Is France the New Britain?

With Tony Blair bogged down making peace between Arabs and Israelis, will France take the same role vis-a-vis Iran as Britain has done vis-a-vis Iraq?

It looks that way, after French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner's arrival in our fair city. I heard Kouchner on C-Span radio in the car, live from the Washington Hilton, speaking to the Center for Strategic and International Studies--notably in English, with a delightful French accent--debating hecklers and threatening Iran, while simultaneously maintaining the necessity for dialogue backed by sanctions.

Here's the official notice of Kouchner's trip, from the French Embassy website:

Foreign and European Affairs Minister Bernard Kouchner will be in Washington for an official visit on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, September 19, 20 and 21. This is his first visit to Washington since taking office.

The trip will underline the exceptional relationship between France and the United States based on the shared common values of freedom and democracy, in the context of a renewed transatlantic partnership.

The minister of Foreign and European affairs will have in-depth talks with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, before the opening of the 62nd session of the UN General Assembly in New York where the minister will accompany President Sarkozy.

Mr. Kouchner and Ms Rice will discuss the main international issues. In the wake of his trip to the Middle East, Israel, the Occupied Territories, Egypt and Lebanon, the minister will give his analyses of the regional situation and peace process, particularly with a view to the international conference which is to be held in November at the initiative of the United States. The Iranian nuclear question will also be a core issue in their talks. They will also be discussing Iraq, Lebanon ahead of the important election, which you know about, and the situation in Darfur and Kosovo.

The minister will also have meetings with the leaders of Congress.

The minister will give a lecture at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on the United States, France and Europe in the face of the major international challenges.

As is customary, the minister will meet with the French community.

Meanwhile, the French Embassy is sponsoring a number of upcoming tributes to the Marquis de Lafayette, in honor of the 250th anniversary of his birth, and as a reminder of the historic French role supporting American independence from Great Britain....

Jena Protests Sweep US

I saw a demonstration in front of the University of the District of Columbia, just last night. The Jena protest movement has hit a nerve around the country. Here's a report from Baltimore:

"This is much bigger than Jena," said M.K. Asante Jr., an English professor at Morgan State University, who required his students to attend the rally.

"There are Jena 6 cases happening in Maryland, in Pennsylvania and around this country," he said. "What we need to do is focus all our energy on the institutional problems that allowed Jena to happen. Instead of being a society that responds to symptoms, we need to fight the deeper problems such as the huge disparities in the criminal justice system."

From Baltimore to Baton Rouge, protesters held rallies in support of the six black students charged with the attempted murder of a white classmate after a schoolyard brawl. They intended to add their voices to the collective cry of thousands of civil rights demonstrators who converged yesterday on Jena, a tiny sawmill town of 3,000.

Baltimore's events included huge rallies at local colleges and informal gatherings at high schools. Last night, a teach-in was held at New Shiloh Baptist Church, hosted by radio personalities, fraternities and sororities and the Baltimore branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Everywhere, protesters wore black in a show of solidarity.

"We are here to support our brothers and sisters in Jena. If we don't stand up for justice, who will?" said Jasmine Hazel, a Morgan senior and student government association president. "This is not about black, this is not about white. This is about justice."

Melanie Phillips on a New Twist in France's Karsenty Case

From MelaniePhillips.com:

Well, waddya know. The hitherto unthinkable has happened in the al Durah libel appeal in Paris (see here and here for previous entries). The court has actually demanded that France 2 hand over the unplayed 27 minutes of tape....Will we now find that the 27 minutes have mysteriously been lost, I wonder?

"Bronx Bomber" Mukasey

The NY Daily News reports a local angle on Michael Bernard Mukasey. Joe Gould and Corky Siemaszko talked to Mukasey's rabbi, Haskel Lookstein, who declared him a "mensch." Good enough for me. Lookstein has known him for years, he was Mukasey's camp counselor. Since Lookstein's father was my grandmother's rabbi, I'll take his word on it. And since Mukasey is a Bronxite, and I grew up in the Bronx, he has my support there as well. Cherry on the top--Mukasey is apparently a long-time confidant of Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

A trifecta.

Michael Bernard Mukasey: Good for New York. Good for America.

MoveOn.org v. Rudy Giuliani

I thought Giuliani's decision to quit the Iraq Study Group--a bureaucratic and political cover operation, just more Washington-style CYA, IMHO--was the right thing to do at the time. He didn't make a fuss, he just took the nearest exit when he saw where the process was heading. In the end, the Iraq Study Group's recommendations were absurd on their face, which is why President Bush paid no political cost for ignoring them. If I had to choose between the pablum of the commission report or Rudy Giuliani's judgement, I'd choose Rudy every time.

Now, MoveOn.org is trying to use his decision against Giuliani, in a commercial on YouTube. Actions speak louder than words. So, if Rudy Giuliani can't turn this political gift to his advantage, he doesn't deserve to be President...

Fouad Ajami on Iraq

From the Wall Street Journal:

"Historically we are winning." The words were those of Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi. This is a scion of Baghdad Shiite aristocracy, at ease with French and English, a man whose odyssey had taken him from Marxism to the Baath, then finally to the Islamism of the Supreme Islamic Council. "We came from under the ashes, and now the new order, this new Iraq, is taking hold. If we were losing, why would the insurgents be joining us?" He had nothing but praise for the effort that had secured the peace of Baghdad: "Petraeus can defend the surge," he said. "He can show the 'red zones' of conflict receding, and the spread of the 'blue zones' of peace. Six months ago, you could not venture into the Anbar, now you can walk its streets in peace. There is a Sunni problem in the country which requires a Shiite initiative. The Sunni problem is power, plain and simple. Sunni society grew addicted to power, and now it has to make this painful adjustment."

Mr. Mahdi was not apologetic about what Iraq offers the United States by way of justification for the blood and treasure and the sacrifice: "Little more than two decades ago, in the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution and the Lebanon War of 1982, the American position in this region was exposed and endangered. Look around you today: Everyone seeks American protection and patronage. The line was held in Iraq; perhaps America was overly sanguine about the course of things in Iraq. But that initial optimism now behind us, the war has been an American victory. All in the region are romancing the Americans, even Syria and Iran in their own way."

For the Sunni-ruled states in the region, he counseled an acceptance of the new Iraq. He looked with pride on his country, and on his city. He saw beyond Baghdad's daily grief. "Baghdad is the heart of the Arab world, this was the hothouse of Arab philosophy and science and literature."

Peace has not come to Iraq, the feuds have not fully burned out, but the center holds. The best of Iraq's technocrats, deputy prime minister Barham Saleh, spoke of the new economic vitality of the provinces, of the recovery of regions once lost to darkness and terror. I brought back with me from Iraq a reminder that life renews in that land.
I attended the judicial tribunal that is investigating the crimes of Saddam Hussein's cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majid, better know as Chemical Ali, and 14 other defendants being tried for deeds they committed back in 1991, in the aftermath of the first American war against Saddam Hussein. Chemical Ali had been one of the most dreaded "roosters" of the regime, a haughty killer. His attire was either Western suits or military uniforms. On the afternoon I went to watch his trial, he had shuffled in, leaning on a cane, all dressed in the traditional Arab way. The courtroom setting was one of immense decorum: a five-member panel of judges in their robes, the defense team on one side, the prosecutors on the other.

A lone witness, his face hidden from view behind a simple curtain, told of the cruelty he had seen a generation ago. He told of Chemical Ali executing people point-blank, after three Baathist women singled them out; he told of the burial of the victims on the grounds of a vocational school. He stood firm, the simple witness, when Chemical Ali tried to bully and ridicule him. He had no doubt about the memory of that day. He recalled Chemical Ali, he said, in his olive military uniform, and he correctly identified the rank of Chemical Ali. A policeman distributed bottled water to the defendants who once literally owned and disposed of the fate of this country. They were now being given the justice denied their victims.

In our fashion, we have our very American "metrics" and "benchmarks" with which we judge this war and the order in Iraq we had midwifed. For the war's critics, there can be no redemption of this war, and no faith that Iraq's soil could bring forth anything decent or humane. Today two men of extraordinary talent and devotion, our military commander and our ambassador, will tell of the country they know so well. Doubtless, they will tell of accomplishments and heartbreak. We should grant them--and that distant country--the hearing they deserve.

Rumsfeld Foundation Focuses on Central Asia

Bradley Graham reports in today's Washington Post that the recently retired Defense Secretary is turning international to charity work--especially in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan (perhaps also Afghanistan?):

Rumsfeld became wealthy during a 24-year business career between stints in government. A family foundation, set up in 1985 by him and his wife, Joyce, is now valued at about $20 million and makes charitable contributions to dozens of groups a year.

Rumsfeld plans to fund the new foundation with a grant from the old one and with other personal assets, plus any contributions that friends might make. He does not intend to solicit money from others, nor keep either foundation going after he and his wife have died.

Royalties from Rumsfeld's planned memoirs also will go into the new foundation, which is to be called the Rumsfeld Foundation. But Rumsfeld said he is "in no rush" to get the book out. "I'm not going to try to get something out fast -- a kiss-and-tell -- and affect the elections," he said. "That's not me."

Details about the number and size of the Rumsfeld fellowships have yet to be worked out. But they will not be attached to a particular school, going instead to individuals for study in foreign and national security affairs, economics, and other public policy fields. Similarly, the foundation's lecture series will not be confined to a single campus, Rumsfeld said.

Rumsfeld has long spoken of the need to encourage government service. The other main aims of his foundation -- loans to micro-enterprises and help for Central Asian republics -- reflect more recent interests.

Micro-enterprise is a burgeoning global phenomenon in which people who lack access to normal credit receive financing to operate small businesses. It has proved to be an economic boon to some poor regions. Rumsfeld noted that the repayment rates have been high, and he said such loans have the advantage of bypassing sometimes corrupt governments and landing directly in the hands of beneficiaries.

His focus on Central Asian republics such as Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan stems from a concern that they lack the U.S.-based support groups that benefited the Eastern European states in their transition from communist rule. "We don't have, in Chicago or Detroit or Pittsburgh, Uzbeks or Tajiks or Kazakhs," Rumsfeld said. "I think that we need to have people who understand what's going on in Central Asia . . . and the difficulty of that transition."

According to the New Zealand blog Scoop, Rumsfeld will join The Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, at Stanford University.

Putin's Next Step: "Prepare Three Envelopes"

Anyone practicing amateur (or professional) Kremlinology must have been struck by an exchange published in the transcript of the Valdai discussion club. IMHO Putin's joke about leadership style explains why Yeltsin's chaos was blamed for Russia's problems; why there was an economic boom in the middle period; and finally why there is such uncertainlty about the future:

PIOTR DUTKIEWICZ: Which do you think are the three most important things you have achieved during your time in the Kremlin? Which three things did you not have enough time to do or were not able to do? And what are three pieces of advice that you would give your successor when you have your first meeting with him?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: On this account we have an old joke. When the head of a company or - let’s take a bigger picture - of a region, leaves his position, he gives his successor three envelopes and tells him the following: ‘Open the first envelope now, the second in two years, and the third just before you leave your position’. Upon opening the first envelope he reads: ‘Blame it all on me’. In two years he opens the second envelope which reads: ‘Promise everything’. And when he has six months left he opens the third envelope and reads: ‘Prepare three envelopes’. (Laughter). This story is relevant because our colleague has asked me to formulate three things three times right now.

I am not ready to state all of the most important things in all three spheres. But it is very obvious that we were able to strengthen Russian statehood. It seems to me that there is a great deal that can still be done in this field: to administratively and morally strengthen Russian statehood and establish more or less capable power and economic agencies.

The second achievement concerns the restoration of the Russian economy. We mentioned basic economic indicators. When I started working Russia’s gold and currency reserves amounted to 12 billion USD. Just this year they grew by 80 billion and total around 275 or 280 billion USD, I think. We had hyperinflation. And though it remains high I think that this year we will achieve nine percent. And before it was 30 or more and even went off the scale, up to unknown levels.

We constantly held out our hand to all international financial organisations for credits. As you know, today we are not financing our main activities with money obtained from credit and we are also repaying our debts ahead of schedule. And just recently we paid back 22 billion USD that we owed. Now the ratio of our foreign debt to GDP is one of the best in Europe. On average over the last three years the economy has grown by seven percent. In the first six or seven months of 2006 it grew by 7.4 percent.

40 million Russian citizens lived below the poverty line. Today there is still quite a lot of poverty. But it is no longer 40 percent of citizens – I think it is somewhere around 20 percent. The number has been halved. And I think that before the end of 2008 this indicator will approach the general European level.

We have minimal unemployment, quite simply minimal unemployment. And I think that we have learned to be quite pragmatic, but not confrontational, when defending our interests in the international arena. In other words we strengthened the Russian Federation’s international position.

If asked to state briefly and from the top of my head, these are three basic things that I would classify as positive.

What would I have liked to do and what is still incomplete? I have already referred to lowering the number of citizens below the poverty line as an advantage but, at the same time, there are still large numbers of poor people. The average income is still too low. However, we understand that in order to maintain macroeconomic stability and the rate of economic growth we cannot lessen the numbers of poor people in a way that is harmful to macroeconomic stability. This is the first and most important thing.

The second is the fight against corruption. I think that this is one of the very significant negative things that we have to continue to fight against.

And the third – something we have already talked about with Mrs D’Encausse – is demography.

What must we do in the near future? Incidentally, it is impossible to talk about such things with certainty and I am very much at risk when I do so. But nevertheless I will talk about things on a general level. We need to continue developing our country’s political system. We need to establish a truly multiparty system, develop self-management and improve relations between the federal centre, the regions and the municipalities so that each level takes responsibility upon itself and is able to accomplish the tasks incumbent to it. And of course we must continue to diversify the economy and thereby create the conditions that will help us resolve social problems.

Leon Aron on Liberty in Russia

From AEI's Russian Outlook:

Away from the "Chaos" Myth?

After Yeltsin died this past spring, 25,000 people stood for hours in a very long line on a cold April night to pay their last respects to Russia's first freely elected chief executive--until the body was suddenly whisked away by the authorities for a quick burial after fewer than twenty hours of lying in state. Even more remarkable, given the negative opinions of Yeltsin and his era to which the Russian people had become accustomed, was the tone of the obituaries (mostly on the uncensored Internet sites) that strongly challenged the "chaos" stereotype. Instead of a period of senseless destruction and chaos, emerging from the obituaries, appreciations, and comments was a precious and unique moment in Russian history--a hectic time, marred by ignorance and corruption, but, in the main, an earnest trial-and-error search for modern liberal economic and political arrangements best suited to the national conditions.

Putin's former personal economic adviser, Andrei Illarionov, captured the tenor of the reevaluation when he wrote that Yeltsin had "pulled the country out of communism, out of empire and out of its past" and "pushed it forward toward civilization, openness and freedom." In another view, the 1990s have shown that the traditional Russian "feudal mentality" and the worst features of Russian political culture, which many consider immutable--disrespect of laws, the delegation of complete power and responsibility to the supreme leader, the "thousand-year-old corruption" and the notion that authorities of all ranks were there to "feed" off whatever they were appointed to supervise, the servility toward those above, and the violence toward those below--could, at least in principle, be changed. It is possible in Russia to "respect liberty," to tackle "laziness," and to treat other people not "as enemies and scoundrels."

In the 1990s a Russia began to be forged that was not an empire or a monarchy, but a "democratic and civilized country, of which others are not afraid," wrote a former Yeltsin aide. "A country that did not harbor treachery or hostility. A country that is liked in the world. A country in which there could be market economy, competition, freedom of speech."

Yeltsin's death seems to have occasioned a broader public reevaluation as well. Compared to 2000, the percentage of those who thought that the Yeltsin era was overall more negative than positive dropped by almost one-third, from 67 percent to 47 percent, while the share of those remembering the 1990s positively increased by two-fifths from 15 percent to 26 percent. ] Attitudes toward Yeltsin have changed even more decisively: the share of those who say they liked him grew by more than half from 2000-07 (9 percent to 19 percent), while the proportion of those disliking him diminished by more than half from 55 percent to 26 percent.

Most likely these numbers testify to the well-known feature of human memory: only distance can provide a proper notion of scale and meaning for events of such magnitude.

Writing about the American republic almost half a century after its birth, Alexis de Tocqueville noted "a mature and thoughtful taste for freedom." ] The first decade of Russian political and economic liberty brought nothing less than a different order of being to Russia, but hardly made the taste for it mature. The development of such a taste, along with a balanced view of the 1990s untinged by the political needs of a ruling regime, may be a project for decades.

Rod Dreher on the Muslim Brotherhood

From the Dallas Morning News (ht lgf):

This "explanatory memorandum," as it's titled, outlines the "strategic goal" for the North American operation of the extremist Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan). Here's the key paragraph:

The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a "Civilization-Jihadist" process with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" their miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who choose to slack.

The entire 18-page platform outlines a plan for the long haul. It prescribes the Muslim Brotherhood's comprehensive plan to set down roots in civil society. It begins by both founding and taking control of American Muslim organizations, for the sake of unifying and educating the U.S. Muslim community – this to prepare it for the establishment of a global Islamic state governed by sharia.

It sounds like a conspiracy theory out of a bad Hollywood movie – but it's real. Husain Haqqani, head of Boston University's Center for International Relations and a former Islamic radical, confirms that the Brotherhood "has run most significant Muslim organizations in the U.S." as part of the plan outlined in the strategy paper.

The HLF trial is exposing for the first time how the international Muslim Brotherhood – whose Palestinian division is Hamas – operates as a self-conscious revolutionary vanguard in the United States. The court documents indicate that many leading Muslim-American organizations – including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim American Society – are an integral part of the Brotherhood's efforts to wage jihad against America by nonviolent means.

More here.

Andrew Kuchins on Journalist Deaths in Russia

From the Center for Strategic and International Studies website:

Did you know that nearly twice as many Russian journalists were killed in the 1990s when Boris Yeltsin was president of Russia as in the seven years of Vladimir Putin’s presidency? According to the records of the Committee to Protect Journalists, a New York–based organization that tracks violations against free journalism around the world, in Yeltsin’s Russia, 42 journalists were killed and 3 disappeared. Since Mr. Putin became president, 22 journalists have been killed and 2 disappeared. As in the Yeltsin years, the motivations for the great majority of these tragic killings are tied to the wars in Chechnya and/or criminal activities. And, as in the Yeltsin years, almost none of these murders has been solved. The truth is that in Putin’s Russia, like Yeltsin’s Russia, being an investigative journalist is a very dangerous profession. And today, as in the 1990s, Russia’s ramshackle legal system provides virtually no incentive for investigators to solve the crimes. They would only discover the same dangerous information that the journalists did, and you can bet they are not counting on the Russian legal system to protect them in that event...

Putin's Zubkov Gambit

Nabi Abdullaev reports in the Moscow Times on the meaning of Putin's choice of Russia's new prime minister, Viktor Zubkov:

Olga Kryshtanovskaya, who tracks Kremlin politics at the Russian Academy of Sciences, said Zubkov had already become the frontrunner, surpassing acting First Prime Ministers Sergei Ivanov and Dmitry Medvedev, who have been intensely groomed for months as potential presidential successors.

Putin might be opting for a scenario in which he would not anoint a single successor to avoid charges of trampling on democratic procedures, but instead would offer voters the choice between three or four loyal followers instead, said Sergei Mikheyev, of the Center for Political Technologies.

"And it is possible that after eight years of an active and relatively young Putin, Russia's cautious voters would prefer aged and conservative Zubkov over the younger and dynamic Medvedev and Ivanov," said Dmitry Orlov, an analyst at the Agency for Political and Economic Communications. "Dispersing support behind such different candidates would be rational for Putin at the moment."

Interestingly, this took place shortly after a meeting of the Valdai discussion club, a group of international opinion leaders who get together with the Russian president from time-to-time to discuss Russia's role in global affairs. At the meeting, CSIS expert Andrew Kuchins questioned Putin about growing anti-Americanism in Russia:

ANDREW KUCHINS: ...I want to ask you a question about Russian-American relations. I am worried about our relations and their long-term development prospects. I had the opportunity to meet with President Bush. Marshall Goldman and several others were also there. I know that President Bush is worried about the increase of anti-Americanism in Russia and especially among young people. Of course, anti-Americanism is increasing in many countries in the world.

I lived in Moscow for two and a half years and when I came back to the States at the end of last year I was also very upset with the biased and negative image that Russia has in the American media.

But my question refers to the representation of the USA in Russian media, especially on Russian national television. When I lived here for two and a half years I often watched television and it left a strong impression on me. If Russian national television had been my only source of information I would have concluded that the USA is a hostile country and perhaps even an enemy.

But I know that this is not your policy and that you support improving our relations and making them more constructive. And during our meeting I told our President this in a very frank and direct way.

But it seems to me that there is a certain contradiction between the image of the USA as presented on Russian television and Russia’s foreign policy. Can you explain to me why this exists and how we can correct or improve the situation?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I can. The media reflects the realities of the present life and mood of Russian society. And independently of whether or not the media is state-owned or independent, if it doesn’t reflect society’s mood then it will not be interesting and people won’t trust the media. And they say what people want to hear. The media reflects real life. And the Russian government’s foreign policy is pragmatic and designed to improve Russian-American relations.

While the press does not need to look at the future of international relations, international life and Russian-American relations it is part of my task to do so. For that reason there is really a marked difference between the mood among society, in the media and our concrete policies. I am only chagrined and confused by those who, unlike you, sometimes pretend not to notice the fact that we are increasing our efforts to not only maintain but also to improve Russian-American relations.

I think that our colleagues’ main problem is that they are not inclined to search for compromises. They almost always insist that we accept certain decisions that they consider optimal. But of course this does not happen 100 percent of the time. Sometimes we engage in joint work and in these cases, as a rule, we are able to achieve viable results.

I would very much like for this practice to take hold in our relations with our American partners. This will only happen in the event that they acknowledge our national interests and take them into consideration.

I repeat that we don’t intend to work against American interests, nor do we intend to neglect our own interests in favour of our partners’ interests.

I repeat that this work will be effective if they acknowledge our national interests.

We have really developed very good relations with President Bush. And without any undue exaggeration I think that this is a very important factor in intergovernmental relations. Recently this element became even more obvious because there are a lot of various small problems. In any case, we value this. It seems to me that President Bush also values this. We shall continue to rely on this in the future. And of course we are going to expand this base.

For instance, in accordance with American legislation we wanted to conclude contracts with various lobbying groups that officially operate in Congress. You know what they told us? And this is normal, this is in accordance with American laws. But the people we contacted told us that state department employees did not support such relations with Russian partners. That is strange. It is true that in direct dialogue with our American colleagues they did not admit this. They said: ‘No, that can’t be true, we did not do this’. But this means that someone – either the representatives of the lobbies or of the state department – is giving us the wrong information.

But such trifles prevent us from establishing a constructive dialogue. Why should this be possible for all other countries and not for Russia? We are not doing this underground, with the help of the FSB or the Foreign Intelligence Service. We are doing this openly and as it should be done with a view to engaging in a meaningful dialogue with legislators. What is wrong here? They say: ‘No, that is not possible’. Why is it impossible? It is a trifle, a detail. It is simply evidence of how they automatically applied the presumption of the Soviet Union’s guilt to Russia. This is not right, it is harmful and it bothers us.

For example, I believe that Europe will grow to become a political entity and that European statehood will be strengthened, and that both will inevitably occur because they are product of life’s basic needs and global economic development. During these processes political forces in the United States that are interested in the existence of a strong viable Russia and in developing intergovernmental ties will also grow. We will put emphasis on precisely this part of American society and of the American political establishment.

Thank you.

An Email From Rudy Giuliani About The New York Times

Found this in my inbox:

Dear Friend,

MoveOn.org, well-known for its character assassinations on Republicans, decided to participate in a character assassination on an American General.

Before General David Petraeus could give his testimony to Congress about our brave men and women in uniform overseas in Iraq, MoveOn.org, aided by an enormous discount at the New York Times, ambushed an American hero with baseless attacks on his integrity. Senator Clinton furthered the slander by saying that General Petraeus required "the willing suspension of disbelief."

The way forward in Iraq requires proven leadership. The American people demand more than Democratic Presidential candidates who refuse to denounce extremist liberal organizations. These candidates and a do-nothing Democratic Congress undermine our troops' service. These times call for statesmanship, not politicians spewing political venom. Join me in telling MoveOn.org that there is no place in American politics for these kinds of attacks. Please review my ad here and make a contribution to set the record straight.

Sincerely,

Rudy Giuliani

Iraq Blog Count

А friend told us about IraqBlogCount, a 'blog of blogs' about Iraq. There's something for everyone...

John T. Reed on the Petraeus-Crocker Report on Iraq

John T. Reed watched the Petraeus testimony, and posted a detailed critique on his blog, here. An excerpt:

Bloodbath if we leave

We are repeatedly told that there will be a bloodbath if we leave.

We were told that in Vietnam as well. It was correct in Vietnam. There was a blood bath known as the Killing Fields in Cambodia and another known as the boat people in Vietnam after we left.

But the embarrassing fact is that while the American people regret the post-pull-out civilian deaths in Southeast Asia, we would do the exact same thing only sooner if we had it to do over again. Simply stated, the American people did not care about the deaths of the Cambodian and Vietnamese civilians at the hands of the Communists in Southeast Asia nor do they care about the likely future deaths of Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq. Sure, they care enough to wring their hands and make statements against it, but they do not care enough to spend another 600 billion dollars or another 5,000 U.S. military lives.

Most Americans probably think that a civil war in Iraq could not happen to a nicer bunch of ungrateful, religious nut cakes. Nobody, not Petraeus or anyone else, is talking about that elephant in the room...

A Shofar Blast for Rosh Hashana

When I was growing up in New York City, The New York Times would usually publish a photo of a rabbi blowing a shofar to welcome the New Year, from a congregation somewhere in the city, or sometimes elsewhere in the world, with a caption reading something like "Jewish New Year welcomed in Brooklyn." In fact, the paper used to carry little ads at the bottom of page one listing candle-lighting times, two lines intended for Orthodox readers. In vain did I search my national edition over the past couple of days. So, I googled to find a Shofar blast to post on this blog. Here it is, thanks to YouTube--L'Shanah Tovah! A Happy New Year to all our Jewish readers--and all the readers of The New York Times who remember when the paper still considered news of Jewish Holidays "fit to print."

Top British Think Tank: Stop Appeasing Islamists!

With traditional British understatement, Strategic Survey 2007, a publication of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Britain's top foreign policy think-tank, responds to the growth of Al Qaeda after 9/11. Former MI6 civil servant Dr. John Chipman's report finally begins to admit that Western leaders made a mistake by humoring outrageous Islamist "grievances" (perhaps blinded by oil money from Islamist regimes like Saudi Arabia) rather than unite with secularists to decisively crush aspirations for Islamic supremacy over non-believers:

Islamist Terrorism

There is increasing evidence, Strategic Survey argues, that ‘core’ al-Qaeda is proving adaptable and resilient, and has retained the ability to plan and coordinate large-scale attacks in the Western world. Regional jihadist groups such as al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia and al-Qaeda in the Maghreb have sworn allegiance to al-Qaeda and have begun to show ambitions beyond parochial concerns in support of al-Qaeda’s global objectives. Plots that have come to light in Europe and elsewhere point to a growing trend of Islamic radicalisation.

The long-term challenge is to confront the extremist ideology which gives rise to terrorism and which al-Qaeda has shown great skill and ingenuity in propagating. That challenge is of a different kind in different parts of the world and needs to be met in specific contexts. Overall, what is referred to as the ‘single narrative’, that sees Muslims as victims of non-Muslim aggression, needs to be addressed, both in the Islamic world and elsewhere. In the Islamic world, governments with de-radicalisation programmes tend not to contest the propositions of the single narrative but rather to encourage individuals to contemplate non-violent responses to perceived injustices affecting their co-religionists. Over time, that approach may not be sufficient, and there will be a need to build political cultures that encourage aspirations for the fruits of modernity and success, something best done by leaders able to establish their political legitimacy.

Western governments tend to meet the Muslim ‘single narrative’ by way of rebuttal, arguing against its basis in fact. But this too is an approach with limited effects. While there is a consensus among all European elites that the war on terror cannot be fought by military means alone, there is a less overt acceptance that defending the largely liberal and secular nature of the ‘public space’ in Europe will require a more assertive application of the ‘political science’ of that liberal-secular tradition. That means looking again at issues as complex as the relative balance between individual and community rights and between secular and religious visions of social organisation. On this basis, it may become possible to find more fluid ways to achieve the effective integration of Muslim minorities into European societies and obtain the national cohesion necessary to meet the wide range of security challenges the modern world poses.

Raoul Wallenberg Exhibit Opens in Moscow

At the Sakharov Center. Co-sponsored by the Embassy of Sweden and the Swedish Institute.

Wallenberg's mission to save Hungarian Jews, including now-US Congressman Tom Lantos, was sponsored by the War Refugee Board that resulted from Peter Bergson (Hillel Kook) and Ben Hecht's agitation. Wallenberg was taken prisoner by the Soviets and never heard from again. The mystery of his fate has never been resolved--by Russia, Sweden, or the US.

Melanie Phillips on France's New Dreyfus Affair

It's the Karsenty case, now on appeal in a Paris courtroom, of a libel judgement against Karsenty's complaint that French television staged anti-Israel propaganda:

This scandal has many layers of evil. It reveals the wickedness of the Palestinians who so cynically stage hoaxes like this, as a result of which murderous hatred and mass hysteria are exponentially spread and innocent people are attacked and butchered in a rising spiral of terrorist atrocities. It reveals the wickedness of western journalists who transmit footage they know is a fraud as a matter of routine, becoming as a result active collaborators in the deaths of innocents. As someone from France 2 remarked during this affair, ‘It happens all the time’. Sure it does — we saw it last year in the Lebanon war when ‘atrocities’ that had been faked by Hezbollah were transmitted as true accounts by broadcasting organisations which turned a blind eye to the evidence of journalistic fraud because the story they told fitted the broadcasters’ own prejudices. And it reveals the intellectual corruption of the French judiciary, which perpetrates a transparent injustice and in turn helps further promulgate a murderous lie because, instead of holding power to account, the French judiciary is in its pocket.

To my knowledge, there has been no coverage whatsoever of these revelations about the al Durah footage, let alone the Karsenty case, in the British media. That says it all. They are so resistant to the suggestion that the story in which they so fervently believe — that Israel is the evil aggressor in the Middle East and the Palestinians are their innocent victims —might be wrong, that they simply do not register any evidence which bears that out. How can it possibly be the case, they think, that fashionable progressive French journalists (like themselves) could deliberately make themselves party to a lie? Since in their own eyes progressive people are by definition the unique repository of moral virtue, anyone who challenges that position is by definition evil. It is therefore impossible that the Palestinians staged a theatrical hoax, impossible that France 2 deliberately transmitted such a fraud, impossible that the Israelis could be the innocent victims of such a deception. The image of the killing of Mohammed al Durah exists; and the image is all. Nothing else has any reality. The fact that the ‘corpse’ moved and peered behind its hand to see if the cameras were still filming is irrelevant. The terrible thing about so many western journalists is that they really do deeply and sincerely believe their own lies.

The trial of Philippe Karsenty is an event of the greatest political and cultural significance. It may well come to define the relationship of Europe to Israel and the Jews as devastatingly as the 19th century Drefyus affair — in which the false accusation of treason against a patriotic Jewish French army captain produced an outpouring of virulent anti-Jewish prejudice — once convinced an assimilated French journalist by the name of Theodor Herzl that there could be no future for the Jews unless they had their own country. But now the French are determined to traduce and defame that country, too.

The Karsenty appeal is a very big story indeed. Let’s see how many journalists, in these degraded times, are able to recognise it.

Maajid Nawaz's Anti-Hizb ut-Tahrir Blog

For some strange reason, Jane Perlez's profile in today's New York Times of Maajid Nawaz failed to provide a link to his anti-Hizb ut-Tahrir blog (although it did provide a link to the official Hizb ut-Tahrir website). Since Nawaz is a former leader of the group--a recruiter, no less--I thought it might be helpful to be able to read what he has to say. Here's what Perlez reported:

Now, more than a year after his return to Britain, Mr. Nawaz, 29, has defected from Hizb ut-Tahrir, saying that he learned from scholars he met in jail that the ideology he so fervently espoused ran counter to the true meaning of his religion.

Hizb ut-Tahrir, or Party of Liberation, also calls for the end of Israel and the withdrawal of Western interests from the Middle East, though it says it wants to achieve those goals through nonviolent means. There have been calls in Britain to ban the group, but the government has always stopped short of doing so.

Mr. Nawaz’s departure from the group, which he announced on his personal blog several days ago and in an interview shown on BBC television on Tuesday night, is considered significant because he was such a highly valued member of Hizb ut-Tahrir — one of a handful of men on its executive committee in Britain.

Before being imprisoned in Egypt, Mr. Nawaz played a central role in recruiting new members for Hizb ut-Tahrir at home and abroad. Over and over again, he said, he spread the belief that the dictatorships of the Muslim world must be replaced by a caliphate similar to that which held sway after the death of the Prophet Muhammad.

But for the past year, he has felt nothing but regret, he said in an interview with The New York Times in a Bayswater Road coffee shop on Tuesday before his BBC appearance.

“I gave talks in Pakistan, Britain and Denmark,” he said. “Wherever I’ve been I’ve left people who joined Hizb ut-Tahrir. I have to make amends. What I did was damaging to British society and the world at large.”

Here's a link to his blog: http://www.maajidnawaz.blogspot.com.