CLINTON LEGACY II

CNN reports: Clinton calls on voters to choose Kerry.

"They [Republicans] need a divided America, but we don't," Clinton said. "We Democrats want to build a world and an America of shared responsibilities and shared opportunities ... On the other hand, Republicans in Washington believe that America should be run by the right people, their people."

He said the Bush administration gave tax cuts to the wealthy while raising out-of-pocket health care costs for veterans and underfunding education.  Monday, July 26, 2004

www.coxandforkum.com

*

USA Today's print edition headline proclaims, "Democrats focus on future." But during the two plus hours of the convention I watched last night, including all three major speeches, there was precious little said about the future. Gore focused on 2000. Carter focused on the period immediately following 9/11. Clinton covered his years in office, the post 9/11 "fall from grace," and the timeless philosophical differences between the two parties. All I know about what the Democrats have in store for the future is (1) they will end the (non-existent) "ban" on stem cell research and (2) they will consult more closely with our allies (no discussion, though, of the real issue, which is whether the allies will be able to veto our foreign policy decisions).

USA Today goes on to claim that the Democrats stayed on message by declining to sharply criticize President Bush. Really? Gore's theme was that Bush stole the 2000 election. Carter contended that Bush shirked military duty, destroyed our standing in the world, and spread panic in the streets here at home. According to Clinton, Bush's presidency mounts to an attempt to favor the richest 1 percent of the country (most of whom don't even want to be favored) at the expense of everyone else.

I have no problem with the Democrats attacking Bush. In fact, I believe they have a duty to attack him, and I find it curious that they think voters will be turned off by such attacks (they weren't went Clinton and Gore went after the first President Bush hammer and tong at the 1992 convention). But it is cowardly and dishonest for the Dems to attack Bush while they and their media enablers pretend no attack is taking place. Another example of the cheating heart of the Democratic party.

HINDROCKET adds: Drudge is reporting that ratings for the first night of the Democratic convention were at record lows, down signficantly from four years ago. My first instinct was to think this was good. On the other hand, it means that the vast majority of voters will not see the Democrats' convention for themselves, but will only be aware of it as it is reported by the generally-mendacious print media. Thus, millions of people will believe that the Dems took the high road last night.

We're a few days late with this one, but Dafydd ab Hugh's analysis of the U.S. Army's report on prisoner abuse that was released last week is worth passing on:

The Army has released the findings of its report on all confirmed or alleged cases of prisoner abuse in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the war on terror in general. The "shock" headline (for the mathematically challenged) is "U.S. Reports 94 Cases of Prisoner Abuse"

But in fact, the report is stunning as an example of the dog that *did not* bark -- and it's another vindication for Bush and Rumsfeld.

First of all, headline aside, the body of the AP story makes clear that the number ninety-four refers not just to confirmed cases but to all allegations of abuse as well: if a prisoner says "I was beaten," it's counted as part of those ninety-four, even if there is no corroboration whatsoever for it, or even if it's disputed by a dozen eye witnesses.

Second, and bearing the above in mind, the real shocker is at the bottom
of the article:

The Army inspector general report found that since the fall of 2001, overall the United States had held more than 50,000 prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq, a number never before made public.

I blinked in surprise at this: out of 50,000 arrests and detentions during a war, a grand total of only ninety-four allegations of abuse were made? That's astonishingly low -- and it's a wonderful testament to the professionalism and calm devotion to duty among our soldiers, led by Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush.

When you actually break the numbers down, it gets even better. Fully 45 of the 94 allegations refer to the moment of arrest or detention: 20 are claims of "physical abuse" (which means a prisoner got roughed up during capture, which is hardly surprising, considering how many resisted such capture), the rest claims of "theft or other crimes;" both such types of claim are routinely made in a huge percentage of arrests by civilian cops of ordinary criminals, and without some evidence of extraordinary abuse (not just some prisoner saying "he shoved me!"), these are not to be taken seriously. Unless you want to make it illegal for police officers to arrest anyone, anywhere, for anything.

Finally, here is the part that truly vindicates Bush and Rumsfeld. The most serious charges -- and the most despicable behavior by the Democrats, as such charges were routinely made without any evidence and without any consideration of how such reckless charges would affect the war effort -- were that we routinely "tortured" prisoners during interrogations in order to gain intelligence. The word "torture" was explicitly used scores of times, as a simple Lexis/Nexus search would show.

Yet the total number of ALLEGATIONS of abuse during or related to interrogations was... eight.

Eight total cases where there was even an allegation of prisoner abuse related to interrogation. And certainly Abu Ghraib would account for all or nearly all of these allegations.

This lays to rest the only serious charge in the entire scandal: clearly, we were NOT using torture or even abuse, either routinely or even commonly, to extract intel from prisoners. All but eight allegations of abuse (out of 50,000 prisoners, 0.016%) were, in fact, soldiers using more force to arrest a prisoner than the prisoner himself thought was necessary, or a prisoner claiming that the thousand-dollar wad of bills that he had in his back pocket was missing when he got to prison (yeah, right).

...Bush is on very solid ground on this one if he just stands up for his guys. I don't think too many Americans will be upset that some al-Qaeda killer in Iraq got a black eye during his capture.  Tuesday, July 27, 2004

I'm listening to Jimmy Carter excoriate George Bush at the Democratic convention in the same terms he excoriated Gerald Ford in the 1976 campaign. But for the fact that Carter is slurring his speech and slobbering like he's a stroke victim, I'm feeling 30 years younger. What are Carter's credentials to render judgment on the foreign policy of the Bush administration?

Those of us who lived as adults through the four years of the Carter administration may find Carter's credentials a little wanting, inversely proportionate to his presumption. We recall how Carter proudly announced that the United States had overcome its "inordinate fear of Communism," famously planted a kiss on the cheek of Leonid Brezhnev, and then reacted with shock when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.

We also recall how followers of Ayatollah Khomeni took 67 Americans hostage at the American embassy in Tehran. Over the succeeding 444 days, Carter tried idle threats, vain pleas, and ineffectual military action to resolve the hostage crisis. Only the landslide election and subsequent inauguration of Ronald Reagan ultimately freed the hostages and ended the protracted national humiliation.

Henry Kissinger observed that the Carter administration had managed the extraordinary feat of having achieved, at one and the same time, "the worst relations with our allies, the worst relations with our adversaries, and the most serious upheavals in the developing world since the end of the Second World War."

These are the preeminent foreign policy credentials that Carter brings to his assessment of the Bush administration. With these credentials, a reasonable person would conclude that discretion is the better part of valor and bite his tongue. Carter, however, seems to believe that the failed foreign policy of his administration should serve as a benchmark against which to judge the foreign policy of succeeding administrations.

Here is Paul Greenberg's recap of the Carter years:

The country got used to being held hostage, and to Jimmy Carter's explaining, night after night, in that maddeningly oh-so-reasonable way, that there was really nothing to be done. Defeatism personified, he addressed catastrophe in the calmest way, in the voice of a man who found disaster routine. He kept explaining the need to appreciate the complexity of international affairs, by which he seemed to mean that America's function in the world was to get kicked around -- by whatever bunch of bearded megalomaniacs chose to kidnap our people next.

At home and abroad, Jimmy Carter had to be the most incompetent president of the latter half of the 20th Century; the competition isn't even close. But even his incompetence might have been bearable if he hadn't also been such a bore. That interminably whiny voice, that picture of an American president huddling before a White House fireplace in a sweater, shivering before the might of the oil sheiks, delivering pious little lectures about the wisdom of impotence in foreign affairs...it went on for four years that seemed more like four eternities.

Well, yes. The true epitaph of the Carter administration belongs to the anonymous typesetter at the Boston Globe who put in a dummy headline that mistakenly made its way into print over a Globe editorial on a typically flaccid Carter speech: "More mush from the wimp."

Part of Andrew Sullivan's claim that John Kerry is the real conservative in this year's race is based on the notion that Kerry is advocating a "return to normalcy." For example (as Sullivan describes this platform) "we should stop referring to a 'war' on terror, and return to pre-9/11 notions of terrorism as a discrete phenomenon best dealt with by police work in coordination with our democratic allies." Sullivan is correct, I think, in characterizing Kerry's true feelings about how to deal with terrorism. It's a stretch, though, to call this a conservative position. Was it conservative for Jimmy Carter to tell us to get over our inordinate fear of Communism? But, labels aside, the real question is (as John Edwards once wondered), how can anyone actually favor returning to the pre-9/11 mentality?

But Sullivan isn't the only one who yearns for "normalcy." Mickey Kaus and Peggy Noonan made similar noises recently. Yet how abnormal is our current life. We have handily won two wars (toppling two of the worst regimes in recent memory and liberating millions of people) at a cost of about 1,000 American lives. Our economy is booming. Except at airports, day-to-day life in America is almost indistinguishable from what it was before 9/11. In fact, some criticize President Bush for not calling upon Americans to make enough sacrifices (i.e. paying more taxes). Sure, most of us feel more stress than we did before 9/11, but the source of the stress is the threat posed by terrorism, not the fight against it.

Now, if you oppose the war in Afghanistan or Iraq, then the these conflicts represent an unacceptable breach of the peace. But otherwise, after less than three years, war-on-terrorism fatigue makes sense only if the Islamofascists are correct in their view that America lacks the will to wage effective war against them.

David M has found that 92 percent of those individuals employed by Ivy League schools who have contributed $200 or more to John Kerry or George Bush made the contribution to Kerry. The Dartmouth faculty and staff led to way, with 97 percent (30 out of 31) of their contributions going to Kerry. The suspicion that such was the case helps explain why, these days, zero percent of my contributions go to my alma mater.  Monday, July 26, 2004 

www.powerlineblog.com

*

HOLBERT DRAWS THE DNC

Tuesday, July 27, 2004

Monday, July 26, 2004

www.news.bostonherald.com/holbert

*

AN ISLAMIC BLESSING FOR THE DNC

Rant Wraith has googled up some interesting info about Imam Yahya Hendi, the Georgetown University Muslim chaplain who will give tonight’s closing benediction at the Democratic National Convention.

The Imam is a Ph.D. candidate in Islamic Theology at American Open University in Falls Church, Virginia, whose web site is mostly in Arabic.

But here’s a site in English, containing American Open University’s curriculum from the year 2000, which was used to teach Islamic students in Fresno, California: Fundamentals of Iman and Tauhid.

And here’s what they were teaching, one year before September 11, in a course titled: Secularism is Shirk in Allah’s Lordship & Deityship.

Whoever calls the people (and/or himself) to the following and obedience of another law other than the shari’a is a disbeliever and a mushrik.

The scholars of Usool-ul-Fiqh have all agreed on the axiom that “None has the right to legislate but Allah.” Don’t be fooled by their discussion of whether the intellect can arrive independently at the ruling in an issue. What they are talking about is the intellect - through training and other knowledge of the shari’a and its sources and ways - DISCOVERING or “uncovering” the eternal ruling of Allah in an issue, NOT legislating independently of Allah Most High.

Clearly secularism - which includes the rejection of the primacy of the shari’a as the ultimate source of law and which claims the right to leglislate independently of Allah general legislation which define obligation, prohibition, choice or relational rulings at odds with the order of Allah and His Prophet (sas) - is a rejection of the Lordship and the Deityship of Allah Most High. It is one of the actions of shirk akbar (greater polytheism) without doubt. There can be no distinction between the one who questions Allah’s oneness in His creation and the one who questions Allah’s oneness in His order. Both are taghoot, mushrik and in a state of rebellion against the worship of Allah Most High.

The tauhid of Allah in His Lordship is not complete with the mere acceptance of his creation and his decree. Rather, it must also include His oneness in legislating, judgeing and commanding and the acceptance of the guidance and laws brought from Him by Muhammad (sas). Detracting from Allah’s oneness in legislation is no different from detracting from His oneness in creation and omnipotence. The One who commanded us to accept His decree and omnipotence in all things is the same one who commanded us to refer and defer to His shari’a in all legal matters. He is the One who said: There is no sovereignty except Allah’s. He commands you not to worship any but Him. (Yusuf: 40)

Keep this in mind as you watch the Imam’s closing benediction tonight, which will no doubt contain soothing words for the willfully blind.

DNC MELTDOWN: DAY TWO

Here’s tonight’s topic for discussion of the ongoing demonstration of Democratic Party principles in Boston. Featured speakers tonight are Teresa “Shove It!” Heinz Kerry and Howard “Eeyaarrghh!” Dean, with a closing benediction performed by Imam Yahya Hendi, the Muslim chaplain at Georgetown University.

Has anyone heard any mention of “Al Qaeda” or “Islamic terrorism?” (I know, the latter is expecting a bit much.) I’ve been listening but I guess I keep missing the part where they talk about the defining issues of our day. Maybe it’s because I keep falling asleep during the lame musical interludes.

There’s a gigantic elephant standing in the middle of Fleet Center, wearing a burqa, and nobody seems to see it.

If you aren’t near a TV, you can watch over the web at C-SPAN.

THE ENEMY WITHIN

As the Presidential elections approach, the United States is in great danger. Statements from Al Qaeda leaders gloat over their success in influencing Spain and the Philippines, through proven methods of mass murder and extortion. Islamic groups promise attacks daily against the United States and all European countries that support us. This may be the most perilous time since September 11.

So what do far-left “civil rights” groups do?

They sue to stop transportation companies from randomly screening passengers’ bags: Groups Sue to Stop Bag Searches in Boston.

BOSTON - Two civil rights groups filed a lawsuit in federal court to stop the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority from randomly inspecting passengers’ bags, saying it’s an unconstitutional violation of personal privacy.

A judge scheduled an emergency hearing for Tuesday in the case filed by the National Lawyers Guild and the American Anti-Discrimination Committee.

The random inspections began Thursday, just in time for the Democratic National Convention this week at Boston’s FleetCenter. The policy is the first of its kind in the country.

The groups say the searches violate the Fourth Amendment because they don’t require information that the person searched is suspected of criminal activity. They’ve urged customers not to consent to the searches.

“There is no way the MBTA can implement this policy in a constitutional manner,” said National Lawyers Guild national president Michael Avery.

MBTA spokesman Joe Pesaturo said the bags aren’t opened. Instead, they are run through a machine that detects explosives. Pesaturo said so far no one has objected to having their bags inspected.

UPDATE at 7/27/04 3:19:34 pm:

LGF reader Jimmy the Clam points out that the Associated Press oddly failed to print the full name of the group that’s working with the National Lawyers Guild to make Boston vulnerable to attack: the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

MUSLIM CHARITY, CAIR FOUNDER INDICTED

Muslim Charity Charged in U.S. with Funding Hamas.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Texas-based Muslim charity and seven of its directors and fundraisers have been charged with supporting the militant Palestinian group Hamas and with money laundering and conspiracy.

A federal grand jury in Dallas returned the 42 charges against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and the seven men in an indictment unsealed on Tuesday.

“Today, a U.S.-based charity that claims to do good works is charged with funding the works of evil,” Attorney General John Ashcroft told a news conference. “The indictment alleges that the Holy Land Foundation was created for the purpose of providing financial and material support to Hamas,” he said. “It is alleged that over the years, the Holy Land Foundation provided significant financial resources to Hamas, known Hamas leaders and key strategists.”

Holy Land Foundation, which was once the largest U.S.-based Muslim charity, was shut down when the U.S. government seized its assets after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. ...

The indictment accused Holy Land and its members of illegally sending $12.4 million to support Hamas since 1995.

In addition to the charity, the indictment charged Shukri Abu Baker, Mohammad el-Mezain, Ghassan Elashi, Haitham Maghawri, Akram Mishal, Mufid Abdulqader and Abdulraham Odeh.

And none of the newspapers or wire services that have written about this story have ever mentioned that one of these indicted conspirators, Ghassan Elashi, was the founder of the Texas chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations—CAIR.

MOORE GETS PLACE OF HONOR AT DNC

Here’s Michael Moore, sharing the presidential box at the Democratic National Convention with 2002 Idiotarian of the Year, Jimmy Carter:

(Hat tip: Drudge Report.)

ZUNIGA HIDES THE EVIDENCE

Like the craven coward he is, Markos Zuniga, rising young star of the Democrats, has now removed the page at Daily Kos where he wrote “Screw them” about the four Americans torn apart and hung from a bridge in Fallujah. This is the URL, and it now leads to a story about the Democratic Convention. Two days ago, it led to the “Screw them” remark, followed by a chorus of approving backslapping from his sycophants.

Zuniga has also blocked access to his site for the Google cache and the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.

Craven. Coward.

UPDATE at 7/27/04 6:28:11 pm:

Zuniga’s ugly comment is still there on his site, as it turns out; scroll about halfway down this page: Screw them. But notice: click the date link next to his post, that is supposed to bring that comment up as a separate page—and voila! you get the replacement post again. Apparently, Zuniga has specifically installed a redirect for that URL, to prevent people from linking directly to his comment. (Hat tip: True blue.)  Tuesday, July 27, 2004

JUSTICE, PALESTINIAN STYLE

Arafat’s goon squad, the Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, is trying hard to keep a lid on the chaos in the Palestinian Authority by appealing to the populace to remain calm and obey the laws.

Just kidding.

Actually, they’re threatening “revolutionary justice” to anyone they deem “corrupt.”

GAZA (Reuters) - The al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, whose masked gunmen have clashed with Palestinian security forces in Gaza, has vowed in a manifesto to mete out “revolutionary justice” to those it brands corrupt.

The militant group, part of President Yasser Arafat’s Fatah faction, has been involved in the worst internal strife for a decade — turmoil that has stirred fears of civil war.

Militants began distributing the pamphlet titled “Dream of the Martyrs” in Gaza this week, but it was dated July 15, a day before unrest began with a wave of high-profile kidnappings. Black hooded gunmen have also attacked several police posts.

“We will put a conclusive end to those who are outside the organizational, national and moral understanding of our people, removing them from official positions and holding them to account,” the proposal said.

It said it would “implement the law of revolutionary justice against them” without giving further details.  Monday, July 26, 2004

www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog

*

A NEW VISION FOR THE DEMOCRATS

NY Times has an interesting (and LONG) piece on the direction of the Democrat party. This is a small part:

In fact, Rappaport was surprisingly downcast about the party's prospects, which, he said, would not be improved simply by winning back the White House. Though he sat and thought about it, he said he was unable to name a single Democratic leader in the years since Bill Clinton left Washington who he thought was articulating a compelling new direction for the party. "There is a growing realization among people who take very seriously the importance of progressive politics that the Democratic Party has kind of failed to create a vision for the country that is strongly resonant," he said. "And our numbers" -- meaning Democrats as a whole -- "are decreasing. Our political power has been diminishing, and it's become common knowledge that the conservative movement has established a very strong, long-term foundation, whereas we've basically allowed our foundation, if not to crumble, to at least fall into a state of disrepair. So there are a lot of people thinking, What can we do about this?"...

What seems all but certain is that the future of Democratic politics will more closely resemble MoveOn.org than it will resemble anything that happens on the convention floor in Boston. On Memorial Day, I spoke with Harold Ickes, who had been running the Media Fund, a 527 charged with airing anti-Bush ads in the period before this week's convention. ...As we talked about the influence that millionaires and independent groups will have in the years ahead, Ickes sounded more weary than excited, like a man who has accepted change in the family business without entirely embracing it.

"When you go out and talk to them, people are much more interested in something like MoveOn.org than in the Democratic Party," Ickes said. "It has cachet. There is no cachet in the Democratic Party.

"MoveOn raised a million dollars for a bunch of Texas state senators, man," he went on to say. "Plus their bake sale. If they continue with their cachet and really interest people and focus their people on candidates -- boy, that's a lot of leverage. No party can do that. And what the political ramifications of that are -- " Ickes's voice trailed off. He shrugged. "Who knows?"

FOREIGN SUPPORT FOR KERRY

Kerry's support from foreign leaders is popping up all over:

Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat is waiting out the U.S. presidential election in the hopes that George W. Bush will be voted out of office, the head of Israel's military intelligence said.

One cause of the growing turmoil within the PA is a decision by Arafat to "sit and do nothing" until after the U.S. elections, military intelligence chief Maj.-Gen. Aharon Ze'evi told cabinet ministers on Sunday.

"Arafat is now waiting for the month of November in the hope that President Bush will be defeated in the presidential election and turned out of his office," Ze'evi was quoted as saying.

Obviously, Arafat is a part of the "anybody but Bush" crowd. This tells me he is confident that Kerry will better serve his interests (as did Clinton and Carter).

Someone please tell me again why the Jewish vote goes predominately Democrat?  Monday, July 26, 2004

www.slingsnarrows.erudite-absurdity.com

*

VISAS FOR RADICAL MUSLIM CLERICS

By Michelle Malkin

The Holy Land Foundation, the largest Muslim charity in the U.S., and seven of its top officials have been officially indicted for providing financial and material support to the Palestinian militant group, Hamas:

The 42-count indictment, returned by a federal grand jury in Dallas, alleges that the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development provided more than $12.4 million to individuals and organizations linked to Hamas from 1995 to 2001. The U.S. government froze the charity's assets in December 2001.

The indictment names the foundation along with its president, Shukri Abu Baker; chairman, Ghassan Elashi; executive director, Haitham Maghawri; and four others. The charges include conspiracy, providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization, tax evasion and money laundering.

Five of the seven defendants were arrested while two of them, Maghawri and Akram Mishal, are not in the United States and are considered to be fugitives, the attorney general said.

"To those who exploit good hearts to secretly fund violence and murder, this prosecution sends a clear message: There is no distinction between those who carry out terrorist attacks and those who knowingly finance terrorist attacks," Attorney General John Ashcroft said at a news conference to announce charges.

Athena at Terrorism Unveiled has more background on HLF here.
More at Jewish World Review.

So, how did this "charity" set up shop in the U.S.? Four of its workers waltzed through the front door, courtesy of the religious worker visa program. Last February, I wrote about how the program was being exploited by terrorists and other Middle Eastern scam artists:

Call it the Radical Muslim Cleric Importation Plan. Under the religious worker visa ("R visa") program, an unknown number of Middle Easterners claiming to be imams or other mosque employees have been admitted to the United States with minimal scrutiny.

According to a complaint from the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York unsealed last week, Muslim religious leader Muhammed Khalil, his son Asim, and three other individuals submitted false R visa applications on behalf of more than 200 Middle Eastern aliens. Although Khalil and his cronies were nabbed after an 18-month investigation, federal authorities are mum on the whereabouts of the Middle Eastern illegal aliens who purchased fake R visas from Khalil and his colleagues.

The R visa program, created by Congress in 1990, gives visas to thousands of foreigners to fill alleged domestic shortages among ministries, convents, and other religious professionals. In 1998, some 11,000 foreigners received such visas. According to a 1999 General Accounting Office report, federal investigators have discovered R visa fraud rings involving churches and other religious institutions based in Colombia, Fiji and Russia.

The mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman, had an R visa. So did four Palestinian men who worked for the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and the Islamic Association for Palestine -- both Muslim charities that the State Department has linked to the terrorist organization Hamas.

The 1999 GAO report highlighted persistent lapses in oversight. "Neither INS nor (the) State (Department) knows the overall extent of fraud in the religious worker visa program," the report concluded.

They still don't know.

Update: Bill Hobbs notes HLF's Iraqi connection.  Tuesday, July 27, 2004

www.michellemalkin.com

*

SPINNING (IN) THE MASS GRAVES 

www.chrenkoff.blogspot.com