Experience shmerience as long as he's good to his mother!

This from a fellow memo reader. From time to time I publish what Frank Gaffney writes. This is not surprising. We are vulnerable because there are those who take advantage of the freedoms granted our citizens to destroy us. It has always been so. The Communists tried it. German Bund members tried it. Skinheads and Klan members have tried it. Vigilance, education in our own values and a willingness to defend them are our best weapons. (See 1 below.)

An Israeli friend of mine has been told by his government he must avoid large crowds when possible and not visit any place of a Muslim or Arab nature, even in our country. (See 2 below.)

Newt repeats what others have been saying about Speaker Pelosi's despicable action to prevent a vote on protecting companies who co-operate in our war against terrorism from being sued by plaintiff attorneys interested in earnings large fees and who are generally large Democrat campaign contributors.

Her action is truly a magnificent display of contempt for the people! (See 3 below.)

Lest there be any doubts about Iran's ambitions to obtain a nuclear weapon capability. (See 4 and 5 below.)

A new slant - I can't! Disappointment with GW has greased the tracks for America's new boomer generation! (See 6 below.)

Does experience matter? You decide!

Modern presidents (Since FDR) with little experience beyond being Senators:

Truman (also V. president), Kennedy, Johnson (also Senate Leader),Ford and Nixon.

Modern Presidents who were governors:

Carter, Reagan, George W Bush and Clinton.

Modern Presidents with experience beyond politics:

Eisenhower and George H Bush.

Dick


1) The Mapping Sharia in America Project, sponsored by the Washington-based Center for Security Policy, has trained former counterintelligence and counter-terrorism agents from the FBI, CIA and U.S. military, who are skilled in Arabic and Urdu, conducting undercover reconnaissance at some 2,300 mosques and Islamic centers and schools across the country.

"So far of 100 mapped, 75 should be on a watch list," an official familiar with the project said.

Many of the Islamic centers are operating under the auspices of the Saudi
Arabian government and U.S. front groups for the radical Muslim Brotherhood
based in Egypt.

Frank Gaffney, a former Pentagon official who runs the Center for Security
Policy, says the results of the survey have not yet been published. But he
confirmed that "the vast majority" are inciting insurrection and jihad
through sermons by Saudi-trained imams and anti-Western literature, videos
and textbooks.


2) Taking Out Mughniyah, Taking Out Terrorism
By Yisrael Ne'eman

The elimination of Hezbollah’s military chief of staff and arch terrorist, Imad Mughniyah, on Feb. 12 was fully justified. Many are claiming Israel was behind his removal by car bomb in one of the most heavily guarded neighborhoods in Damascus despite official denials from Jerusalem. The Hezbollah is threatening revenge not only against Israel but against all Jewish targets abroad thereby making clear not only its objective of obliterating the Jewish State but also its enmity against all Jews.

Due to such threats many are doubting the wisdom of any Israeli action against terrorist leaders. Mughniyah was responsible for hijacking an American airliner to Beirut in 1986 and in the unprovoked bombings of the American Marine headquarters and US embassy in Beirut in 1983. Let us recall that the Marines came as a peace keeping force in the wake of the Lebanese civil war and Israel’s First War in Lebanon. Hezbollah’s previous leader before Hassan Nasrallah was Issad Mussouwi who was killed by Israeli helicopter gun ships in 1992. Hezbollah, in alliance with Iran, reacted by bombing the Israeli embassy and Jewish community center in Buenos Aires Argentina causing a heavy loss of life. Many fear a similar reaction(s) somewhere world-wide as a result of Mughniyah’s death.

Since then Mughniyah worked with the Hamas to increase terror activity while pursuing Hezbollah’s 2006 summer war (Second War in Lebanon) against Israel. Recently he was rebuilding Hezbollah’s Iranian trained and outfitted militia with new recruits and rocket acquisitions. He was responsible for planning terror attacks and initiating the next war against Israel. Sec. Gen. Nasrallah on Friday declared that the war with Israel will continue, “Destroying Israel is an inevitable outcome, a historic law, a divine doctrine,” and he insisted it will culminate in open conflict within the next few months.

Israel and the West must continue their full court press against terrorism regardless of who was responsible for Mughniyah’s death. All terrorists must be under unbearable pressure knowing that at any moment they may die. Anyone making the claim that terrorists should not be eliminated for fear of retaliation is living in a fantasy world since Islamic terrorists have every intent of attacking civilians (Jewish, Israeli or otherwise) to achieve political gain. They need no “provocation”. All must be on guard while the terrorists are made to pay with their lives for their deeds. It should also be recalled that the same fears arose after Hamas leaders Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and Sheikh Abdul Aziz Rantisi were taken out by Israel in 2004 and nothing happened. 2004 was the year Israel broke the back of the Palestinian Low Intensity Conflict/Terror Offensive (2000 – 04). Taking out Yassin and Rantisi were part of the success.

There are those who speak of a hudna (Islamic cease-fire). But the definition of a hudna is a cease-fire whose purpose is to allow the Islamic side to rearm, retrain and re-initiate the conflict until total victory and world Islamization. Furthermore, a hudna can be violated by the Islamic side when they are ready for an offensive. So what’s the point? It is best to continue the anti-terror offensive beyond the breaking point of the Islamists, never allowing them to breathe. The battle must be waged by everyone who has democracy at heart, whether one identifies with the Left, Right, religious, secular, liberal or conservative perspectives.

The only lesson from the Mughniyah liquidation is that such actions must be multiplied as much as possible. The political and terror leadership of Hezbollah, Hamas and certain other Islamist organizations are one and the same. A terrorist who doubles as a politician should not be immune to the anti-terror counter offensive. In practical terms this means eliminating Hassan Nasrallah, Ismail Haniyah, Khalid Mashal and anyone else who targets and attacks civilians for political gain. Simultaneously Israel and world Jewry must guard against a resurgence of the terror offensive.

It is a zero sum game war where Mughniyah and his ilk must be awarded the zero.


3) Terrorists Still Have the Advantage
By Newt Gingrich

America, by the inaction of the U.S. House of Representatives, has been weakened substantially in fighting terrorism.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) and her left-wing allies decided to leave Washington without voting on the bipartisan Senate bill that would have extended key provisions of the Protect America Act, a bill that is essential for America's ability to quickly and deftly track terrorist communications overseas.

This abdication of responsibility by such a high-ranking member of our government has been the most amazing anti-national security action by Congress in decades.

This is not a partisan analysis.

The vote in the House Democratic caucus reportedly had some 20 moderate votes opposed to leaving without voting on the Senate bipartisan anti-terrorism bill.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.), the Democratic chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has said this failure to act has weakened our ability to intercept and stop terrorists.

Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell (a career military officer) and Atty. Gen. Michael Mukasey, in a letter to Rep. Silvestre Reyes (Tex.), the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, stated plainly, "We have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress' failure to act."

I urge you call your representative today and demand that they pass the Senate bipartisan Protect America Act bill (which got a filibuster-proof 68 votes in the Senate) immediately. Every day that passes is a day that America is more vulnerable.

4) Iran’s supreme ruler solidly backs Ahmadinejad’s drive for a nuclear weapon

Iranian sources report that, 18 days before parliamentary elections to the majlis, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei for the first time threw all his weight and authority behind his country’s nuclear program and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. His words clearly celebrated the failure of the United States, the West at large and Israel to stall Tehran’s nuclear ambitions - whether by military force or sanctions.

Tuesday, Feb 26, the supreme ruler told Iranian officials:

“One example of an advance by the Islamic system has been the nuclear issue, in which the Iranian nation has honestly and seriously won a great victory.” For the first time, he echoed Ahmadinejad’s intransigent position and praised his role in advancing the nuclear issue as “outstanding.”

In the face of the nuclear watchdog’s latest report that questions about Iran’s possible weaponization of nuclear materials remain unanswered, Khamenei backed to the hilt the hard-line positions taken by the president and the Revolutionary Guards and their drive for a nuclear bomb and nuclear-capable missiles.

Transparently pouring scorn on the US and Israel, the supreme ruler said: “Those people who used to say Iran’s nuclear activity must be dismantled are now saying we are ready to accept your advances, on condition that it will not continue indefinitely. This was achieved by perseverance.”

The ayatollah was referring obliquely to certain Western powers including Germany which have discreetly engaged Tehran for a deal to acknowledge Iran’s nuclear achievements provided it put its military option on ice for some years.

Khamenei treated this concession, which would leave the Islamic Republic free to invoke its option at will, as a “great victory.” He was clearly crowing over US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice’s call for a third round of sanctions and Ehud Olmert’s reliance on the international community.

Khamenei’s lavish praise for the president ahead of the majlis vote was a setback for the theory held by US and Israeli policy-makers that the supreme ruler and his faction are more amenable to reason that Ahmadinejad and the Revolutionary Guards and, if confronted with a military showdown with the US and Israel, they would prefer to deal. Khamenei’s rhetoric Tuesday put paid to this illusion.

In fact, domestically, his latest statement will strengthen the radical president’s parliamentary support in the March 18 election, as well as his call to wipe Israel off the map.

5)Iran should have a nuclear weapon by 2010, says Israel’s military intelligence chief


This estimate was put before the Knesset foreign affairs and security committee by Israel’s military intelligence AMAN chief, Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin, in his briefing Tuesday, Feb. 26.

He also predicted that Hizballah would time its reprisals for the 40th day of mourning for its military commander Imad Mughniyeh – that is March 22-23, forty days after he was blown up in Damascus. The Lebanese Shiite terrorists, Gen. Yadlin warned, was also planning to kidnap another Israeli soldier.

In the month since Hamas flattened Gaza’s border wall for free Palestinian access to Egyptian Sinai, scores of al Qaeda operatives have used the opportunity to steal into the Gaza Strip, he reported, along with large numbers of Palestinian terrorists returning from special courses in Iran and Syria. There, they acquired special skills in the fabrication of explosive devices and missiles. Among them too were trained snipers, of the type which have begun plaguing Israel farmers tilling their fields close to the Gaza border.

6) Yes, We Can’t: From Ralph Waldo Emerson to Deval Patrick, the politics of hope have been a bust.
By Fred Siegel

Aging baby boomers see in Barack Obama’s down-the-line liberal voting record the promise of a left-wing revival. The college students and twentysomethings of the Millennial Generation see in him a way of pushing the quarrelsome, narcissistic baby boomers off the stage. Someone is bound to be disappointed by this extraordinary performance artist. But what both the boomers and the Millennials share is a desire to be part of what Ralph Waldo Emerson, writing in the 1840s, called “the politics of hope.” Emerson wrote during a time of numerous experiments in utopian living. Obama—whose candidacy rests upon a standard utopian dichotomy between the earthly evils of poverty, injustice, war, and partisanship, and the promise of the world to come if we allow him to rescue us—appeals to the same Elysian strain in American and Western political life, largely in remission since 1980, when the 1960s truly ended.

America’s founding fathers were a famously hard-headed lot; they understood that government had to be structured to remedy the “defects of better motives.” Since self-serving interest groups—or factions, as Federalist 10 calls them—were an unavoidable element of liberty, interest could only be checked by competing interest. But while this insight is the main stem of our political tradition, there is another, albeit punctuated, branch—a utopianism that derives from the millenarianism of the sects that emerged from the Protestant Reformation and eventually populated America. “Utopian . . . ideas,” notes Daniel Flynn in his new history of the American Left, are as “American as Plymouth Rock.” This is why, as Sixties activist Bo Burlingham put it, “the Left bobs up and down in American history, a battered and leaky craft which often disappears beneath the tide, but somehow never sinks.”

In the wake of bloody utopian experiments in 1930s Europe, a slew of erudite authors launched compelling attacks on them. Jacob Talmon, Karl Popper, Raymond Aaron, Czeslaw Milosz, and Hannah Arendt laid waste to the historical, philosophical, sociological, and literary assumptions that supported communism and fascism. But their arguments didn’t endure, despite their power. By the mid-1960s, utopianism had again taken hold, and its lure was such that even Arendt, once a vocal opponent, found herself drawn to the religion of politics. Propelled by her disdain for America in general and the Vietnam War in particular, as well as the promise, as she saw it, of worker-control experiments in Europe, she effectively reversed much of her earlier writings.

She wasn’t alone. In 1949, Arthur Schlesinger had published The Vital Center, the canonical statement of disillusioned, empirical, and anti-utopian post–World War II liberalism. Schlesinger praised “the empirical temper” and a realistic sense of man’s limitations that recognized that “freedom means conflict.” Tracing the shared assumptions behind Brook Farm—the famous American utopian experiment of the 1840s—and the Soviet Union, he distanced liberalism from an optimism born of eighteenth-century rationalism and a nineteenth-century romanticism about progress, which left “too many unprepared for the mid-twentieth century.” Democracy, he wrote, “brooks no worship” of great leaders because “it knows that no man is that good.” And Schlesinger rebuked the leftists who, admiring the USSR, couldn’t believe that “ugly facts underlie fair words.” It was an intellectual tour de force.

But a little more than a decade later, Schlesinger—romanced by John F. Kennedy—walked away from these arguments. His admiration for the liberalism of a “moderate pessimism about man” was replaced by hero-worship and a sense of the dashing, aristocratic, articulate Kennedy as someone who could transcend standard political categories. Kennedy’s untimely death canonized the hard-nosed Massachusetts pol—with a mixed record at best as our first celebrity president—as JFK, a Lincoln-like martyr to civil rights, the King of Camelot who, if he had lived, would have made all right with the world. This Kennedy passed into Democratic Party legend and still inspires some today: remember Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign ads, featuring a picture of the young Clinton visiting the White House with a group of young student leaders and shaking hands with Kennedy. Kennedy, the ads implied, was passing the torch.

Obama, the celebrity-like candidate drawing on his generational appeal and noble bearing, fits better into Kennedy’s robes than Clinton did. Unlike Kennedy, who didn’t think of himself in messianic terms, Obama seems short on irony. Still, for lovelorn boomers and for youngsters who’ve known only the failures of the Bush years, Obama promises a Camelot-like reenchantment with politics. “I’ve been following politics since I was about five,” says TV host Chris Mathews. “I’ve never seen anything like this. This is bigger than Kennedy. [Obama] comes along, and he seems to have the answers, he’s the New Testament.” In this view, just as Kennedy’s victory in 1960 brought the country out of its Eisenhower-era stupor and put the Catholic question to bed for good, so an Obama victory will reenergize our politics and bring an end to poverty and racial division.

Hillary Clinton has searched in vain for a way to combat Obama’s appeal. In the recent Austin debate, she criticized Obama for borrowing generously from the speeches of his good friend and coeval Deval Patrick, the first African-American governor of Massachusetts. “Lifting whole passages from someone else’s speeches,” she challenged in the debate’s one charged moment, “is not change you can believe in, it’s change you can Xerox.” Clinton’s arrow here was not aimed so much at plagiarism—all candidates borrow heavily from each other and from past campaigns—as at Obama’s claim to authenticity. But with the press, on both left and right, all but openly rooting for Obama, little came of her attack; more important, the press missed the true importance of the Patrick comparison.

Bay State journalist Rick Holmes describes Obama and Patrick, fellow Harvard Law School graduates, as “peas in a pod.” Patrick is the Obama campaign’s national cochair. Obama’s presidential campaign has modeled itself on Patrick’s gubernatorial campaign. Patrick’s 2006 campaign slogan was “Together we can,” while Obama’s is “Yes we can.” The brilliant Chicago political operative David Axelrod has managed both men’s campaigns. Both candidates have made persistent appeals to “the politics of hope.”

So Clinton’s criticism seems an opportune moment to ask how Patrick’s inspirational rhetoric has translated into governing a state where Democrats control both houses of the legislature—the likely scenario for Obama, too, should he take office. Patrick’s governorship is the closest thing we have to a preview of the “politics of hope”—and that governorship has been a failure to date. As Joan Vennochi observes in the Boston Globe, “Democrats who control the Legislature ignored virtually every major budget and policy initiative presented by a fellow Democrat.” Patrick’s record in office, Vennochi concludes, “shows that it can be hard to get beyond being the face of change, to actually changing politics.” His stock has sunk so markedly that Hillary Clinton carried the state handily against Obama in the Democratic primary despite, or perhaps because of, Patrick’s support for his political doppelgänger.

In one area, however, Patrick has achieved some of his goals. In thrall to the state’s teachers’ unions, he has partly rolled back the most successful educational reforms in the country. Most states gamed the federal testing requirements that were part of President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act. But Massachusetts, thanks to Republican governors William Weld and Mitt Romney, created the Office of Educational Quality and Accountability to ensure that the state’s testing methods conformed closely to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—federal tests that are the gold standard for measuring educational outcomes. In 2007, Massachusetts became the first state to achieve top marks in all four categories of student achievement. One of Patrick’s first efforts as governor was to eliminate the Office of Educational Quality and Accountability.

Patrick hasn’t delivered reform, much less the transformation that both he and Obama promise. This should come as no surprise. Obama’s utopian vision of transcending the interests that make up the fabric of our democracy is unlikely to fare any better than the “politics of hope” did in Emerson’s time. The key question at hand is whether Obama’s Edenic bubble bursts before or after the election.