Tuesday, July 8, 2008

The New York Times vs. Common Decency

A couple of weeks ago, the New York Times published an exciting story about how the CIA broke 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaik Mohammed. The hero of the story was a nondescript CIA interrogator who astonished his CIA colleagues by eliciting enormous amounts of valuable information from KSM, all by using psychological ploys and developing a rapport with the terrorist rather than the tactics used by the "knuckledraggers" as the interrogator's colleagues called the CIA paramilitary types, who were using waterboarding and other methods of torture.

As Allah from Hot Air points out, the story in the Times was not about the interrogator but rather the U.S. government's stumbling about in the post 9/11 intelligence climate searching for a counter terrorism strategy. Why then, did the Times reporter Scott Shane, his Washington Bureau Chief Dean Baquet, and executive editor Bill Keller decide to include the real last name of the interrogator when publishing the story?

An editor's note published with the article explaining the decision to out the interrogator is self serving twaddle: ...

... How much danger? Here is what the former agent told Hoyt about what happened when his name became known:

When I asked Kiriakou for full details about his experience, he said he received more than a dozen death threats, many of them crank. His house was put under police guard and he took his family to Mexico for two weeks after the C.I.A. advised him to get out of town for a while. He said he lost his job with a major accounting firm because executives expressed fear that Al Qaeda could attack its offices to get him, though Kiriakou considered that fear unreasonable.


Apparently, the Times brain trust did not press Kiriakou for these details because they simply didn't want to hear them. Our brave Public Editor did not see fit to criticize his colleagues for this gross negligence. ...

Bin Laden's son in web terror rant

THIS is Osama Bin Laden’s school-age son, who yesterday continued his father’s mission of hate — with a POEM begging for Britain to be destroyed.

Baby-faced Hamza Bin Laden — just 16 but already dubbed the Crown Prince of Terror — also ranted in his evil ode that the US and our other allies must be wiped out. ...

... Author and internet terror expert Neil Doyle warned: “There’s been a rising level of extremist chatter online about attacks on Britain. The comments will add fuel to that.” Jacqui Putnam, who survived the 7/7 attacks, said: “It’s deeply distressing. He should be doing what any boy his age in any culture should be doing and finding out about life in a normal way.”

The Muslim Council of Britain also blasted the poem, branding al-Qaeda “mass murderers”.

Russia threatens military response to US missile defence deal

Russia threatened to retaliate by military means after a deal with the Czech Republic brought the US missile defence system in Europe a step closer.

The threat followed quickly on from the announcement that Condoleezza Rice signed a formal agreement with the Czech Republic to host the radar for the controversial project.

Moscow argues that the missile shield would severely undermine the balance of European security and regards the proposed missile shield based in two former Communist countries as a hostile move.

“We will be forced to react not with diplomatic, but with military-technical methods,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement. ...

What we should be fighting for

By Robert Spencer --

1. Freedom of religion

What we must defend:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." — First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

What we must defend it against:

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." — CAIR co-founder and longtime Board Chairman Omar Ahmad (he denies saying it, but the original reporter stands by her story)

"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future." — CAIR's Ibrahim Hooper

The Muslim Brotherhood “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” — Mohamed Akram, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” May 22, 1991

2. Freedom of speech

What we must defend:

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." — First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

What we must defend it against:

"In confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film 'Fitna', we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked." — Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference

"Pakistan will ask the European Union countries to amend laws regarding freedom of expression in order to prevent offensive incidents such as the printing of blasphemous caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) and the production of an anti-Islam film by a Dutch legislator..." — Daily Times, June 8, 2008

3. Equality of rights before the law

What we must defend:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." — Declaration of Independence

What we must defend it against:

"The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man. The indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third the indemnity paid for a Muslim. The indemnity paid for a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth that of a Muslim." — 'Umdat al-Salik, o4.9

"Thus if [a] Muslim commits adultery his punishment is 100 lashes, the shaving of his head, and one year of banishment. But if the man is not a Muslim and commits adultery with a Muslim woman his penalty is execution...Similarly if a Muslim deliberately murders another Muslim he falls under the law of retaliation and must by law be put to death by the next of kin. But if a non-Muslim who dies at the hand of a Muslim has by lifelong habit been a non-Muslim, the penalty of death is not valid. Instead the Muslim murderer must pay a fine and be punished with the lash....Since Islam regards non-Muslims as on a lower level of belief and conviction, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim…then his punishment must not be the retaliatory death, since the faith and conviction he possesses is loftier than that of the man slain...Again, the penalties of a non-Muslim guilty of fornication with a Muslim woman are augmented because, in addition to the crime against morality, social duty and religion, he has committed sacrilege, in that he has disgraced a Muslim and thereby cast scorn upon the Muslims in general, and so must be executed....Islam and its peoples must be above the infidels, and never permit non-Muslims to acquire lordship over them." — Sultanhussein Tabandeh, A Muslim Commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

4. Governments deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

What we must defend:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." — Declaration of Independence

What we must defend it against:

Non-Muslims have "absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines." If they do, "the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life." — Syed Abul Ala Maududi, founder of the Pakistani political party Jamaat-e-Islami

Never surrender. Never submit. Never be silenced. Freedom and independence forever.

US rejects Iraqi demand for troops' withdrawal timeline

The United States on Tuesday rejected a demand from Iraq for a specific date for pullout of US-led foreign troops from the country, saying any withdrawal will be based on conditions on the ground. ...

Congressional Performance

The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history. This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category.

Last month, 11% of voters gave the legislature good or excellent ratings. Congress has not received higher than a 15% approval rating since the beginning of 2008.

The percentage of Democrats who give Congress positive ratings fell from 17% last month to 13% this month. The number of Democrats who give Congress a poor rating remained unchanged. Among Republicans, 8% give Congress good or excellent ratings, up just a point from last month. Sixty-five percent (65%) of GOP voters say Congress is doing a poor job, down a single point from last month.

Voters not affiliated with either party are the most critical of Congressional performance. Just 3% of those voters give Congress positive ratings, down from 6% last month. Sixty-three percent (63%) believe Congress is doing a poor job, up from 57% last month.

Just 12% of voters think Congress has passed any legislation to improve life in this country over the past six months. That number has ranged from 11% to 13% throughout 2008. The majority of voters (62%) say Congress has not passed any legislation to improve life in America. ...

American Airlines Cancels Flight Due to Hostile Passengers

MYFOXNY.COM -- A flight from Florida to New York Sunday night never got off the ground. That's because after the flight crew arrived late, angry and impatient passengers got verbally agitated and hostile. Apparently it was so bad, the crew wasn't comfortable working the flight so they refused to take off. Dick Brennan has the exclusive report.

Don't forget to see the video by clicking on the title above.

Military losses may surprise you!

Just the facts, not trying to be political.... The totals below include 2007

if you add them up under each President, not just 2006.

Whatever your politics, however you lean, however you feel about the current administration, this report should open some eyes.

Military losses, 1980 through 2006
As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics:

The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:

1980 ......... 2,392 (Carter Year)
1981 ........ 2,380 (Reagan Year)
1984 ......... 1,999 (Reagan Year)
1988 .......... 1, 819 (Reagan Year)
1989 ........ 1,636 (George H W Year)
1990 ......... 1,508 (George H W Year)
1991 ........ 1,787 (George H W Year)
1992 .......... 1,293 (George H W Year)
1993 .......... 1,213 ( Clinton Year)
1994 ..... ... 1,075 (Clinton Year)
1995 .......... 2,465 (Clinton Year)
1996 ......... 2,318 (Clinton Year)
1997 ............ 817 (Clinton Year)
1998 .......... 2,252 (Clinton Year)
1999 ......... 1,984 (Clinton Year)
2000 .......... 1,983 (Clinton Year)
2001 .......... . 890(George W Year)
2002 .......... 1,007 (George W Year)
2003 ......... 1,410 (George W Year)
2004 .......... 1,887 (George W Year)
2005 ........... . 919 (George W Year)
2006........ ..... 920 (George W Year)
2007........ .. .899 (George W Year)

Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths

George W years (2001-2006): 7,932 deaths

If you are surprised when you look at these figures, so was I. These figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Bill Clinton's presidency when America wasn't involved in a war!

And, I was even more shocked when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President Jimmy Carter, (Nobel Peace Prize winner), there were 2,392 US military fatalities!

Consider the latest census of Americans. It shows the following FACTS about the distribution of American citizens, by race:

European descent .......... ......... .... . 69.12%
Hispanic .......... ......... ......... ......... .. 12.5%
Black............ ......... ......... ......... ....... 12. 3%
Asian ............ ......... ......... ........ .... 3.7%
Native American ............ ......... ......... 1.0%
Other .......... ......... ......... ......... ........ 2.6%

Now... here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom:

European descent (white) ........... . 74.31%
Hispanic ............ ......... ........ ..... 10.74%
Black ............ ......... ......... ......... .. 9.67%
Asian .......... ......... ......... ......... .. 1.81%
Native American ............ ......... ...... 1.09%
Other ............ ........ ......... ......... ..... 0.33%

It's all about politics and some politicians, are now famous for turning American against American for a vote. The Hillary-Obama campaigns say the current administration does not 'listen' to anyone and continues the war, costing precious American lives.

The Clinton administration, without having an actual war, sent more soldiers to death than the Bush Administration, in addition, Clinton also forced the military to release Osama Bin Laden when we actually had him detained.

I hope that during the time between now and November, that intelligent Americans can decipher the facts from the spin and the spinners from the leaders; those who seek even more power from those that seek justice, the dividers from the uniters.

Over the next months let's be good listeners and see and hear who tries to divide our nation; and who wants to unite our nation. Who wants to control how our money is spent and who wants our money spent the way we would spend it. Who seeks power and who seeks justice?

Who spins the facts and who is genuine?

These statistics are published by Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by anyone at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

GAO: Major Defense weapons systems not fully funded

The Defense Department is spending more on its major weapons programs than it can financially support, deferring the costs of multibillion-dollar programs well into the future, according to a report that congressional investigators issued on July 3.

The Government Accountability Office found that the Pentagon often does not allocate full funding to develop its most expensive weapons systems -- despite a departmental policy that requires a long-term budgetary approach.

"At a time when the federal budget is strained by spending needs for a growing number of national priorities, it is imperative that DoD get the best value for every dollar of its significant investments," the report said. "Yet DoD has more major weapons system programs in its portfolio than it can afford." ...

UAE cancels Iraq debt, names new ambassador

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates - The United Arab Emirates canceled billions of dollars of Iraqi debt Sunday and moved to restore a full diplomatic mission in Baghdad, evidence of Iraq's improved security and growing acceptance of its Shiite-led government.

...The Emirates' official news agency, WAM, quoted the president, Sheik Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, as saying he hoped canceling the debt would lighten the "economic burden" facing Iraqis and he urged the country to unite behind al-Maliki's government.

WAM said the debt was $4 billion excluding interest. A UAE official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media said the total debt was $7 billion with interest. ...

Worker status laws and a Republican rift

A description of how employers, some inside the tent of the GOP, are lobbying to resist new laws aimed at halting the hiring of illegal immigrants, appeared in the Times over the weekend. The story, linked here, refers to Oklahoma, where chambers of commerce won an order last month in federal court halting secions of a widely-publicized law requiring employer to use a federal database to check the immigrations status of new hires. Oklahoma was cited during debate this spring in Suffolk on the county's own efforts to mandate employer verification of worker status. As we saw in some election races last year, leading Republicans have been under fire from those reacting against illegal immigration.

Some of the coverage of Suffolks legislative tensions is here.

Terror-friendly Tamils on parade

It's the sort of sight that too often makes Canadian politicians go weak in the spine: ethnic voters rallying for a parochial, unsavory cause.

Over the weekend, thousands of Tamil Canadians gathered in a Toronto park to denounce Ottawa's decision to outlaw the World Tamil Movement (WTM), which the RCMP believes is nothing but a fundraising front for the Tamil Tigers, a Sri Lankan-based terrorist group that has been outlawed in Canada since 2006.

Even by the standards of terrorist insurgencies, the Tigers are a brutal organization -- a creepy cult-like outfit that habitually engages in massacres of civilians, and abducts children to fight on the front lines of its 25-year-old campaign against Sri Lanka's government. ...

DoD keeps Raptors out of Persian Gulf

Air Force plans to deploy F-22s to the Persian Gulf region earlier this year were vetoed by senior Pentagon officials, in part to avoid antagonizing Iran, sources said.

The officials believed deploying the Raptor so near Iran would cause a “strategic dislocation” in the region, sources said.

The debate was one of a series of feuds between the Pentagon and service leaders that included the future of the F-22 program and ended with the dismissal of Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne and Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley.

The two men were sacked June 5 after a report blasted the Air Force for its stewardship of the service’s nuclear arsenal.

The Air Force leaders wanted to deploy the new superfighter to gain operational experience and refine concepts of operations for the jet.

Since the plane entered service three years ago, it has served as an airborne early warning, ground surveillance and strike platform.

But it would have done even more in a gulf deployment, some say. ...

200 Tons of Ammo Missing from Chelopechene Base before Blasts

The news became public on Monday after Bulgaria's State National Security Agency DANS laid out its materials for the Military Prosecution its materials from an investigation against the former commander of the Chelopechene base Major Miroslav Toshev, which was initiated in May.

The first suit against Toshev was started on May 28 over the lack of 51 tons of munitions. The military police is currently investigating how much the missing metal was worth, and what losses had been incurred to the Army.

A month later the DANS Military Counterintelligence reported that a total of about 200 tons of ammo had gone missing from the Chelopechene Military Base.

There is a second investigation against the former commander Toshev for the illegal cutting down of 350 cubic meters of poplar trees in and around the base, which were worth about BGN 60 000. ...

India's deadly badge of honour

... Monday's suicide attack against the Indian embassy in Kabul, which killed 40 people (only four of them Indians), came as a shock. In recent years, Indian businesses and NGOs have been aiding Afghanistan's reconstruction. Indian movies and film stars are popular in Afghanistan. The two nations enjoy friendly relations. And many Afghans aspire to travel to India for business and employment possibilities. (Many of those who died, in fact, were lined up for visas.) Why would Islamist terrorists target India?The question, of course, answers itself: The Islamists hate India because it is a democratic, pluralistic, increasingly prosperous Western ally. Which is to say, it represents exactly what most Afghans want for their own nation. ...

Saudi Oil Industry Security Market 2009 - 2014

By Homeland Security Research Corporation
601 Pennsylvania Ave. Washington D.C. 20004

Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil exporter, understand the importance of uninterrupted flow of oil, and they know that one successful terror attack on the Saudi oil industry will send oil prices to a new record high. To head off such an eventuality, the Saudis are forecasted to procure $14 billion of security systems and services over the next 6 years, to harden the kingdom oil infrastructure security.

Among the findings/conclusions of this new report are the following:

The Saudi government will invest "whatever it takes" in the security of its oil industry ,the lifeline of the kingdom

The security of the Saudi oil industry is considered by world governments as "the Achilles heel of the global economy"

A major interruption of Saudi oil supply [10% of global supply] or it's oil fields [24% of global reserves] is forecasted by governments worldwide to send the global economy into a major recession

The Saudi government embarked recently on a major investment of $129Billion to expand the country oil exports and security

This report is a product of an extensive research, by HSRC leading analysts. It represents several researcher years, dozens of interviews, and in-depth analysis of thousands of documents, with the goal to produce a comprehensive roadmap of this highly profitable Homeland Security market. Key oil industry security markets analyzed include:

Saudi Oil industry perimeter protection markets

Saudi Oil industry IT security & C3I markets

Saudi Oil industry people screening ,biometrics & RFID markets

Saudi Oil industry maritime security markets

Saudi Oil industry security communication equipment markets

Saudi Oil industry Strike force markets ...

Campaign donations play little to no part in earmarks

...The Associated Press recently listed a handful of lawmakers who backed earmarks for technology companies that, in turn, have made five-figure contributions to their campaigns, continuing a practice on Capitol Hill that was previously harder to track because of looser rules.

Rep. David Hobson, for one, obtained a $2.4 million earmark from a company whose executives, families and consultants have donated $43,350 to the Ohio Republican's campaign, according to research conducted by The Columbus Dispatch.

Defense industry executives and lobbyists are some of Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha's biggest campaign donors. Murtha, a Democrat and member of the House Appropriations Committee, accepted more than $29,000 this campaign cycle from a technology firm for which he helped land $8 million through earmarks.

A lobbyist interviewed by The Associated Press said many lawmakers seek campaign donations from corporations and organizations with the implied promise of forwarding earmarks on their behalf.

Rules prohibit members of Congress from raising money in their offices, but two lobbyists told The Associated Press that some lawmakers will make an indirect reference about donations in a Capitol Hill meeting about an earmark or a campaign staffer will suggest it explicitly in a telephone call days later.

"I know a bunch of members that if you go in to see them, somewhere in the conversation they somehow say, 'Well, we were looking through our list of campaign contributors and didn't happen to see you there,' " Frank Cushing, a lobbyist with National Group, told The Associated Press. "Is there a quid pro quo? No, not directly, but you'd have to be pretty dense not to figure it out."

This revolving door of perceived influence diminishes the good that the earmarks process can accomplish, and places all lawmakers under a microscope that fairly or unfairly questions their motivations, Ellis and others say. ...

...
Their donations were revealed after The Telegraph looked behind the second door of the process – the one leading to the lobbyists who work Capitol Hill. They pitch their clients' ability to complete appropriations work and are often paid well for their lobbying.

This search discovered that over the years, Hodes, Gregg and Sununu had accepted eight donations from lobbying firms that represented 2008 earmark recipients.

Patton Boggs LLP, which has worked on behalf of BAE Systems, gave Hodes $1,000 for the 2008 cycle, and Holland & Knight, which lobbied for Genesse & Wyoming last year, gave him $1,500 for 2008.

Cassidy & Associates, a lobbyist that represents Elliot Health System, which benefited from a Gregg-backed $195,000 earmark, gave $343 in 2004 and $419 in 2002 to the senator's campaigns.

PMA Group, a firm that represents L-3 Communications, the recipient of a Sununu-sponsored $1 million defense appropriation, has twice donated to his Senate campaigns and had twice given to his campaigns for the House, when he represented the 1st District.

What KDKA and CNN Kept Out of Their Murtha 'Surge Has Worked' Coverage

By Tom Blumer -- This post builds on Noel Sheppard's NewsBusters entry earlier this morning (July 7, 2008).

Noel covered portions of Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha's Thursday interview with Pittsburgh TV Station KDKA used by CNN's "Situation Room" on Friday (transcript here [Murtha segment is about halfway through]; video here).

CNN carried KDKA footage showing that Murtha has grudgingly acknowledged the obvious: That the troop surge in Iraq has, in his words, "in the short-term ..... certainly reduced incidents," but that "I'm not sure whether it's because of the Iraqis are just worn out, but certainly the way they're doing it today makes a big difference."

What KDKA decided to keep from TV viewers is arguably at least as important as what the station showed.

In interview footage left on the cutting room floor, Murtha falsely claimed that less than 1/3 of the Iraqi benchmarks have been met, and that the majority of Americans "want us out" of Iraq as fast as possible. But most explosively, the Pennsylvania congressman claimed that a major reason why the troop surge has been successful is that before that time "we broke down doors, we went in and we killed people inadvertently."

In partial defense of KDKA, the station posted the entire 20-minute interview at its web site (go to this KDKA link; type "Murtha" in the seach, and select the "Web Extra: Congressman John Murtha Interview"; also, in case KDKA gets uncomfortable, an edited 8-minute version of the interview is at Gateway Pundit).

The opening of the full interview shows that the Pennsylvania congressman clearly feels he is in friendly territory with reporter Jon Delano:

Delano: We're with Congressman John Murtha. Congressman, thank you so very much for talking to us.

Murtha: Jon, it's nice to be with a politician, a person who used to be a politician, now is a newscaster who knows as much about politics as I do.

Murtha's comfort is not surprising. Although Delano's bio at KDKA does not mention his political party, only noting that he spent "fourteen years working in the US Congress," a search of the ProQuest library database reveals that KDKA's Money & Politics Editor is a longtime Democrat whose familiarity with the 34-year Congressman goes back to the early 1980s, if not before that. This excerpt is from a November 8, 1994 pre-election article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (used for fair use and discussion purposes; bold is mine):

KDKA, which has used a variety of political party people as analysts over the years, tonight will use attorney Jon Delano, a Democrat who served 14 years as chief of staff for former U.S. Rep. Doug Walgren of Mt. Lebanon, who lost his seat to Rick Santorum in 1990.

Delano lost in the Democratic primary this spring to Mike Doyle in the 18th congressional district. And even though he's a true-blue Democrat, KDKA News Director Sue McInerney says she's not worried about any conflict of interest.

How nice. One suspects that Mr. Delano is Murtha's designated go-to-guy for friendly interviews, and that given the improvements in Iraq, Murtha was in need of one. During the interview, answering a question on another topic, Murtha began by saying "Well, you can remember when you worked for Doug Walgren ...."

The softball nature of Delano's questioning didn't prevent Murtha from stepping in it at a few points. But, fortunately for the Pennsylvania congressman, Delano's editorial decisions "somehow" kept the following potentially controversial bolded items from the full 20-minute interview out of KDKA's 3-minute broadcast report and, ultimately, out of CNN's:

(At 3:50) Delano: ..... Many people seem to think that things are going much better now in Iraq. Do you?

Murtha: Well, it's, certainly militarily there's less incidents. The problem I've seen is the political decisions that have to be made by the Iraqis themselves. They want us out of there. I want us out of there. I think we've done everything we can do militarily. Incidents have decreased, but still, the problem politically still faces, the fact that we can't solve the problem, the political guidelines that have been set up. I think we have 17 guidelines and they've solved four or five of them. (1) So there's a long way to go.

They want us out, that's the key, and we want out. We have depleted the resources of our military in the United States since we've been in Iraq. We need to rehabilitate them. We're spending $343 million a day, and 68% of the (American) people say "We want out of Iraq." (2) So we need to do it responsibly and carefully, but we need to get out of there.

Delano: Has President Bush's surge policy worked?

Murtha: Well, I think for the short-term, it has certainly reduced incidents. I'm not sure whether it's because of the Iraqis just being worn out, but certainly the way they're doing it today makes a big difference. It used to be we broke down doors, we went in and we killed people inadvertently. Now they're much more careful about that. (3) They're doing it the way you should fight a guerrilla war. That makes a big difference, and I think that the change in tactics is as important as the number of troops that is over there.

But what this has done is constrain us from putting troops into Afghanistan, which is starting to go bad. So we've got some real problems facing us. The next president's going to have some real decisions he's going to have to make.

(at 10:55) Murtha: ..... We need to restore the credibility of this great country. We're at 9% in Turkey. Our credibility is at the lowest level it's been in years. So that's the first thing he (Obama, if elected) needs to do. (4) We need to work with multi-nationals, other countries. We can't do this ourselves. I kept saying this over and over again. We need to internationalize this effort in Iraq. President Bush didn't think that was needed; he did this without these other countries.

And I think that Barack Obama understands, that he's willing to work with other people. Certainly the way he reached out during his campaign impressed me.

+++++++++++++++++++

Notes:
(1) - Not exactly. From the Associated Press via MSNBC (HT Gateway Pundit) -- "Iraq report: 15 of 18 benchmarks 'satisfactory.'"
(2) - According to Opinion Research Corporation (news release page; underlying PDF), the polling company for CNN, that poll was done in late April, and its results were released on May 5. 68% said they opposed the war, which is not the same as saying that "we should get out." Evidence of that obvious point comes from this March 2008 Gallup poll, in which 65% of those questioned said that "the United States has an obligation to establish a reasonable level of stability and security in Iraq before withdrawing all troops." Additionally, at the time of CNN poll, 59% of Americans thought the war was going badly. Since the polling date, Iraqi Security Forces and civilian deaths have dropped significantly. I wonder if CNN will have Opinion Research do another poll any time soon?
(3) - This is a serious shot at our troops and commanders in previous years. Especially given how Murtha's claims about the conduct of Haditha Marines have not been supported by the legal outcomes thus far, Delano should have pressed Murtha about the evidence he had for this statement. Instead, the statement was kept out of the broadcast entirely.
(4) - One of these days, a real journalist is going to ask someone like Murtha how more US-sympathetic governments have been elected in places like France, Germany, and Canada during the "lowest credibility in years" Bush Administration.

+++++++++++++++++++

You'll also note at KDKA's broadcast link that Delano rearranged the interview snippets he presented without disclosing to viewers that he did so (this is a particular pet peeve of mine, as it was one of CBS News's favorite techniques for twisting the words of our generals during Vietnam). Delano saved Murtha's "they don't want us there" riff for later in the broadcast report, so he could set it up separately from Murtha's surge comments. Sorry, Jon, that should be out of bounds, unless it's disclosed, in a professional operation.

Of course, past political involvement is not a journalistic disqualifier. For example, the late Tim Russert spent time as a Democratic staffer. But does anyone think Russert would have let Murtha's claim about past military conduct go unchallenged, or that he would have removed that claim from an edited report to protect an old political pal?

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters

New Missouri law goes after illegal immigrants, employers

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. _ Gov. Matt Blunt signed legislation Monday that creates new restrictions on illegal immigrants and new requirements for businesses that employ them.

Blunt said the new law puts Missouri "on the vanguard" of states working to crack down on illegal immigration.

Missouri lawmakers included many relatively non-controversial provisions while splitting the difference on more contentious points, such as what to do about the businesses that employ illegal immigrants. Lawmakers passed the bill on the final day of their annual session under a threat from Blunt that he would call a special session if no bill were passed.

Blunt said Monday that it's important to go after "people who flout the law" because "it undermines the rule of law, which is one of the reasons that immigrants flocked to this country in the first place." ...

Syria 'Will Break Links with Iran' if U.S. Steps In to Help

Syria would agree to sever its close links with Iran if the United States was to offer Damascus financial and military backing, according to The Sunday Telegraph reporting from Jerusalem. The usually well-informed London paper is quoting a former Israeli diplomat involved in back channel talks taking place between Syria and Israel.

The Israeli official believes Syria's President Bashar Assad is increasingly open to a deal that would greatly weaken Iranian influence in the region. ...

'Invisible Wars' of the Future: E-Bombs, Laser Guns and Acoustic Weapons

This important article on new weapons systems was originally publisehd in Russian in Nezavisimaya Gazeta, translated by Guerman Grachev for Pravda.ru

Speaking at the Moscow Institute of Foreign Relations on September 1st, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said: “An arms race is entering its new stage. There is a threat of new weaponry looming on the horizon.” What exactly did he mean by saying that?

From hypothesis to reality

The pace of continuous progress made by science and technology keeps growing faster. Scientists and military analysts point out the emergence of fundamentally new types of weapons including those of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the new future. In the late 1990s, the then Russian Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev sounded a note of warning as he spoke about “the use of new physical principles for building weaponry with new applications in both strategic and tactical levels, is yet another qualitative leap in the change and development of ways and methods of warfare.”

Hostilities between thousands of armed men involved in physical annihilation of one another in the battlefield may be rendered obsolete by the latest developments in science and technology. The existing types of weapons may be superseded by devices capable of causing latent damage to the human body by disrupting its viability and immune system. As a result, the human body will either completely destroyed or immobilized for a long time.

The results of the use of certain hypothetical types of WMD may be felt in the long run, perhaps years or decades following the exposure to the effects of the above. The effects of certain types of new weapons can be used selectively, and thus an attacker will be able to steadfastly decimate an opponent’s personnel while effectively reducing the number of its own casualties. The above circumstance creates more incentives for developing new types of weapons.

Geophysical weapons ...

EMP weapons ...

Laser weapons ...

Acoustic weapons...

The Need For A Closer Examination Of National Security

By Paul M. Weyrich -- It now has been four years since Dr. William Graham, science advisor to President Ronald W. Reagan and chairman of the General Advisory Committee on Arms Control and Disarmament, and a distinguished panel completed a study of High Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) and its potential effects upon this country. The conclusions of this study are the most frightening I have seen concerning modern-day threats. Few have heard of it because the report has yet to be made public. The reason it has not been made public is simple: if EMP were understood by the American people, the next logical question would be what steps the government has taken to reduce the possibility of an EMP attack in this country. To date little has been done. When the American people realize as much, the outrage will be palpable.

EMP is electromagnetic radiation from an explosion (especially a nuclear explosion). The worst of the pulse lasts for only a second but any unprotected electrical equipment - and anything connected to electrical cables, which act as giant lightning rods or antennas - are affected by it. If a nation with a nuclear bomb and the ability to explode it high above an American city were to do so, it would have a massive effect in all directions. Almost immediately all communications systems in the country would be disrupted completely. No radio. No television. No Internet. Indeed no electricity at all. Most of the country literally would be in the dark with no possibility of recovering any electrical facilities. We would not be able to run our cars because the gasoline pumps would not work. Water distribution systems would not work. While there would be few immediate deaths connected with such an explosion, the long-term consequences would be profound. The national power grid would be rendered completely impotent. It would take many months or even years to have it up and running but with no power tools available, accomplishing this likely would be impossible.

There would be no telecommunications. Railroads would be unable to run. Even if the few steam locomotives left were employed, there would be no signal systems and no ability to switch tracks. Our entire financial system would be disrupted because computers would shut down. I could go on but you get the picture. Recovery would depend upon the restoration of electric power, the possibility of which would depend upon whether a part of the country was unaffected and that would depend upon where the bomb explodes.

Graham has made many recommendations which should be implemented to avoid such an attack. (Would that the public now understand the urgency to ensure that Iran does not acquire a nuclear device. Iran already has successfully tested a missile capable of carrying one into the high atmosphere).

Graham asserts that it is essential to pursue intelligence, interdiction, deterrence and defense to discourage an EMP attack. The highest priority is to prevent an attack. Our policies should shape the global environment to reduce incentives to create EMP weapons. We need to make it difficult and dangerous to acquire them.

Graham argues that we need to begin immediately a program to protect critical components of key infrastructures. We must maintain the ability to monitor and evaluate the condition of critical infrastructures. Graham reminds us that the absence of information can make things worse through inaction or incorrect action. Graham points to the blackout of August 13, 2003 as an example of the absence of information leading to inaction. We need to recognize an EMP attack and understand how its effects differ from natural disruptions.

America needs a plan to carry out the systematic recovery of key infrastructures. We must demonstrate the will and ability to recover from any attack. Toward that end we need a special team which frequently reports to Congress. We need to define the responsibilities of the federal, state and local governments. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) needs to develop a plan for the country in conjunction with local governments and the Pentagon needs a clear plan to keep the Armed Forces functioning in the event of an attack. DHS must establish a senior leadership position with the accountability, authority and appropriate resources to defend against the most serious threats. Graham says that an EMP attack is a credible, potentially catastrophic threat to the United States. He says that the U.S. strategy should balance prevention, preparation, protection and recovery.

The administration of President George W. Bush has known this for years, yet almost nothing has been done about it. Had he released this report and enforced the panel’s recommendations he would be remembered as the President who saved America. Some scientists think the report may be released next month. If so it would behoove Bush to spend his remaining six months in office implementing Graham’s recommendations. He cannot begin a moment too soon.

Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.