John McCain v. Freedom of Speech

In his latest column, George F. Will explains why it is significant that Senator John McCain not only co-sponsored the troubling McCain-Feingold campaign law, but also said that he's opposed to the First Amendment to the US Constitution:

Presidents swear to "protect and defend the Constitution." The Constitution says: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." On April 28, on Don Imus's radio program, discussing the charge that the McCain-Feingold law abridges freedom of speech by regulating the quantity, content and timing of political speech, John McCain did not really reject the charge:

"I work in Washington and I know that money corrupts. And I and a lot of other people were trying to stop that corruption. Obviously, from what we've been seeing lately, we didn't complete the job. But I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government."

Will suggests that McCain might be a dangerous to the US Constitution, and his views may be a threat to democracy itself:

Which highlights the stark contradiction in McCain's doctrine and the media's applause of it. He and they assume, simultaneously, the following two propositions:

Proof that incumbent politicians are highly susceptible to corruption is the fact that the government they control is shot through with it. Yet that government should be regarded as a disinterested arbiter, untainted by politics and therefore qualified to regulate the content, quantity and timing of speech in campaigns that determine who controls the government. In the language of McCain's Imus appearance, the government is very much not "clean," but it is so clean it can be trusted to regulate speech about itself.

McCain hopes that in 2008 pro-life Republicans will remember his pro-life record. But they will know that, regarding presidents and abortion, what matters are Supreme Court nominees. McCain favors judges who think the Constitution is so radically elastic that government regulation of speech about itself is compatible with the First Amendment. So Republican primary voters will wonder: Can President McCain be counted on to nominate justices who would correct such constitutional elasticities as the court's discovery of a virtually unlimited right -- one unnoticed between 1787 and 1973 -- to abortion?

McCain told Imus that he would, if necessary, sacrifice "quote First Amendment rights" to achieve "clean" government. If on Jan. 20, 2009, he were to swear to defend the Constitution, would he be thinking that the oath refers only to "the quote Constitution"? And what would that mean?

Harry Potter and the War on Terror

Writing in The American Thinker, Bookworm says J.K. Rowling's story has a message for adults in a post-9/11 world:

I don’t pretend to know what J.K. Rowling was thinking when she wrote Order of the Phoenix, but I can’t help but see in this post-9/11 book a perfect analogy to the situation the West faces today, in the real world, in its War against Islamofascism. Some of us, like Harry, know that we have seen evil, acknowledge its existence, and are prepared to fight it. But just as Harry must deal with a government Ministry bound and determined to explain away or ignore the evil in its midst, we too face an anti-War movement that endlessly ignores, explains away, and excuses the most vile acts of terror and human degradation. I have to believe, however, that there are at least some young people who experienced the Twin Towers falling as the formative event of their youth, and who will find guidance and inspiration in Harry’s struggle to wage overcome both evil itself and a cultural indifference to that same evil.

Konstantin on the New Cold War

Konstantin's Russian Blog reacts to Dick Cheney's declaration of a new Cold War in Vilnius:

What do we learn from such verbal maneuvers? First, that America does not really give a damn about freedom and democracy. They are nothing but empty words. When any country does not agree with the US international politics it immediately becomes undemocratic. When any dictatorship does what America wants its democracy status raises to incredible heights. This is a very powerful and meaningful signal. It means that even if Putin gives complete freedom to ORT and RTV, even if he resigns, even if he stops bothering Ukraine and Georgia, he would still be treated as very undemocratic. But the moment he, for example, agrees to punish Iran the US-way, he could immediately double gas prices for the US tiny Eastern European liegemen fearing no political consequences. It only takes some arithmetical calculations: we loose X if we stop building nuclear power stations in Iran and we gain Y if we introduce market prices for the Baltics, Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. If X is very close to Y then we have every chance to improve our freedom status and American limitrophes will shut up (or will not be heard by American corporate media, what is the same).

Second, we learn that America is not that strong as it used to be. “Zeus, you are angered. That means you are wrong.” In the 20th century diplomats used to say, “Speak softly but carry a stick in your hand”. Nowadays, as one wise man said, America prefers another saying, “Yell at the top of your lungs and hope that others won’t notice that your stick is broken.”

Third, we learn that America is very myopic. So myopic that winning in some minor internal quarrels means more than loosing global international partners. I don’t talk about allies as in the last three years America alienated all of them (parasites don’t count as allies). Dick definitely gained some points with right-wing Republicans at home for being “hard with Russia”. The fact that the level of anti-Americanism among Russians rose 8% doesn’t bother him at all. Russia is not a democratic country, so Russians will not be given a chance to vote for an anti-American president, won’t they? Iranians voted for an anti-American president although a much more liberal candidate had every chance to win just because Iranians are stupid (or brainwashed). The fact that the US became double hostile towards Iran before the presidential elections doesn’t have anything to do with the outcome.

American political system was based on the ideas of the Age of Enlightenment. Two hundred years ago educated public sincerely believed that power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely. So the system of check and balances was introduced. Nowadays America is the only super power. Its power is absolute and no matter how sympathetic I am towards Americans I do realize that the Founding Fathers were right in the long run. American absolute global power makes America absolutely corrupt in the world where no checks and balances exist for this rich, hypocritical, greedy and war-mongering hulk.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali Speaks!

Here's an account of her Harvard talk, via Little Green Footballs:

Her voice broke at one point when she reflected on her relationship with Theo Van Gogh. When she was discussing her ideas for Submission Part One with Theo, she had wanted to use puppets, or placards. Theo said, “No, It is better if you put this idea in a film. I want to do this for you.” His main problem with the project was not the danger, it was the utter lack of humor. “Maybe I’ll save the humor for Parts Three and Four?” he joked.

“We thought everything was good after we finished filming. We could start Parts Two and Three. And then one morning, I got a phone call. Theo was,” her voice faltered just a bit “...killed.”

“So now I have to live with the fact that Theo Van Gogh is dead. Though I did not kill him, I have to live with the fact that he is dead. I had protection before Theo Van Gogh was killed. I have to do what these gentlemen tell me to do. I have to comply. I comply with things I am told by the authorities. The emphasis on security... it has made me more radical. I cannot be complacent. Let others do it, it will go away - I can’t do that anymore.”

Iran's Third Way

Daniel Pipes arguest that bombing Iran may be too risky, but so is doing nothing. He suggests a third way to deter Iran:

But is there a third, more palatable option? Finding it is the goal of every analyst who addresses the topic, including this one. That third option necessarily involves a mechanism to dissuade the Iranian regime from developing and militarizing its atomic capabilities. Does such a deterrence exist?

Yes, and it even has a chance of success. Iran, fortunately, is not an absolute dictatorship where a single person makes all key decisions, but an oligarchy with multiple power centers and with debate on many issues. The political leadership itself is divided, with important elements dubious about the wisdom of proceeding with nukes, fearful of the international isolation that will follow, not to speak of air strikes. Other influential sectors of society – religious, military, and economic in particular – also worry about the headlong rush.

A campaign by Iranians to avoid confrontation could well prevail, as Iran does not itself face an atomic threat. Going nuclear remains a voluntary decision, one Tehran can refrain from making. Arguably, Iranian security would benefit by staying non-nuclear.

Forces opposed to nuclearization need to be motivated and unified, and that is made more likely by strong external pressure. Were Europeans, Russians, Chinese, Middle Easterners, and others to act in sync with Washington, it would help mobilize opposition elements in Iran. Indeed, those states have their own reasons to dread both a nuclear Tehran and the bad precedent this sets for other potential atomic powers, such as Brazil and South Africa.

That international cooperation, however, is not materializing, as can be seen at the United Nations. The Security Council meanders on the Iran issue and an Iranian official has been elected to, of all things, the UN's disarmament commission (which is tasked with achieving nuclear disarmament).

Deterring Tehran requires sustained, consistent external pressure on the Iranian body politic. That implies, ironically, that those most adverse to U.S.-led air strikes must (1) stand tight with Washington and (2) convince Iranians of the terrible repercussions for them of defying the international consensus.

HONOR A History by James Bowman

Yesterday, I went to the book party for James Bowman's new book, HONOR: A History. It certainly was honorable of Jim, who I have not seen for years and years, to invite me. I was honored to be there.

The event took place at the American Enterprise Institute, and so I found myself sitting between former Presidential speechwriter David Frum (George W. Bush) and former Presidential speechwriter Ben Wattenberg (Lyndon Baines Johnson). Irving Kristol and Bea Himmelfarb sat at the next table. So you might say that Jim had invited me to an A-list neoconservative party. And I don't know that they all liked what he had to say.

Because in his talk, Bowman put forward the theory that the war in Iraq was about nothing more or less than the ancient notion of Honor. In our case, "National Honor." In the case of Islamist terrorists, personal and religious honor. A clash of honor systems, if not a clash of civilizations.

This--not the Israel Lobby, not the Oil Lobby, not Halliburton--explained why America could not afford to lose. Because Saddam Hussein has definitely been linked to Al Qaeda after the American attack, it was honorable and right to fight him. Since the attack on 9/11, the honor of our nation is at stake.

But, said Bowman, Iraq is like Vietnam in that appeals to honor ring politically incorrect, and the President therefore cannot make them. The last President to invoke National Honor was Richard Nixon--"peace with honor."

And we all know how that ended...

Something to think about.

Hookergate?

That's what they're calling scandal swirling around Porter Goss's departure from the CIA, Down Under. From The Australian:

ALL the ingredients for a spy thriller involving prostitutes, poker, a congressman called Randy and parties at the legendary Watergate complex may lie behind the sudden resignation of Porter Goss as director of the CIA.

The saga has already been named "Hookergate", and the CIA is buzzing with rumours there is more to Mr Goss's departure than meets the eye.

The timing is certainly curious, coming hard on the heels of the CIA's confirmation last week that Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, the No3 in the nation's spy agency, who was hand-picked by Mr Goss, had attended poker games at the Watergate and Westin Grand hotels in Washington with Brent Wilkes, a defence contractor and close boyhood friend.

Mr Wilkes is under investigation for allegedly providing Randy "Duke" Cunningham, a disgraced Republican congressman, with prostitutes, limousines and free hotel suites.

The net is also closing in on Mr Foggo, who is being investigated by the FBI for awarding Mr Wilkes a $US2.4million ($3.1 million) contract. Although Mr Foggo has admitted playing poker with Mr Wilkes, he insists no prostitutes were present.

A former senior CIA official said this weekend he had been told by a trusted source inside the agency that Mr Goss, 67, had attended one of the poker games. The CIA has denied it. "Goss has repeatedly denied being there, so if it were to come out he was, he is finished," the ex-official said.

Aleksandr Solzhenytsin On Russia's Future

Interviewed by Vitaly Tretyakov of the Moscow News, via Johnson's Russia List. Some excerpts:

Vitaly Tretyakov: Aleksandr Isayevich, what is your general impression of Russia's present development under President Vladimir Putin as compared with the Yeltsin and Gorbachev era?

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: Under Gorbachev, the concept and perception of statehood per se was discarded. (Hence his numerous acts of capitulation and unconditional concessions in foreign policy which won him kudos in the West.)

On Yeltsin's watch, that line was essentially continued, but it was further
aggravated by the uncontrolled plundering of Russia, its property and
national legacy, as well as by inaction and collusion in the face of a
countrywide crisis. Under Putin, efforts were made, although not
immediately, to reverse the trend and save Russia's statehood. At first,
however, some of those attempts were rather cosmetic, but then they became
more focused. Considering our condition and our potentialities, the
country's foreign policy today is sensible and increasingly pragmatic.
Russia, however, has yet much to do to overcome the heavy burden of the
past. The overall condition of the people's life is still difficult and
there is much chaos.

VT: In the past several months there has been a flurry of political and other
activity around the so-called national priority projects, including reform
of the education and healthcare system, the housing and utilities sector,
and agriculture. What do you think about these projects? Were they
correctly prioritized?

AS: When a boat has 99 holes in its hull, with the best of intentions, it is
impossible to fix all of them at once. All of these projects have a right
to be "national priority projects." All of them are vitally important. As
for agriculture and the moribund countryside (a problem that was recently
highlighted by Moscow Mayor Yu. M. Luzhkov in rather forceful terms) - a
countryside that has been abandoned to its fate and degrading for decades
now it is really a pressing need: We are not only becoming dependent on
food supplies [from abroad] but losing valuable lands.

***

VT: I, for one, believe that unless the three principal subjects of
Euro-Atlantic (Christian) civilization - specifically, the North American
Union, the (Western) European Union, and the East European (Russian) Union
- form a strategic alliance (with supra-state bodies), our civilization
will disappear sooner or later. Where do you think salvation for the
Euro-Atlantic civilization lies?

AS: Unfortunately, the global political process is not moving in the direction
that you have just outlined. The United States has been deploying its
occupation troops in one country after another. This has been the case in
Bosnia for the past nine years, in Kosovo and Afghanistan for the past five
years, and in Iraq for the past three years. And it is bound to continue
for a very long time yet. There is no substantial difference between NATO
and U.S. actions. Seeing that Russia today poses no threat to it, NATO is
systematically, persistently expanding its military apparatus - to eastern
Europe and to the south of Russia. This includes open financial and
ideological support for "color" revolutions and the absurd imposition of
North-Atlantic interests on Central Asia. All of this leaves no doubt that
Russia is being encircled with a view to destroying its sovereignty.
Russia's accession to the Euro-Atlantic alliance, which is now forcibly
imposing Western democratic values in various parts of the world, would
result not in the expansion but the decline of Christian civilization.

VT: Do you agree with the view that the world is rapidly moving toward
neo-authoritarianism (probably as a reaction to total liberalism)?

AS: "Total liberalism," as you have aptly put it, has certainly had its day in
the world and is now more or less a spent force. It will be replaced by
some other forms of public and state consciousness, but I would not dare
predict their essence or the forms that they will actually assume.

VT: What is your perspective on the situation in Ukraine? In this context, what
do you think about the problem of the division of the Russian nation (the
largest divided nation in modern Europe)? Should Russia - if not
politically, at least intellectually - ponder the possibility of
reunification of ethnic Russians and Russian lands if Ukraine joins the EU
and especially NATO?

AS: I am pained by what has been going on in Ukraine - ever since the 1991
referendum. The fanatical suppression and persecution of the Russian
language (which, according to previous polls, was used as the main language
by over 60 percent of Ukraine's population) is simply an act of atrocity
that is aimed against Ukraine's own cultural heritage. Vast tracts of land,
which have never been part of historical Ukraine, e.g., Novorossia, the
Crimea and the entire southeastern region, have been forcibly incorporated
into the modern Ukrainian state and into its policy of acquiring NATO
membership at any cost. Throughout Yeltsin's term in office, not a single
meeting that he had with any of the Ukrainian presidents had gone without
capitulation and concessions to them. Pushing the Black Sea Fleet out of
Sevastopol (the city was never ceded to Ukraine, not even under Khrushchev)
is an outrageous humiliation of the entire 19th- and 20th-century Russian
history.

Under these conditions, Russia must not cast Ukraine's multimillion Russian
population to the whims of fate, abandoning it, and cutting off all links
with it.

VT: Is it your view that Russian language and Russian literature are dying - in
the sense that they will never again attain, let alone surpass, 19th and
20th century models?

AS: Despite its uncontrolled contamination with jargon and Anglo-Americanisms
(I am talking not about the natural use of technical terminology but
slavish, fashion-driven borrowings), the Russian language will not degrade,
will not let itself be irretrievably polluted as long as there are Russian
people.

The same is true for Russian literature. Despite all the garbage, it has
preserved its lucid and conscientious core that will yet produce excellent
works supporting our spirit, our morale, and our consciousness.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali To Speak

At Harvard University, on May 9th. (ht LGF)

US Welcomes Burmese Refugees

Accordning to a report in the Navhind Times, some 9,000 ethnic Karen refugees from camps on the Thai-Burmese border may soon be on their way to the United States. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice waived anti-terrorism provisions of the Patriot Act that had prevented some families associated with Karen National Liberation Army guerrillas from coming to America. The Department of Homeland Security has decided that non-combatant Karens pose no threat to the United States.

The refugee camps have been an long-term irritant in Thai-Burmese relations, accused of serving as bases for attacks by Burma, and resented by Thailand due to violent incidents at Karen protests.

Thailand's Karen refugees camps have been in operation for 16 years.

UPDATE: More on the Karen at Wikipedia.

CIA Failures Led to Goss Ouster

According to the not always reliable Debka Report, more than poker parties at the Watergate are involved:

Indeed, DEBKAfile’s intelligence sources note the CIA is on its uppers in three vital spheres:

1.US forces are not getting to grips with either of the two segments of the Iraqi guerrilla insurgency: the mostly secular Baathists and the extremist Islamist Iraqi groups and al Qaeda. The continuous upsurge of violence in Iraq means the CIA has failed by and large to penetrate the most dangerous insurgent groups.

2. While the Taliban-al Qaeda rebellion rages in Afghanistan, Abu Musab al Zarqawi’s Iraq wing - far from being crushed - has in the last six months opened up new terror fronts in Sinai, Egypt, Palestinian territories and Algeria.

3. On Iran, the CIA comes up short on two interconnected issues: derailing Iran’s nuclear program with the help of local surrogates which, given the millions of expatriate Iranian exiles who detest the clerical regime, should pose fewer difficulties than penetrating al Qaeda. Secondly, American operatives should have been able to head off the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and intelligence agents who have permeated every corner of Iraqi politics and whose influence in Baghdad often prevails over the word from Washington - despite the presence of 135,000 US troops.

Henry Allen: Winning is Everything

In today's Washington Post, a staff writer takes a look at American strategy in Iraq:

"In war, we have to win," said Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap.

This was on television about 20 years ago, a PBS series about the war in Vietnam. Giap was sitting behind a desk, as I recall, a picture of lethal ease. He seemed amused to think he knew something that the Americans still hadn't figured out. He added: "Absolutely have to win."

For me, a former Marine corporal who'd heard some Viet Cong rounds go past at Chu Lai, Giap spoke and the heavens opened -- a truth seizure, eureka. I finally had a useful, practical explanation for why we had lost after the best and brightest promised we were going to win. And nowadays, thanks to Giap, I have a theory, no more than that, about why winning is so elusive in Iraq...

Allen believes that the Bush administration doesn't know how to win, and concludes:

This war is not working out the way our leaders thought it would. We could lose. If we lose, we'll be humiliated, we'll be the schoolyard hotshot who picked a fight and then got whipped. I'm tired of our leaders putting me and my country in this position.

I'm not saying I want to fight no wars, or even saying I want to win more wars -- I'm just saying that I want us to win the wars that we fight. And I'm worried that Iraq was never one of them because it was started by people who knew everything except how to win -- who have yet to learn that in war we absolutely have to win.

Afghan Pop Music VJ Killed By Islamists

While driving in the car yesterday, I heard a fascinating interview with Shakeb Issar, Shaima Rezayee's VJ co-host on Tolo TV, who now in hiding in Sweden--after the British embassy refused to grant asylum for diplomatic reasons--on BBC World News. Issar said he lived in the TV studio after Shaima Rezayee, 24, was killed by a single shot to the head on May 18th, 2005 following a denunciation of her music television program as un-Islamic.

Her appearance on television shocked many Afghans with her western-style of dressing and the barest of headscarves, as the only female presenter on the daily TV music show ‘Hop’. Conservative clerics hated her. Young women admired her. 24-year-old Shaima Rezayee stood out, and she had to pay a heavy price for this. First she was fired from her job. Now she has been killed.

This quote about the killing, from the US-government-funded NGO Internews on Jaghury.com makes me want to throw up:

But Aunohita Mojumdar, a media analyst at Internews, says the wrath Tolo incurs needs to be viewed in the context of Afghanistan's recent history. "In a country where all images were banned until the collapse of the Taliban, any TV station in existence would have drawn fire."

Your US tax dollars at work...

UPDATE: Here's a link to the BBC Outlook program interview by Heather Payton, and the BBC summary:

TOLO TV
An Afghan TV host has left his home country and moved to Sweden because he is in fear of his life. 22 year old Shakeb Issar is 22 and he used to host a music show called Hop on Afghan television; he's now living in one room, on state benefits, in Sweden. A year ago he was riding high, wearing trendy western clothes and introducing music videos from all over the world on independent Tolo TV, many of them featuring scantily clad women. Then his co-host, Shaima Rezayee was found dead, beaten up and with a bullet through her head. Shakeb too was getting death threats and he decided it was time to flee the country. He tells Outlook presenter Heather Payton the reasons for his decision.

So far, I have not seen this story reported in the American media--even on MTV news.

UPDATE: Wikipedia entry here.

Cheney Answers Questions About Russia

In Astana, Kazakhstan:

Q Yes, Matt Spetalnick, with Reuters. Mr. Vice President, the Kremlin has dismissed your criticism of Russia's record of democracy and its energy policy as "incomprehensible." Can you respond to that and explain how are you going to get this message across if they don't want to hear it? And what this could bode for the G8 Summit?

And for Mr. President, what do you think of the rising tensions between these two major powers?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I haven't had an opportunity to -- excuse me.

MODERATOR: Excuse me -- which superpowers you were talking about, sir? United States and Russia?

Q United States and Russia. (Laughter.)

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I haven't had an opportunity to study the response out of Moscow. The speech was very carefully crafted. It made the point that we don't look upon Russia as an enemy by any means, that we want them as a strong friend and ally. But I also made it clear that we had some concerns with respect to the extent to which they seem to resist the development of strong democracies, if you will, in those areas represented by the governments that were represented at the conference in Vilnius in Lithuania.

And I expressed the concern that I heard repeated by many of the people I interacted with at the conference that Russia is using its control over energy resources to gain political leverage of various kinds on those governments that were represented at the conference.

I expect the G8 conference will go forward as scheduled in Petersburg, and that we'll all benefit from a free, open, and honest exchange of views at that conference.

PRESIDENT NAZARBAYEV: (As translated) Well, first of all, I think that there is no such thing as confrontation between United States and Russia. We think that there is a friendly exchange of opinions and views. And we all have to know that every country has their own way of solving their own problems, and that is called politics. And we have to respect politics of every country. But every country also has a right to voice their opinion of what is happening in another country. And if that would be done in a friendly manner, I think we will just benefit from that.

Laura Rozen on CIA Chief's Resignation

War and Piece has a lot of information and theories about Porter Goss's sudden departure from the CIA. IMHO, it looks clumsy from the outside, and doesn't increase one's confidence in the Bush administration...

Ari Halberstam, Rashid Baz, Andrea Elliott & The New York Times

From a very interesting post at Winds of Change:

Joe's posts about white guilt and shame brought to mind several instances of contact between Americans and Muslims which illustrate his theme.

The first two concern young female New York Times journalists whose credulity and callousness derive - I think - from being ashamed of Western culture in the way Joe describes. (This is exactly the kind of person who would be hired and groomed by the Times, which then perpetuates this shame through the approach its reporters take to their stories.) In the contrasting examples Muslims upbraid white Westerners for being ashamed of Western values.

First, Andrea Elliott:
In 1994, three weeks before Passover, Ari Halberstam, 16, was riding in a van over the Brooklyn Bridge when Rashid Baz, in a nearby car, shot a bullet into Halberstam’s brain. . . . On March 5, exactly 12 years to the day Ari died, The New York Times began a three-part series on Imam Reda Shata and the Islamic Society of Bay Ridge. [Ari's mother Devorah] remembered that at the murder trial, witnesses testified that Baz attended a raging anti-Semitic sermon at that very same place. Jews were “racist and fascist, as bad as the Nazis” said a speaker there (not Shata), shortly before Baz got into his car with a Glock semiautomatic pistol and a Cobray machine gun, hunting for Jews.

Keep reading for Mrs. Halberstam's encounter with the author of the series.

But the article, by Andrea Elliot, never mentioned Baz nor his victim. The article, if anything, depicted the mosque as more moderate than not. Elliot did report that the imam praised Hamas and a suicide bomber, even as he “forged friendships with rabbis in New York.”

Devorah Halberstam says she called Elliot and asked if the reporter ever heard of Ari Halberstam. According to Halberstam, Elliot answered, “Who?” She never heard of the murder either, adds Halberstam.

“When I told her the story,” says Halberstam, “she just said, ‘That’s a long time ago.’ I said, ‘Excuse me?’ First of all, it’s hardly a long time ago; second, to say that to a mother is disgusting; and third, terror like that is very pertinent to this day and age, after 9-ll.”

I have no idea how old Andrea Elliott is, but I'm picturing her rolling her eyes, cracking gum and playing with her split ends while talking to Mrs Halberstam on her cell, with her feet up on her desk. The imam was a representative of an exotic culture, and one that she had been taught at her (probably) Ivy League school was treated badly by the West. Mrs. Halberstam was just some Jewish mother, Orthodox yet, nagging her. It was clear to her who deserved respect and who deserved a brush-off.

There's more interesting stuff here about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ron Chernow, Philip Gourevitch and the PEN International Center...

UPDATE: Winds of Change guessed right about Elliott's Ivy League background--according to the ASNE website, she graduated first in her class from Columbia University's graduate school of journalism.

Prosecute the FBI

Someone we know pointed out that since the Massaoui verdict, there is now a precedent for 9/11 prosecutions that leads directly to FBI agents who were warned about the 9/11 attacks yet chose to do nothing. As Peggy Noonan laid out the case in the Wall Street Journal:

This is what Moussaoui did: He was in jail on a visa violation in August 2001. He knew of the upcoming attacks. In fact, he had taken flight lessons to take part in them. He told no one what was coming. He lied to the FBI so the attacks could go forward. He pled guilty last year to conspiring with al Qaeda; at his trial he bragged to the court that he had intended to be on the fifth aircraft, which was supposed to destroy the White House.

He knew the trigger was about to be pulled. He knew innocent people had been targeted, and were about to meet gruesome, unjust deaths.

He could have stopped it. He did nothing. And so 2,700 people died.

As Jeff Taylor noted in Reason magazine, that is precisely the case against the FBI agents who ignored attack warnings documented in the Massaoui trial:

One exchange from the Moussaoui trial makes clear what happened in the weeks running up to 9/11:

"You tried to move heaven and earth to get a search warrant to search this man's belongings and you were obstructed," MacMahon said to Samit.

"Yes sir, I was obstructed." Samit replied.

No disaster, it seems, can force reform on the Bureau. The same people are still manning the posts at the FBI and Main Justice. They are going to miss the next terror attack because they are dead-certain to stop the last one. That's what bureaucracies do: cover ass...

Happy Cinco de Mayo!

There's more on Mexico's national holiday here:

In 1862, the French army began its advance. Under General Ignacio Zaragoza, 5,000 ill-equipped Mestizo and Zapotec Indians defeated the French army in what came to be known as the "Batalla de Puebla" on the fifth of May.

Here's an official account of President Bush's holiday party, from the White House web site:

Declaraciones del Presidente acerca del Cinco de Mayo
The East Room
1:57 P.M. EDT

EL PRESIDENTE: Gracias, Sírvanse tomar asiento. Bienvenidos, bienvenidos a la Casa Blanca. Es un honor para mí contar con la presencia de tantos distinguidos líderes hispanos y méxico-americanos aquí para la celebración del Cinco de Mayo. Quizá hayan notado que esta celebración no es el cinco de mayo. (risas). es el cuatro de Mayo. (Risas.) Es un feriado tan importante, que pensamos que comenzaríamos temprano. (Risas.)

Le agradezco a Héctor, un gusto verlo. El director de la SBA está con nosotros hoy. Gaddy Vásquez, gracias por asistir. Gracias a ambos por traer. por traer a su esposa, Héctor. Quiero darle las gracias a Anna Cabral, que es la Tesorera, y me complace que haya traído a Víctor. Gracias por asistir.

Les agradezco a los embajadores que nos acompañan. El embajador de México está hoy con nosotros. Embajador, gracias, y también, mi amigo, el embajador de Estados Unidos ante México, Antonio Garza. Bienvenidos, ambos. Es un gusto que estén aquí. Le agradezco a Eduardo Aguirre, embajador ante España. Gracias por asistir, Eduardo. Hans Hertell, el embajador ante la República Dominicana. Muchísimas gracias a todos por asistir. Gracias por sus servicios al país y gracias, embajador, por sus servicios a su país, también.

Le agradezco al personal militar que está presente hoy. Estamos orgullosos de ustedes. Gracias por llevar el uniforme de Estados Unidos de Norteamérica. (Aplausos.)

Antes de presentar a nuestra artista, quiero compartir con ustedes algunas ideas sobre la importancia del Cinco de Mayo, ya que conmemora un momento gozoso en la historia de México. Los estadounidenses deben comprender que fue un tiempo en que soldados mexicanos ganaron la Batalla de Puebla, y defendieron su independencia. Entonces, obviamente, el Cinco de Mayo es un día de orgullo especial para los ciudadanos de México, como también lo es para los estadounidenses. Es un recordatorio de un patrimonio orgulloso que compartimos con nuestro vecino del sur. Así veo ese día.

Rendimos tributo a ese patrimonio y honramos el calor y la importancia de la amistad entre nuestras dos naciones. Estados Unidos y México están unidos por vínculos familiares y por el comercio y por la historia y por la cultura y por los valores. Ambas naciones creen en los derechos y la dignidad de todos los pueblos. Compartimos una importante relación comercial. Hemos descubierto que el comercio entre nuestras naciones es bueno para nuestros pueblos. Creemos en los ideales de libertad e independencia que representa el Cinco de Mayo.

Aquí en Estados Unidos, los méxico-americanos han ayudado a que nuestro país se desarrolle y han ayudado a moldear nuestra cultura. Los méxico- americanos han hecho que nuestra nación sea cada día más enérgica y más prometedora. Los méxico-americanos han enriquecido la experiencia estadounidense con sus aportes a los negocios y las artes y la música y los deportes. Los empresarios latinos están creando puestos en todo el país; el número de empresas de propiedad de hispanos está aumentando tres veces más rápido que la tasa nacional. Más hispanoamericanos son propietarios de sus casas que nunca antes en la historia de nuestra nación.

Muchos méxico-americanos también han demostrado su devoción a este país al defenderlo. Más de 600,000 de nuestros veteranos son de origen mexicano. Veo que han vuelto algunos de nuestros veteranos. Estoy seguro de que. Es más, tenemos a muchos veteranos presentes. Deseo darles las gracias por darles tan buen ejemplo a aquéllos que ahora llevan el uniforme.

Muchos méxico-americanos han llevado el uniforme militar de Estados Unidos y defienden nuestro país con valor. Están haciendo que Estados Unidos sea más seguro, y a la vez, están sentando las bases de la paz para generaciones futuras.

Sé que nuestros ciudadanos están muy orgullosos de su patrimonio mexicano, y con todo derecho. También sabemos que Estados Unidos ha prosperado como nación porque siempre hemos acogido a los recién llegados, quienes a su vez acogen nuestros valores y nuestra forma de vida. Hacerse estadounidense es un gran privilegio y conlleva responsabilidades. Aquéllos que vienen aquí para comenzar vidas nuevas tienen una responsabilidad de comprender lo que representa Estados Unidos y la responsabilidad de aprender inglés para que puedan comprender mejor nuestro carácter nacional y participar plenamente en la vida estadounidense. Eso es lo que queremos. Hacer este esfuerzo es también clave para aprovechar las oportunidades de Estados Unidos, permitir que las personas surjan en la sociedad y hacer realidad el Sueño Americano.

En este país, estamos teniendo ahora un importante debate sobre la inmigración. Y es realmente importante que tratemos este asunto de una manera que honre las mejores tradiciones de este país. Nuestra nación no tiene que escoger entre ser una sociedad compasiva y una sociedad de derecho. (Aplausos.) Una sociedad de derecho es una que aplica sus leyes y vela por su frontera. Eso es lo que hace que una sociedad sea una de derecho. Una sociedad compasiva rechaza un sistema que trata a la gente como si fuese objeto de contrabando, honra los derechos humanos y la dignidad humana, ayuda a la gente a salir de las sombras de la sociedad, trata a la gente de manera decente y humana.

Entonces, respaldo reforzar nuestras fronteras y apoyo un programa de trabajadores temporales que pondría a trabajadores dispuestos en contacto con empleadores estadounidenses. ¿Ven? Considero que debemos crear un medio seguro y legal para que la gente pueda venir a este país a trabajar. Reducirá el número de personas que tratan de cruzar nuestra frontera a hurtadillas. Tratará a las personas humanamente. Eliminará a los coyotes y falsificadores de documentos. Afirmará nuestra creencia que cada persona tiene dignidad y cada persona tiene valor, y a la vez, facilitará que seamos un estado de derecho y protejamos nuestra frontera. (Aplausos.)

La reforma inmigratoria debe ser integral porque todos los elementos de este problema deben ser abordados conjuntamente o ninguno de ellos será resuelto. El pueblo estadounidense debe llevar este debate con dignidad. Debe recordar que somos una nación de inmigrantes. Debe recordar. (aplausos.) Debe recordar que durante el transcurso de nuestra historia han venido personas a Estados Unidos porque éste es un lugar en el que pueden ir en pos de sus sueños, independientemente de quiénes son o de dónde son.

Los méxico-americanos han traído consigo una cultura basada en la fe en Dios, un amor profundo por la familia y la convicción de que el trabajo arduo lleva a una vida mejor. Cada inmigrante que vive según estos valores hace que Estados Unidos sea un país mejor, hace que nuestro futuro sea más prometedor, como una nación bajo Dios. (Aplausos.)

Mañana, en todo Estados Unidos, habrá muchas celebraciones del Cinco de Mayo. Las presentaciones que veremos hoy representan a lo mejor del talento. Nos recuerdan que somos una nación que es fuerte debido a nuestra diversidad. Habrá mucha música tradicional, como también mucha comida mexicana muy buena, les apuesto. (Risas.) Nos recuerda, de cierto modo, un poco de Texas, ¿verdad, embajador?

Que Dios continúe bendiciéndolos a todos ustedes que tienen la dicha de vivir en este país y que Dios continúe bendiciendo a nuestro país y a los muchos hijos e hijas de México que han hecho de nuestro país su hogar. Feliz Cinco de Mayo, y ahora, es un placer para mí presentar a uno de los mejores talentos de México, Graciela Beltrán (Aplausos.)

Cheney's "Ultimatum"

Kommersant compared Cheney's Vilnius remarks to Winston Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech in Fulton, Missouri:

Until yesterday, the White House preferred to criticize Kremlin policies only through press secretaries. U.S. President George W. Bush and politicians close to him spoke of Russia as a reliable partner in the fight against international terrorism, even while admitting to certain disagreements. Cheney's Vilnius speech has broken that tradition and was the most pointed declaration by an American leader since the end of the Cold War.

Cheney Declares War on Russia

Diplomatically:

America and all of Europe also want to see Russia in the category of healthy, vibrant democracies. Yet in Russia today, opponents of reform are seeking to reverse the gains of the last decade. In many areas of civil society -- from religion and the news media, to advocacy groups and political parties -- the government has unfairly and improperly restricted the rights of her people. Other actions by the Russian government have been counterproductive, and could begin to affect relations with other countries. No legitimate interest is served when oil and gas become tools of intimidation or blackmail, either by supply manipulation or attempts to monopolize transportation. And no one can justify actions that undermine the territorial integrity of a neighbor, or interfere with democratic movements.

Russia has a choice to make. And there is no question that a return to democratic reform in Russia will generate further success for its people and greater respect among fellow nations. Democratization in Russia helped to end the Cold War, and the Russian people have made heroic progress in overcoming the miseries of the 20th century. They deserve now to live out their peaceful aspirations under a government that upholds freedom at home, and builds good relations abroad.

None of us believes that Russia is fated to become an enemy. A Russia that increasingly shares the values of this community can be a strategic partner and a trusted friend as we work toward common goals. In that spirit, the leading industrialized nations will engage Russia at the Group of Eight Summit in St. Petersburg this summer. We will make the case, clearly and confidently, that Russia has nothing to fear and everything to gain from having strong, stable democracies on its borders, and that by aligning with the West, Russia joins all of us on a course to prosperity and greatness. The vision we affirm today is of a community of sovereign democracies that transcend old grievances, that honor the many links of culture and history among us, that trade in freedom, respect each other as great nations, and strive together for a century of peace.