Dershowitz to Sue British Israel Boycott Organizers

From the Financial Times (UK) (ht The American Thinker):

A top American lawyer has threatened to wage a legal war against British academics who seek to cut links with Israeli universities.

Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor renowned for his staunch defence of Israel and high-profile legal victories, including his role in the O.J. Simpson trial, vowed to "devastate and bankrupt" lecturers who supported such boycotts.

This week's annual conference of Britain's biggest lecturers' union, the University and College Union, backed a motion damning the "complicity of Israeli academia in the occupation [of Palestinian land]".

It also obliged the union's executive to encourage members to "consider the moral implications of existing and proposed links with Israeli academic institutions".

Prof Dershowitz said he had started work on legal moves to fight any boycott.

He told the Times Higher Educational Supplement that these would include using a US law - banning discrimination on the basis of nationality - against UK universities with research ties to US colleges. US academics might also be urged to accept honorary posts at Israeli colleges in order to become boycott targets.

"I will obtain legislation dealing with this issue, imposing sanctions that will devastate and bankrupt those who seek to impose bankruptcy on Israeli academics," he told the journal.

Sue Blackwell, a UCU activist and member of the British Committee for Universities of Palestine, said: "This is the typical response of the Israeli lobby which will do anything to avoid debating the real issue - the 40-year occupation of Palestine." Jewish groups have attacked the UCU vote, which was opposed by Sally Hunt, its general secretary.

I hope the discovery process reveals exactly which groups are behind all the "boycotts" against Israel--and whether any of them have links to Islamist terror organizations behind 7/7 or 9/11...

Daniel Pipes: CAIR Named "Unindicted Co-Conspirators"

From DanielPipes.org:

June 4, 2007 update: Federal prosecutors have named CAIR and two other Islamic organizations, the Islamic Society of North America and the North American Islamic Trust, as "unindicted co-conspirators" in a criminal conspiracy to support Hamas, a designated terrorist group.

In a filing last week, prosecutors described CAIR as a present or past member of "the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee and/or its organizations." They listed ISNA and NAIT as "entities who are and/or were members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood." Josh Gerstein of The New York Sun reports that spokesmen for CAIR did not respond to requests for comment.

This development occurred in connection with the trial, scheduled to start on July 16 in Dallas, of five officials (Shukri Abu-Baker, Mohammad El-Mezain, Ghassan Elashi, Mufid Abdulqader, and Abdulraham Odeh) of the now-defunct Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, accused of sending funds to Hamas. This court filing listed some 300 individuals or organizations as co-conspirators.

What is an unindicted co-conspirator? Someone by and about whom hearsay is permissible in the courtroom. Here is a definition by legal journalist Stuart Taylor, discussing an entirely unrelated case:

The prosecutor is saying in essence in court … that we believe this man was part of the criminal conspiracy, along with the people who are on trial. We haven't indicted him but the relevance of that for the purposes of the trial is that [it] lets them get in more evidence about the unindicted co-conspirator's … out-of-court statements than they otherwise could. It's a way around the hearsay rule. … For example, if they want … one of their witnesses, to talk about what [a person] said to him, ordinarily that would be barred by the so-called hearsay rule. You can't … testify in a trial about what somebody else said out of court. That rule has a lot of exceptions. One of the exceptions is if the person who you're trying to quote … is named by the prosecution as an unindicted co-conspirator, then you can talk about what he said out of court.

Substitute "organization" for "man" and "person" and this description applies to the situation of CAIR, ISNA, and NAIT.

Comments: (1) CAIR being named as an unindicted co-conspirator complements the fact that many of its staff and associates are associated with terrorism, as I have documented in this entry.

(2) It is only logical that CAIR, whose origins lie in the Islamic Association for Palestine, which was founded by Hamas, be legally investigated in connection with Hamas.

(3) This may be the first time since 1994 that the press could not find a CAIR spokesman for a comment.

(4) If it turns out that there is substance to the CAIR-HLF connection, then CAIR will be caught out by the changed political and legal environment since 9/11. Put simply, Islamists can no longer get away with they could before then. (I elaborated this in a different context at "Nike and 9/11.")

(5) Whatever the future brings, this designation will hang as a permanent albatross around CAIR's collective neck.

FBI Press Release on Kennedy Airport Terror Plot Case

Click here to download the Department of Justice Press Release by James Margolin and Robert Mendoza, as a PDF file from the FBI website.

As alleged in the complaint, the plot tapped into an international network of Muslim extremists from the United States, Guyana, and Trinidad, and utilized the knowledge, expertise, and contacts of the conspirators to develop and plan the plot, and obtain operational support and capability to carry it out...

...In a recorded conversation following one of the surveillance missions to JFK airport, DEFREITAS predicted that the attacks would result in the destruction of “the whole of Kennedy,” that only a few people would survive the attack, and that because of the location of the targeted fuel pipelines, part of Queens would explode.

In discussing JFK airport as a target, DEFREITAS exulted over JFK airport’s symbolic importance:

Anytime you hit Kennedy, it is the most hurtful thing to the United States. To hit John F. Kennedy, wow .... They love John F. Kennedy like he’s the man .... If you hit that, this whole country will be in mourning. It’s like you can kill the man twice.

In a later recorded conversation with his coconspirators in May 2007, DEFREITAS compared the plot to attack JFK airport to the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, stating, “even the Twin Towers can’t touch it,” adding that, “this can destroy the economy of America for some time.”

For some reason, the editors placed their story on this case on Page 30 of today's New York Times. It was on Page One of today's Washington Post.

Frank Gaffney on "Islam v Islamists" on C-Span

Tonight, at 8pm, on Q&A.

Ken Burns Plugs "The War" at Book Expo America

Listen to Ken Burns promotional podcast for his book (will there be Latinos in it?) here.

Michael Vlahos on America's Dwindling Moral Authority

From the National Interest:

In broad terms, we have squandered the World War II canon. We have lost its mythic authority. We are at the historical end of its protective embrace. We are on our own now. This intangible is the most significant, and in some ways surprising, consequence of the war. It has resulted from the most temporal of events and will indeed deliver most apparent costs. But before considering the importance of the consequences, it is first necessary to map the landscape of failure, to diagram its dimensions. Our failure has unfolded in four dimensions: in terms of military objectives; reconstruction promises; "hearts and minds" goals and lofty, transformative ambitions for the region.

MILITARILY, AMERICA’S initial success in Afghanistan and Iraq did not bring secure and stable environments to these countries. However, America’s military campaigns have overseen a yearly escalation in chaos and violence in both. And while it is to be hoped that U.S. forces will eventually be extricated successfully, they will leave behind a menagerie of Islamist principalities locked in ceaseless struggle. These, of course, were not our military goals.

America also pledged to redeem and uplift Iraq and Afghanistan, just as we "reconstructed" Germany and Japan after World War II. This promise was not kept. Both countries are in ruins. By some measures, they are worse off than ever. Moreover, money is short, so there is little more we can do to help them. Our policies and practices have perversely helped to achieve the wreckage over which we now preside.

Further, we are losing what we declared to be a "war of ideas." After September 11, the world—even the Muslim world—rushed to our emotional support, but by now we have convinced the overwhelming majority of Muslims that we are attacking Islam itself. We have not liberated Muslims long abused by radical and fundamentalist ideology, as we said we would, or brought them greater freedom. We have failed in our promise to support democracy movements and dissidents, and continue to support political tyranny. Among Arab Muslims especially, we are universally hated.

We also boasted of our aim to transform the region, signaling that not even our "friends and allies" would escape the mighty wind of democratic reform. That boast has evaporated. And we now sit by and watch open political repression without even a mention. Not only do Arab regimes no longer fear us, but others, like Pakistan’s, openly mock us through their support of the Taliban. Our great Muslim adversary, Iran, has gratefully accepted our help in achieving almost all its strategic goals, including formal spheres of influence in Mesopotamia and western Afghanistan. Again, this was hardly our goal.

The aggregate consequence of failure across these four dimensions of our war effort abroad is the larger damage to American interests and the American cause.

Washington's Copyright Lobby

Patrick Ross, a friend of mine, has a new job as head of The Copyright Alliance, representing owners of intellectual property--Washington's Copyright Lobby. Here's a post explaining where they are coming from:

Copyright and You

Why has copyright remained a part of our law and our culture for so long? Because it is vital to a healthy economy, to the preservation of artistic and creative works for all to enjoy, to the creation of new technologies, and to all of us having a vast array of cultural choices.

When artists are confident in their ownership of their creations, they feel able to make them available to a larger audience. Often they’ll work with a producer or distributor. The wider the distribution the more reasonable the pricing, which in turn encourages all of us to go out and buy, read, watch - just plain enjoy - the work before us. Much of the revenue that comes from our appreciation and willingness to watch a creative work goes back to all who worked to make the original vision a reality.

The digital age brings a multitude of opportunities for the creators of copyrighted works as well as their producers and distributors. New business models are being developed every day to create, distribute and market artistic works. We tend to hear a lot about how modern technology is harming the creators of copyrighted works – and plenty of harms do occur – but that doesn’t imply that technology itself is bad. Strong copyright protections do not stop individual creators from taking advantage of advances in digital technologies to bring us creative works we can enjoy in ways we never imagined. Technology and copyright protection need not be at odds with each other. They can both work to the benefit of all of us.

Have you ever heard somebody say, “Of course, we want to see artists get paid,” and then they follow that with a phrase beginning with “but”? Generally the “but” and what follows it, implies a belief that copyright protections are not really important any more. That belief can begin to erode or even eliminate the intellectual property rights accorded to creators in the U.S. Constitution and through global treaties. The U.S. Congress in 1790 -- in one of its first major acts -- passed the first Copyright Act. They did that because they felt it was vital to a newly created and growing country that embodied a belief in the rights of the individual. That wisdom is as true today. If anyone ever says they want to see artists get paid, remind them we already have a system that does that, and it has been doing so successfully for 217 years. It has helped make our American creative culture unique and great, and it will continue to do so.

Amil Imani on American Islamists

From AmilImani.com:

Throwing acid in the face of women who fail to don the hijab, flogging people for sporting non-Islamic haircuts, and stoning to death violators of sexual norms are only a few examples of a raft of daily barbaric acts of Islamists in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and many Islamic lands. Other forms of Islamic brutalities such as Honor Killing have already found their way to Germany and other European countries with the ever-burgeoning Muslim populations.

Wherever Islam goes, so goes its ethos.

Reading about these religiously-mandated horrific acts and even seeing them on television or the Internet may momentarily repulse, but does not terribly concern many Americans. After all, those things are happening on the other side of the world, and those people deserve each other; we are safe in fortress America, so goes the thinking.

But “fortress America” is a delusion that even the events of 9/11 seem to have failed to dispel. Many prefer to believe that the assault of 9/11 was an aberration, since nothing like it has happened again, and it is unlikely that anything of the sort will ever happen again, so goes the wishful thinking.

The reality portrays a vastly different picture. America is far from a fortress given its vast wide-open borders. It is a nation of laws where all forms of freedom are enshrined in its constitution; is where Americans live by humane ethos diametrically different from those of Islamist savagery. Sadly, these differences confer great advantage to the Islamists and place America in imminent danger.

The breach of “Fortress America” from the air on 9/11 is only the first installment of much more forthcoming heinous assaults, unless we abandon our complacency; stop relying on the invincibility of the law-enforcement people; and willingly make the sacrifices that would protect our way of life.

Knowing Islam intimately and having experienced its systemic savagery, has compelled me to warn repeatedly of the deadly imminent threat it poses to all non-Muslims (Why Confront Islamism) attempting to present a comprehensive treatment of the evil precepts and practices of Islamism, I am listing a few facts that should be enough to alarm anyone who cherishes liberty and freedom; awaken anyone who is comforted by the belief that all the Islamic mayhem is limited to an illiterate gang of primitive Middle Easterners and has no implications for America. Sorry, bad news is here already.

• Some 26 percent of American Muslims, ages18-29, support suicide bombings "in defense of Islam," according to findings of a recent Pew poll.

• According to Pew, there are 2.35 million Muslims in America, 30 percent of whom are in the 18-29 age range. Some claim that the number of Muslims is in fact much larger. Even using the conservative Pew numbers, over 180,000 Muslims in America is bomb-approving. This is an alarmingly large number, given that Muslims, as an article of faith, practice dissimulation in dealing with infidels and under-report their true intentions. How many human bombs and bomb-approving people does it take to wreak havoc on our country?

• The 180,000 Muslims living among us don’t define what “defense of Islam” is. It could be anything that they feel constitute an attack on Islam and Islamic values, such as the reported flushing of the Quran down the toilet, the Danish Cartoon, Rushdie’s book, a newspaper article, an Internet posting, or even women not donning the hijab.

• When religious fanatics unreservedly advocate wanton acts of mass murder, they are not likely to shy from coercion and intimidation measures to impose their will on the larger society. In tandem with the cold murder of Van Gogh in Holland, for instance, Islamists had been striving to supplant civil laws with the Islamic Sharia in the country. In other lands such as France, England and Canada, Muslims have also been waging serious campaigns for adoption of the Sharia or some of its provisions, just for starters.

• Ever since 9/11, and possibly before, America has been concerned about terrorists coming from Islamic lands. For this reason, some people advocated profiling as a safeguard against the 9/11 type mass murderers. But how do you profile hundreds of thousands of Muslim Americans who are already here and look and act like other Americans? How can an open free society such as ours safeguard the individual freedom we so greatly value and protect the safety of its citizens?

• The immensely difficult task of safeguarding our freedom while ensuring our safety is seriously and repeatedly undermined by Islamist apologists, pontificating academes, vote-hungry politicians, and the mainstream media, each for their own reasons. Here are some of the comfort pills dispensed by the mainstream media’s polls: “Most Muslims seek to adopt American lifestyle" (USA Today); "Muslims assimilate better in U.S. than Europe, poll finds" (New York Times); "Poll: US Muslims Feel Post-9/11 Backlash Despite Moderate Outlook" (Voice of America).

• It is said that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. The mainstream media’s manipulation of statistics goes beyond selective reporting and qualifies as outright disinformation. Is the U.S. Muslims’ outlook moderate? All U. S. Muslims? What about the self-reported outlook of hundreds of thousands who support mass murder in the “defense of Islam?”

• Even if most Muslims seek to adopt an American lifestyle, a great many Muslims are dead set on using violence to make America conform to their barbaric way of life. Islamism is cancer. Cancer cells are always few at the beginning. Left unchecked, they keep on expanding and eventually devour the non-cancerous.

Islamism v Human Rights

From NTPI.org:

Islamic misgivings about the incompatibility of the UDHR [Universal Declaration of Human Rights] with Islam have led to a number of alternative formulations of human rights in Islam while at the same time attempting to demonstrate the compatibility of Islamic law with Human Rights.

Ann Elizabeth Meyer, in her book Islam and Human Rights: Tradition and Politics discusses the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights of 1981 and compares its provisions with those of the UDHR. The UIDHR has been published in two versions: in Arabic and in English. We are told in the English version that the Arabic text is definitive. What is not at all evident is that the Arabic version is actually different from the English in several respects, with the Arabic version being substantially more conservative in tone. In no sense would the English version be acceptable as a certified translation of the Arabic. One is left with the impression that the wording of the English version has been watered down for western consumption.

In other articles we compare the rights of women as they exist in Islamic countries with the rights supposedly guaranteed under the UDHR; show how the rights of non-Muslims are limited in many Islamic states; how freedom of expression is severely curtailed and how freedom of religion and belief are practically nonexistent.

Central to the fair and equitable administration of justice is a codified system of law. The absence of a formal written criminal code in Saudi Arabia, for example, leaves the authorities virtually a free hand in defining what is illegal. In 1996, a Syrian national, Abd al-Naqshabandi was executed for witchcraft, a crime against which no Saudi law exists. (See Victims of Political Islam).

It is not only women and non-Muslims but Muslim men too that deserve the protection of a modern, fair and equitable system of justice based on internationally accepted standards, and a respect for human rights as enshrined in the UDHR.

Perhaps the greatest obstacle to human rights under Political Islam is its strong adherence to the Sharia. Many aspects of the Sharia are inimical to the ideas enshrined in the UDHR. In an Islamist state no individual or group of people can have any rights that do not conform to the tenets of the Sharia. Oppression, intimidation, lack of freedom, and ferocious censorship and public executions are the undeniable facts of life in many Islamic societies. The UDHR enumerates the rights of the individual that governments are obliged to protect. But Political Islam is opposed to any concept of individual freedom that is not subordinate to its brutal interpretation of the Sharia.

Christopher Hitchens on French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner

From Slate:

The single best symbol of the change in France is the appointment of Bernard Kouchner to the post of foreign minister. Had the Socialist Party won the election, it is highly unlikely that such a distinguished socialist would ever have been allowed through the doors of the Quai d'Orsay. (Yes, comrades, history actually is dialectical and paradoxical.) In the present climate of the United States, a man like Kouchner would be regarded as a neoconservative. He was a prominent figure in the leftist rebellion of 1968, before breaking with some of his earlier illusions and opposing the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan—the true and original source of many of our woes in the Islamic world. The group he co-founded—Doctors Without Borders, or Médecins Sans Frontières—was a pioneer in the highly necessary proclamation that left politics should always be anti-totalitarian. (His former counterpart, Joschka Fischer of Germany, also took a version of this view before Schröder's smirking Realpolitik became too much, and too popular in Germany, for him to withstand.)

The single best symbol of the change in France is the appointment of Bernard Kouchner to the post of foreign minister. Had the Socialist Party won the election, it is highly unlikely that such a distinguished socialist would ever have been allowed through the doors of the Quai d'Orsay. (Yes, comrades, history actually is dialectical and paradoxical.) In the present climate of the United States, a man like Kouchner would be regarded as a neoconservative. He was a prominent figure in the leftist rebellion of 1968, before breaking with some of his earlier illusions and opposing the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan—the true and original source of many of our woes in the Islamic world. The group he co-founded—Doctors Without Borders, or Médecins Sans Frontières—was a pioneer in the highly necessary proclamation that left politics should always be anti-totalitarian. (His former counterpart, Joschka Fischer of Germany, also took a version of this view before Schröder's smirking Realpolitik became too much, and too popular in Germany, for him to withstand.)

Frank Gaffney on "Islam v Islamists"

From The Washington TImes:

As one of the film's co-executive producers, I began to receive a number of congratulatory messages from all over the country. Most were from people who had followed the saga of this documentary about moderate Muslims who have courageously challenged co-religionists known as Islamists -- adherents to a totalitarian political ideology seeking to dominate the Muslim faith and, in turn, the world. Like innumerable editorialists, bloggers and ordinary citizens around the country, the authors of these messages had been frustrated and outraged when PBS and its Washington flagship, WETA, culminated months of efforts to alter and then censor "Islam vs. Islamists" by refusing to broadcast it, as planned, as part of the "Crossroads" series rolled out last month. They assumed the Oregon announcement meant national distribution was imminent.

Unfortunately, the CPB's arrangement with the Oregon PBS means no such thing. Far from the treatment accorded other "Crossroads" series programs -- nationwide broadcast by the Public Broadcasting Service, in prime-time with a substantial promotional budget -- "Islam vs. Islamists" would simply be "made available" to PBS stations. Maybe some would decide to run it over the next few months. Maybe they would do so at 3 a.m. or Sunday afternoons when practically no one is watching. There are no guarantees of pick-up in any, let alone all, major markets.

Worse yet, the Oregon distributors have announced they will accompany the film with the equivalent of a consumer warning label -- a "discussion" that will provide "context" for viewers. Presumably, this means the sort of "context" our film's critics at PBS and WETA kept trying to impose on us: Changes they believed would make it, in their words, less "one-sided" (read, fairer to the Islamists) and less "alarmist."

If past practice is any guide, those recruited to provide such "balance" will likely be representatives of organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Students Association (MSA). Though these groups are well-known Saudi-funded, pro-Islamist fronts, their views were exclusively and highly sympathetically featured in a documentary called "The Muslim Americans." PBS seemed to have no reservations about airing this wholly one-sided film during the "Crossroads" series roll-out in April.

In short, now that widespread criticism has made it impossible to sustain PBS' suppression of "Islam vs. Islamists," the anti-Islamist Muslims who are its subjects are to be remanded to decidedly second-class coverage. Call it CPB's version of the "Rosa Parks treatment."

Recall that Rosa Parks could have got to her job via public transportation -- as long as she "knew her place" and agreed to ride in the back of the bus. So, too, moderate Muslims can have their stories, as recorded in a film produced with some $675,000 in public monies, shown on the public airwaves -- in at least a few locations at some point in time.

But these heroic figures must know their place, too. And their place is not in prime time, nor national distribution. Only Islamists and their apologists are entitled to front-of-the-bus treatment from those like Robert MacNeil (the host of the "Crossroads" series and producer -- thanks to a sweetheart deal -- of "The Muslim Americans" show), Sharon Percy Rockefeller (wife of one senator and daughter of a former senator, Jay Rockefeller and Charles Percy, respectively, and president of WETA) and the handful of others responsible for PBS' rejection of "Islam vs. Islamists."

If ever there were a time when the American people are entitled to the most comprehensive presentation possible of information concerning the struggle for the soul and future of Islam, this should be it. After all, last week a Pew Research poll found roughly a quarter of the Muslim-American population thinks suicide bombing is legitimate in at least some circumstances. An even larger percentage claimed not to believe that Arabs perpetrated the attacks of on America of September 11, 2001.

The particular irony is that the whole idea behind "America at a Crossroads" was that it was intended to offer the American people 20 programs featuring differing viewpoints and a variety of stories that would, taken together, help inform the public about the post-September 11 world. This creative vision demands that the experiences and warnings of authentically moderate, pro-democratic and tolerant Muslims be treated at least as favorably as the portrayal of those in the Muslim community determined to stifle their voices. Certainly, public broadcasting should not be party to such suppression.

Cuban-American Filmmaker Battles PBS

Our favorite Cuban-American filmmaker, Agustin Blazquez, has sent us this account of his battles against PBS censorship, in the light of the Ken Burns scandal:

PBS: EXCLUSION AND POLITICAL DISCRIMINATION © 2007 ABIP
by Agustin Blazquez with the collaboration of Jaums Sutton

I am not surprised by the recent commotion, scandal and fight for fairness by Latino organizations in the U.S. against the Public Broadcasting Service -- especially the notable effort of Dr. Maggie Rivas Rodriguez, associate professor at the School of Journalism, University of Texas at Austin. She has been tireless in fighting the unforgivable exclusion in the fourteen-and-a-half-hour documentary The War, by PBS protégé Ken Burns, of the Latino and Native American contributions and sacrifices during War World II.

I think these Latino organizations are doing a superb job of exposing the elitist and arrogant PBS, and I hope their actions will force the broadcaster to begin playing straight and fair with all minority groups. After all, these minority groups support PBS with their tax money.

This recent blunder by PBS calls attention to the problem that another Spanish-speaking minority has been having with PBS: for decades, PBS has sponsored and broadcast programs about Cuba that depict the opposite of the reality that Cubans experience first hand. This has been a disservice not only to Cuban Americans but also to the American people as a whole. In spite of multiple complaints by Cuban Americans, however, PBS continues to offend them.

I have written more than 300 articles over the last several years about Cuban affairs and am producing an ongoing series of educational documentaries on the subject.
[http://laurencejarvikonline.blogspot.com/2007/05/agustin-blazquez-speaks.html]

I have been working on this series at great personal sacrifice as an independent; I have received no grants and in fact am not aware of any grants to Cuban Americans for our educational projects. I have produced and directed five documentaries for this series and am now working on the sixth. I have submitted these documentaries to PBS and its series P.O.V. and Frontline. They were rejected. In fact, the works of other Cuban American filmmakers that are contrary to PBS’s point of view are consistently rejected.

PBS appears to be interested only in the point of view reflecting its political agenda, contrary to its statement that it does not interfere with “program content” [see the recently issued “Public Broadcasting Statement on Editorial Independence,” [http://www.apts.org/upload/Public Broadcasting Statement - May 2 07.pdf]

PBS’s statement that it does not interfere with “program content” is belied by its recent announcement that it has arranged with Ken Burns to add the Latino contribution to World War II to his documentary (per a letter dated April 11, 2007 from Paula Kerger, president and CEO of PBS, to the Defend the Honor Campaign in response to complaints about the documentary’s lack of attention to the taxpaying Latino community of the U.S.) [http://www.nahj.org/nahjnews/articles/2007/april/lettertodth.pdf]

It is evident that PBS’s prohibition against interfering with “content” is not absolute; it can be lifted at will, in this case because of political pressure from the Latino community (whose position in this case I support 100 percent).

So, Cuban American filmmakers are excluded -- actually, politically discriminated against -- by PBS, not because of the quality of their films but because of content. I think that is called censorship.

Even the Oscar-winning Cuban exile Nestor Almendros had to agree to allow PBS to edit (shorten) his documentary Nobody Listened before PBS would air it -- and it was broadcast in tandem with Saul Landau's pro-Castro documentary. And PBS’s Frontline rejected Nobody Listened by stating, “Frontline doesn’t produce anti-Communist programs.” PBS appears to be concerned about not offending Castro while not caring about his victims.

Nestor Almendros said in 1990 that he believed taxpayer-funded PBS leans unashamedly toward the political left. “The only country that resisted [showing his documentaries], the only place where there was still strong pro-Castro sentiment, was the U.S.”

Recently, a Latino reviewer in the U.S. said about my documentaries that I am "the most important Cuban documentalist in exile with a very solid body of work." And following the screening of my latest documentary in Madrid, Spain, another reviewer wrote in the Spanish cultural magazine Revista Hispano Cubana, "Agustin Blazquez is one of the most representative filmmakers in exile and his documentaries should be valued at the same level as the best Cuban documentaries of this genre."

In the same review he called my earlier documentary about the Elian Gonzalez case "a masterpiece for its sensibility and poetic air." PBS also rejected this documentary.

On March 6, 1996, the issue of the rejection of my first documentary by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) was raised at a hearing before a House of Representatives appropriations subcommittee.

I decided to test the waters again and on April 2, 2007 I submitted a formal proposal package to PBS for a documentary about Ernesto "Che" Guevara.

On May 8, John Prizer, vice president of television program development at CPB, who assists in developing CPB funding priorities and strategic direction for investing programming funds, telephoned to inform me that my project had been rejected.

Mr. Prizer said that PBS would never air my proposed documentary; this was the reason, he explained, that I was the only producer of the 30 who submitted proposals that he called.

He also said that PBS is looking for documentaries of more than one part or miniseries. Since that requirement is not specified in the “PBS Mission,” I think it was a convenient excuse. At any rate, I have repeatedly submitted my series, COVERING CUBA, and PBS has repeatedly rejected it.

PBS does whatever it wants and changes its rules at will, as demonstrated by its contradictory statements and actions regarding the content of Mr. Burns’ documentary.

PBS to date has been untouchable, but we’ll see what happens after the war declared by the Latino organizations to protect their honor. Cuban Americans, as part of the Latin American population living in the U.S., also need to save our honor from PBS exclusion and censorship.

PBS has consistently objected to the content of our documentaries. I feel that this is a violation of our freedom of speech guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, specifically because the money PBS distributes is public money.

Meanwhile, the pro-Castro documentaries of Estela Bravo (a native New Yorker who has lived in Cuba since 1963 as a member of the pro-Castro privileged foreign elite and a known collaborator with that regime) are shown on PBS without the benefit of showing an opposing point of view. In 1992 and 1993, for example, PBS showed Bravo’s documentary Miami-Havana.

In it, deriding the Cuban American community, Wayne Smith said, “But what you have in Miami, I think, is a very extreme ultra-right group who want no kind of improvement on relations between the two countries.”

In such a way PBS offers opportunities for the pro-Castro side to openly express its contempt and hatred for the Cuban American community in the U.S.

PBS has a history of showing documentaries containing propaganda that has offended my community, documentaries that have not contributed to a better understanding of the Cuban tragedy. In many instances we are misrepresented and maligned in comments by the people featured in those productions. For example, Wayne Smith and others have been featured in various documentaries on PBS qualifying Cuban Americans as “the right-wing fringe,” “virulently anti-Castro,” “fiercely anti-Communist,” “hard-line exiles,” “strident anti-Castroites,” “Miami Mafia” and other epithets.

I am not aware of any current documentaries by Cuban American filmmakers being shown on PBS, with the exception of Adriana Bosch’s documentary about Fidel Castro that aired on January 31, 2005. But either she didn’t research her subject thoroughly or she had to omit a lot of key information in order for her documentary to be aired by PBS.

On Saturday, March 26, 2005, while watching “Viewer Favorites” on PBS/WETA, I was shocked and offended by the singer Eric Burton -- formerly of the rock group The Animals -- wearing a Che Guevara shirt while performing a song on a segment of the presentation.

On March 29, 2005, I wrote a letter to Sheryl Lahti, director of audience services, requesting an apology. I said, “It is shocking that your educational public television station is not aware of Che’s criminal record and let pass such an insensitive and offensive display of disrespect to Che’s victims and the Cuban American community in the U.S. If Mr. Burton had worn a Hitler shirt, he wouldn’t have been presented -- rightfully so -- in order not to offend the Jewish victims and Holocaust survivors.”

No PBS station would dare show a performer wearing Ku Klux Klan apparel or logos that are pro-David Duke or anti-Arab, anti-Islam, anti-Chinese or anti any other minority group in the U.S. It would have been simply edited out without any regard to what its creator intended.

With my letter to Lahti I enclosed an open letter to Carlos Santana by musician Paquito D’Rivera dated March 25, 2006. D’Rivera criticized Santana for wearing a Che T-shirt at the Oscar ceremony. Also enclosed was my article “Che’s Motorcyle Follies” [http://www.camcocuba.org/ADDITIONAL PAGES/BLAZQUEZ/Agustin/BLAZQUEZ-7.html]. I sent copies to Michael Pack and John Prizer of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. To date, I have not received a reply.

A Cuban American advocate for democracy and human rights in Cuba from New York City who read my letter at [http://laurencejarvikonline.blogspot.com/] wrote a letter of complaint about the Eric Burton blunder on April 4, 2006. The next day he received an e-mail message from Danielle Dunbar [ddunbar@weta.com], WETA’s audience service coordinator.

She wrote, “While WETA airs the fundraising special, we did not produce the program. The show was produced by TJL Productions and distributed by PBS. TJL Productions is solely responsible for its content. Nonetheless, as a public broadcaster that produces, broadcasts and values a wide range of programs that cover a divergent range of topics, it would be inappropriate for WETA to engage in such censorship. While you may dislike images of a particular subject, others may respond favorably to the same image. It is not our intent or role to suppress or promote either view, but to present the program as the show's creator intended. How you feel about that is a matter of personal choice. Further, there are no elements to the program that violate any FCC rules or guidelines. ‘My Music’ has been a very popular program with WETA's members and viewers, and I expect that we will air it again in the future.”

I consider her arguments to be invalid. Of course PBS is responsible, because it uses public money and it decides what to air and what not to air. It is very careful not to show any material that might be offensive to certain minorities -- but it obviously is not concerned about offending Cuban Americans.

I was shocked by Globe Trekker episode 47, “Cuba & Haiti,” broadcast on PBS/WETA on May 18, 2003 and repeated on April 15, 2007. In that episode, the host of the show promoted tourism to Cuba and presented a rosy, fun, happy-go-lucky and exciting view of my country -- where I lived for 21 years -- that was completely at odds with the harsh reality that Cubans face every day.

It is obvious that PBS is choosing to misinform and mislead the American public about Cuba instead of educating them, and it is doing so with taxpayer money.

Now, with Latino organizations’ battle against PBS over Ken Burns’ documentary The War, it is time to reconsider and take some concrete action to correct PBS’s arrogance and bias.

I think the government overseers of PBS should demand that PBS answer the following questions:

How many Cuban American documentary films have been funded by CPB since its inception?
How many of these documentaries have been shown on PBS?
What Cuban American films have been shown on PBS (names, dates, etc.)?
How many Cuban American films or film proposals have been submitted to CPB and/or PBS in the last six years?
How many of these films or proposals have been rejected and for what reasons?

On the May 14 edition of The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer Maggie Rivas-Rodriguez said, about Mr. Burns’ documentary, “One weakness that I have seen is that I really do not understand how PBS, in six and a half years, didn’t raise the flag on this. It seems very difficult to understand.” That was a very good point. I guess it will take a public scandal and a threat from the U.S. government to retire taxpayer funding to PBS in order for that biased organization to mend its ways.

If not, the taxpayers and their government representatives are paying for television programs that are misleading the people of this nation.

© 2007 ABIP

Agustin Blazquez, founder and president
UNCOVERING CUBA EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION (UCEF) A non-profit organization [501 (c) (3)]
AB INDEPENDENT PRODUCTIONS (ABIP)
Producer and director of the documentaries:

COVERING CUBA, premiered at the American Film Institute in 1995, CUBA: The Pearl of the Antilles, COVERING CUBA 2: The Next Generation, premiered in 2001 at the U.S. Capitol in and at the 2001 Miami International Book Fair COVERING CUBA 3: Elian presented at the 2003 Miami Latin Film Festival, the 2004 American Film Renaissance Film Festival in Dallas, Texas and the 2006 Palm Beach International Film Festival, COVERING CUBA 4: The Rats Below, premiered at the two Tower Theaters in Miami on January 2006 and the 2006 Palm Beach International Film Festival and the 2006 Barcelona International Film Festival for Human Rights and Peace, Dan Rather "60 Minutes," an inside view , RUMBERAS CUBANAS, Vol. 1 MARIA ANTONIETA PONS, COVERING CUBA 5: Act Of Repudiation premiered at the two Tower Theaters in Miami, January 2007, at the Hispanic Cuban Club in Madrid, Spain and will be at the 2007 Palm Beach International Film Festival, and the upcoming COVERING CUBA 6.

Author of more that 300 published articles and author with Carlos Wotzkow of the book COVERING AND DISCOVERING and translator with Jaums Sutton of the book by Luis Grave de Peralta Morell THE MAFIA OF HAVANA: The Cuban Cosa Nostra.

PBS Newshour on Robert Zoellick

Someone I know said this discussion of Robert Zoellick, President' Bush's nominee for head of the World Bank, on the PBS Newshour, moderated by Ray Suarez, was interesting, so here's a link.

RAY SUAREZ: What do people understand the purpose of the World Bank to be?

SEBASTIAN MALLABY: In a very general sense, everyone says -- and that's right -- the World Bank's purpose is to relieve poverty. The difficulty comes when you try to define, what do you do to relieve poverty? Because it's a multifaceted problem.

You know, more roads in some areas in rural Africa can help you to get farm goods out to the market, and that can relieve poverty. Or it could be that you need to have more clinics, so people are well enough to actually work. Or perhaps they need education.

Or maybe the macroeconomic environment around all these things need to be right, because if you've got hyperinflation, no one can get out of poverty. Or maybe it's corruption. So there are all these different issues under the heading of poverty relief, and that's where I think Zoellick needs to pick a theme, partly just for sort of inspiring people to believe in it. You can't just say, "I'm for everything." You've got to say, "Here's where I'm trying to focus. Here is my vision."

RAY SUAREZ: Well, Professor, with more than 180 members, does an answer to the question, "What is the World Bank for in 2007?" Does the answer depend on who you ask?

KENNETH ROGOFF: Absolutely. I mean, it's an incredible muddle. The World Bank is a sponge for every do-good idea to relieve poverty. I think Sebastian is absolutely right that the next president, Zoellick, needs to regain its focus.

They haven't just experienced mission creep; they've had mission sprawl. They're just all over the place in religion, in gender and development, health and development, education development, microstructure and development, all good things, and there are dozens others, but they simply can't do it all. They need to have more focus.

And I think that the top priority for Zoellick is very quickly to get an idea, "In five years, where do I want the bank to be? What is my vision?" And try to execute it in a way that brings everybody on board and doesn't just try to, you know, do it by himself, but he has to think about it.

Zoellick is an alumnus of the same college that someone I know and yours truly attended--Swarthmore College, a small Quaker liberal arts school, where he graduated with "Highest Honors" a few years ahead of us. He was already known for being the smartest student on campus. One legendary story has it that at his Honors examination, he ran out of time. When the proctor asked for his blue book, he snapped that he wasn't finished yet--and the proctor allowed him to take more than the alloted hours. Good for him.

Yet, given his "Highest Honors" degree from Swarthmore, and his track record as aide to James Baker and other Bushies, one might predict that Zoellick would make an intelligent and hardworking head of the World Bank (Swarthmore traditionally churns out grinds to do the scutwork for Harvard and Yale graduates, which is where George W. Bush went to school). On the other hand, his very Swarthmore success indicates that Zoellick probably would make a rather unimaginative and conventional president for the international lending institution...

James Taranto Talks To Benjamin Netanyahu

From OpinionJournal.com:

I ask Mr. Netanyahu if the U.S. made a mistake in liberating Iraq. He says it did not: "I think it was right to bring down Saddam Hussein, who murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people." But he brings the discussion back to Iran. "It would have been prudent to use the rapidity of success of victory--that is, the fact that the U.S. had accomplished in three weeks what Iran couldn't accomplish in 10 years and a million casualties--to deliver a stern warning to Iran to dismantle its nuclear program. In a way, this was achieved without design with Libya's nuclear program that had been much more advanced than anyone understood. . . . That same leverage could have been used on Iran."

If Mr. Netanyahu seems preoccupied with Iran, it is not because he is dismissive of other threats, including al Qaeda. "Of the two, Iran is more dangerous, because the Sunni militants so far have not gotten their hands on a nuclear weapons program. . . . If the Taliban were to topple the current regime in Pakistan and get their hands on nuclear weapons, I would say they're more dangerous than Iran, or equally dangerous."

He sees al Qaeda as existing on a continuum with Tehran's Shiite fundamentalists: "They're now competing with each other on the soil of Lebanon to gain paramountcy--al Qaeda in the north and Hezbollah in the south. But both of them practice suicide attacks, both of them have the cult of death, and both of them are absolutely uninhibited in the use of force against their chosen enemies. Now, is there a difference? Yeah, I suppose. I think one wants to send us back to the ninth century and one wants to send us back to the seventh century." The Shiite extremists, Mr. Netanyahu quips, "give us two centuries extra."

Yet he is careful to distinguish between "militant Islam" and the broader Muslim population. "Militant Islam condemns and intimidates and kills Muslims before anyone else. That's what they're about. The infidels are defined first as the renegades of Islam--that is, Muslims who do not practice some . . . pre-medieval religious creed that is hopelessly antiquated for most Muslims and most Arabs."

Because of the militants' power to intimidate and the weak civic institutions in Arab societies, Mr. Netanyahu is wary of pushing those societies too quickly toward electoral democracy. He thinks it was a mistake to allow Hamas to compete in last year's Palestinian voting. "But I think that one element that should be expedited as rapidly as possible is the democratization of markets. I think that expanding economic freedom is just as important--in some cases more important--in moderating societies than accelerated moves to political freedoms without the proper democratic institutions."

I ask if he can point to any positive examples in the Arab world. "How about Dubai? How about the Gulf states? What you see there is quite remarkable. It also tells you that Arabs and Muslims are not inherently or genetically programmed to oppose free markets. That's just nonsense. With the right system of incentives and economic freedoms, you see this explosive growth that I, frankly, admire. . . . We always said that if we have peace, then we'll have prosperity. It may be the other way around."

Christopher Hitchens on Jimmy Carter

From Slate:

Leave aside the sophomoric slackness that begins a broken-backed sentence with the words "as far as" and then cannot complete itself. "Worst in history," as the great statesman from Georgia has to know, has been the title for which he has himself been actively contending since 1976. I once had quite an argument with the late Sen. Eugene McCarthy, who maintained adamantly that it had been right for him to vote for Ronald Reagan in 1980 for no other reason. "Mr. Carter," he said, "quite simply abdicated the whole responsibility of the presidency while in office. He left the nation at the mercy of its enemies at home and abroad. He was the worst president we ever had." ...

...Here is a man who, in his latest book on the Israel-Palestine crisis, has found the elusive key to the problem. The mistake of Israel, he tells us (and tells us that he told the Israeli leadership) is to have moved away from God and the prophets and toward secularism. If you ever feel like a good laugh, just tell yourself that things would improve if only the Israeli government would be more Orthodox. Jimmy Carter will then turn his vacantly pious glare on you, as if to say that you just don't understand what it is to have a personal savior.

In the Carter years, the United States was an international laughingstock. This was not just because of the prevalence of his ghastly kin: the beer-sodden brother Billy, doing deals with Libyan President Muammar Qaddafi, and the grisly matriarch, Miz Lillian. It was not just because of the president's dire lectures on morality and salvation and his weird encounters with lethal rabbits and UFOs. It was not just because of the risible White House "Bible study" sessions run by Bert Lance and his other open-palmed Elmer Gantry pals from Georgia. It was because, whether in Afghanistan, Iran, or Iraq—still the source of so many of our woes—the Carter administration could not tell a friend from an enemy. His combination of naivete and cynicism—from open-mouthed shock at Leonid Brezhnev's occupation of Afghanistan to underhanded support for Saddam in his unsleeping campaign of megalomania—had terrible consequences that are with us still. It's hardly an exaggeration to say that every administration since has had to deal with the chaotic legacy of Carter's mind-boggling cowardice and incompetence.

Martin Kramer on the Wilson Center's Iran Hostage Crisis

From Martin Kramer's Sandstorm article about Haleh Esfandiari:

The reinvention of the Wilson Center began in 1999, when Lee Hamilton took over. Coming straight from 35 years in Congress, he knew how to manage the critics on the Hill. But more important, he came with a vision of a different kind of Center, one closely attuned to informing foreign policy debates. When I returned to the Wilson Center as a public policy fellow in 2000, the Hamilton era was well underway. The Center had moved into spanking new quarters, and every program had been realigned with the mission of policy relevance. Personally, I liked it, and it's where I wrote about a third of my book Ivory Towers on Sand--to be precise, the chapter on the policy irrelevance of Middle Eastern studies.

The Wilson Center today is a privileged conduit between government and academe, and it's now urgent to defend that space against its enemies, foreign and domestic. Abroad, there are Middle Eastern governments like Iran's, which cannot imagine an institution like the Wilson Center as anything but a front for espionage and subversion. But the academic left in America is as doctrinaire as Iran's fanatics in shunning the United States government as though it were the Great Satan incarnate.

An example is Ervand Abrahamian, an Iran specialist at the City University of New York, who said this in response to Esfandiari's arrest: “It has to be stressed that scholars such as Haleh have nothing to do with U.S. policy of ‘regime change.' We academics need to distance ourselves from policy makers in D.C.” Abrahamian is right about Esfandiari--she hasn't been an advocate of regime change--but he's utterly ignorant of the Wilson Center's mission, which is to engage policy makers on a continuous basis. If Wilson Center fellows distanced themselves from policy makers, there would be no point in the taxpayer maintaining them in Washington. The Center's fellows and staff could be dispersed to the universities, where they could talk to one another and to Abrahamian--on someone else's tab.

So the Esfandiari affair is really about this: her right, and the right of all scholars, to enjoy open and private contacts with U.S. policy makers and U.S. public officials. This too is an element of academic freedom, and it's precisely this element that's under assault by Iran in Esfandiari's case. This is why I'm pleased to see the likes of the Middle East Studies Association rising to Esfandiari's defense: inadvertently, no doubt, they're defending the mission of the Wilson Center, and the right of every scholar to enter and inhabit that space between academe and government, without being accused, Iran-style, of espionage, collusion, or complicity.

One spin on the Esfandiari case actually undermines that right. Robin Wright of the Washington Post, who can be relied upon to get everything wrong, described the arrest of Esfandiari and other "soft hostages" as "an Iranian reaction to the Bush administration's $75 million program to promote democracy in Iran." The Wilson Center even felt compelled to note that it doesn't receive funding from that pot. Come on. For nearly thirty years, Iran's leaders have lived in the certainty that Washington is running a massive covert operation to subvert them, one that makes $75 million look like chump change. If they've decided you're a part of the plot, one more proof against you is that you don't get a share of the overt money. So repeat after me: It's not Bush's fault. If you split the responsibility for Esfandiari's fate, you're helping to seal it, and undercutting everyone else's academic freedom.

So what is to be done by the rest of us, beyond signing petitions? (I signed this one.) I don't support the idea of an academic boycott of Iranian scholars, but Iran's official representatives are another matter. For example, there's Iran's smooth-talking ambassador to the United Nations, Mohammad Javad Zarif, who's finishing his stint in New York. He did the rounds of universities and think tanks this spring, even as Iran barred Esfandiari from leaving his country. Zarif spoke at the Council on Foreign Relations (March 27), the Nixon Center (March 29), and Columbia University's Middle East Seminar (May 2), and I saw him perform via video link at Harvard University's Belfer Center (May 8--the day Esfandiari was thrown into prison). No academic institution or think tank should agree to host him, his successor, or any other Iranian official until Esfandiari is freed. Collegial solidarity demands no less, and allows no exceptions.

Beyond that, I recommend doing what I've just done: make a gift to the Wilson Center, from the sidebar here. You don't have to agree with everything it's sponsored over the last few years to cherish what it legitimizes: scholarship in the nation's service.

Finally, as someone who's appreciated the transformation Lee Hamilton has wrought at the Wilson Center, I'd like him to reassure the American people, as well as Ahmadinejad, that the Wilson Center won't depart from the course he set for it. Indeed, even as Esfandiari languishes in prison, it's incumbent on the Wilson Center to sponsor debate and analysis of what her arrest tells us about the situation in Iran (nothing good, I believe), and convey that to officials in Congress and the Executive Branch.

May Haleh soon be among us again.

Amnesty International Persecutes Israel

According to Gerald Sternberg in the New York Sun, while the NGO turns a blind eye to Islamist extremist terrorism, Amnesty International refuses Amnesty to the Jewish State (ht lgf):

For many journalists, diplomats, and political activists, Amnesty International is considered to be a highly reliable and objective source of information and analysis on human rights around the world. But the halo that surrounds its reports and campaigns is beginning to fray, as the evidence of political bias and inaccuracy mounts.

Recently, the Economist, published in Britain, noted that "an organisation which devotes more pages in its annual report to human-rights abuses in Britain and America than those in Belarus and Saudi Arabia cannot expect to escape doubters' scrutiny." Other critics, including law professor at Harvard, Alan Dershowitz, and the U.S.-based Capital Research Center, have been more pointed, providing evidence of Amnesty's systematic bias and reports based largely on claims by carefully selected "eyewitnesses" in Colombia, Gaza, and Lebanon.

As Amnesty releases its annual report on human rights for 2006, amid highly choreographed public relations events, and repeating the familiar condemnations of Israel and America, NGO Monitor has also published a report on Amnesty's activities in the Middle East. The result is not a pretty picture for those clinging to the "halo effect."

Using a detailed and sophisticated qualitative model for comparing relative resources devoted to the different countries, this report clearly shows that in 2006, Amnesty singled out Israel for condemnation of human rights to a far greater extent than Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, Egypt, and other chronic abusers of human rights.

During the year, Amnesty issued 48 publications critical of Israel, compared to 35 for Iran, 2 for Saudi Arabia, and only 7 for Syria. Many of the attacks directed at Israel took place during the war with Hezbollah, but this terror group and state-within-a-state also got relatively little attention from Amnesty.

Furthermore, as Amnesty has almost no professional researchers, many of the "factual" claims in these reports were provided by "eyewitnesses," whose political affiliations and credibility can be only guessed. And the language used in these reports also reflects an obsessive and unjustified singling out of Israel, with frequent use of terms such "disproportionate attacks," "war crimes," and "violations of international humanitarian law."

And while Amnesty International was founded to fight for the freedom of political prisoners, the officials in charge of this organization failed to issue a single statement calling for the release of the Israeli soldiers that were kidnapped by Hezbollah and Hamas, and who have not been heard from since their illegal capture.

These and many other details published in NGO Monitor's report on Amnesty provide further evidence that this powerful NGO has lost its way, and is no longer a "respectable" or credible human rights organization.

Washington Post on PBS Censorship of "Islam v. Islamists"

From Paul Farhi's story in today's paper:

In an uprecedented move, the agency that oversees public broadcasting has stepped in to arrange distribution for a TV documentary on Islam that PBS had rejected as unworthy.

The federally funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting helped find a new distributor for "Islam vs. Islamists: Voices From the Muslim Center" after seven Republican members of Congress and one Democrat demanded that CPB ask PBS to air it or release it elsewhere.

The 52-minute film contends that moderate Muslims are being intimidated by radical Islamists in several Western democracies, including the United States.

The dispute over the film thrust CPB into the middle of a politically charged affair. The film's producers claim that PBS and its producing station, WETA, both of Arlington, are kowtowing to conservative Muslims in "suppressing" the film. In an interview yesterday, Frank Gaffney Jr., one of the film's executive producers, said PBS and WETA were predisposed against it on personal and ideological grounds.

"I am a person they regard as a conservative, and they regard the airwaves as a liberal domain," said Gaffney, a former Reagan administration defense official who now runs the Center for Security Policy.

WETA and PBS officials denied this yesterday. "We had no problem with the concept or ideology," said WETA spokeswoman Mary Stewart. "It was about filmmaking and documentary standards. We had no problem with the argument laid out in the film."

Andrew McCarthy Responds to Bob Kerrey on Iraq

In National Review:

Senator Kerrey is a principled liberal. Only a principled liberal could so vividly capture the cynical irony here. Though conceived as vital to our national security, the Iraqi chapter in the war on terror has been conducted, since Saddam’s expulsion, as a Wilsonian experiment. It assumes — against all reason and experience — that we’re all one human family, that everyone craves freedom, that everyone would use freedom the same enlightened way, and that we, the superpower, have a special obligation to make it happen. If the experiment were being conducted by liberals, rather than by George W. Bush, Democrats would be its staunchest defenders (and conservatives its wariest skeptics).

Iraq, however, is a frustrating slog precisely because it is an exercise in democracy building, not mere jihadist repulsion. Sen. Kerrey wants to have both Bush’s grandiose democracy project and Webb’s Spartan terrorist smacking … all without occupying anyone. It can’t be done.

We want, of course, to believe that we can democratize Islamic radicals into submission — it’s much more congenial than killing them or cooling their jets in Guantanamo Bay so we can get the intelligence needed to kill them before they kill us. But it’s a fantasy. The cold record shows that jihadists are much better at using democracy to pursue their ends than democracy is at quelling jihadist pathologies.

But let’s say you can’t or won’t believe that. Let’s ignore that jihadists planned 9/11 for months in the safety of Germany, Spain, and the United States. Let’s pretend that they haven’t attacked New York, Virginia, Madrid, and London because democratic freedoms made those places easy operating environments. The stubborn fact remains: If democracy is going to be your counterterrorism strategy, you’d better be ready to occupy. To occupy for decades in places where it is anything but clear that real democratic culture will take root despite your best efforts.

Senator Kerrey is to be congratulated for admonishing his party to stop denigrating a war its traditions counsel supporting. But if the politicizing ever does end, some adult reality will need facing — and not just by Democrats.

Much of the Islamic world does not want true democracy — and that’s by no means just the militants. If we really respected these Muslim millions, as we say we do, we’d concede that they’re not ignorant. They have, instead, made a different choice. They have chosen a submissive path, anathema to our sensibilities. If democracy is why we fight, then long occupation will necessarily be the price. And the attendant blood and treasure cry out for the compelling case no one has yet made: The case that democracy is likely to defeat jihadism. Faith may move mountains, but it is not a national-security strategy.

On the other hand, if occupation is a price we have neither the cause nor the will to pay, we must shun democracy imposition. Our finite attention should instead be focused on determining what measures are necessary to eradicate jihadist networks, and on bluntly considering how such steps square with our regnant international law infrastructure — the legacy of a world that no longer exists … if it ever did.