Will the next attack be on our schools?

Even George Friedman is perplexed by Israel's raid on Syria. (See 1 below.)

Why proposed Shaba Farm transfer now by Syria? (See 2 below.)

Another view regarding Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia. (See 3 below.)

Some in the NSI truly believe, like in Chechnya, the next attack will be on our school children. I am reading Podhoretz's new book "WW 4. It is a very good read and a thoughtful and factual response to the liberals who have vilified their "enemies" in the Administration.(See 4 below.)

Dick


1) Israel, Syria and the Glaring Secret
By George Friedman

What happened in the Middle East on Sept. 6?

The first reports came from the Syrians, who said their air defenses fired at an Israeli warplane that had penetrated Syrian airspace and dropped some ordnance on the country's North. The plane then fled toward the Mediterranean at supersonic speeds, the Syrians said, noting that sonic booms had been heard.

A Syrian delegation was meeting Turkish officials about the same time, and the Turks announced that two Israeli fuel tanks had been dropped inside of Turkish territory, one in Gaziantep province and the other in Hatay province. That would mean the aircraft did come under some sort of fire and dropped fuel tanks to increase speed and maneuverability. It also would mean the plane was flying close to Turkish territory or over Turkish territory, at the northwestern tip of Syria.

The Israelis said nothing. It appeared at first glance that an Israeli reconnaissance flight had attracted Syrian attention and got out of there fast, though even that was puzzling. The Israelis monitor Syria carefully, but they have close relations with the Turkish military, which also watches Syria carefully. We would assume they have intelligence-sharing programs and that reconnaissance in this area could have been done by the Turks or, more likely, by Israeli reconnaissance satellites. Yet, an Israeli reconnaissance flight seemed like the only coherent explanation.

What was most striking from the beginning was the relative silence on all sides. The Israelis remained mum, not even bothering to leak a misleading but plausible story. The Syrians, after threatening to take the issue to the U.N. Security Council, have been less vociferous than one would expect. The United States had nothing official to say, but U.S. sources leaked a series of incompatible explanations. The Turks, after requesting an explanation for the fuel tanks, dropped the matter.

The leaks, which seemed to be coming from the Americans, raised the scope of the operation from a reconnaissance to something more. It was U.S. sources who said up to eight aircraft were involved in the operation. Early on, a leak originating in the United States implied that there might have been Israeli commandos involved as well. U.S. leaks also mentioned that a shipment of cement had been delivered to Syria from North Korea a few days before the incident and implied that this shipment might have contained nuclear equipment of some sort that was the real target of the attack. All three countries were silent officially on the intent of the attack, but the Americans were filling in some blanks with unofficial hints.

The media also were filled with a range of contradictory speculation. One story said this was a dry run for an Israeli air attack against Iran. Another said the Israelis were demonstrating their ability -- and hence the U.S. ability -- to neutralize Syrian air defenses as a signal to Iran that it, too, is vulnerable. Some stories also claimed that new missiles, not nuclear materials, were being shipped to Syria. There were many other explanations, but these were either pure speculation or were deliberately being fed to the media in order to confuse the issue.

Officials finally started to go public last week. Israeli opposition leader and former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he was consulted in advance and supported Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's action in Syria. U.S. President George W. Bush went out of his way -- commenting directly and through his press secretary -- to make it understood that he also knew a raid had been carried out, but had absolutely nothing to say about it. That drew attention to two things. First, the United States knew what was going on. Second, the United States was going to keep the secret -- and the secret was an important one. Between Netanyahu and Bush, the reconnaissance theory was dead. An important operation occurred Sept. 6. It remains absolutely unclear what it was about.

Another leak appeared via the Sunday Times, this time with enough granularity to consider it a genuine leak. According to that report, the operation was carried out by Israeli commandos supported by Israeli aircraft, under the direct management of Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak. It had been planned since June, just after Barak took office, and had been approved by the United States after some hesitation. The target was in fact nuclear "material" provided by North Korea, according to that leak.

All of this makes perfect sense, save one thing. Why the secrecy? If the Syrians have nuclear facilities, the Israelis should be delighted to make it public. Frankly, so should the United States, since the Bush administration has always argued that nuclear proliferation to rogue states, including Syria, is one of the key problems in the world. The Syrians should be spinning the story like crazy as well, denying the nuclear program but screaming about unprovoked Israeli-U.S. aggression. The silence from one or two parties makes sense. The silence from all parties makes little sense.

Looked at differently, Israel and the United States both have gone out of their way to draw attention to the fact that a highly significant military operation took place in Northern Syria, and compounded the attention by making no attempt to provide a plausible cover story. They have done everything possible to draw attention to the affair without revealing what the affair was about. Israel and the United States have a lot of ways to minimize the importance of the operation. By the way they have handled it, however, each has chosen to maximize its importance.

Whoever they are keeping the secret from, it is not the Syrians. They know precisely what was attacked and why. The secret is not being kept from the Iranians either. The Syrians talk to them all the time. It is hard to imagine any government of importance and involvement that has not been briefed by someone. And by now, the public perception has been shaped as well. So, why the dramatic secrecy designed to draw everyone's attention to the secret and the leaks that seem to explain it?

Let us assume that the Sunday Times report is correct. According to the Times, Barak focused on the material as soon as he became defense minister in June. That would mean the material had reached Syria prior to that date. Obviously, the material was not a bomb, or Israel would not have waited until September to act. So it was, at most, some precursor nuclear material or equipment.

However, an intervening event occurred this summer that should be factored in here. North Korea publicly shifted its position on its nuclear program, agreeing to abandon it and allow inspections of its facilities. It also was asked to provide information on the countries it sold any nuclear technology to, though North Korea has publicly denied any proliferation. This was, in the context of the six-party negotiations surrounding North Korea, a major breakthrough.

Any agreement with North Korea is, by definition, unstable. North Korea many times has backed off of agreements that seemed cast in stone. In particular, North Korea wants to be seen as a significant power and treated with all due respect. It does not intend to be treated as an outlaw nation subject to interrogation and accusations. Its self-image is an important part of its domestic strategy and, internally, it can position its shift in its nuclear stance as North Korea making a strategic deal with other major powers. If North Korea is pressed publicly, its willingness to implement its agreements can very quickly erode. That is not something the United States and other powers want to see happen.

Whether the Israelis found out about the material through their own intelligence sources or North Korea provided a list of recipients of nuclear technology to the United States is unclear. The Israelis have made every effort to make it appear that they knew about this independently. They also have tried to make it appear that they notified the United States, rather than the other way around. But whether the intelligence came from North Korea or was obtained independently, Washington wants to be very careful in its handling of Pyongyang right now.

The result is the glaring secrecy of the last few weeks. Certainly, Israel and the United States wanted it known that Syria had nuclear material, and that it was attacked. This served as a warning to other recipients of North Korean nuclear technology -- most especially Iran. At the same time, the United States did not want to publicly embarrass North Korea, out of fear that the North Koreans would simply chuck the disarmament talks. Moreover, Damascus had no interest in publicizing that it had thoughts of a nuclear program, so it quieted down.

We should note that if this theory is true, and the United States and Israel discovered the existence of a Syrian nuclear program only from North Korean information, this would represent one of the most massive intelligence failures imaginable by both Israel and the United States. Essentially, it would mean that, unless this was the first shipment of material to Syria, Israel and the United States failed to detect a Syrian nuclear program on their own. That is possible, but not likely.

It is a neat theory. It might even be a true theory. But it has problems. The biggest problem is why Syria would be trying to obtain nuclear technology. Sandwiched between Israel and Turkey -- a country that has not had great relations with Syria in the past -- and constantly watched by the United States, the probability of it developing a nuclear capability undetected is infinitesimal, and the probability of Israel not taking it out is nonexistent. Moreover, Syria is not Iran. It is poorer, has less scientific and other resources and lacks the capability to mount a decade long development effort. Syria actually plays a fairly conservative game, taking its risks in Lebanese politics and allowing jihadists to transit through the country on their way to Iraq. Trying to take on Israel or the United States in a nuclear gambit is not the Syrians' style. But certainly they were caught doing something, or they would be screaming to high heaven.

There has been persistent discussion of nuclear material in Syria, which, if we took the words seriously, would tend to indicate that something radioactive, such as enriched uranium or plutonium, was present. If what was delivered was not equipment but radioactive material, the threat might not have been a Syrian nuclear program, but some sort of radioactive device -- a dirty bomb -- that might be handed off to Hezbollah. The head of Israel's military intelligence was quoted as saying something about the attack having re-established Israel's deterrence power after its failures in the 2006 conflict with Hezbollah. Perhaps the problem was that the material was being transferred from North Korea to Syria on its way to Lebanon, possibly to use against Israel.

That would explain Syria's relative silence. Concern that the deal with North Korea will fall apart might keep the United States quiet. But a Syrian transfer of such material to Hezbollah normally would set Israel to raging at the Syrians. The Americans might have kept quiet, but the Israelis would have leaked much earlier than this. Israel would want to use the threat as a tool in its public relations war.

Another reason for the silence could be psychological warfare against Iran. The speculation above might be true in some variant, but by remaining ominously silent, the Israelis and Americans might be trying to shake Iran's nerve, by demonstrating their intelligence capability, their special operations ability and the reach of their air power. With the Israelis having carried out this attack, this very visible secrecy might be designed to make Iran wonder whether it is next, and from what direction an attack might come.

Normally such international game-playing would not interest us. The propensity of governments to create secrets out of the obvious is one of the more tedious aspects of international relations. But this secret is not obvious, and it is not trivial. Though it is true that something is finally being leaked three weeks after the attack, what is being leaked is neither complete nor reliable. It seems to make sense, but you really have to work hard at it.

At a time when the United States is signaling hostile intentions toward Iran, the events in Syria need to be understood, and the fact that they remain opaque is revealing. The secrecy is designed to make a lot of people nervous. Interestingly, the Israelis threw a change-up pitch the week after the attack, signaling once again that they wanted to open talks with the Syrians -- a move the Syrians quickly rebuffed.

When events get so strange that interpretation is a challenge, it usually indicates it was intended that way, that the events are significant and that they could point to further instability. We do not know whether that is true, but Israel and the United States have certainly worked hard to create a riddle wrapped in a mystery.

2) Syria willing to place Shaba Farms in UN custody
By Barak Ravid

Syria is willing to transfer the Shaba Farms to the custody of the United Nations as part of an effort to resolve the sovereignty dispute over the area, which is currently under Israel's control.

The new Syrian position was outlined in a letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon by Spain's Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos, who visited Damascus last month.

Israeli political sources said Tuesday that Syria's offer is meant to put pressure on Jerusalem, which opposes any withdrawal from Shaba at this stage.

Moratinos sent the letter to the UN secretary general two weeks ago, after discussing the matter with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus.

In it, Moratinos, who was the European Union's special envoy to the Middle East before becoming Spain's foreign minister, wrote that Syria is willing to transfer the area to UN custody even before the international border between it and Lebanon has been fully demarcated. The UN has been engaged in marking the border for the past year.

Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora said last year that he would also like to see Shaba transferred to UN custody.

The Shaba Farms, situated in the foothills of Har Dov at the point where the borders of Israel, Lebanon and Syria converge, used to be part of the French Mandate in Syria and Lebanon. The border, which followed a 1923 agreement between Britain and France, was never precisely demarcated.

In May 2000, following Israel's withdrawal from south Lebanon, the UN ruled that Shaba was part of the Golan Heights, and was therefore Syrian rather than Lebanese. It also said that Shaba's future should be determined in negotiations between Israel and Syria.

However, Lebanon claimed that Shaba was within its sovereign territory, and this provided Hezbollah with a pretext for continuing its military operations against Israel, in order to liberate the "occupied territory."

Following last year's Second Lebanon War, the UN began marking the international border between Syria and Lebanon, mainly in order to resolve the dispute over which country actually owns Shaba. Israel's position has been that there should be no discussion of Shaba's future until the UN makes a final decision on precisely where this border lies.

"There is no change in Israel's stance on the matter," a source in the Prime Minister's Bureau told Haaretz on Tuesday. "First, the demarcation of the border must be completed."

Senior Foreign Ministry officials told a Moratinos aide who visited Israel last week that there should be no discussions on Shaba "at our expense." They also warned that an Israel Defense Forces withdrawal from the area at this time would undermine Israel's interests and constitute a "prize" for Syria's ally, Hezbollah.

Israeli sources expressed dissatisfaction Tuesday at the fact that Spain did not officially inform Israel about the Moratinos letter to Ban Ki-moon. Israeli diplomats learned of its content by chance during talks at the UN.

The letter may contribute to the growing tension between Israel and Spain, initially sparked by a meeting Moratinos held with Hezbollah's deputy secretary general, Naim Qassem. Following that meeting, a Moratinos visit to Israel that had been scheduled for earlier this month was postponed until October.

UN mapping expert Miklos Pinter, who has been busy delineating the border area near Shaba, visited Israel two weeks ago to meet his Israeli counterparts. Next month, the UN is expected to publish a new report on the situation between Israel and Lebanon, and Pinter's findings may be included in the document.

Israeli officials are concerned that this report could spark renewed discussion of which country has sovereignty over Shaba Farms.

3) Humbling Ahmadinejad
By MEIR BROOKS


No matter what else happens in the world, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will always have a place in the headlines. Ever since he was elected Iranian president in 2005 he has captivated the media spotlight. His visit to the UN General Assembly in New York drew even more attention because of his speech Monday before some 800 students at Columbia University.


Dean John Coatsworth's foolish statement that he would have invited Hitler himself to speak at the university only intensified the protests and demonstrations, but despite raucous opposition, the event proceeded as planned.

The most powerful statements on the day were not spoken by Ahmadinejad himself, but by the president of Columbia, Lee Bollinger. His introduction set the tone for the entire afternoon, and it was an academic and political tour de force.

"Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator," he proclaimed. He attacked Ahmadinejad over his Holocaust denial, his position on Israel, his human rights record and more. Bollinger's assault was merciless: "You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated."

IN THOSE few moments, the atmosphere and nature of the visit changed. The media had reported that this was a "speech" or "debate," but after Lee Bollinger's introduction, it became a trial. Defendants often engage in tirades and rants, and Ahmadinejad did just that; but he couldn't really transform his podium into a platform of incitement, because he was now speaking as a man indicted.

The Iranian president opened by protesting that he was hurt and insulted by the introduction, though he did not address the accusations themselves. He then gave a long sermon about the connection between science and prophecy, spoke out strongly against the use and proliferation of nuclear weapons and noted his love for "all people," though he also spoke extensively against Israel. Premeditated or not, this took up most of his speech.

Then came the cross examination: student-generated questions on the major issues were posed to the speaker, who attempted to justify himself.

TO BE HONEST, I was rather disappointed that Ahmadinejad was not consistently pressured to clarify his statements. This was done once only, and when it was, he became visibly agitated and tried rather unsuccessfully to evade the question.

Particularly problematic was the lack of pressure regarding the Holocaust issue. Ahmadinejad, though stating that it was a historical fact, also said repeatedly that its veracity should be questioned. He also claimed that women were treated with perfect respect in Iran. Neither claim was seriously challenged. In this, Columbia failed, but the rest of the event more than compensated for this.

Around the half-point of the "trial" came the most stunning moment of the afternoon. When challenged on Iran's persecution of gays, the Iranian president replied, "We don't have gays in Iran. I don't know who told you that… we don't have that phenomenon." The comment was greeted with outright mockery by the students, who jeered and laughed audibly.

In that one moment, more conclusively than ever before, Ahmadinejad proved himself to be the "astonishingly uneducated" ignoramus that Bollinger had introduced him as.

This proved to be one of the most memorable segments of the trial, and sure enough, most of the headlines regarding the event were along the lines of "Lee Bollinger: Ahmadinejad a 'cruel and petty dictator'" and "Ahmadinejad: 'There are no gays in Iran.'"

OVERALL, the negative impact on Israel of the event was minimal. The Iranian president made no new statements on the serious issues; all his comments on Israel and the Holocaust were rehashed from previously publicized speeches.

In fact, to my mind, the statements were no worse than those of Norman Finkelstein, Avrum Burg or Illan Pappe. On the other hand, whenever Ahmadinejad deviated from his usual rhetoric he faltered, and this is where the speech was truly influential. Bollinger's indictment, the demand to clarify his position, his comment on gays - in all these he was agitated at best, outright ridiculous at worst.

If we ask ourselves what changed in Ahmadinejad's image and influence after his visit to Columbia, I think the answer is unequivocal: He was deservedly humbled. Never before had he been treated like a defendant, and Columbia changed that for good.

The event also succeeded as an excellent exhibition of debate, the highest form of free speech. Rather than allow Ahmadinejad to limit his rhetoric to one-sided speeches, Columbia challenged his positions and made him defend himself.

The debate bears some comparison to the 2005 Danish cartoon controversy in this regard. Those deliberately offensive caricatures were hailed by many in the Western world on the basis of free speech. But that very justification was being denied to Columbia University. Both were attempts to test the limits of free speech, the former offended over a billion Muslim people; the latter challenged the tolerance of otherwise liberal New York Jews.

FINALLY, it should be noted that though Columbia is a prestigious university, Ahmadinejad is the president of some 70 million people. He is used to speaking unchallenged before crowds of thousands or tens of thousands. In Columbia, he was on trial before 800 college students. The situation he was exposed to was demeaning, not empowering. He gained no credibility in this debate; au contraire, the platform forced him to speak not as a powerful president but as just another controversial lecturer.

4) Al Qaeda Targets Our Schoolchildren
By Marc Sheppard

While Democrats prepare witless campaign slogans blaming Republicans for millions of children not protected by health insurance, al Qaeda's blatant threat to exterminate 2 million American kids remains unheeded. And it will likely continue to be, notwithstanding mounting evidence that there exists no peril on Earth our young need greater protection from today than merciless jihadist monsters.

Not lack of a national insurance plan. Not global warming. Not racial or cultural disparities. Not even the Patriot Act, any of its overplayed incursions into individual liberties, or any of the other countless silly and diaphanous liberal causes célèbres, but rather that which would abruptly and savagely end their innocent short lives.

Nearly 6 months have passed since I first challenged the inexcusable refusal by DHS and FBI authorities to publicly connect the obviously connectable dots representing an unnerving number of alarming events -- particularly in the wake of the Beslan school massacre. These include:

* Videotapes confiscated in Afghanistan showing al-Qaeda terrorists training to takeover a school
* Spokesman Suleiman Abu Gheith‘s declaration of al-Qaeda's "right" to kill 2 million American children
* An Iraqi national with known terrorist connections caught with a computer disk containing information detailing Department of Education crisis planning for U.S school districts.
* Two Saudi men - one wearing a black trench coat despite the Florida heat -- terrifying a busload of Tampa schoolchildren by boarding a school bus and remaining for the entire ride to school, all the while laughing and speaking Arabic.
* A March FBI/DHS bulletin noting "recent suspicious activity" by foreigners who drive school buses, are licensed to drive them, or have actually managed to purchase them right here at home. Including "members of the unnamed extremist groups" who have obtained commercial drivers licenses with school bus endorsements.
* Osama bin Laden's promise that the 2004 terrorist attack at Beslan will happen many times over in the United States.

In that time, little or nothing has been done to relieve parents' understandable anxieties, despite the fresh dots which continued to accrue on this disturbing non-puzzle.

Dots like the seventeen full-sized yellow school buses reported stolen from charter schools, business schools and private bus companies in Houston, Texas, over the past few months. Connect to that and previous disturbing stories the fact that thousands of school bus radios have also been stolen (2000 in California in 2005 alone), and the images shaped should be triggering earsplitting alarms throughout all branches of media and law enforcement.

But instead -- the silence looms apparent while the question remains: Why?

We ARE talking about School Buses

It's certainly no big stretch to imagine these purloined vehicles employed as mega-potent yet inconspicuous car-bombs to target schools or other heavily populated buildings, is it?

Or busloads of innocent, unsuspecting, tykes being exploited as hostages? Or, perhaps, kidnapped as prologue to a Beslan-style (see this article) school invasion horror story? Or -- our worst nightmare of all -- falling victim to some maniac who smiles the bassamat al-farah right before obliterating the bus and its tiny passengers from the driver's seat? Or all of the above?

Bear in mind, we're talking about school buses -- those nondescript yellow kiddie-movers into which parents have trustingly loaded their young for generations, never pausing to consider their naked vulnerability. Never, I can only hope, until now.

In his stirring article, The Logic of Suicide Terrorism, which first appeared in The Atlantic in June of 2003, terrorism expert Professor Bruce Hoffman examined the lure of bus explosions to twisted minds [Warning: Graphic]

"Buses remain among the bombers' preferred targets. Winter and summer are the better seasons for bombing buses ... because the closed windows (for heat or air-conditioning) intensify the force of the blast, maximizing the bombs' killing potential. As a hail of shrapnel pierces flesh and breaks bones, the shock wave tears lungs and crushes other internal organs. When the bus's fuel tank explodes, a fireball causes burns, and smoke inhalation causes respiratory damage. All this is a significant return on a relatively modest investment. Two or three kilograms of explosive on a bus can kill as many people as twenty to thirty kilograms left on a street or in a mall or a restaurant."

Can you imagine the heart-stopping horror of such an unthinkable event and its impact upon the nation -- particularly on parents of school-aged children? Or the image of a burning yellow school bus carcass indelibly burned into your subconscious between those of two falling towers and many more falling and burning fellow-Americans?

Let there be no doubt whatsoever: these abhorrent architects of fear most certainly can and do imagine it in their dreams.

Forewarned is Forearmed

The seemingly all lack of candor coming from Washington is outrageous, as are their lame attempts to distance the few tidbits they do throw us from Islamic terrorism. Thanks to the persistent efforts of advocacy groups like the ACLU and CAIR, half of our leaders and fellow-Americans are concerned as much with the plight of a few murderous enemies at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo as they are with danger to the countless innocents in the homeland. The resulting political correctness and mindless tolerance-at-any-cost have created an atmosphere in which both warnings and enforcement must first be sieved through potential "racism" and "profiling" filters.

Further abetting this frustration is that when news does break out, it invariably ends with some hapless public servant assuring us that "parents and children have nothing to fear." Similar reassurance were given the doomed on the sinking Titanic.

It's certainly understandable that without locations or dates of specific threats, officials are disinclined to speculate publicly for fear of spreading unnecessary panic. But shouldn't parents at the very least be assured that the powers that be are working behind the scenes with school districts and first-responders to develop protection, threat assessment, and crisis plans? Does no one in authority appreciate the unique psychological torment of feeling helplessly incapable of protecting our children?

Thankfully, one thing that has improved since March, no thanks to DHS, is public awareness of the issue. And there's been no brighter source for this vital illumination than the radio and television shows of Glenn Beck.

Last month, I noticed a curious second wave of e-mail response to my March article. I later discovered the source of this sudden renewed interest in the topic -- Mr. Beck had been discussing the piece's subject on his radio show and promising a 4 part series on it for his nightly CNN show for months. Aptly timed, on the eve of the 6th anniversary of the 9/11 al Qaeda assaults, he delivered the first installment of his must-see expose.

The series title, Exposed: The Perfect Day, refers to an expression purportedly coined by al Qaeda vermin to describe an imminent day in which Americans are killed on an unprecedented scale. If you've been paying attention, you'll understand why it's prudent to assume that the targets of such massive, coordinated attacks will likely include both schools and school buses.

Episodes One and Two, essentially review the information I covered in March, with additional inspired insights from counterterrorism experts including Brad Thor and Lt. Col. Joe Ruffini and former FBI special agent Don Clark.

Thor lent a compelling observation that the recent bin Laden video, once-again calling on Americans to embrace Islam, fits al Qaeda's pattern of offering the enemy capitulation before decapitation. He also revealed that an "inside source" had confided a belief by Florida authorities that the Tampa bus incident was a "dry run," planned to expose our weaknesses. Am I alone in wondering whether or not such concerns have made their way up the food chain to DHS?

Ruffini added that all major charges against the 2 Saudis were dropped under intense pressure from our old friends at CAIR. No surprise there -- running interference for all plots Islamic appears to be the council's mission statement of late.

In Part 2, Beck aired more shocking video of the unparalleled inhumanity that was Beslan.

If you haven't done so, I urge you as a parent to experience both the series, and these videos.

4) Why Children are Targets - A gruesome perspective

Episode Three of The Perfect Day did a compelling job of exploring the "whys?" of targeting students. And the answers, as speculated by Beck, the returning Thor, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser of the American/Islamic Forum for Democracy and former NY City police commissioner Bernie Kerik, will surely surprise you.

While Kerik concentrated primarily on the long-term economic impact on tourism, the airline industry, the stock market and, of course, our public education system, his fellow guests smelled a bigger, more rancid rat.

The show's captain mapped the discussion's course when he proposed that it's not about the body counts or spreading fear, but rather the backlash,

"and more importantly, it is about how that backlash would be used as propaganda in the foreign media, to unite extremists all over the world against us."

He then handed the ball off to the waiting Dr. Jasser, by asking:

"They want something so horrific where they are raping our children, killing them, torturing them, stuffing [them] out the windows, having the whole media see, because they want us to do what?"

And Jasser ran with it, explaining how these inhuman actions are intended to further divide the world into Muslim and non-Muslim. Our anticipated rage response to such unprecedented horror, predicts the doctor, would likely result in hate-crimes against Muslims, which al Jazeera would broadcast without context to 80 million people throughout the Middle East world.

Thor, who believes outraged Americans' reactions may well include "lynching Muslim people in the streets and burning mosques," adds:

"They want to reduce us to animals like them so that they can get the Islamic world behind them and finally get the holy war that they want kicked off and ignited."

We must use all methods at our disposal to uncover and prevent their future moves, and, failing that, be prepared to minimize our losses - lest we fall right into their barbarous hands.

What Can (and Must) be Done

My purpose here is not to shock or panic but rather to alarm you in a manner hopefully more Paul Revere than Wes Craven. And the response to that alarm must be action.

For starters, school districts are not the arena in which to score political points with the misguided champions of diversity and tolerance. What's needed is clear, level-headed decision making unfettered by all PC nonsense. The reports of "extremist group" members seeking positions as bus drivers here in the states and terrorists embedded as employees at School Number One in Beslan alone should serve as warning that school and bus company employees must be American citizens with confirmed immaculate backgrounds. Period.

Furthermore, the technology to retrofit all school buses with GPS tracking devices is as cheap as it is effective. American freight fleets have been installing them in trucks for years to combat hijacking. Do vehicles transporting our most precious cargo of all deserve any less protection? While some districts have taken this step, many more have not, as drivers' labor unions create roadblocks, calling such measures "Orwellian" and in at least one case, believe it or not, "racist." The hell with their self-serving whining -- these are our kids - demand that your district implement this crucial safety feature.

Episode Four of Beck's series introduced Kenneth Trump of National School Safety and Security Services, who wisely advised parents to know not only who's driving their kids' bus, but also the manner of training they've received:

"School districts do a great job of training drivers how to drive the bus, very poor job at training them on security procedures, recognizing and reporting strangers, what to do in an emergency situation, how you would get a hold of the police, what to do when the police show up, what to do if you have somebody pull a gun on a bus, what to do if you have a stranger or parent or irate parent or an unusual person, a terrorist, approach a bus, even just simple things."

Additionally, do you know how or even if your school district has prepared for a bus or building crisis? Are they practicing lockdown, active shooter and terrorist-siege scenarios and crisis response? Are drills crafted in coordination with first-responders and law enforcement? Are such drills regularly practiced?

Let's not forget, you're typically dealing with a "gun-free zone" liberal mindset in our public schools, where only one in four teachers dare confess to the perceived crime of thinking Republican. As April's 32 student death tragedy at Virginia Tech suddenly reminded us, such mentality rarely spawns a secure environment.

That's why it's up to you to hold their feet to the fire until you're completely comfortable with their response.

On Beck, Brad Thor recommended Lt. Colonel Dave Grossman's strategy for school protection called the 4 Ds (Deter, Detect, Delay and Destroy). The plan combines awareness and prevention musts for parents, teachers and school officials with tactical advice for law enforcement. I suggest you read the article Preparing for school attacks, which the Colonel coauthored, to learn more about his warnings to avoid falling victim to the 5th D - Denial. After all, while the "odds of a school attack in your community are admittedly low ..to ignore the threat is to live in denial."

Dangerous denial, I might add. Especially when we refuse to imagine the possible worst before it happens.

Imagine all the People .....

To be sure, if there's one battlefield on which our fanatical enemies have outflanked us, it's that of imagination. While al Qaeda continues to develop diabolical methods of mass murder, our countermeasure response has targeted only those offenses previously deployed or otherwise detected. The already tedious waits at airports now made further agonizing by silly shoe surrender and ridiculous liquid restrictions are perfect examples of just how shortsightedly reflexive these responses have been.

But the lives of our progeny depend on a more proactive, imaginative approach. We now know that the FBI ignored a summer of 2001 memo urging an investigation into Middle Eastern men enrolled in American flight schools that actually suggested bin Laden's involvement. Dare we repeat that fatal lack of imagination, given current similar warnings, and do nothing until another 3000 (or, perhaps, many more) are slaughtered? What greater call to action do we possibly need?

Last week we learned of nine postcards sent to different schools in Marion County, Florida, each with a crudely hand drawn cartoon depicting a building exploding and spewing bodies to the ground. Each card also contained the handwritten caption "Jihad Boom" and the words "9-11 ? 10-10." Several schools in the same county had received written threats just a week earlier promising attacks on the September 11 anniversary.

Hoax or genuine threat? Not yet determined. Then again, as of this writing there's been neither a response from DHS nor any confirmation that the feds are even involved in the investigation, despite the threats moving through US mail. Jihad Boom? 9-11? Not realizing whose lap any threats containing such words belong in transcends failures of imagination to touch upon gross incompetence.

It's high time DHS stops treating us like children, so that we may better protect our own children.

We reassure our frightened kids, awakened from nightmares, that what scared them was only a dream - not real -- there's no such thing as monsters.

Dreadfully, we know all too well that's no longer the truth - and so does our Department of Homeland Security.
4)

To me, the verdict is clear: Ahmadinejad was defeated, and Columbia won a victory for freedom.