N.Y. TIMES, BROKEN CLOCK: BOTH OCCASIONALLY CORRECT by Ann Coulter

The New York Times has been urgently warning Congressional Republicans to abandon the Iraq War or face ruination in the November elections. Of course, for three years now, the Times has predicted that all world leaders who supported the war would be thrown out of office on their ears.

However embattled they are, I don't think Republicans are at the point of taking advice from the mainstream media, but let's look at the facts.

Four major world leaders who sent troops to Iraq have faced elections since the war's inception — Jose Maria Aznar in Spain, John Howard in Australia, Tony Blair in Britain and Junichiro Koizumi in Japan. Three of them won re-elections in campaigns that centered on their support for the Iraq war.

Only in Spain did voters capitulate to savagery and vote in an al-Qaida-friendly government in response to their trains being bombed the week before the election. Unaware that there is NO CONNECTION between al-Qaida and Iraq, al-Qaida's European spokesman explained that the terrorist attack was intended to punish Spain for supporting the Iraq war. Spanish voters duly complied, making terrorist attacks in the rest of the world more likely. Muchas gracias, Spano-weenies.

But in the three other elections, Iraq war-supporting prime ministers won historic victories. During the run-up to each of these elections, The New York Times described them as referendums on the war and predicted defeat for any leader who had supported war in Iraq. Only when the war-supporting leaders won did the Times change its mind and decide these elections were really about the economy, privatizing the post office, Tony Blair's tie, "The Sopranos" — anything but the war.

In the run-up to Australian Prime Minister Howard's re-election, the Times noted that he had "made the alliance with Washington a key element of his tenure." The Times was hopeful that Australia would be as pathetic as Spain, noting that "with al-Qaida threatening reprisals for the country's support of the United States in Iraq — a war that most Australians opposed — is Australia poised to become the next Spain? Will it become the next country to abandon President Bush?"

On the eve of Howard's re-election bid in October 2004, the Times ran an article titled: "War in Iraq Plays a Role in Elections in Australia," saying Howard's opponents promised to "have the troops home by Christmas."

When Howard walloped the opposition in the election a few days later, becoming only the third prime minister of Australia ever to be elected to a fourth term, the Times headline was: "Australians Re-Elect Howard As Economy Trumps the War."

As Blair approached British elections in April 2005, the Times ran an article titled: "With 10 Days to British Vote, War Emerges as Top Issue." As the Times cheerfully reminded its readers: "The prospect of war drew huge street protests here in early 2003, and in the aftermath Mr. Blair was — and is still is — accused by many people of misleading Britons about the legality and the rationale for the invasion." The war had "damaged Mr. Blair's credibility and left many Britons mistrustful of him."

The Times cited "many Britons" who said "their vote will be swayed by the fact that, while Mr. Blair spoke so forcefully of a threat from Iraqi unconventional weapons, none were ever found."

And then Blair went on to win the election, becoming the first Labor Party candidate to win a third term in the party's 100-year history. It was almost as if "many other Britons" believed in the cause the British military was fighting for in Iraq! The Times took solace in the fact that his margin was lower than in previous elections — "reflecting his unpopularity over the war in Iraq."

One year before elections in Japan, the Times was predicting defeat for Koizumi, a loyal friend to President Bush and an implacable supporter of the war in Iraq.

Reporting on the unpopularity of the Iraq War in Japan, the Times said "polls indicate that the population is against an extension" of Japanese troops serving in Iraq and that the opposition vowed to withdraw troops. Indeed, "some members of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's own party have been calling for the troops' withdrawal."

And then in September 2005, Koizumi's party won a landslide. The Times described this as mainly a victory for the prime minister's idea to privatize the post office, explaining that Koizumi had won "by making postal privatization — an arcane issue little understood by most voters — a litmus test for reform," thus confirming the age-old political truism, "Most elections hinge on arcane, obscure issues voters don't know or care about."

As congressional Republicans decide whether to take the Times' advice and back away from the war this election year, they might reflect on a fourth world leader who won re-election while supporting the Iraq war. Just about four months before Bush was re-elected in 2004, the Times put this on its front page: "President Bush's job approval rating has fallen to the lowest level of his presidency, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. The poll found Americans stiffening their opposition to the Iraq war, worried that the invasion could invite domestic terrorist attacks."

Maybe it was his support for the post office.

COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER

DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

NY State GOP: John Spencer Can Beat Hillary

The embattled New York State Republican Party has finally endorsed former Yonkers Mayor John Spencer's bid to unseat Sen. Hillary Clinton this fall, with party chairman Stephen Minarik saying that Spencer "has earned my support and the support of the whole party."

The New York Times reports:

"The turnaround reflects what a messy political season it has been for New York Republicans: Their two major candidates for the Senate quit last year because of gaffes and a lack of political support, and Mr. Minarik is trying to slow the bleeding by embracing Mr. Spencer, who has strong conservative support."

Spencer has vowed to make both Bill and Hillary Clinton's record on terrorism the focus of his campaign, saying that the Clintons' soft-on-al Qaida approach had encouaged the 9/11 attacks.

"Sept. 11 didn't happen overnight," the Vietnam combat veteran said in December. "There was a build-up to that day throughout the 1990s."


The Yonkers Republican blamed Sen. Clinton for too often siding "with the weak, appeasing side that quite frankly, in my humble opinion, caused us to have the problems we had on Sept. 11."

A Quinnipiac University survey taken before the GOP endorsement found that Mrs. Clinton leads Spencer by a full 30 points. But 81 percent of New York State voters told Quinnipiac that they still haven't heard enough about Spencer to form an opinion about him.

The wild card in the New York race remains the level of White House partcipation. In January Spencer met inside the White House with a top aide to senior Bush political guru Karl Rove.

Within weeks, Rove was quoted as saying that Mrs. Clinton's "brittleness" was her biggest politial liability. Following a similar theme, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman attacked Mrs. Clinton as someone who was too "angry" to have widespead political appeal.

Spencer's only remaining competition in the GOP race, Kathleen Troia McFarland, had been floated by the party's liberal wing as someone who supports abortion rights and who refused to say whether she supported the Iraq war.

But McFarland's camapign rapidly unraveled amidst reports that she had inflated her resume and her claim that Mrs. Clinton had dispatched helicopters to spy on her. Spencer already has the endorsement of New York State Conservative Party chairman Mike Long.


Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Thursday, March 30, 2006 10:11 p.m. EST

The Hillary Illusion by Lowell Ponte

“This bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself,” said Senator Hillary Clinton last week. She was criticizing legislation that would make felons of those who illegally cross America’s borders and their accomplices. “It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scripture.”

A year earlier, however, the junior Senator from New York preached a different sermon.

“I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants,” Ms. Clinton told an interviewer on New York City’s WABC Radio. “Clearly, we have to make some tough decisions as a country, and one of them ought to be coming up with a much better entry-and-exit system so that if we’re going to let people in for the work that otherwise would not be done, let’s have a system that keeps track of them….at least a visa ID, some kind of entry-and-exit ID.…[W]e might have to move towards an ID system even for citizens.”

“People have to stop employing illegal immigrants,” Senator Clinton told the surprised WABC interviewer.

Welcome to the ongoing radical makeover of Hillary Rodham Clinton as she alters her public image in an effort to get elected President in 2008. Presidential politics often exhibit hints of American idolatry, but few candidates have ever gone to Ms. Clinton’s extremes. If one watches carefully, her conjuring tricks can be entertaining.

Her husband Bill Clinton was the first Democrat elected twice to the presidency (albeit by less than a majority of popular votes both times) since Franklin Delano Roosevelt. As his wife and First Lady, Ms. Clinton was part of the backroom planning behind Bill Clinton’s strategy of triangulation. He was a master of appearing to plant one foot on each side of the political spectrum while, with mixed messages and symbolic gestures, seeming to stand above the petty politicians on either side.

Senator Clinton’s shifting positions are part of her attempt to triangulate. But she cannot run in the same way Bill Clinton did because she and her husband are very different. As former Clinton consultant Dick Morris has described this difference, Bill Clinton is a warm Good Ole Boy who wants to win and be loved, and when this requires that he shift or compromise his political positions he readily does so. Hillary, as Morris describes her, is by contrast a cold, ruthless and unempathetic ideologue willing to lie to gain the power to impose her leftwing agenda. New York Times columnist William Safire called her a “congenital liar,” prompting the national joke that her scandal-ridden husband was merely a genital liar.

But Senator Clinton’s run for the presidency is not without advantages. She has raised a mountain of money, an estimated $20 million, $17 million of which is in her Friends of Hillary campaign fund. In doing so, she has systematically drained most of the regular Democratic Party contributors who might have bankrolled rival candidates, leaving many of her would-be opponents an insurmountable mountain to climb.

With this cash Clinton has already recruited and established a legion of campaign operatives. The New York Post this week reported that in addition to her Senate staff of three dozen she has hired 37 other full-time staffers at a cost of nearly $100,000 per month.

She has also siphoned off into her employ many of the veteran consultants, pollsters, media specialists, fundraisers, and other Democratic experts that rivals would need to mount campaigns of their own for the 2008 nomination. One result of this has been an average of almost two press releases every day, a rolling media blitz. Clinton has already sucked the air, media airtime, cash and potential skilled staffers out of her opponents’ campaigns before they could get started.

Ms. Clinton has also used her leverage behind the scenes within the Democratic National Committee and party to front-load the primary season, rescheduling key state contests earlier than before and in a more clustered pattern. This gives dark horse candidates little or no chance to win in early contests and gain traction, raise money or get media attention. It stacks the deck overwhelmingly in favor of the candidate who starts the race with the most cash and name recognition, Hillary Clinton, who by 2008 aims to have $100 million in her campaign coffers.

But Senator Clinton must also overcome several liabilities, and this explains her ongoing radical makeover. She has a hard core of devoted supporters, but polls show that more than 40 percent of likely voters across the nation actively dislike her.

The American tendency is to vote against rather than for candidates, to vote for an imperfect candidate to prevent the victory of a disliked opponent. The ideal candidate, therefore, is someone non-polarizing who is acceptable to many voters but hated by few. Political analysts generally believe that any candidate actively disliked by more than 40 percent of the electorate is doomed because so large a passionately-negative fraction of the electorate is almost impossible to overcome.

This is why some Democratic analysts view a Clinton candidacy with trepidation. She is the poster child of political polarization, likely to raise more money for the Republican standard bearer than she would for herself. She has more passionate foes than passionate friends. She could bring millions of people out on election day just to vote against her, and those voters would then also mark their ballots against other Democrats running on her slippery coattails. She could go down to defeat and drag her party down with her.

Ms. Clinton’s makeover is a gamble intended to do two things, one conventional and the other unconventional.

In conventional presidential politics a candidate is expected to “run to the party’s base” in the primaries and then to the center for the general election. A party’s base is made up of its loyalists, activists and single-cause allies. In the Republican Party most of these are conservatives, in the Democratic Party liberals and leftists. These are the people who for each side can be counted on to ring doorbells, work telephone banks, lick envelopes, contribute time and money, and on election day get out the vote and vote themselves.

But elections, the conventional wisdom holds, are won in the middle of the field between the 40 yard lines. Having secured his or her party’s base, a candidate must then turn and run towards this center ground to win the decisive votes of centrists who do not vote based on partisan loyalty. Hillary would be expected at this stage to be running left to win her party’s base, then after winning the 2008 nomination to run right, i.e., towards the center.

(This is why some cynics say that if you want a politician to move right vote for a leftist, and vice versa. Only a President Richard Nixon with a secure conservative base could have made the diplomatic opening to Communist China. Only a President Bill Clinton with a secure liberal base could have “ended welfare as we know it.” Only an Israeli Prime Minister with hard line credentials such as Menachem Begin or Ariel Sharon could politically survive giving up territory in an effort to gain peace.)

Senator Clinton has certainly worked to secure key bases within the Democratic Party coalition. Her voting record rates close to 100 percent with organized labor, especially government employee unions. Her environmental votes rate in the 85-100 percent correct range according to groups such as the League of Conservation voters. Her Senate voting record on social issues has gone from 95 percent “liberal” in 2003 and 2004 to 100 percent “liberal” in 2005, according to the premier liberal rating group Americans for Democratic Action (ADA).

But Ms. Clinton has also shown some deviations from today’s left. According to the annual analysis of lawmaker votes by the non-partisan National Journal, for instance, Senator Clinton’s rank on economic matters shifted from being the 90th most liberal member on the spectrum of Senators in 2003 to only the 63rd most liberal member in 2004.

As noted in the Journal’s Almanac of American Politics edited by Michael Barone and Richard E. Cohen, during those same years Hillary Clinton’s votes on foreign policy moved her from being the 79th most liberal Senator to only the 58th most liberal. By 2005 she became the 54th most liberal Senator on foreign policy but reversed somewhat on economic policy votes, rising to rank 79th on the list of most liberal Senators.

Contrary to expectations, Senator Clinton was showing signs of moderating her politics – not on social spending, but on issues of business, the economy and foreign policy. During these three years the U.S. Chamber of Commerce moved their rating for her from 35 percent pro-business in 2003 to 50 percent pro-business in 2004 – and then back to 35 percent in 2005.

The challenge for Hillary Clinton is that the usual pattern of running left and then to the center will not solve, and indeed would exacerbate, her main problem with the electorate.

The good news for Clinton is that she already has almost limitless money and name recognition, and therefore has less need of the leftwing Democratic “base” than most candidates.

The typical moderate and conservative American voter already perceives Senator Clinton to be left-of-center and ideological rather than pragmatic in her politics. This is a large part of the visceral negativity so many voters feel towards her.

To counter this perception and calm the emotional antipathy in much of the electorate, Senator Clinton has staked out key areas to demonstrate her moderation. She has co-authored legislation and initiatives with several Republican Senators, among them Senate leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

With conservative Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorium Ms. Clinton co-authored legislation to study the impact of television and the Internet on children, condemning the sexual and violent images kids see in such media as a “silent epidemic” that threatens America’s youth.

Hillary Clinton became one of the leading Democratic Senators speaking out in support of President George W. Bush’s proposals to allocate taxpayer dollars to faith-based initiatives.

“I was lucky,” she told one Boston audience favoring such proposals, “to be raised in a praying family and learned to say my prayers as a very young child.”

This is the same Hillary Clinton who, as First Lady, pressured the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to create a new crime, “Religious Harassment,” for which a manager or employer could be fined and punished merely for wearing a rosary or yarmulke or for having a Bible on his or her desk. It’s the same Hillary Clinton who urged the U.S. Postal Service to stop issuing its traditional Christmastime stamps depicting Jesus and Mary.

Senator Clinton apparently now agrees with Machiavelli that the Prince (or Princess) “must appear to be religious.” [Emphasis added.]

And, to her credit, Senator Clinton voted not only for the use of force in Iraq but also, unlike the 2004 Democratic standard bearer Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, for the $87 billion supplemental to fund the overthrow of Iraqi dictator and mass murderer Saddam Hussein. This vote has not endeared Ms. Clinton to the farthest lunatic fringe of the Left.

“I find Hillary Clinton to be a great disappointment,” said radical actress Susan Sarandon, who soon will portray anti-war protestor Cindy Sheehan in a movie. “She’s lost her progressive following because of her caution and centrist approach. It bothers me when she voted for the war.”

Does this mean Hillary is losing her base? Perhaps in some small measure, but this greatly enhances her chance of winning in 2008.

Americans know Hillary Clinton as the Goldwater Girl from Illinois who got radicalized at Wellesley College, where she wrote her thesis on applying the tactics of radical Saul Alinsky to American politics. We know her as the Yale Law School graduate who clerked in the law office of the lawyers for the Communist Party USA and worked with the Black Panthers. We know her as the First Lady of Arkansas who miraculously parlayed $1,000 into $100,000 in commodity trading in a deal about as honest as the roulette wheel at Rick’s in the movie “Casablanca.”

The best thing that could happen to Hillary would be a Sister Souljah moment like her husband’s, when Bill Clinton denounced the foul-mouthed singer and thereby showed that he was not a sycophant of the African-American constituency of the Democratic Party.

For Hillary this could be her Susan Sarandon moment, using the recent criticisms of Sarandon and leftist columnist Molly Ivins and others to demonstrate that she cannot be a radical leftist because these radical leftists have repudiated her.

Cynics might wonder whether this is part of a pre-arranged strategy. Surely Sarandon, Ivins and their fellow radicals know that their embrace would be the political kiss of death to Hillary Clinton’s presidential ambitions – and that a display, however phony, of them distancing themselves from Hillary might help elect her. Once Hillary is President, these radicals might have been promised, they will be invited to help her shape policy in the Oval Office.

Perhaps Sarandon and her comrades are sincere, but notice that they have not urged their followers to vote for any other specific candidate such as Ralph Nader. Since 1984 even the Communist Party USA has officially directed its members to vote for the Democratic candidate – although neither the CPUSA nor the establishment media call public attention to this. As the 2008 election draws near, Sarandon, Ivins & co. can always declare that the evil of the Republican candidate is simply too much to endure and that all good “Progressives” must hold their noses and vote for Hillary.

On the softer edge of the loony Left, actress Sharon Stone has sought publicity for her latest film by announcing that Hillary Clinton is “too sexy” to run for President in 2008.

“A woman should be past her sexuality when she runs,” said Stone. “Hillary still has sexual power and I don’t think people will accept that. It’s too threatening.”

What a cunning way to suggest that Hillary is attractive, especially when this comes from the woman who was approached in 2003 to play Hillary Clinton in a movie. And especially when this comes from an actress invited by Bill Clinton to join him in Canada at an economic summit meeting in Vancouver, a summit Hillary was not attending. As National Review writer Jonah Goldberg noted in 2000, when liberal singer Barbra Streisand “learned that Sharon visited the President more often than she herself did, she reportedly fumed: ‘What does Sharon Stone know about policy?’”

The singer Madonna, whose life in some ways parallels Hillary Clinton’s, has urged Senator Clinton to run for President. So, too, have assorted Hollywood types. And all can in their own ways help with Ms. Clinton’s radical makeover.

Get ready for more professions of faith and references to Jesus from Senator Clinton, predicted veteran pollster Scott Rasmussen in 2005. And do not be surprised, as San Francisco satirist Jeremy Robb foresaw, if you read that “Hillary will soon buy a handgun, speak out against infidelity, curb affirmative action, attend a NASCAR event, smoke a cigar in public, and vote in favor of Bush’s same-sex marriage constitutional amendment.”


The path to the presidency is seldom straight.

FrontPageMagazine.com | March 30, 2006

State GOP chief endorses Spencer to challenge Clinton

Former Yonkers Mayor John Spencer's bid for the Republican nomination to challenge Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton this year was endorsed today by state G-O-P Chairman Stephen Minarik.

Minarik tells The Associated Press -- quote -- "I think he'll provide an excellent challenge to Hillary Clinton."

While the endorsement was expected, it marks the biggest coup to date for the conservative former mayor. He earlier picked up support of the state Conservative Party's leadership.

Spencer is battling a newly minted challenger for the G-O-P nomination, former Reagan-era Pentagon official Kathleen Troia "K-T" McFarland.

The Republican nomination is also being sought by a tax attorney from Sullivan County, William Brenner.

Polls have shown Clinton far ahead of challengers in her bid for a second Senate term.

Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

American Dreams, Foreign Flags, by Linday Chavez

HUNDREDS of thousands of flag-waving demonstrators took to the streets in Denver, Los Angeles, Phoenix and dozens of other cities in the last week to protest harsh legislation passed by the House that would make felons of the 12 million illegal aliens living in the United States — along with anyone who provides them with shelter, food or other services. It didn't take long for a bipartisan majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee to get the message and take a softer tack.

On Monday, four Republicans joined all eight committee Democrats to vote down the controversial penalties. Their proposal also calls for admitting more legal immigrants and temporary workers, allowing illegal aliens already in the country to remain here and earn citizenship if they pay a fine, learn English and study American civics.

The Senate bill has a long way to go before becoming law, however. Despite their victory in this round, supporters of comprehensive immigration reform must be careful in their tactics, including what symbols they embrace. Although American flags were widely visible among the crowd of a half-million in downtown Los Angeles (organizers had asked marchers to bring them), reports indicated that they were outnumbered by those of Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador and other countries. And if history is any guide, those foreign banners could spur an anti-immigrant reaction.

That's what happened in 1994, when 70,000 people marched in Los Angeles, many waving Mexican flags, to show their distaste for Proposition 187, a California ballot initiative that denied social services to illegal aliens and their children. Initially favored by more than 70 percent of voters, the measure was losing steam as the election approached, with a poll a week before the election showing it ahead by only 1 point. But that sea of green, white and red Mexican flags flooding the streets just before the election signaled to many Californians that those demanding equal treatment were more attached to their native country than to the United States. The proposition scored a surprisingly strong 59 percent of the vote, although the courts eventually declared it unconstitutional.

Similar dynamics are playing out today. For all the talk of national security and the economic costs of immigration, the underlying issue driving the current anti-immigrant frenzy is a deep suspicion that this latest group of newcomers won't do what others have before them did: learn English and embrace American identity.

Unfortunately, many Latino leaders play right into the hands of those who claim they are different from the Germans, Italians, Poles, Jews, Irish and others who came here in another era. With shouts of "Sí, se puede!" (Yes, we can!) — an old United Farm Workers rallying cry — and signs announcing "We didn't cross the border, the border crossed us," the demonstrators are likely to turn off more Americans than they win over. And the sight of thousands of angry Hispanic students from California to Virginia pouring out of schools to join protest marches will only reinforce stereotypes that Latinos care little about education.

Instead of presenting themselves as an aggrieved, foreign presence, immigration advocates ought to be explaining how similar Latinos are to other Americans in their values, aspirations and achievements. It's an easy case to make.

Mexican-born men, for example, are more likely to be in the labor force than any other racial or ethnic group, according to the Census Bureau. Nearly half of Latino immigrants own their own homes. While most immigrants from Latin America, especially Mexico and Central America, lag in educational attainment, their children are far more likely to stay in school: according to research by the Pew Hispanic Center, 80 percent of second-generation Latinos graduate from high school. Almost half of second-generation Latinos ages 25 to 44 have attended college, and those who graduate earn more on average than non-Hispanic white workers.

Latino immigrants are also starting their own businesses at a rapid pace. The Census Bureau reported that entrepreneurship among Latinos is increasing at a rate three times faster than that of other Americans. Americans of Hispanic descent now own 1.6 million businesses generating $222 billion annually; and while Census data didn't distinguish between immigrants and American-born Hispanics, it suggested that much of this growth occurred in heavily immigrant communities.

Like every generation of immigrants before them, Latinos start out on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder, but they don't stay there. They are learning English as quickly as their predecessors, perhaps more quickly thanks to television (a majority of third-generation Latinos speak only English). They are intermarrying at faster rates than earlier ethnic groups, too, with about one-third of married American-born Latinos having a non-Hispanic spouse.

These facts, if they were more widely known, would go a long way to calming fears about Latino immigration. If Latino advocates hope to influence the outcome of the Senate debate on immigration over the next two weeks, they would do well to spread the word — and trade their ancestral flags for the Stars and Stripes.

Linda Chavez, chairman of the Center for Equal Opportunity in Sterling, Va., was the director of the United States Commission on Civil Rights under President Ronald Reagan.

Pro-War Iraq vet jumps into 9th Dist. congressional race

An Iraq war veteran who says the U.S. should stay the course in the Middle East announced yesterday he is running for Congress against Rep. Steve Rothman (D-9th Dist.), who has called for a rapid withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.

Vince Micco, 34, is a reservist who served in Iraq for a year. He is seeking the Republican nomination in the heavily Democratic 9th District, which includes parts of Bergen, Passaic and Hudson counties.

"I'm an Iraq war veteran, and it really bothers me the way the war is being portrayed by the president's critics," said Micco, a former Army sergeant who was a counterintelligence specialist in Iraq and an Army reservist for nine years. "I am running because the American people can and should be proud of what we're accomplishing in Iraq and throughout the Middle East."

A mortgage banker who lives in Rutherford, Micco has been active in local Republican politics for years and served two terms as head of the Bergen County Young Republicans. He said he decided to run after Rothman called for a quick pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq. The Bergen County Republican Organization has endorsed him.

Rothman, who voted in favor of the Iraq invasion three years ago, said last month he regretted that vote because intelligence reports that Saddam Hussein posed an "imminent" threat to the United States proved to be wrong. He said the U.S. should begin withdrawing its troops from Iraq "in an orderly and rapid manner."

Speaking from Washington, D.C., yesterday, Rothman said that while he respects Micco for serving his country, he disagrees with him about the war.

"He supports President Bush's policy of staying the course for a number of additional years in Iraq, exposing our servicemen and women to death and grievous injury and further deepening our financial problems here at home," Rothman said.


Wednesday, March 29, 2006
STAFF AND WIRE REPORTS
© 2006 The Star Ledger
© 2006 NJ.com All Rights Reserved.

WSJ: What if We Lose? The consequences of U.S. defeat in Iraq

The third anniversary of U.S. military action to liberate Iraq has brought with it a relentless stream of media and political pessimism that is unwarranted by the facts and threatens to become a self-fulfilling prophesy if it goes unchallenged.

Yes, sectarian tensions are running high and the politicians of Iraq's newly elected parliament are taking a long time forming a government. But the attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra several weeks back has not provoked the spiral into "civil war" that so many keep predicting. U.S. casualties are down over the past month, in part because Iraqi security forces are performing better all the time.

More fundamentally, the coalition remains solidly allied with the majority of Iraqis who want neither Saddam's Hussein's return nor the country's descent into a Taliban-like hellhole. There is no widespread agitation for U.S. troops to depart, and if anything the Iraqi fear is that we'll leave too soon.

Yet there's no denying the polls showing that most Americans are increasingly weary of the daily news of car bombs and Iraqi squabbling and are wishing it would all just go away. Their pessimism is fed by elites who should know better but can't restrain their domestic political calculations long enough to consider the damage that would accompany U.S. failure. A conventional military defeat is inconceivable in Iraq, but a premature U.S. withdrawal is becoming all too possible.

With that in mind, it's worth thinking through what would happen if the U.S. does fail in Iraq. By fail, we mean cut and run before giving Iraqis the time and support to establish a stable, democratic government that can stand on its own. Beyond almost certain chaos in Iraq, here are some other likely consequences:

• The U.S. would lose all credibility on weapons proliferation. One doesn't have to be a dreamy-eyed optimist about democracy to recognize that toppling Saddam Hussein was a milestone in slowing the spread of WMD. Watching the Saddam example, Libya's Moammar Gadhafi decided he didn't want to be next. Gadhafi's "voluntary" disarmament in turn helped uncover the nuclear network run by Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan and Iran's two decades of deception.

Now Iran is dangerously close to acquiring nuclear weapons, a prospect that might yet be headed off by the use or threat of force. But if the U.S. retreats from Iraq, Iran's mullahs will know that we have no stomach to confront them and coercive diplomacy will have no credibility. An Iranian bomb, in turn, would inspire nuclear efforts in other Mideast countries and around the world.

• Broader Mideast instability. No one should underestimate America's deterrent effect in that unstable region, a benefit that would vanish if we left Iraq precipitously. Iran would feel free to begin unfettered meddling in southern Iraq with the aim of helping young radicals like Moqtada al-Sadr overwhelm moderate clerics like the Grand Ayatollah Sistani.

Syria would feel free to return to its predations in Lebanon and to unleash Hezbollah on Israel. Even allies like Turkey might feel compelled to take unilateral, albeit counterproductive steps, such as intervening in northern Iraq to protect their interests. Every country in the Middle East would make its own new calculation of how much it could afford to support U.S. interests. Some would make their own private deals with al Qaeda, or at a minimum stop aiding us in our pursuit of Islamists.

• We would lose all credibility with Muslim reformers. The Mideast is now undergoing a political evolution in which the clear majority, even if skeptical of U.S. motives, agrees with the goal of more democracy and accountable government. They have watched as millions of Iraqis have literally risked their lives to vote and otherwise support the project. Having seen those Iraqis later betrayed, other would-be reformers would not gamble their futures on American support. Nothing could be worse in the battle for Muslim "hearts and minds" than to betray our most natural allies.

• We would invite more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Osama bin Laden said many times that he saw the weak U.S. response to Somalia and the Khobar Towers and USS Cole bombings as evidence that we lacked the will for a long fight. The forceful response after 9/11 taught al Qaeda otherwise, but a retreat in Iraq would revive that reputation for American weakness. While Western liberals may deny any connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, bin Laden and the rest of the Arab world see it clearly and would advertise a U.S. withdrawal as his victory. Far from leaving us alone, bin Laden would be more emboldened to strike the U.S. homeland with a goal of driving the U.S. entirely out of the Mideast.

We could go on, but our point is that far more is at stake in Iraq than President Bush's approval rating or the influence of this or that foreign-policy faction. U.S. credibility and safety are at risk in the most direct way imaginable, far more than they were in Vietnam. In that fight, we could establish a new anti-Communist perimeter elsewhere in Southeast Asia. The poison of radical Islam will spread far and wide across borders if it can make even a plausible claim to being on the ascendancy, and nothing would show that more than the retreat of America from Iraq.

We still believe victory in Iraq is possible, indeed likely, notwithstanding its costs and difficulties. But the desire among so many of our political elites to repudiate Mr. Bush and his foreign policy is creating a dangerous public pessimism that could yet lead to defeat--a defeat whose price would be paid by all Americans, and for years to come.



Wednesday, March 22, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
OpinionJournal.com

Hillary Clinton vows to block bill criminalizing illegal immigrants

Invoking Biblical themes, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton joined immigration advocates Wednesday to vow and block legislation seeking to criminalize undocumented immigrants.

Clinton, a potential 2008 presidential candidate and relative latecomer to the immigration debate, made her remarks as the Senate prepares to take up the matter next week.

Clinton renewed her pledge to oppose a bill passed in December by the House that would make unlawful presence in the United States _ currently a civil offense _ a felony. The Senate is set to consider a version of that legislation, as well as several other bills seeking to address the seemingly intractable issue of immigration reform.

Surrounded by a multicultural coalition of New York immigration advocates, Clinton blasted the House bill as "mean-spirited" and said it flew in the face of Republicans' stated support for faith and values.

"It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures," Clinton said, "because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself."

Clinton did not specifically endorse any competing legislation, including a bill co-authored by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and another by Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), saying she hoped the Senate Judiciary Committee would produce a compromise incorporating the best elements of all the bills and would remove the harsh penalties contained in the House measure.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has said the Senate will take up his proposal to tighten borders and punish employers who hire illegal immigrants if the Judiciary Committee doesn't complete a broader bill by next week.

Among other things, Clinton said she would support legislation that would strengthen U.S. borders, boost technology to secure the borders, and seek greater cross-border cooperation with Mexico and other neighboring countries.

She also called for new enforcement laws, including penalties for employers who exploit illegal immigrants, as well as a system to allow the roughly 11 million illegal immigrants currently living in the United States to earn their citizenship.

Clinton expressed sympathy to representatives of communities along the U.S.-Mexico border that are frustrated by the stress of providing social services to large numbers of undocumented immigrants. But she also said she hoped to send a message that supporters of punitive immigration policy faced significant political risk for doing so.

"We want the outcome to be that they're on the wrong side of the politics as well as the wrong side of history and American values," she said.

President Bush has argued for a guest worker program that would allow undocumented immigrants already in the United States to keep their jobs for up to six years. The effort hasn't gained much momentum, partly due to fierce resistance from others within the GOP.


Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.




By BETH FOUHY
AP Political Writer

March 22, 2006, 2:51 PM EST

Bin Laden Sought 'Joint Operations' With Saddam

An Iraqi intelligence document released last week indicates that Osama bin Laden sought to conduct "joint operations" with Saddam Hussein's regime six years before the 9/11 attacks - and was given the green light by the Iraqi dictator.

The document, detailed in the March 27 issue of the Weekly Standard, describes a Feb. 1995 meeting between bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence that was personally approved by "the Honorable Presidency" - an apparent reference to Saddam.

"We discussed with [bin Laden] his organization. He requested the broadcast of the speeches of Sheikh Sulayman al-Uda [who has influence within Saudi Arabia and outside due to being a well known religious and influential personality] and to designate a program for them through the broadcast directed inside Iraq, and to perform joint operations against the foreign forces in the land of Hijaz [Saudi Arabia]."

The document goes on to note that "the Honorable Presidency was informed of the details of the meeting in our letter 370 on March 4, 1995."


The document indicates that Saddam personally granted bin Laden's request for help with propaganda broadcasts and instructed his agents "to develop the relationship [with bin Laden] and the cooperation between the two sides to see what other doors of cooperation and agreement open up."

The 1997 Iraqi intelligence document goes on to report: "Currently we are working to invigorate this relationship through a new channel in light of his present location [Afghanistan]."

The reference by Iraqi intelligence to "joint operations" with bin Laden apparently contradicts one of the 9/11 Commission's most important findings that Saddam had no "operational relationship" with al Qaeda.

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Monday, March 20, 2006 12:18 a.m. EST
Bin Laden Sought 'Joint Operations' With Saddam

NFL Vet Graduates Marine Corps Boot Camp

A former college teammate of Pat Tillman is following in his footsteps, leaving a career in professional football to join the military.

Pfc. Jeremy Staat, a former defensive lineman who played for the Pittsburgh Steelers and the St. Louis Rams, graduated from the San Diego Marine Corps Recruit Depot on Friday.

Enlisting "is probably one of the best decisions I've made in my life," Staat, 29, told The Associated Press after the ceremony.

Tillman, who played defensive back for the Arizona Cardinals, was killed by friendly fire near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border in April 2004. The Defense Department is investigating allegations of a cover-up, including the Army's failure to tell Tillman's family for several weeks that he had been killed by gunfire from his fellow Army Rangers, not by enemy fire as they initially were told.


Staat said he was felt compelled to join the military after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks but Tillman, who was his roommate at Arizona State, advised him to stay with professional football until he qualified for retirement benefits.

"He told me, 'You're a good player, you need to get good play.' Then four months later, at his wedding, I learn he's going to the Army," Staat said. "I joked to him, 'You stole my idea,' and he said it had been in the process for a while."

Tillman's death gave him "more motivation" to enlist, Staat said. "I should have been there for him."

Tillman gave up a $1.2 million NFL contract to join the Army Rangers.

Staat played for the Steelers from 1998 to 2000, and played two games with the Rams in 2003. He was playing for the Los Angeles Avengers of the Arena Football League before being put on the league's suspended list.

"I never felt right about making the money I was making," he said. "We pay millions of dollars to professional athletes and entertainers, yet we pay military service people pennies to a dollar, and they're the ones risking their lives."

To enlist, the 6-foot-5 player said he dropped from 310 to 260 pounds. He said three months of boot camp training gave him a deeper appreciation for team camaraderie.

"It's about looking out for your fellow soldier, and being ready to take a bullet for someone," he said.

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.




By DAISY NGUYEN
Associated Press Writer



SAN DIEGO (AP) --

Report: US Military Recruiters Very Selective

Uncle Sam wants YOU, that famous Army recruiting poster says. But does he really? Not if you're a Ritalin-taking, overweight, Generation Y couch potato - or some combination of the above.

As for that fashionable "body art" that the military still calls a tattoo, having one is grounds for rejection, too.

With U.S. casualties rising in wars overseas and more opportunities in the civilian work force from an improved U.S. economy, many young people are shunning a career in the armed forces. But recruiting is still a two-way street - and the military, too, doesn't want most people in this prime recruiting age group of 17 to 24.

Of some 32 million Americans now in this group, the Army deems the vast majority too obese, too uneducated, too flawed in some way, according to its estimates for the current budget year.

"As you look at overall population and you start factoring out people, many are not eligible in the first place to apply," said Doug Smith, spokesman for the Army Recruiting Command.

Some experts are skeptical.

Previous Defense Department studies have found that 75 percent of young people are ineligible for military service, noted Charles Moskos of Northwestern University. While the professor emeritus who specializes in military sociology says it is "a baloney number," he acknowledges he has no figures to counter it.

"Recruiters are looking for reasons other than themselves," said David R. Segal, director of the Center for Research on Military Organization at the University of Maryland. "So they blame the pool."

The military's figures are estimates, based partly on census numbers. They are part of an elaborate analysis the military does as it struggles each year to compete with colleges and companies for the nation's best and brightest, plan for future needs and maintain diversity.

The Census Bureau estimates that the overall pool of people who would be in the military's prime target age has shrunk as American society ages. There were 1 million fewer 18- to 24-year olds in 2004 than in 2000, the agency says.

The pool shrinks to 13.6 million when only high school graduates and those who score in the upper half on a military service aptitude test are considered. The 30 percent who are high school dropouts are not the top choice of today's professional, all-volunteer and increasingly high-tech military force.

Other factors include:

_the rising rate of obesity; some 30 percent of U.S. adults are now considered obese.

_a decline in physical fitness; one-third of teenagers are now believed to be incapable of passing a treadmill test.

_a near-epidemic rise in the use of Ritalin and other stimulants to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Potential recruits are ineligible for military service if they have taken such a drug in the previous year.

Doctors prescribe these drugs to about 2 million children and 1 million adults a month, according to a federal survey. Many more are believed to be using such stimulants recreationally and to stay awake longer to boost academic and physical performance.

Other potential recruits are rejected because they have criminal histories and too many dependents. Subtract 4.4 million from the pool for these people and for the overweight.

Others can be rejected for medical problems, from blindness to asthma. The Army estimate has subtracted 2.6 million for this group.

That leaves 4.3 million fully qualified potential recruits and an estimated 2.3 million more who might qualify if given waivers on some of their problems.

The bottom line: a total 6.6 million potential recruits from all men and women in the 32 million-person age group.

In the budget year that ended last September, 15 percent of recruits required a waiver in order to be accepted for active duty services - or about 11,000 people of some 73,000 recruited.

Most waivers were for medical problems. Some were for misdemeanors such as public drunkenness, resisting arrest or misdemeanor assault - prompting criticism that the Army is lowering its standards.

This year the Army is trying to recruit 80,000 people; all the services are recruiting about 180,000.

And about the tattoos: They are not supposed to be on your neck, refer to gang membership, be offensive, or in any way conflict with military standards on integrity, respect and team work. The military is increasingly giving waivers for some types of tattoos, officials said.

---

On the Net:

Defense Department career and aptitude exploration site: http://www.asvabprogram.com
Military Shuns Many of Recruiting Age


Email this Story

Mar 12, 5:08 PM (ET)

By PAULINE JELINEK
sponsored links
Voice Your Opinion - Take today's My Way Poll, featuring a new topic daily.
http://poll.myway.com

Play Free Online Games - Collapse, Bounce Out, Jigsaw, Crossword, Mah Jong and tons more.
http://games.myway.com

Pro-Iranian Anti-War Lunacy

As if we needed more proof that the anti-war movement is opposed not to war but rather to the United States defending herself, I submit to you this new web site: StopWarOnIran.org.
The name alone tells you everything you need to know.

The United States ensuring that a rogue regime does not get the bomb, to the anti-war left, is not even a legitimate military action. Such an undertaking, to these moonbats is considered “war on Iran” implying that the Iranian terror regime is an innocent target.

The first sentence on StopWarOnIran.org’s home page is also quite telling:

“It is with grave concern that we observe the growing threat of a new U.S. war--this time against the people of Iran.”

Let’s unpack that statement.

Nukes in the hands of Iranian Mullahs makes the world exponentially less peaceful. Yet eliminating this grave threat, to the anti-war fanatics, would be “a U.S. war” on “the people of Iran.

How politicians and the media can take such people seriously is astounding.

Eternal Vigilance Society has always been of the belief that the so-called anti-war movement is merely a conglomeration of anti-American groups masquerading as peace protesters. This latest initiative by the blame America crowd serves only to strengthen that conviction and stiffen our resolve to oppose them.

Some Conservatives are losing their nerve on Iraq

In recent weeks prominent conservatives — William F. Buckley, Niall Ferguson, Francis Fukuyama, George Will, to a name only a very few — have, in various ways, suggested that the war in Iraq was either a mistake or unwinnable, or both. The blowing up of the shrine at Samarra, together with subsequent sectarian killings in Baghdad and the failure so far to form an executive branch, were the most recent catalysts that apparently pushed a great number of wearied observers over the edge.

Sometimes such remorse is coupled with louder lamentations about the failed foreign policy of the Bush administration — especially the malevolent influence of neoconservatives and their mania for democracy.

There are many reasons why such pessimism, and indeed depression, is unwarranted — although I concede that very few Americans and still fewer pundits would agree with my own explanations.

Democracy
America is hardly pushing it down anyone’s throat. Only in Afghanistan and Iraq have we used force to dethrone authoritarians and birth constitutional government. That’s pretty much what Ronald Reagan tried in Grenada. George Bush Sr. did the same in Panama, and so did Bill Clinton in the Balkans.

What then is the real difference with this administration’s effort? Taking out the Taliban and Saddam in the Middle East proved to be far more difficult and costly operations than bombing Milosevic from on high, or decapitating the Noriega regime.

So I fear that it is not the principle of occasionally spreading democracy by arms as much as the messiness of the Iraqi war that bothers most. Take away 2,300 American fatalities and envision a stable government in two or three months in Baghdad, and we would hear very few meas magnas culpas.

There is also the larger question of advocacy of democracy in the Middle East itself. We have no plans to invade Syria or Iran, dethrone their autocrats, and birth constitutional governments. The pressures on others to reform are steady and insidious, but still relatively weak — given the fact that Musharraf has the bomb, the Gulf States have the oil, and the Mubarak dynasty has an aggregate $50 billion in American aid.

Moreover, the pathology of the Middle East — whether defined by the increased stature of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, the involvement of authoritarian regimes with terrorists, or vehement anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism — predated American pressure for democratic reform. One could just as easily make the argument that it was the absence of such principled American advocacy — and instead the prevailing realpolitik of the last 50 years — that helped bring us to the crisis of 9/11.

Certainly the scab of the Middle East that was ripped away on September 11 revealed an old and putrid wound of authoritarians paying blackmail to Islamists in an anti-American unholy alliance. Abruptly leaving Lebanon in 1983, not going to Baghdad in 1991, lobbing cruise missiles at Saddam and the Taliban, trading arms for hostages with Iran, Oil-for-Food, no-fly-zones, giving a pass to Saudi Wahhabism, subsidizing Mubarak and Arafat — none of this made for a more stable Middle East or a safe America.

War
There has been a naiveté about the nature of war in the last three years, perhaps explicable by our past abnormal experiences in Grenada, Libya, Panama, Gulf War I, the Balkans, and Afghanistan. Apparently GPS-guided munitions, helicopter gunships, and fast-moving armor had convinced some that the carnage of past conflicts was now thankfully past.

But that optimism was only true if certain premises were to be enshrined as the new American way of war:

One, that war is always to be waged against small countries without many assets such as Panama or Grenada;

Or two, that war is to be conducted largely by air, whether defined by bomber attacks against Khadafy and Milosevic, or cruise missiles sent into Afghanistan and Iraq in the 1990s.

Or three, that war is to be solely punitive. We are to go in, defeat the enemy, and leave the ensuing mess to others, on the premise that we either cannot or should not worry about whether the populace deserved the odious regime we were obliged to end.

In other words, we should renounce the type of more holistic and ideological wars of the past, such as those waged against Italians, Germans, Japanese, Koreans, and Vietnamese, where we not only sought to defeat entire belief systems, but to stay on and craft a stable government in the hopes of stamping out fascism, Nazism, militarism, or Communism.

There is an easy logic to the first three methods of warcraft, but we cannot rule out the occasional need for the tougher fourth option — one that will always involve greater costs and casualties.

For all the tragedy of our fallen in Iraq, if a constitutional government stabilizes in Baghdad, and liberalization follows in the surrounding region, then our losses will not be measured against the far lighter casualties suffered in Panama, Gulf War I, or Grenada, but against the far worse losses of Korea and World War II.

Iraq

There are never good and bad choices in war, but only bad and worse — and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq certainly is a prime example of that dilemma, whether we look at the regime’s internal barbarism or its attacks on four neighbors in a mere decade. We had already fought two prior wars with him — in 1991, and in the 12 years of no-fly zones between 1991 and 2003. Despite conventional wisdom, the verdict is still out on the extent of his connection with terrorists in general and al Qaeda in particular. The painfully slow translation and release of captured tapes and documents, together with a growing anecdotal body of testimony from ex-Baathists, may well suggest things in Iraq were far worse than we thought.

We have not yet experienced a sizable antiwar movement coalescing around Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore. Donald Rumsfeld has not done a Robert McNamara sweaty-brow resignation. And why haven’t at least a few senior generals confessed that this is a hopeless task? Cannot the Congress update something like the old Cooper-Church Amendment — or won’t we at least see a Eugene McCarthy-like candidacy in the next Republican primary, or a bloodbath in 2006 that wipes out a war-stained Republican Congress?

There are various answers, but the chief one, besides our leaders’ belief in the righteousness of the cause and our proximity to success, is that Americans themselves are still unsure about the Iraqi outcome for a variety of reasons.

They are confused about the war’s coverage. They cannot ascertain whether the daily drumbeat of explosions is just the media’s story, and should be set against the silent counter-narrative of three successful elections and a growing Iraqi security force. For all the unease, even the most dubious citizen still thinks the United States may, in fact, win. And had we reported Okinawa minute-by-minute as we do Iraq, we might we have lost that close-run encounter.

The enemy is not idealistic or egalitarian, but clearly pre-modern and fascist. The more we are told that Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror, the more al Qaeda’s methods surface in Iraq and its leadership boasts that it is the new front, after Manhattan and Afghanistan. At least some in this country still believe that victory in Iraq, and the emergence of a viable government there, would have implications far beyond Iraq, inflicting a terrible defeat and humiliation on the Islamists in their own backyard.

Americans are sensitive to charges of imperialism and ruthlessness, but less so to those of misplaced idealism or naiveté. Whatever one believes about Iraq, the facts counter realpolitik and oil diplomacy. Petroleum skyrocketed after the invasion. Oil-for-Food was exposed, along with French and Russian petroleum shenanigans. The loss of life over the last three years must be weighed against the yearly butchery of Saddam Hussein — deaths that were not part of the struggle for a democratic future, but the annual carnage that consolidated a fascistic regime and had no end in sight.

The World Beyond

Things abroad simply are not worse after March 2003. Europe is again growing closer to the United States, in part due to its fright after the French rioting, the Danish cartoons, and murders in the Netherlands. Its multilateral alternative to the United States is in retreat, as we see from the humiliating negotiations with Iran, Hamas, and the Russians.

India and Pakistan are closer to us now than before Iraq. China is China; Japan is a military ally as never before. England and Australia are strategic partners; Canada and New Zealand are similarly beginning to follow a wiser course. The world is catching on to Iran, and the theocracy must subvert the new Iraqi democracy or itself be undermined by the nearby democratic experiment.

There is, of course, heightened anti-Americanism in places, but it is largely confined to specific areas. The Middle East Street resents deeply the humiliation of seeing Muslim leaders so easily dethroned. The European cafés abhor the spread of American popular culture and muscle, and are starting to recoil in shock that the world did not turn out to follow the rules of the Hague or the EU charter. And then there is the trans-Atlantic elite, who, after calling for three decades for a more principled American policy, finally got it in spades — but splattered with all the gore and mess that such radical changes always entail.

The Military

Yet another misconception concerns the U.S. military. Almost all the latest grievances against it have proven to be mostly hype. It is meeting its recruiting goals. In the heart of the ancient caliphate, with great sensitivity and tact, it has trained ten Iraqi divisions, after removing a 30-year old fascistic dictatorship with dispatch. If America’s was already the best equipped and disciplined military in the world, it is now also the most savvy and experienced in precisely the sort of asymmetrical war our pundits worry threaten our future. In all the post facto, self-serving, tell-all books by our ex-intelligence agents and diplomats, it is high-ranking military officers who usually escape censure.

Critics

From the very outset, rightist critics such as those in The American Conservative have told us that it was a hopeless waste of America resources to offer pre-modern people of the Middle East democratic government. Those of The Nation assured us that Iraq was yet another amoral attempt at postmodern imperialism. Fine, you get what you hear and read with both sides — and both, through good and bad news, have remained consistent and principled in their vehement opposition to all that we have done.

But the latest criticism is more troubling, since it often comes from the “my perfect war, your lousy peace” school that, for some reason, never critiques the three-week removal of Saddam Hussein. Instead, it defends its evolving opposition to the war by advancing particular pet theories of reconstruction that were never followed. Rarely do we hear that most postbellum efforts are long, messy, and necessary, much less that the essence of war is lapse and tragedy, with victory going only to those who in the end err the least and endure. Anyone back in the United States can post facto write up a list of what ought to have been done in Iraq amid the heat and fire; but they at least need to factor in the conditions at the time that led the supposedly less bright on the ground not to anticipate their own inspired wisdom from afar.

Especially troubling are those who even before 9/11 demanded that President Clinton or Bush remove Saddam Hussein, but now consider such a move an abject blunder of the first order. Their advocacy helped us get in when there were dubious reasons to go, and their vehement criticism may well get us out when there are now better reasons to stay until Iraq is secure.

So here we are — close to victory abroad, closer to concession at home.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is the author, most recently, of A War Like No Other. How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War.

Poll: New York Doesn't Support Hillary for President

Six in 10 New York voters believe Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is planning to run for president in 2008, but only about a third of her home-state voters say they would back her if she did so, a statewide poll reported Thursday.

Almost half of New York voters, including three of every 10 Democrats, said they would not vote for her for president, according to the poll from Siena College's Research Institute.

The Siena findings mirror those reported by Marist College's Institute for Public Opinion in a January poll that found 59 percent of New York voters said they expect Clinton to run for president, but 62 percent said it was unlikely she could win.

Clinton's prospects are brighter, however, when it comes to how New Yorkers feel about re-electing her this year to another six-year Senate term, according to the Siena poll. Fifty-seven percent of voters said they would vote to re-elect her while 38 percent said they would prefer someone else.

The Siena poll found her leading one possible GOP challenger, former Yonkers Mayor John Spencer, 57 percent to 32 percent. She led the little-known contender, 58 percent to 31 percent, in a January poll from the Albany area-based institute.

Asked whether they had a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Spencer, 77 percent of voters said they didn't know enough about him to decide.

Joseph Caruso, Siena's polling director, did note the former first lady's favorable rating in New York had slipped to 55 percent, down from 60 percent in January.

"Republicans are firming up their opposition to the junior senator and it's starting to show," Caruso said.

In fact, the state of the GOP's challenge to Clinton is in a state of uncertainty.

For instance, the bulk of Siena's polling was conducted before former Pentagon official Kathleen Troia "KT" McFarland announced on Monday she would also seek the GOP Senate nomination. She was not included in the polling.

And, in December, former prosecutor Jeanine Pirro decided to quit the race for the GOP nomination after she failed to raise much money or interest in her campaign despite being endorsed by Republican Gov. George Pataki. The former Westchester County district attorney is now running for state attorney general.

Spencer spokesman Christian Winthrop, noting Clinton's advantage had dropped from a 32-point lead in November to a 25-point margin in the new poll, said: "We're happy at the momentum of the campaign. We suspect that when more light shines on this race, John Spencer will continue to rise and Senator Clinton will continue to fall."

On the presidential front, New Yorkers think more highly of Clinton than they do of Pataki. Thirty-seven percent of New York voters polled said they believed Pataki would run for president in 2008 and just 20 percent, including 30 percent of Republicans, said they would vote for him if he did.

Pataki, recuperating from having his appendix removed last month, announced in July he would not seek a fourth, four-year term this year. He is eyeing a run for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination.

Sixty percent of New York voters, including 67 percent of Republicans, said they believed Clinton would run for the White House while 36 percent — 55 percent of Democrats, but 16 percent of Republicans — said they would vote for her if she made such a run. Forty-eight percent said they would not support a Clinton-for-president effort.

While Clinton leads national polls among potential 2008 Democratic presidential contenders, she has said she is thinking only about her re-election race and not a national race.

If the 2008 presidential candidates happened to be Clinton and Pataki, New York voters would back the former first lady, 49 percent to 36 percent, the poll found.

Siena's telephone poll of 620 registered voters was conducted March 1-7 and has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Originally published on March 9, 2006

ASSOCIATED PRESS

ALBANY, N.Y. —

CLASSIC CLINTONIAN DUPLICITY ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

Hillary Clinton On Illegal Immigration In December 2004:

"I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants."

"Clearly, we have to make some tough decisions as a country, and one of them ought to be coming up with a much better entry-and-exit system so that if we're going to let people in for the work that otherwise would not be done, let's have a system that keeps track of them," she said.

"People have to stop employing illegal immigrants," "I mean, come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau counties, stand on the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx. You're going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work and construction work and domestic work."

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Hillary Clinton On Illegal Immigration In March 2006:

Yesterday Hillary said of a House measure that would make unlawful presence in the United States, which is currently a civil offense, a felony.

"Don't turn your backs on what made this country great."

Clinton called the proposal "an unworkable scheme to try to deport 11 million people, which you have to have a police state to try to do."

The senator also sent a four-page public letter to constituents outlining her views on immigration. In the letter, she shied away from specifics but said she does support allowing at least some of the estimated 11 million undocumented workers to earn citizenship.

Such changes should include "a path to earned citizenship for those who are here, working hard, paying taxes, respecting the law, and willing to meet a high bar for becoming a citizen,".

Newly released documents provide evidence of Iranian collaboration with the Taliban in October of 2001.

Iran secretly agreed to assist the Taliban in its war against U.S. forces in October 2001, according to the transcript of a high-level Taliban official's tribunal session at Guatanamo Bay, Cuba. The seven-page transcript, as well as thousands of pages of similar documents, was released by the Pentagon on March 3 in response to litigation brought by the Associated Press.

The detainee is not named in the transcript released by the Pentagon, but, according to allegations brought by the U.S. government, the detainee was "the governor of Herat Province in Afghanistan from 1999 to 2001." As governor of Herat, which is the westernmost province in Afghanistan and is situated on the Iranian border, he "worked for Mullah Omar" and "had control over police and military functions in Herat to include the administration of the Taliban's two largest divisions." (According to a list of former Taliban officials prepared by the United Nations, the governor of Herat was a man named Maulavi Khair Mohammad Khairkhwah.)

The detainee admitted that he was the governor of Herat, but denied that he worked solely for Mullah Omar or that he oversaw any aspect of the Taliban's military.

Read the Full Article:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/011/939xcmif.asp

EVS Responds to Senate Candidate Who Said Her Bureaucrat Job Was Equivalent To A Three Star General

Dear Mrs. KT McFarland:

As a member of the United States military I find it troubling that in your campaign plan you have compared your position as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs as the civilian equivalent of a Lieutenant General.

While your civilian service to our country is appreciated, equating it along with the ranks of Lieutenant Generals such as Patton, Sherman and Chesty Puller is a little much, don’t you think?

Three star generals typically command Corps-size units, which range anywhere from 20,000 to 45,000 men and women, not to mention the staggering volume of equipment and material to support their operations.

I believe most of my fellow Marines, as well Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen would take offense to having their rank equated to that of a professional in Washington, especially if done for political purposes.
Many of us who wear the uniform of our country would consider any man or woman who served in the armed forces of higher rank than any civilian in the bureaucracy. Writing a speech about Star Wars is not the same as fighting in a war. Therefore, please don’t try to pull rank on John Spencer, a Viet Nam combat veteran.

John Spencer surely was not a Lieutenant General, but his voluntary combat service in Vietnam as a First Lieutenant of infantrymen is to me, an extremely important credential for a Senate candidate particularly during this time of war.

I believe most voters agree with me that John Spencer's combat experience in Vietnam is more relevant to a run against Senator Clinton than your background as a Pentagon speech writer, even if the media does not.

In deference to the rank and the service of the dedicated military professionals who have earned three stars for decades of selfless service to country, please refrain from equating your three years of honorable service as a civilian bureaucrat to that of military stature because this transparent resume puffing is offensive to military personnel past and present.

Respectfully yours,
Kieran Michael Lalor
Founder & Executive Director
Eternal Vigilance Society

EVS: 1 Liberal Law Profs: 0

In December I wrote an op-ed in the New York Post condemning legal academia’s attempt to ban military recruiters from campus as part of a long campaign of anti-military behavior among professors.

The case, FAIR v. Rumsfeld, involves law school faculties suing the Pentagon. The faculties claim that requiring law school’s to allow military recruiter’s on campus or else lose federal funding is unconstitutional.

Today the Supreme Court unanimously sided against the law professors and in favor of the military.

At my Pace Law where I am a student, the faculty voted unanimously to take part in this suit against the Pentagon. Thus, every member of the faculty at Pace Law is (at least on this issue) to the left of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer. A frightening thought considering I still have 2 ½ semesters to go.

Kieran Michael Lalor
Founder & Executive Director

EVS’ December Op-Ed on FAIR v. Rumsfeld
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/58754.htm

Top US General Upbeat on Iraq By Michael Bowman

A gun battle at a Sunni Mosque in Baghdad has left three people dead and several others wounded, while two relatives of a prominent Sunni leader were gunned down in another part of the Iraqi capital. Despite the latest violence in Iraq, America's top military officer gave an upbeat assessment of progress in the country.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace says, while day-to-day violence in Iraq grabs international headlines, a larger picture is emerging that gives hope for the future. The general discussed the Iraqi situation on NBC's Meet the Press program.

"I would not put a great big smiley face on it [the situation is not perfect], but I would say they [trends in Iraq] are going very, very well, whether it be on the political side, where they have had three elections, they have written their own constitution, they are forming their own government," said General Pace. "You look at the military side, where, this time last year, there were just a handful of Iraqi battalions in the field. Now, there are over 100 battalions in the field. No matter where you look at their military, their police, their society, things are much better this year than they were last [year]."

Recent public opinion polls show 60 percent or more of Americans are pessimistic about U.S. efforts in Iraq. General Pace said the news media is not covering Iraq as thoroughly as it once did, and that, as a result, Americans are only hearing about bloodshed and strife.


Congressman John Murtha
But an outspoken critic of President Bush, Democratic Congressman John Murtha, says there is no reason to believe the administration, or the nation's top military commanders, when it comes to Iraq.

"This administration, including this president, has mischaracterized this war for the last two years," said Congressman Murtha. "First of all, they said it will take 40,000 [U.S.] troops to settle this thing [control Iraq] right after the invasion. Then they said there is no insurgency - they [insurgents] are 'dead-enders' [people with no future] is what the secretary of defense said. There were no nuclear weapons there. There were no biological weapons there. There was no al-Qaida connection [to Iraq before the U.S.-led invasion]. So, why would I believe the chairman of the joint chiefs when he says things are going well?"

Murtha, a decorated veteran of the Vietnam war, spoke on CBS' Face the Nation program. He said the United States has become embroiled in a civil war in Iraq, depleting manpower and resources from the broader war on terrorism. He said only Iraqis can quell the violence that grips their nation, and that America's military presence is making the situation worse.


Adnan Pachachi
That view is not shared by former Iraqi Foreign Minister and current parliament member Adnan Pachachi. Speaking on CNN's Late Edition program, the Sunni politician downplayed the possibility of an all-out civil war in Iraq, which some have feared, following an attack on a Shi'ite holy site that sparked reprisals against Sunni Arabs.

"There are a lot of tensions, but no civil war," said Adnan Pachachi. "It is really the armed militias and certain fanatic groups that are really engaged in most of the acts of violence. The idea that all the Shi'as will fight all the Sunnis in Iraq - this is not a possibility at all."

Pachachi stressed the importance of forming a government of national unity as a first step toward improving Iraq's security situation.

Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari is facing growing pressure to step down and abandon his bid for a new term. The prime minister has been accused of not doing enough to prevent violence in the aftermath of last month's bombing of a Shi'ite shrine. Some critics say his departure could boost prospects for forming a new government.



Top US General Upbeat on Iraq
By Michael Bowman
Washington
05 March 2006

Al-Qaida and the Saddam Regime by Michael Barone

The issue is historical now, but still worth exploring. Why, for two distinct groups of Americans, has it become a matter of conviction held with religious intensity that there cannot have been any relationship between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq?

One group consists of Democratic politicians who oppose the Bush administration's policy in Iraq. The Minnesota Democratic Party recently protested as "un-American" an ad showing military veterans and their families supporting the president's policies for saying, "Our enemy in Iraq is al-Qaida -- the same terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans on 9-11, the same terrorists from the first World Trade Center bombing, the USS Cole, Madrid, London and many more."

The Democrats, unfactually, say that these words "make a connection between Iraq and the 9-11 terrorists attacks and suggest that the war in Iraq will prevent an attack by al-Qaida in America." But of course, the ad is factually correct -- al-Qaida is attacking Americans in Iraq -- and the Minnesota Democratic Party is in no position to guarantee that al-Qaida will not attack America.

The other group consists of intelligence and other career government professionals, many of them Arabists. Case in point: Paul Pillar, CIA national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, now retired, writing in the most recent Foreign Affairs magazine. The "greatest discrepancy between the administration's public statements and the intelligence community's judgments concerned not WMD (there was indeed a broad consensus that such programs existed), but the relationship between Saddam and al-Qaida. The enormous attention devoted to this subject did not reflect any judgment by intelligence officials that there was or was likely to be anything like the 'alliance' the administration said existed." But the Senate Intelligence Committee report showed that the CIA did obtain evidence of an al-Qaida-Saddam relationship from foreign intelligence and open sources.

That's not surprising. CIA Director George Tenet in October 2002 told Congress of "growing indications of a relationship with al-Qaida." And of course evidence of contacts between al-Qaida and Saddam's regime went back to the 1990s and were cited, without murmur of dissent, by President Bill Clinton.
So why do these Democrats and these government professionals seem to have such a conviction that there must have been no collaboration between al-Qaida and Saddam? The Democrats fear that more Americans would support Bush and the war effort if they believed there was. The career professionals, with their many years of training in the subtleties of the Middle East, have developed a vested interest in the notion that religious Wahhabis like al-Qaida could never collaborate with a secular tyrant like Saddam. If alliances could be formed across religious lines, what use would all their learning be?

The Minnesota Democrats cite the 9-11 commission's report that it found no evidence of "operational" cooperation between al-Qaida and Iraq, although it did find evidence of many contacts. But, as Donald Rumsfeld likes to say, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Neither al-Qaida nor Saddam operated under a Freedom of Information Act. Any collaboration between them on 9-11 would have been kept very secret -- al-Qaida did not want to leave a return address. We do not know that there was such collaboration. But we also do not know that there was not.

Going back to the days before our military action in Iraq, it would have been irresponsible for any president to have assumed that there was no relationship between al-Qaida and Iraq, given previous contacts between them and their proven hostility to the United States. President Clinton, responsibly, did not assume that, and neither did President Bush. Nor was there any information that intelligence could have been acquired that could have assured us, with 100 percent certainty, that there was no such relationship.

Light on the Saddam regime's collaboration with terrorists will almost certainly be shed by analysis of some 2 million documents captured in Iraq. But, as the intrepid Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard has pointed out, almost none of those documents has been translated or released either to the public or to the congressional intelligence committees. It appears that career professionals and, perhaps, political appointees have been blocking release of these documents.

Why do their superiors not order them released? Many Americans cling with religious intensity to the notion that somehow Saddam had no terrorist ties -- a notion used to delegitimize our war effort. We should bring the truth, or as much of it as is available, out into the open.

March 6, 2006
Al-Qaida and the Saddam Regime
By Michael Barone
Copyright 2006 Creators Syndicate

Hillary Clinton ducks Iraq war at yuppie fundraiser in Chelsea

Last December, former President Bill Clinton headlined a fundraiser for the Senate campaign of his wife, Hillary, at the Chelsea nightclub Crobar.

On Feb. 21 the candidate herself hosted another fundraising event for “young professional” supporters in an evening that was billed “Late Night With Hillary.”

Over 1,000 people jammed the cavernous floor of the Chelsea club, drinking and mingling. Warming up the crowd was hip-hop violinist Miri Ben-Ami, who played three musical pieces on an electric violin, the third of which was a hip-hop-flavored version of “The Star Spangled Banner.”

Security men tried to interrupt Code Pink demonstrators by surrounding them, but the protesters continued to shout “Troops Home Now.”

After this musical introduction, Clinton spoke for eight minutes, touching on issues appropriate to a statewide campaign but more suited to a presidential campaign. Rattling off a list of changes that had occurred since her husband left office, including a ballooning budget deficit, she asked the crowd, how could things have gone so wrong in just five years?

Midway through her speech, six members of the antiwar group Code Pink unfurled banners and began yelling, “Troops Home Now!” Within a minute, they were surrounded by security men, who escorted them out of the building. There were no arrests. During their protest, Clinton didn’t miss a beat, continuing her remarks as though nothing unusual was happening.

After her speech, Clinton patiently walked a rope line in the front of the room, meeting and greeting supporters who had managed to crowd to the front and she gladly posed with supporters for photos.

Following the event, Jenny Heinz, one of the Code Pink protesters, explained the group’s actions. “I think it’s about educating supporters of Hillary,” Heinz said. “It was notable and not surprising that she did not mention Iraq. There’s a total lack of outrage about anything,” she added.

Heinz was also one of the Grandmothers Against the War who was arrested in Times Square last October when they attempted to enter the Armed Forces Recruiting Center to enlist in place of younger men and women. When they found the door locked, the “grannies” sat down in front of the door and were arrested.

By Jefferson Siegel

Lawmaker vows to kill ports deal

The Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee yesterday said he'll push legislation that would not only kill a Dubai-owned company's bid to operate in U.S. ports, but would kick out any foreign-owned company that owns U.S. terminals or other key infrastructure.

The move is in direct opposition to the position of President Bush, who has repeatedly vowed to veto any legislation that blocks DP World's $6.8 billion bid to purchase terminal operations in six major U.S. ports from a British company.

"I think we should kill this deal," said Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican, who plans to introduce a bill next week to do so. "Dubai cannot be trusted."

His bill would require 100 percent inspection of all incoming cargo and would mandate that, over time, all ports and other critical U.S. infrastructure, such as power plants that are owned by foreign entities be sold back to Americans.

Many legislators have concerns with allowing a government in the United Arab Emirates, a country with ties to terror leader Osama bin Laden, to run terminals in U.S. ports. Mr. Hunter said those concerns are justified, noting that in 2003 -- despite U.S. protests -- United Arab Emirates customs officials allowed sixty-six American high-speed electrical switches, used for detonating nuclear weapons, to go to a Pakistani businessman with ties to the Pakistani military.

He also pointed to a report that 70 tons of heavy water, a component of nuclear reactors, were sent from China to India and Argentina via Dubai.

Initial approval of the ports deal two weeks ago by an interagency committee caught the Bush administration and legislators off guard, and it is now under a new 45-day review.
But Mr. Hunter said that once Mr. Bush and congressional leaders learn of the various security incidents, they'll probably agree to block the deal.

Before Mr. Hunter's panel yesterday, Edward H. Bilkey, chief executive officer of DP World, continued to stress that the United Arab Emirates has helped the U.S. fight the war on terror and said he was not aware of the security incidents cited by Mr. Hunter and others.

Company officials said the deal should be completed as soon as next Monday or Tuesday, after Britain's High Court yesterday temporarily approved the takeover of a British shipping company by DP World, despite a last-minute objection by a U.S. company.

Meanwhile, lawmakers from both parties yesterday demanded changes to the interagency panel that approved the deal and others involving foreign companies -- known as the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS).

"The manner in which the Dubai transaction was handled only reinforces this committee's earlier findings that the system is seriously flawed and that corrective measures -- legislative measures -- are required," said Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee Chairman Richard C. Shelby, Alabama Republican, during a hearing on the issue.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060303-122020-2647r.htm

The Clintons on Dubai by Robert Novak

WASHINGTON -- While Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was ripping President Bush's handling of American ports management, Bill Clinton was pushing for one of his favorite White House aides to be hired to defend the deal. The former president proposed to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) his onetime press secretary, Joe Lockhart, as Washington spokesman for the UAE-owned company, Dubai Ports World.

The Lockhart deal was never consummated. But the spectacle of the two Clintons going in opposite directions on the UAE port-management question exposed a Democratic fault line. Widespread public reaction against outsourcing control of the ports was seen by Sen. Clinton and other prominent Democrats as a chance to outflank the Republicans on homeland security in this year's elections. Behind the scenes, however, Democrats aligned with the Clinton family were lobbying for the UAE.

The lineup over the DP World raises questions about how Bill Clinton's free and easy political manner will impact his wife's prospective presidential campaign for 2008. Highly disciplined Hillary Clinton plays politics by the numbers, following a carefully plotted strategy. Her husband's freewheeling, intuitive style was typified when he tried to secure a well-paid assignment for his friend and valued aide, Joe Lockhart, who now heads a Washington-based media firm.

According to well-placed UAE sources, the former president made the suggestion at the very highest level of the oil-rich state. The relationship between him and the UAE is far from casual. The sheikdom has contributed to the Clinton Presidential Library, and brought Clinton to Dubai in 2002 and 2005 for highly paid speeches (reportedly at $300,000 apiece). He was there in 2003 to announce a scholarship program for American students traveling to Dubai.

Certainly, the emirs would pay the closest attention to any request from the former president. Lockhart did confer with DP World officials, but they failed to reach agreement. The UAE sources said that Lockhart's asking price was much too high.

Lockhart did not flatly deny to me that Clinton had made a pitch for him, but instead said he did not know whether the former president was involved. Lockhart said he was recommended by another Clintonite: Carol Browner, the former Environmental Protection Agency chief and now a principal in the Albright Group lobbying firm. Headed by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, the company is representing DP World. Lockhart told me "money was not the problem" as he turned down the offer.

UAE sources, contending that Lockhart priced himself out of the market, asserted there was no question but that Clinton had intervened on his behalf and added it was not possible that Lockhart had not known about his former chief's intervention. When I sought comment from Clinton, his press spokesman, Jay Carson, said: "I don't know for sure, but I don't know him to generate employment even for someone he likes and admires as much as Joe Lockhart."

While Lockhart may have been a bridge too far for DP World, the UAE has reached out to high-priced Washington lobbyists on both sides of the aisle (including Republicans Bob Dole and Vin Weber). Leading the way in putting together the port deal was Jonathan Winer, a leading Democratic lobbyist who spent 10 years as Sen. John Kerry's aide. Winer's associate at the Alston & Bird law firm supporting DP World is Kathryn Marks, who was policy director for then Sen. John Edwards. Former Democratic Rep. Tom Downey, chairman of his own lobbying firm, is also on the Dubai team.

In contrast to Democratic operatives working behind closed doors are Democratic lawmakers attacking the ports deal in the open. Speaking to the Jewish Community Relations Council at Manhattan's 92nd Street YMCA on Sunday, Sen. Clinton went beyond questions of homeland security. She called the Dubai deal "emblematic of a larger problem" of ceding "some of our fiscal sovereignty."

Does that put the Clintons on a collision course? Not exactly. Having failed privately to hook up Lockhart with DP World, the former president publicly turned on his old friends from the UAE last Friday in a speech at Auckland, New Zealand. DP World, he said, "is from UAE, where some of the money from 9/11 was laundered." If Democrats in general are divided publicly and privately on this issue, so is Bill Clinton as an individual.

Copyright 2006 Creators Syndicate
by Robert Novak

Senator Clinton And Her Husband: The Ultimate Hypocrites

According to the Financial Times in London, while Senator Clinton poses as an opponent of the Dubai Ports Deal, former President Clinton is quietly advising the Dubai government how to sell the takeover deal in the United States. Former Yonkers Mayor John Spencer – Senator Clinton's Republican challenger – made the following statement:

"Senator Clinton and her husband are the ultimate hypocrites. She claims to oppose the Ports Deal while he works behind the scenes to pass it. We already knew that former President Clinton took $300,000 from Dubai sources in 2002. How much is he getting now? Senator Clinton should also come clean and tell us when she learned President Clinton was working for the Ports Deal. It's past time New York had a Senator ruled by conscience instead of personal ambition."

Condoleezza Rice: Giving Hillary Clinton a Run for Her Money

Who is the most important black leader in America today? The answer may be changing.

An Associated Press/AOL poll of 600 black adults conducted from January through early February found that 15 percent thought Jesse Jackson was the most important black leader in American today, followed closely by Condoleezza Rice at 11 percent.

In an early February Gallup poll, 56 percent were able to correctly identify Rice as secretary of State. In their 2003 poll, 57 percent correctly identified Colin Powell as having held the same title.

In a Feb. 13-15 WNBC/Marist College poll, 49 percent of registered voters nationally said they would support Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) if the 2008 presidential election were held today, while 44 percent said they’d back Rice if she were on the ballot.

In another question in the same poll, Republican-identified respondents were asked whom they would support if a 2008 Republican presidential primary were held today. Rice tied with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani for the top spot, all at 22 percent--a finding that probably stems from high name recognition for the trio. Two-thirds of Republicans wanted Rice to run, compared to 36 percent of independents and 20 percent of Democrats.

In an early February survey by the Siena Research Institute, 48 percent of the national sample said Rice should run, and 39 percent said she should not.

In the mid-February Diageo/Hotline poll, 52 percent of those surveyed said that the U.S. was ready to elect an African-American president, while in a separate question, 56 percent said the country was ready to elect a woman. The poll didn’t ask about an African-American woman.

Question Wording on Wiretapping. In Harris Interactive’s Feb. 7-14 poll, 52 percent of respondents said they were familiar with the National Security Agency’s wiretapping program, while 47 percent said they were not very familiar or not at all familiar with it.

Nearly seven in 10 of both groups said that President Bush was justified in authorizing the NSA to use wiretaps on U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism without court authorization. Ninety-two percent of Republicans, 50 percent of Democrats, and 70 percent of independents said he was justified.

A Gallup analysis of their polling and that of six other organizations showed the public tilting toward the program but by a smaller margin. The questions Frank Newport of Gallup reviewed did not ask whether the administration was “justified” in its actions, as Harris did, but whether people “approved,” felt it was “acceptable,” or should be “allowed.”

Attitudes Toward Immigration, Here and Abroad. In a recently released international comparison, 6 percent of Americans surveyed by Gallup wanted to increase the level of immigration, 58 percent wanted to decrease it, and 35 percent said it should be kept about the same.

Attitudes were similar in Great Britain, where 4 percent wanted it increased, 60 percent wanted it decreased, and 33 percent wanted it kept the same.

Canadians were more receptive, with 17 percent arguing for an increase, 25 percent for a decrease and 56 percent for the status quo. The British and Canadian surveys were taken in August, while the U.S. survey was taken in September.

Partisanship and Gun Ownership. Gallup found that 55 percent of Republicans, compared to 32 percent of Democrats, report having a gun in their home. Republicans, at 41 percent, are also more likely than Democrats, at 23 percent, to say they personally own a gun.

Of Republicans who own a gun, 64 percent use it for hunting, compared to 53 percent of Democratic owners. Seventy-one percent of Republicans use their guns for target shooting, while 53 percent of Democratic gun owners do.

Gambling Online. Online gambling isn’t very popular in the United States or in Britain, where it’s legal. Ninety-five percent of U.S. adults who go online say they have never spent money playing at an online casino, 94 percent said they have never played in an online multiplayer poker game, and 97 percent said they have never bet on sports online. More than 90 percent in Britain hadn’t done any of these activities.

Six in 10 online adults in the United States say they’ve been to a casino. The survey was conducted by Harris Interactive in January.

Mardi Gras. One-third of respondents in a Jan. 20-22 Gallup/CNN/USA Today poll said New Orleans should celebrate as in the past, 39 percent said it should celebrate on a smaller scale, and 22 percent said it should not celebrate at all.

France in Fashion? In a February Gallup poll, 54 percent of respondents had a favorable opinion of France and 40 percent an unfavorable one. In 2003, those responses were 34 percent favorable, 64 percent unfavorable. In the new poll, 88 percent have a favorable impression of Great Britain.

Sudoku. In a December 2005 ORC survey, 24 percent were aware of the new game.

Karlyn Bowman is a resident fellow at AEI.




By Karlyn H. Bowman
Posted: Wednesday, March 1, 2006

ARTICLES
Roll Call
Publication Date: March 1, 2006

The Reporting on Iraq Continues to be Hysterical and Dishonest

Terrorism, yes. Civil war, no. Clear enough?

Yesterday, I crisscrossed Baghdad, visiting communities on both banks of the Tigris and logging at least 25 miles on the streets. With the weekend curfew lifted, I saw traffic jams, booming business — and everyday life in abundance.

Yes, there were bombings yesterday. The terrorists won't give up on their dream of sectional strife, and know they can count on allies in the media as long as they keep the images of carnage coming. They'll keep on bombing. But Baghdad isn't London during the Blitz, and certainly not New York on 9/11.

It's more like a city suffering a minor, but deadly epidemic. As in an epidemic, no one knows who will be stricken. Rich or poor, soldier or civilian, Iraqi or foreigner. But life goes on. No one's fleeing the Black Death — or the plague of terror.

And the people here have been impressed that their government reacted effectively to last week's strife, that their soldiers and police brought order to the streets. The transition is working.

Most Iraqis want better government, better lives — and democracy. It is contagious, after all. Come on over. Talk to them. Watch them risk their lives every day to work with us or with their government to build their own future.

Oh, the attacks will continue. They're even predictable, if not always preventable. Driving through Baghdad's Kerada Peninsula District, my humvee passed long gas lines as people waited to fill their tanks in the wake of the curfew. I commented to the officer giving me a lift that the dense lines of cars and packed gas stations offered great targets to the terrorists. An hour later, one was hit with a car bomb.

The bombing made headlines (and a news photographer just happened to be on the scene). Here in Baghdad, it just made the average Iraqis hate the terrorists even more.

You are being lied to. By elements in the media determined that Iraq must fail. Just give 'em the Bronx cheer.

By RALPH PETERS - In Iraq

THE reporting out of Baghdad continues to be hysterical and dishonest. There is no civil war in the streets. None. Period.

We're winning in Iraq. Let's not lose at home

Last week the golden dome of the Askariya shrine in Samarra was blown apart. Sectarian riots followed, and reprisals and deaths ensued. Thugs and criminals came out of the woodwork to foment further violence. But instead of the apocalypse of an ensuing civil war, a curfew was enforced. Iraqi security forces stepped in with some success. Shaken Sunni and Shiite leaders appeared on television to urge restraint, and there appeared at least the semblance of reconciliation that may soon presage a viable coalition government.

But here at home you would have thought that our own capitol dome had exploded. Indeed, Americans more than the Iraqis needed such advice for calm to quiet our own frenzy. Almost before the golden shards of the mosque hit the pavement, pundits wrote off the war as lost--as we heard the tired metaphors of "final straw" and "camel's back" mindlessly repeated. The long-anticipated civil strife among Shiites and Sunnis, we were assured, was not merely imminent, but already well upon us. Then the great civil war sort of fizzled out; our own frenzy subsided; and now exhausted we await next week's new prescription of doom--apparently the hyped-up story of Arabs at our ports. That the Iraqi security forces are becoming bigger and better, that we have witnessed three successful elections, and that hundreds of brave American soldiers have died to get us to the brink of seeing an Iraqi government emerge was forgotten in a 24-hour news cycle.

Few observers suggested that the Sama