaza threatens not only the Jewish state, but the Palestinian Authority as well. Hamas’s rule in Gaza has been leading Israel and the Palestinians down a dangerous road of escalating violence with unforeseeable results. Abu Mazen and his deputies lack the strength to neutralize or contain the threat. As a result, Israel must shoulder this burden. Unfortunately, Israel’s leadership over the past few years has not demonstrated sufficient determination in tackling this problem, and has fallen into a series of devastating errors: the unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip, for instance, which laid waste to prosperous Jewish settlements and showed the world Israel retreating under fire; the postponement (time and again) of a large-scale military operation against the terrorist infrastructure in the Gaza Strip, which has allowed Hamas’ guerilla fighters to barricade and arm themselves in preparation for the inevitable clash; and the willingness on the part of Israel’s leaders to pay an exorbitant price for the release of kidnapped soldiers (and sometimes only their dead bodies), which sent a message to even the most moderate Palestinians that the armed struggle can achieve results unattainable by conciliation and cooperation.

No dialogue can succeed and no reforms will be possible so long as the Palestinians—and Arabs in general—believe that the Jewish state can be subdued by force. The American historian Daniel Pipes has correctly noted that it is not despair that encourages extremism among the Palestinians, but rather the hope and belief that the Zionist state can be defeated. If Israel hesitates to use overwhelming military force against the swelling abscess of terrorism in Gaza, its enemies may get the impression that its stamina is eroding and that it can be pushed into a corner. Such a perception of Israel poses a greater threat than any rocket attack and must be immediately rectified. For more than a hundred years, Jews living on this land have had to prove time and again that they are not afraid to fight. Sadly, it does not seem likely that they will be able to put down their weapons anytime soon. This reality was eloquently expressed by Moshe Beilinson in an article published in June 1936 in the Histadrut’s newspaper Davar, at the onset of the bloody 1936-1939 Arab Revolt. In response to the oft-repeated question, “How much longer?” Beilinson answered: “Until the most fervent warrior in the enemy camp realizes that there is no means by which to break Israel’s power in its land, because it has necessity and living truth on its side. Until they know that there is no other way but to make peace with Israel. This is the purpose of our struggle.”

The Israelis need not abandon their hopes for true peace with the Palestinians. The reorganization of Palestinian society in accordance with the principles outlined in this paper could feasibly serve as the foundation for a future settlement that would realize some of the hopes that were pinned on the Oslo process. Nevertheless, such a settlement will invariably involve painful concessions. However, in order for it to become a reality, two conditions must be met: first, unequivocal Palestinian recognition of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state; and second, the establishment of Palestinian self-rule on a solid economic, political, and security basis.

Unfortunately, the road leading to this destination is still very long. But sometimes, the longer road is in truth the shorter one. And it is clear that we will not arrive there if we continue to ride the rickety train that left Oslo and passed through Taba and Annapolis. The present diplomatic path, which forces Israel to make far-reaching concessions and take genuine risks in return for empty Palestinian declarations, is headed for war, not peace. At most, it can create an illusion of reconciliation and progress that will dissipate at the first sound of gunshots and bombs. In order to avoid repeating mistakes, both sides must get off the train to nowhere and board the one on the right track.

Bradley Burston on Jihadi Nazis

From Haaretz:

For the whole of my adult life, it irked me when my fellow Jews would routinely and without compunction, accuse anti-Zionists of being anti-Semitic, and conflate anti-Israeli sentiment with the Nazis.

I felt that the latter eroded the memory and the magnitude of the Holocaust, and that the former was a slightly more elegant way of telling people with whom one took issue, to shut the hell up.

Only this week did I realize my error.

It turns out, that when Jews suspected that the Jihadi hated the Jew the way the Nazi hated the Jew, they were right.

After all this time, I am embarrassed to admit that only when the monsters entered Chabad House in Mumbai, did I understand.

Monsters, not solely for what they did there, but, if the reports are to be believed, for the fact that they were able to do what they did after having actually gotten to know the young couple who founded the center, after asking them for shelter in Chabad House, after telling them that they were Malaysian students eager to learn about Judaism.

Monsters, for having befriended these sweet people in order to better learn how to execute them. Monsters, for having targeted a young couple who had devoted their lives to helping others better live theirs, despite having had a baby who died of a genetic disease and a second child ill and under treatment far away in Israel.

The monsters in Chabad House were not Nazis because they were Muslims. It was specifically because they so faithfully emulated the Nazis, that they, in fact, betrayed Islam.

The hatred of the Jihadi for the Jew is such that - as in the case of the Nazis - the killing of Jews - anywhere they may be found - is an obligation on par with whatever other enemy, target, cause, mission, goal or creed they may be pursuing at the moment.

Their hatred of the Jew is such that - as in the case of the Nazis - all tragedy that befalls the Jews was brought on by the Jews themselves.

Their hatred of the Jew is such that even if a Jew rejects the concept of a state of Israel and is wholeheartedly opposed to Zionism, if he wears the clothing of a believing Jew - as in the case of victim Aryeh Leibish Teitelboim - he will be bound and tortured and put to death.

It is no longer a question of geography or personal experiemce. On September 11. the jihadis told us that the attacks came, in part, in response to the atrocities of the Jews. In the next breath, they told the Muslim world that the Jews were also behind the attacks...

Christopher Hitchens on the Mumbai Massacre

From Slate:

I hope I am not alone in finding the statements about Bombay from our politicians to be anemic and insipid, and the media coverage of the disastrous and criminal attack too parochially focused on the fate of visiting or resident Americans. India is emerging in many ways as our most important ally. It is a strong regional counterweight to Russia and China. Not to romanticize it overmuch, it is a huge and officially secular federal democracy that is based, like the United States, on ethnic and confessional pluralism. Its political and economic and literary echelons speak English better than most of us do. Its parliament in New Delhi—the unbelievably diverse and dignified Lok Sabha—was viciously attacked by Islamist gangsters and nearly destroyed in December 2001, a date which ought to have made more Americans pay more attention rather than less. Since then, Bombay has been assaulted multiple times and the Indian Embassy in Afghanistan blown up with the fairly obvious cross-border collusion of the same Pakistani forces who are helping in the rebirth of the Taliban.

It would be good to hear from the president and the president-elect that we regard attacks on the fabric and society of India with very particular seriousness, as assaults on a close friend that was battling al-Qaida long before we were. In response, it should be emphasized, our military and financial and nuclear and counterinsurgency cooperation with New Delhi will not be given a lower profile but a very much higher one. The people of India need to hear this from us, as do the enemies of India, who are our sworn enemies, too.

The inevitable question arises: Did our nominal ally Pakistan have a hand in this atrocity? In one sense, to ask the question is to answer it. Whether we refer to al-Qaida "proper," or to any of the armed Kashmiri formations that have lately been mentioned, we find some pre-existing connection to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI. Another conceivable suspect, the former Bombay crime lord Dawood Ibrahim, wanted by the Indian authorities on suspicion of blowing up the Bombay stock exchange and killing 300 civilians in 1993, has long been a fugitive from justice living safely in Pakistan's main port of Karachi. Not a bad place from which to organize an amphibious assault team that acted as if it had been trained by serious military professionals.

Bernard Henry-Levy on the Pakistan Problem

From today's Wall Street Journal:

Since its creation 15 years ago, the Lashkar-e-Taiba has been linked to the ISI, the formidable Inter-Services Intelligence agency that operates like a state within a state in Pakistan. Obviously, this link is not widely publicized. However, from the kidnapping and murder of Daniel Pearl to the July 2005 attack on the Ayodhya Hindu temple in Uttar Pradesh, there is abundant evidence that the jihadist wing of the ISI has assisted the Lashkar-e-Taiba in the planning and financing of various operations.

Worse yet, the Lashkar-e-Taiba is, as I discovered while researching and reporting my book on Daniel Pearl, a group of which A.Q. Khan, the inventor of Pakistan's atomic bomb, was a longtime friend. Mr. Khan, one may recall, spent a good 15 years trafficking in nuclear secrets with Lybia, North Korea, Iran and, perhaps, al Qaeda, before confessing his guilt in early 2004. Later pardoned by Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Mr. Khan remains perfectly free to travel within Pakistan, as he was just admitted this Monday, under the protection of the ISI, to the most elite hospital in Karachi.

No, this is not a dream -- it is reality. Pakistan is home to a man both father of his country's nuclear program and known sympathizer of an Islamist group whose latest demonstration has netted at least 188 dead and several hundred wounded.

The Lashkar-e-Taiba is, ultimately, one of the constitutive elements of what is conventionally called al Qaeda. For too long we've told ourselves that al Qaeda no longer exists except as a brand; that it is only a pure signifier, "franchised" by local organizations independent of one another. Yet there indeed exists in our world what Osama bin Laden called the "International Islamic Front for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders," which is like a constellation of atoms aggregated around a central nucleus. These atoms find themselves, for the most part, clustered in this new zone of tempests that forms the whole of Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan.

Mumbai Terrorists Targeted India-Pakistan Peace Deal

Writes Tarek Fatah in the Calgary Herald:

While the ISI-PPP tussle for control of the country's intelligence network was going on behind the scenes, on Tuesday, the president of Pakistan, Asif Zardari, threw a bombshell that caught the Pakistan military establishment off guard. Speaking to an Indian TV audience, Zardari announced a strategic shift in Pakistan's nuclear policy. He startled a cheering Indian audience, saying Pakistan had adopted a "no-first-strike" nuclear-war policy. This apparently did not go down well within Pakistan's military establishment that has ruled the country for decades using the "Indian bogey" to starve the nation of much-needed development investment in order to put the huge military machine on a permanent war footing with no war in sight. Immediately, the military commentators denounced Zardari.

Zardari also borrowed a quote from his late wife, who once said there's a "little bit of India in every Pakistani and a little bit of Pakistan" in every Indian. "I do not know whether it is the Indian or the Pakistani in me that is talking to you today," Zardari said.

While most Pakistanis welcomed the new air of peace and friendship, the country's religious right was upset.

Just a month ago, the founder of one of Pakistan's most feared armed Islamist groups had accused Zardari of being too dovish toward India, and criticized him for referring to militants in Indian-held Kashmir as "terrorists." Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT),a major militant group fighting in Indian Kashmir, described Zardari's comments as "a clear violation and digression from the consistent policy of Pakistan."Then Wednesday, the so-called "Deccan Mujahedeen" struck against India with the clear aim of triggering a Hindu backlash against the country's minority Muslims, with the obvious danger to Pakistan-India relations.

Most security commentators agree the Deccan Mujahedeen is merely a tag of convenience and that behind this well-planned terror attack lies the secret hands of the LeT. The same LeT that had warned Zardari to desist from warming up to India.

Only time will tell whether these Islamists succeed or whether the good people of India--Hindus and Muslims --can see through this provocation and embrace the hand of friendship extended by Zardari.

In the meantime, Muslims around the world will also have to decide whether to enter the 21st century and distance themselves from the doctrine of armed jihad, or go back to the 12th century and embrace these haters of joy and peace.

Obama's First Big Mistake

Obama said he didn't want "groupthink" when he introduced Hillary Clinton as his choice for Secretary of State, but given the apparently unanimous chorus of cheers from the media, that's exactly what Hillary's selection has yielded. I haven't seen too much criticism in the papers--even from commentators who know how bad a choice this may turn out to be. IMHO, this ranks with Bill Clinton's decision to make gays in the military his top priority during the first 100 days, or Bush's "Mission Accomplished' stunt. It's a hubristic move by a winner who thinks he holds all the cards. I hope Obama is reading some Greek and Shakespearean tragedies as well as Doris Kearns Goodwin...uneasy lies the head that wears the crown.

First, it looks as if Obama was forced to pick Hillary. Weeks of selective leaks to the media, followed by his "negotiations" with Bill Clinton, followed by his promise to pay Hillary's outstanding campaign debts--does anyone even remember Hillary's campaign claim that she would pay for her campaign out of her own pocket (fattened by some 100 million in post-administration income to the Clintons)?--all combine to create an image of weakness, not strength. Even Rush Limbaugh wondered if Obama would be a "figurehead." He's right about that.

Second, Hillary is not someone the American people want picking up a phone at 3 am. We had an election, and she lost. Personally, I agree with Limbaugh that McCain could have beaten Hillary. Now she's going to be the face of the Obama administration in dealing with international crisis? I just don't get it. She has drive, but not intelligence or judgement. Her husband was impeached due to her handling of the Lewinsky scandal. He may have beaten conviction, but a majority of the Senate voted him guilty. The Clinton presidency was terribly damaged by her hardball tactics. Indeed, the failed attempt to get Bin Laden was clouded by suspicions that Bill was just trying to change the subject from Lewinsky...leaving America unprepared for the global jihad that grew into 9/11.

Third, now everyone around the world will wonder, like Limbaugh: Who's really in charge? Can I make a deal with Bill and go around Obama? Does the USA have an Obama administration or a 3rd Clinton term?

Fourth, in the end, Hillary is a doormat--Bill humiliated her, and she hung around; Obama beat her, and she begged for scraps from the table. Weak, weak, weak...despite the bullying and bluster. Everything she has, she owes to some powerful man.

Fifth, there's always the Machiavellian issue, mentioned by former Obama foreign policy advisor Samantha Power, who called Hillary a "monster." Power was fired, but it may be the only thing she's said that I agree with.

If the Republicans had any backbone, they'd do to her what the Senate did to John Tower in the Reagan administration--and torpedo this nomination in a very obvious way. Unfortunately, the Republicans don't look like they are up to the job...and if they can't stand up to Hillary, they can't stand up to Bin Laden.

UPDATE: Christopher Hitchens says Hillary is not fit to serve as Secretary of State.