One of my brightest friends, a lawyer and fellow memo reader has responded to my suggestion we all get tattooed. I could not reprint his Power Pont but you can Google the 'False Claims Act' he refers to if you so choose. (See 1 below.)
Netanyahu rejects demands from State Department.
I have walked from Hebrew University to French Hill. It is virtually a stone's throw from the Hyatt Hotel at the foot of Hebrew University's main entrance. French Hill was once a hot bed of activity during Arafat's Intifada. UN workers who live in nice houses with nice cars and administer to the Palestinians living in their refugee camps. These workers have a job for life. (See 2 and 2a below.)
Meanwhile, Iran is preparing a nuclear test site while our State Departments spends time harrassing Netanyhau. (See 3 below.)
Mark Levin strikes back at Peter Berkowitz (See 4 below.)
Sec. Gates coming to Israel. Is he coming to reassure Israel re Iran and/or to warn Israel not to attack unilaterally? (See 5 below.)
Diana West alarmed over growth in government. DUH! (See 6 below)
Pittsburgh's Kelly writes pork laden stimulus bill was a mistake. When is pork filled legislation not a mistake? (See 7 below.)
Walter Cronkite died this past weekend. For a long period of time he was the nation's most respected voice. His credibility gave him tremendous clout. Then he lost his way and helped us lose the war in Vietnam when he went over there and reported back it was unwinnable just as the tide was turning. Subsequent interviews with N KVietnamese senior officers have revealed no less. They said it demonstarted our lack of resolve and inspired them to press on knowing we would fold our tents as we did. (See 8 below.)
Apparently Obama never met a can of worms he did not like, want to touch and even eat.
Will the military soon be rquired give terrorists their Miranda Rights on the battlefield? Seems like the CIA will soon be doing it and those who don't might be sued for breach of something.
Read Richard A. Clarke on the delicate balance between the rule of law and running an effective intelligence agency.
We are just plain nuts! (See 9 below.)
Can Hillary and Obama's marriage of 'dissonance' be saved, asks Rosslyn Smith? Bumper sticker survey reveals fraying. Wish begets the thoought? Who cares. (See 10 below.)
Like Hydra, more Gaza terrorist cells keep forming. (See 11 below.)
The stimulus bill has worked. It stimulated the Democrats to waste money on their pet projects. (See 12 below.)
Dick
1)Tattoo? I am not a government official -- yet -- just an officer of the Court. Lends new meaning to attorney advertising. Besides, Leviticus says no tattoos.
But, of course, anyone who directly or indirectly takes government money is now subject to the False Claims Act. See slides 8 and 9 of my presentation attached -what was laughed at when Justice Breyer mentioned it in the Supreme Court arguments in 2008 has become the law of the land in 2009. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
All the best (I think?),
False Claims Act presentation.ppt (55KB)
2) Netanyahu rejects US demand to cancel East Jerusalem housing project
Opening the weekly cabinet session Sunday, July 19, Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu sharply rejected the US State Department demand handed to Israeli ambassador Michael Oran to put a stop to construction work at the Shepherd's Hotel site in Jerusalem. The abandoned hotel is located between the Arab neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah and Mount Scopus, where the Hebrew University and Hadassah are situated.
Netanyahu stressed the issue of construction in Jerusalem, capital of Israel and the Jewish people, is not open to discussion. Hundreds of Arab residents have purchased apartments in the west of the city without difficulty, he pointed out, and there is no bar on Jews buying or building on the eastern side. Building permits are issued by city authorities for Jews and Arabs alike in the open, undivided city of Jerusalem, said Netanyahu.
The Shepherd's Hotel site originally belonged to the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini and his heirs turned it into a hotel in the years between 1948 and 1967 when Jews were forbidden to set foot in Jerusalem. In the 1980s, the Husseinis sold the site to American businessman Irwin Moskowitz who intends building a Jewish housing estate there.
Political sources add: The left-wing Meretz party leader Haim Oron predictably supported the US demand issued in response to a protest from Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas. This circular process has become a regular feature of US-Israeli relations, usually beginning with left-wing Israeli activists "alerting" the US administration to Jewish construction activity on the West Bank and Jerusalem in order to trigger a Palestinian complaint and invoke American pressure on the Israeli government.
Moskowitz has devoted himself to purchasing land from Palestinians in east Jerusalem for the construction of Jewish neighborhoods. Likewise, Jewish neighborhoods abutting on east Jerusalem and the West Bank, such as French Hill and Pisgat Zeev, have in recent years attracted a growing number of Palestinians apartment purchasers.
2a) 'No difference to U.S. between outpost, East Jerusalem construction'
By Akiva Eldar, Barak Ravid and Jack Khoury
The United States views East Jerusalem as no different than an illegal West Bank outpost with regard to its demand for a freeze on settlement construction, American sources have informed both Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
This clarification came in the context of a growing crisis in U.S.-Israel relations over the planned construction of some 20 apartments for Jews in the Shepherd Hotel, in East Jerusalem's Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood. The U.S. has demanded that the project be halted, but Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the cabinet meeting Sunday that "Israel will not agree to edicts of this kind in East Jerusalem."
"United Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish people in the State of Israel, and our sovereignty over the city is not subject to appeal," he continued. "Our policy is that Jerusalem residents can purchase apartments anywhere in the city. This has been the policy of all Israeli governments. There is no ban on Arabs buying apartments in the west of the city, and there is no ban on Jews building or buying in the city's east. This is the policy of an open city."
Saying that Israel could not accept Jews being forbidden to live in anywhere in Jerusalem, Netanyahu added: "I can imagine what would happen if someone proposed that Jews could not live or buy in certain neighborhoods of London, New York, Paris or Rome. A huge international outcry would surely ensue. It is even more impossible to agree to such an edict in East Jerusalem."
Asked to comment on these remarks, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was in New Delhi, said the administration is trying to reach an agreement with Israel on settlements, and "the negotiations are intense," the Associated Press reported.
Later Sunday, Netanyahu met with his advisors to discuss Israel's response to Washington's demand.
"I was surprised by the American demand," a source present at the meeting quoted him as saying. "In my conversation with [U.S. President Barack] Obama in Washington, I told him I could not accept any restrictions on our sovereignty in Jerusalem. I told him Jerusalem is not a settlement, and there is nothing to discuss about a freeze there."
"In my previous term [as premier], I built thousands of apartments in the Har Homa neighborhood of Jerusalem, defying the entire world," Netanyahu added. "Therefore, it is clear that I will not capitulate in this case - especially when we are talking about a mere 20 apartments."
Other ministers also criticized the American stance at the cabinet meeting. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, for instance, termed it "puzzling," while Interior Minister and Shas Chairman Eli Yishai declared that "no agency in the world can stop construction in Jerusalem."
And Shin Bet security service chief Yuval Diskin told the ministers that the PA and its security services are engaged in widespread efforts to keep Palestinians from selling land in Jerusalem to Jews. He also said that Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi of Qatar has allocated $21 million to Hamas activists to buy buildings and establish infrastructure in Jerusalem.
Washington's objections to the Shepherd Hotel project were first voiced by senior State Department officials at a meeting with Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren last Thursday, in response to a request by PA President Mahmoud Abbas. The officials complained that the construction would change the neighborhood's demographic balance and harm its Palestinian residents.
Oren responded that the land in question was privately owned, having been purchased in 1985 by American Jewish tycoon Irving Moskowitz, and the project has received all the necessary permits from the Jerusalem municipality.
Also Sunday, Abbas' bureau chief, Rafiq Husseini, said he hoped the U.S. would not back down on its demand for a complete settlement freeze, including in East Jerusalem.
In an interview with the Nazareth-based radio station A-Shams, Husseini said, "from our standpoint, there is no room for a compromise [on this issue], and we expect the American administration to stick to the determined stance that envoy [George] Mitchell expressed as far back as 2001. Any compromise that enables continued construction ... will do nothing whatsoever to advance the diplomatic process."
3) Iran puts finishing touches on a desert A-test site east of Tehran
Military sources reveal Iran is in the last stages of construction of a nuclear test site in the Kavir Lut desert between Tehran and its eastern border with Afghanistan. The work is managed by the Iranian experts invited to attend North Korea's nuclear test this year.
Two of the diplomats attached to the UN nuclear watchdog agency in Vienna confirmed to the Associated Press Saturday July 18 that Iran now has the means to test a weapon within six months. One said more specifically: "Iran has the capacity, if not the intention, to set off a test explosion in six months."
Speaking on condition of anonymity, the two diplomats emphasized there were no indications of plans for a nuclear test and in their opinion Iran is unlikely to risk heightened confrontation with the West and chances of an Israeli attack with such a course.
For the last six months, intelligence sources have all stressed this supposition is wishful thinking having confirmed Iran is squarely on the fast track for an N-test. Once preparations are complete, its leaders will not hesitate to conduct one, following the North Korean model.
And indeed the two diplomats in Vienna admitted the Iranians were blocking UN nuclear agency attempts to upgrade monitoring resources.
As recently as July 9, military sources reported: "The US, Europe - and even the Binyamin Netanyahu government - appear to have adopted the same strategy for North Korea and Iran. It is a combination of harsh oral rebukes coupled with a refusal to address North Korea's violations and Iran's race for a nuclear bomb in any practical way, even though sanctions are clearly of no effect at all.
A blind eye is equally turned to the close collaboration between Pyongyang and Tehran on their missile and nuclear development programs. The two rogue states are also clearly in tune on their nuclear diplomacy and timetables.
According to intelligence sources, North Korea shared the results of its latest missile launches with Iran, exactly as it did after its nuclear and ballistic tests. But neither Washington nor Jerusalem has raised a hand. Both nuclear transgressors are getting away with the gross, ongoing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and making a mockery of international law and UN resolutions."
Therefore, the diplomat's estimate Saturday that the Iranians will not risk confrontation with the West or chance an Israeli attack is completely unfounded, as are the theories that the Iranian leadership is in too shaky a position at home to go forward with a nuclear test. As soon as the test site is ready, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will not be deterred from taking the nuclear plunge by the unrest at home, any more than grave illness has stopped Kim Jong-II flouting international prohibitions.
Still, the US and Europe will not fall out of their chairs because they have given the ayatollahs all the time they needed to attain a nuclear weapon.
4) Conservatism in defense of liberty
By Mark Levin
Peter Berkowitz, who reviewed my book Liberty and Tyranny for the Weekly Standard, and did a pretty poor job of it, sees the most aggressive assault on representative and constitutional government in modern history and preaches moderation and, ultimately, inevitability.
In the first sentence of his review he asserts "Moderation ... is an essential political virtue and a quintessentially conservative virtue." This is the way forward for conservatism, he insists. At no time does he define "moderation" or any governing principles, other than to misapply moderation as prudence, when prudence is, in fact, about judgment.
Edmund Burke, who Berkowitz misunderstands and, therefore, wrongly cites for his proposition, supported the American Revolution (while rejecting the French Revolution). The American Revolution can hardly be described as a moderate reaction to England's usurpations. Nor can it be said to be a popular uprising, given that a majority of the nation either opposed it or was indifferent. But it was a revolution whose purpose was to establish a civil society rooted in natural law, a just rule of law, moral order, tradition, faith, reason, and, yes, liberty. Would Berkowitz describe it as a "moderate" revolution? An "imprudent" revolution? Does he think it was a good thing or a bad thing? Of course, moderations can be imprudent in certain circumstances. The conflation of moderation per se and prudence requires such an inquiry of those who misunderstand and misapply the concepts.
For the neo-Statist (or neo-Conservative), the problem is particularly acute when applied to international relations for he usually promotes a hawkish and interventionist foreign policy. If prudence is moderation per se, then how does Berkowitz square this circle? Is bombing Iran's nuclear sites, even as a last resort, a moderate or an immoderate act? Obviously, the question makes no sense. The test is whether it is prudent.
Thus, those, like Berkowitz, who promote moderation (not prudence) as a principle, are actually promoting a tactic or process without any core. They play right into the hands of the Statist. As I wrote in Liberty and Tyranny:
"By abandoning principle for efficiency, the neo-Statist, it seems, is no more bound to the Constitution than is the Statist. He marches more slowly than the Statist, but he marches with him nonetheless. The neo-Statist propounds no discernable standard or practical means to hem in the federal power he helps unleash, and which the Statist would exploit. In many ways, he is as objectionable as the Statist, for he seeks to devour conservatism by clothing himself in its nomenclature."
This defines Berkowitz.
But prudence alone does not explain Burke or conservatism, either. Burke rejected the French Revolution because he rejected its objectives as well. Burke invoked prudence not for the sake of prudence, but to support and secure the civil society. In other words, when Berkowitz uses Burke to argue that Burke supported gradualism and reform as opposed to radical change, Berkowitz does not explain that Burke supported gradualism and reform because he held core beliefs about religion, government, tradition, liberty, etc., which he contended were best secured through prudence. Therefore, to invoke Burke in arguing that true conservatives would not challenge the foundations of statism today, as Berkowitz does in his review, is embarrassingly off the mark.
Oddly, Berkowitz also argues that he uncovered a crucial flaw in my book. He writes, in part,
"To be sure, there is a vital place in democratic politics for passionate partisans like Levin who rouse the base and adopt a take-no-prisoners approach to political argument. And better to have your enthusiasts on the airwaves where their principal job is to entertain than in the universities, which (officially, at least) remain devoted to dispassionate intellectual inquiry. But rightwing talk show hosts' extremism on behalf of liberty and tradition should not be allowed to set the tone for officeholders and party leaders. Nor should their immoderation slide over into an attack on moderation itself, especially since a delicate balancing act sustains their core conservative commitments."
This is a remarkable bit of malpractice by Berkowitz. Liberty and Tyranny's emphasis is on the civil society, of which liberty and the individual are, of course, key, as are other elements. Berkowitz himself selectively quotes from my exposition, although he does so to make some other point I don't quite get. However, here is what I wrote on pages 3-4:
"Like the Founders, the Conservative also recognizes in society a harmony of interests, as Adam Smith put it, and rules of cooperation that have developed through generations of human experience and collective reasoning that promote the better of the individual and society. This is characterized as ordered liberty, the social contract, or the civil society.
"What are the conditions of this civil society?
"In the civil society, the individual is recognized and accepted as more than an abstract statistic or faceless member of some group; rather, he is a unique, spiritual being with a soul and a conscience. He is free to discover his own potential and pursue his own legitimate interests, tempered, however, by a moral order that has its foundation in faith and guides his life and all human life through the prudent exercise of judgment. As such, the individual in the civil society strives, albeit imperfectly, to be virtuous -- that is, restrained, ethical, and honorable. He rejects the relativism that blurs the lines between good and bad, right and wrong, just and unjust, and means and ends.
"In the civil society, the individual has a duty to respect the unalienable rights of others and the values, customs, and traditions, tried and tested over time and passed from one generation to the next, that establish society's cultural identity. He is responsible for attending to his own well-being and that of his family. And he has a duty as a citizen to contribute voluntarily to the welfare of his community through good works.
"In the civil society, private property and liberty are inseparable. The individual's right to live freely and safely and pursue happiness includes the right to acquire and possess property, which represents the fruits of his own intellectual and/or physical labor. As the individual's time on earth is finite, so, too, is his labor. The illegitimate denial or diminution of his private property enslaves him to another and denies him his liberty.
"In the civil society, a rule of law, which is just, known, and predictable, and applied equally albeit imperfectly, provides the governing framework for and restraints on the polity, thereby nurturing the civil society and serving as a check against the arbitrary use and, hence, abuse, of power.
"For the Conservative, the civil society has as its highest purpose its preservation and improvement."
Rather than understate "the conflict between liberty and tradition," as Berkowitz puts it, I explain that conservatism has appreciation and respect for both. And while they may conflict at times, one cannot flourish without the other. Adam Smith and Edmund Burke, who were contemporaries and friends, were at one on this point. Berkowitz should re-read the chapters titled "On Prudence and Progress," "On Faith and the Founding," "On the Constitution" and even "On the Free Market," in which I discuss, among other things, the vitality of liberty and tradition. It can be found throughout the book.
While claiming to embrace tradition, Berkowitz does no such thing. Remarkably, he seems to think that American tradition started with the New Deal or maybe the beginning of the so-called Progressive Era. In his review he writes nothing of the founding, the Constitution, federalism, etc. -- i.e., the tradition he claims to cherish yet completely ignores. Indeed, he writes:
"Like it or not, the New Deal is here to stay. It has been incorporated into constitutional law and woven into the fabric of the American sensibility and American society. The utopian dream of cutting government down to 18th-century size can only derail conservatism's core and continuing mission of slowing and containing government's growth, keeping it within reasonable boundaries, and where possible reducing its reach. Indeed, one could scarcely devise a better example of the imprudence that Burke dedicated his Reflections on the Revolution in France to exposing and combating than Levin's direct appeal to abstract notions of natural right to justify a radical reversal of today's commonly held convictions about the federal government's basic responsibilities."
My, this is quite a jumble. And it reflects the confusion that is so prevalent among the neo-Statists. Unconstitutional statism is not an American tradition (it is actually more European). Indeed, it rejects American tradition and has as its aim to destroy the civil society. Burke would reject its purpose just as he rejected the French Revolution. Moreover, for starters, the "abstract appeals" to which Berkowitz refers are found in the Declaration of Independence (I have said many times that the Statist rejects the Declaration for he must in order to advance his agenda; perhaps the neo-Statist does as well), and the United States Constitution (which is hardly abstract, but which Berkowitz ignores as he must to make his own abstract arguments about "moderation"). Nonetheless, despite having just argued that the New Deal is now part of American tradition, it is constitutional, and woven into the fabric of the nation, Berkowitz wants to slow it, contain it, keep it within reasonable boundaries, and reduce its reach.
Why? If it is desired, why oppose it? If it is un-Burkean to challenge it, why reject it? If American tradition began with the New Deal and the people want more of it, why slow it and contain it? From what principles does Berkowitz operate? We don't know from his review. He doesn't tell us. If they are not discoverable in the Declaration, the Constitution, or our founding generally, if they are too abstract to bring to this fight, then what exactly does Berkowitz stand for other than an undefined, reactionary "moderation" which may be known to him but which cannot be set forth in a coherent or comprehensive way in his review? Besides, how can you effectively contain Statism when you fundamentally embrace it as inevitable? Berkowitz does not tell us.
Still, in another weird formulation, Berkowitz portrays the modern conservative approach as to wanting to cut the government down to 18th-century size. Having already argued for slowing, containing, and reducing the federal government, from which century is Berkowitz operating? And from what century is the Statist -- who rejects the Declaration and the Constitution's limit -- operating? Berkowitz embraces the notion that growing statism is of modern vintage and of modern necessity. Actually, it has been around since the beginning of man. That's why we know so much about it and must resolutely challenge it. Conservative principles, however, which are, after all, the founding principles, are said by Berkowitz to be stuck in the 18th century. Is this supposed to be a serious point?
As I wrote in Liberty and Tyranny, specifically addressing the neo-Statists:
"Liberty's permeance in American society often makes its manifestations elusive or invisible to those born into it. Even if liberty is acknowledged, it is often taken for granted and its permanence assumed. Therefore, under these circumstances, the Statist's agenda can be alluring ... It is not recognized as an increasingly corrosive threat to liberty but rather as coexisting with it."
It is I, therefore, who must remind Berkowitz that there is indeed much learn from our history and tradition that would serve us well today if he would consult them. Didn't he argue earlier for such an approach when invoking Burke? It would inform Berkowitz that, among other things, we live in extremely perilous times because of the distance we have walked from our founding principles. Those New Deal and Great Society programs Berkowitz says are woven into our society are fraying and ripping at our society's fabric six decades later. The former Comptroller General of the United States has said they are unsustainable, threaten the economic well-being of the nation, and will deliver a crushing blow to future generations in the amount of over $50 trillion in unfunded obligations. What does Berkowitz say about this in his review? Not a word. Yet, it's discussed at some length in the book. What about other aspects of the New Deal and Great Society that are unraveling? Nothing.
What about the efforts underway in the last six months to fundamentally transform our society -- massive new deficit spending, nationalizing the auto companies and ignoring bankruptcy laws, using TARP funds to buy equity positions in hundreds of banks, efforts to institute cap and trade and government-run health care, etc.? I discuss much of it in the book, having predicted it was coming. Berkowitz ignores it. Instead, in his review he takes offense at my supposedly unkind description of the Statist (where he misstates Alexis de Tocqueville's views) and his motives, and my supposedly too kind description of the Conservative and his principles.
Berkowitz writes, in part:
"To be sure, there is a vital place in democratic politics for passionate partisans like Levin who rouse the base and adopt a take-no-prisoners approach to political argument. And better to have your enthusiasts on the airwaves where their principal job is to entertain than in the universities, which (officially, at least) remain devoted to dispassionate intellectual inquiry. But rightwing talk show hosts' extremism on behalf of liberty and tradition should not be allowed to set the tone for officeholders and party leaders. Nor should their immoderation slide over into an attack on moderation itself, especially since a delicate balancing act sustains their core conservative commitments."
Hmmm. What's this rightwing talk show extremism stuff? Is this the same Berkowitz who disliked my (accurate) description of the statist? Moreover, I cannot decide if he is reviewing my book or my radio show. In any event, better I and my fellow conservative hosts are on the radio where we can be rightwing extremists than in the Ivory Towers of academia, which are reserved for, well, leftwing extremists -- who, of course, are dispassionate intellectuals, or at least supposed to be? And better conservative talk show hosts not influence actual officeholders. No, better that the leftwing professoriate be appointed as czars and other officeholders in the Obama administration where they can actually set policy. Yes, some delicate balancing act. Who is Berkowitz kidding? He talks endlessly of moderation yet does not appear to live in the real world.
Berkowitz points to this excerpt from Liberty and Tyranny as an example of my extremism:
"... the only economic system that produces on a sustainable basis, and for the overwhelming majority of Americans, an abundance of food, housing, energy, and medicine--the staples of human survival; it creates an astonishing array of consumer goods that add comfort, value, and security to the quality of life; and the free market recognizes that it is in man's DNA to take risks, to innovate, to achieve, to compete, and to acquire -- to not only survive but also improve his circumstance."
He adds this excerpt as well:
"Furthermore, the individual knows better how to make and spend that which he has earned from his own labor and provide for his family than do large bureaucracies populated by strangers who see classes of people rather than individual human beings."
Wow. Pretty extreme stuff, huh? Berkowitz contends "There is more to the story, however. As Levin himself observes, the market generates what Joseph Schumpeter called 'creative destruction,' the process by which capitalism's endless innovation and entrepreneurship constantly give birth to new products and companies and render others obsolete and ruin them. But Levin only brings up the market's destabilizing power to criticize efforts by the left to eliminate through law the uncertainty and hardship inherent in capitalism."
Really? Here's what I wrote on page 83:
"Comprehend a future without creative destruction. It is bleak, backwards, and destitute, like most authoritarian societies. Yet the Statist has persuaded some erstwhile conservatives of its demerits. Typically the argument is formulated around protecting America's industrial base. The question is asked: How can America allow its industries to fail and outsource its vital needs to other countries? From where will we get our steel? How will we build our tanks? This is a circular argument. The Conservative urges an economic environment stripped of debilitating regulations and taxes that hinder the performance and competition of American industry. He believes American industry is more than capable of competing against foreign industries and, in most cases, does so. However, where industries are subjected to the Statist's heavy hand rather than the free market's invisible hand, they are obstructed and burdened in ways that are counterintuitive and self-defeating. Ultimately, it is an unworkable formula, as the rest of the world is not obliged to adhere to it but rather will look for ways to exploit it. The Statist, therefore, is destructive of the very ends and the very people he professes to represent"
For Berkowitz, rather than a fairly obvious truth that it is government, more times than not, which is responsible for misery throughout human history -- particularly given recent real world examples of widespread misery from the former Soviet Union and East Bloc, where creative destruction and capitalism were rejected, to our own automobile industry, which, as I explained in the same chapter, is hardly an example of the free market at work and, as is clear, has cost taxpayers, investors, and employees dearly -- he paints the argument for the voluntary use of labor and capital as rightwing extremism. I would discourage him from reading Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and a score of other less prominent economists, some of whom, dare I say, are teaching at universities and colleges. Conservatism borrows from all kinds of "rightwing extremists." If you reject capitalism as producing far more good than bad, albeit imperfect (which I explain repeatedly throughout the book), then you do far more than embrace "moderation." You reject conservatism.
Berkowitz then writes:
"As Irving Kristol, Daniel Bell, and George Will (among others) have pointed out, capitalism also creates significant problems for conservatism. Its churning change erodes the traditional beliefs, practices, and institutions that the conservative rightly sees as essential to moral education in a free society. Because both liberty and tradition are good, because each provides the other crucial support, and because at the same time they often reflect opposing impulses and issue contradictory demands, the conservative, who cherishes both, is constantly called upon to strike a prudent balance between them, or exercise moderation."
Where did I state otherwise? In fact, I make this very point at the beginning of the "On the Free Market" chapter, where I wrote:
"The free market is the most transformative of economic systems. It fosters creativity and inventiveness. It produces new industries, products, and services, as it improves upon existing ones. With millions of individuals freely engaged in an infinite number and variety of transactions each day, it is impossible to even conceive all the changes and plans for changes occurring in our economy at any given time. The free market creates more wealth and opportunities for more people than any other economic model.
"But the Conservative believes that the individual is more than a producer and consumer of material goods. He exists within the larger context of the civil society -- which provides for an ordered liberty. The Conservative sees in the free market the harmony of interests and rules of cooperation that also underlie the civil society. For example, the free market promotes self-worth, self-sufficiency, shared values, and honest dealings, which enhance the individual, the family, and the community. It discriminates against no race, religion, or gender. The truck driver does not know the skin color of the individuals who produce the diesel fuel for his vehicle; the cook does not know the religion of the dairy farmers who supply milk to his restaurant; and the airline passenger does not know the gender of the factory workers who manufacture the commercial aircraft that transports him -- nor do they care.
"The free market is an intricate system of voluntary economic, social, and cultural interactions that are motivated by the desires and needs of the individual and the community. The Conservative believes that while the symmetry between the free market and the civil society is imperfect -- that is, not all developments resulting from individual interactions contribute to the overall well-being of the civil society -- one simply cannot exist without the other."
More rightwing extremism? Berkowitz clearly fails to appreciate or comprehend the significance of the market system, which is why he can't bring himself to praise it in his review of my book. The history, context, and experience he claims are missing from conservatism are right in front of him. And we conservatives see them more clearly than most.
Liberty and Tyranny confounds it critics, as it did Berkowitz. By combining philosophy, history, law, economics, and current events I make the case for conservatism and against non-conservatism. The book can be cherry-picked here and there if a reviewer wants to make out-of-context points and arguments, as Berkowitz has. There is much more to the book than Berkowitz wants to admit because his agenda was not so much to honestly review it but rather to try to advance his own case for "moderation." As such, my response to his review of my book is also an unflattering review of his Weekly Standard piece.
Conservatism is a magnificent philosophy that is worthy of its promotion intellectually and politically. There really is no other philosophy that respects the individual and nurtures humanity generally. Despite what some say, including the Weekly Standard when it published this subtitle -- "And extremism is no virtue in politics" -- it is a "broad-tent" philosophy that applies to all people. I tried to capture its wonderment in Liberty and Tyranny. So far 850,000 people have read it, and I will leave it to them to draw their own conclusions free from Berkowitz's agenda.
I also believe that conservatism is the only real alternative to statism, and that's especially so given today's soft tyranny. Berkowitz points to Barry Goldwater's defeat in 1960 as evidence that it cannot win at the ballot box. Here again, his methods are sloppy if not troubling. Of course, Ronald Reagan won two smashing landslides in 1980 and 1984 and there was no more articulate spokesman for first principles than he. Indeed, "moderates" aren't sure whether to claim him (when they do, they often redefine who he was and what he stood for) or reject him (contending that his approach to politics and governance could never work today). Berkowitz also fails to acknowledge the defeat of candidates he supports who seem to represent the old school thinking (which he calls "renovated conservative policy thinking") -- Gerald Ford v. Jimmy Carter, Bush 41 v. Bill Clinton, Bob Dole v. Bill Clinton, and the most recent disaster, John McCain v. Barack Obama. Obviously, events and circumstances play an important part in election results, as they did in the Johnson-Goldwater race, which Berkowitz uses to condemn conservative electoral chances for all times.
As an aside, when my office was contacted by an individual from the Weekly Standard seeking photographs of me "for a story we are running" on my book, it was suggested that the story would be favorable. I assume Bill Kristol is not happy with my brief mention of him in the book as a neo-Statist. So be it. But in the future let's play fair, boys.
Mark R. Levin served in several top posts in the Reagan administration, is a nationally syndicated talk radio host, and author of several New York Times bestsellers, including Liberty and Tyranny (with over 1 million copies in print).
5) 'Israel must consider ties with US when weighing attack on Iran'
By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER
Amid reports that Defense Secretary Robert Gates is heading to Israel next week for talks on Teheran's nuclear program, a senior US defense official has told The Jerusalem Post that an Israeli strike on Iran could be profoundly destabilizing and would affect US interests.
Israel needed to take its relationship with America into account in contemplating any such attack, he warned.
Gates, who last week described the Islamic republic's nuclear drive as the greatest current threat to global security, is set to spend six hours here next Monday, discussing the Iranian threat with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak. He will also visit Jordan, according to officials involved in planning the trip.
In his interview with the Post at the Pentagon, the senior US defense official also suggested that Syria might be ready to "fundamentally" reorient its position toward the United States, which would include restarting talks with Israel, at a time when Hamas and Hizbullah have been put "on the defensive" by Obama administration policies and events in Iran.
Those events, said the official, who insisted on anonymity, hadn't been seen to affect Iran's timeline on developing nuclear weapons. What was clear, he indicated, was the negative effect an Israeli strike would have.
"A unilateral third-party attack on Iran's nuclear program could have profoundly destabilizing consequences, and it wouldn't just affect the general level of stability in the region. It would affect Israel's security and it would affect our interests, and the safety of our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere," the official said, when asked if the US expected Israel to inform it of any decision to strike Iran.
"It's a pretty big deal, and given the closeness of our relationship with Israel, I think we would hope that they would take those strategic calculations into account."
His comments in the interview, conducted on Friday, came on the heels of conflicting signs from the Obama administration about whether it had given Israel a so-called "green light" to attack Iran, after Vice President Joe Biden said "Israel can determine for itself - it's a sovereign nation - what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else" on July 5.
Obama clarified on CNN later in the week that he had "absolutely not" given Israel permission to strike Iran.
The comments also followed a report in The Washington Times that Israel had not asked the US for permission for a possible military attack on Iran out of fear America would say no.
The senior Pentagon official said Israel and the United States shared a similar estimate on the timeframe for Iran developing a nuclear weapon. He ascribed discrepancies in press accounts largely to differences in what deadline is being referenced, such as gaining nuclear capability versus building an actual bomb.
"There may be some disagreement about how quickly the Iranians could weaponize," he noted of Israeli versus American assessments, "but the general timeframe about when the Iranians might cross a threshold of a nuclear weapons capability is broadly in that one-to-three year timeframe that the chairman [Adm. Mike Mullen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] has noted on a number of occasions."
The official said that even with the turmoil in Iran, as opposition groups continue to protest a presidential election they believe is fraudulent, "We don't see any evidence that there's been a political decision made to accelerate or decelerate" the nuclear program.
He did assess, though, that three scenarios were likely to emerge which would have implications for the nuclear program and the chances of success for America's efforts to engage Iran diplomatically on the subject.
He said in two, the conservatives in the regime emerge successful in their crackdown but take different tacks afterwards.
In the first case they could "hunker down" and focus on stamping out dissent, relating to the international community only as a "scapegoat" on which to blame all their internal problems.
"If that's the scenario that plays out, it's gong to be very difficult to have a successful diplomatic engagement with Iran," he said.
But in the other case, the conservatives in power could feel the economic pinch of international isolation and decide to take steps not to alienate the West further. In this scenario, "rational calculators" in Iran could comprise a dominant faction "that pushes for actually a gradual improvement of relations with the West."
The US official said it was "too early" to assess which scenario was more likely. He also allowed for the possibility of a third scenario of "muddle" to result instead, in which nothing about the government or its postures were clarified for quite some time.
But one indicator that has emerged so far, he said, was that Teheran had not stoked its proxies, such as Hizbullah and Hamas, in the short term.
Instead, he contended, the problems in Iran, the rejection of Hizbullah in the Lebanese elections, the Palestinian Authority's strides in the West Bank and Obama's overtures through the region were "all things that put Hamas and Hizbullah on the defensive."
He continued, "In looking where the region was a year ago, you would have said that there was a lot of momentum on the side of Iran and its allies. I think if you would assess the situation right now, that the momentum is probably going in the opposite direction."
He said that when it came to Syria, the US still hadn't seen "on the Hamas or Hizbullah front that there's been any improvement," and "we're approaching a time where it's pretty clear the Syrians need to start showing pretty concretely that they're ready to start changing their behavior, not just their words," though he did note the country's help in limited the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq.
Still, he said, "There is a change in that Syria is increasingly willing to have a productive conversation with us" and "there's reason to be cautiously optimistic."
He elaborated, "I think the Syrians have expressed a genuine desire that I think raises the possibility that they may be open to fundamentally changing their relationship with us and reentering the Arab fold."
Part of that, he indicated, would include restarting peace talks with Israel that Damascus called off during the Gaza war this winter.
In the meantime, though, he pointed to the serious threat facing Israel from the extremist groups that Syria supported, and stressed that America must be cognizant of that reality when it urged Israel to take steps toward peace, as well as translate that awareness into support for missile defense and other programs to help provide Israel a more secure environment.
"One of the issues that's important as we're asking Israel to lean forward in the peace process is to recognize that from their perspective, there are risks associated with handing over territory and we need to work with them to address those risks so the Israeli government feels more confident in pursuing peace."
6) The Alarming Growth of Federal Government
By Diana West
At some point of embittering clarity, Americans will open their eyes to the glaring significance of the Obama era and see the Power Grab Years for what they are. Whether this realization comes in time to stave off the eradication of the United States as we thought we knew it, or whether it comes too late, I predict it will surely come.
If it comes in time, the realization that the nation dodged history's bullet will produce massive waves of relief. If it comes too late, the understanding of our fallen state will live on as the lost lore, not of a subject people exactly, but of a self-subjected people. That's because in this strange historical instance, the American people, beginning with but not limited to those of us who voted Barack Obama into the White House, seem to have agreed to shoulder the heavy, costly yoke of exponentially increasing government control of our lives.
Make that exponentially increasing executive branch control of our lives -- even more alarming given the cult of President Obama's personality already evident. With a rubberstamp Democratic Congress, it is the Obama White House that calls the shots, and it doesn't let dissenters forget it. As much as anything else this week, what cast me into this particular abyss of speculation was the stunning news that after Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., declared the Obama administration's stimulus spending plan ineffective and urged a halt to further stimulus spending, the White House dispatched four Cabinet secretaries -- Transportation's Ray LaHood, Agriculture's Tom Vilsack, Housing and Urban Development's Shaun Donovan, Interior's Ken Salazar -- to write letters to Republican Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer enumerating every dime of federal monies that would no longer flow to her state if Sen. Kyl had his way.
As LaHood snarkily put it to Gov. Brewer, "If you prefer to forfeit the money we are making available to your state, as Senator Kyl suggests, please let me know."
What did the White House expect the governor to do next? Make Sen. Kyl an offer he couldn't refuse? Or, as Mark Steyn, detecting the whiff of extortion in the air, asked: "Why not just break his (Kyl's) legs in the Senate parking lot?"
Muscular politicking on steroids is the Obama way, whether the administration is bullying Chrysler bond-holders, wresting control of the Census from the Commerce Department, or empowering, at last count, as many as 31 "czars" to oversee various aspects of federal policy, from Gitmo closure "czar" Daniel Fried to executive pay "czar" Kenneth Feinberg, many without Senate confirmation. In explaining the full White House press on government-controlled health care, top Obama strategist David Axelrod could have been describing the Obama White House m.o. in general: "Ultimately, this is not about a process, it's about results." Which is just another way of saying the ends justify the means.
But what are those ends? My guess is that socializing the engines of wealth and creation in this county is itself a means to an end -- the consolidation of a new power structure derived from a government-dependent population and animated by the kind of identity politics exemplified by Sonya "wise Latina" Sotomayor, whose self-contradictory Senate testimony this week, by the way, perfectly tracks Axelrod's playbook. In the meantime, however, as the administration expands its control over the private sector, as it formulates foreign policy in harmony with that of Castro's Cuba, Chavez's Venezuela, and Ortega's Nicaragua, it's no stretch to say that Barack Obama is reshaping the USA in a distinctly socialist mold, something closer to a dictatorial workers' paradise than to cowboy-friendly Reagan Country.
But there exists a potent taboo against the S-word and other terminology essential for analysis. Jeb Bush's aversion to the term is typical. "Is Obama a socialist?" Tucker Carlson recently asked him in Esquire magazine.
Bush said he didn't know, and called the president a "collectivist." Same difference? Perish the thought. "Socialism is pejorative in America," Bush explained. "So people stop listening. People are tired of it. That word won't stick. It's a turnoff. It doesn't help."
"It's a turnoff"? It had better not be a turnoff. Because if we don't talk about it, we won't think about it -- until it's too late.
Diana West is the author of the "The Death of the Grown-Up: How America's Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization."
7) Not so stimulating:The president's pork-laden stimulus bill isn't working
By Jack Kelly
Shortly after a Quinnipiac University poll reported July 7 that President Barack Obama's job approval rating in Ohio had fallen 13 percentage points in two months to 49 percent, the White House dispatched Vice President Joe Biden to that crucial swing state to defend the administration's efforts to deal with the economic crisis.
This was a mistake, for two reasons.
The first is that almost every journalist reporting on the vice president's speech would feel compelled to reference the Quinnipiac poll. This, noted Jim Geraghty of National Review Online, was like "hanging a lantern" on the problem.
The second is that Joe Biden is a motormouth, liable to say anything. The White House slapped him down after Mr. Biden said on ABC's "This Week" program July 5 that the administration had "misread how bad the economy was." (When asked about the remark, Mr. Obama said there wasn't a misreading, just a lack of information in the early days of his presidency.)
Speaking in Cincinnati to a crowd of "about 200," some of them protesters, Mr. Biden asked for patience. "Remember we're only 140 days into this deal," he said. "It's supposed to take 18 months."
This isn't what Mr. Obama and his aides were saying in February. Back then we were told the $787 billion stimulus bill had to be rushed through Congress to keep unemployment from rising to 8 percent.
"No one in the House read that bill because the urgency was such that the president said we had to act now and if we acted now, we would stave off job loss and we'd get America back to work," recalled Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., the GOP whip.
At an elaborate signing ceremony in Denver Feb. 17, Mr. Obama said the stimulus bill would "create or save" 3.5 million jobs, starting right away. He also said then that he expected to be held accountable for the results.
With unemployment in June at 9.5 percent, and with the president himself now acknowledging the unemployment rate is likely to exceed 10 percent before year's end, it's pretty bizarre for Mr. Obama to say, as he did in his radio address July 11, that the stimulus bill "has worked as intended."
A report from New Hampshire suggests why the stimulus bill hasn't stimulated the economy much.
According to the state office responsible for tracking the money, New Hampshire has received so far $413.6 million in stimulus funds, which have resulted in the creation of 50 jobs, all in government, most of them temporary and only 34 of them full time. That comes to a cost of $8.32 million per job, or nearly $10 million per full-time job, if we assume that two of the part-time jobs equal one full-time job.
The Obama administration claims the stimulus bill has "saved" jobs, but there is no way statistically to verify this, and the state government hasn't reported any in New Hampshire.
"No genius was required to see the stimulus wasn't going to work because it consisted mostly of pork-barrel projects of such dubious merit that not even a Democratic Congress was likely to have approved them if they hadn't been bundled together to reduce scrutiny and rushed through under the guise of an emergency. As Mr. Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, put it: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."
In a column in February, I called the stimulus bill "the porkalooza," and predicted it would define Mr. Obama's presidency, and could shorten it.
"As more details of what's in [the stimulus bill] become known, already tepid support will cool further," I wrote then. "And if the economy doesn't turn around, support for the president will plummet."
I'm more scornful of the porkalooza than ever, but I'm glad now that it passed. That's because the porkalooza "only" wastes great gobs of money. The president's plans to nationalize health care and to impose a "cap and trade" system have serious implications for our liberty as well as our solvency.
But because of the massive debt Mr. Obama is running up with the porkalooza, his nationalization of Chrysler and General Motors and his proposed budget for the next fiscal year, popular enthusiasm for trillion-dollar spending programs has pretty much dried up.
And because the president's claims for the porkalooza have turned out to be so wrong (or so disingenuous), people are wary of the promises he's making about health care reform and energy policy.
Sometimes, Rahm Emanuel, it's better to solve a crisis than to take advantage of it.
Jack Kelly is a columnist for the Post-Gazette and The (Toledo) Blade
8) And That's the Way It Was:How much of a political crusader was Walter Cronkite?
By Todd Gitlin
Walter Cronkite had, and deserved, a monumental reputation, helped along by a splendid poker face and a voice that incarnated authority in a time that believed authority was rather unproblematic. Now that he has passed, his career will be inspected for meaning--not least, political meaning. Was he: (a) The very personification of trustworthiness? (b) An agent of rebellious influence? (c) A spokesman for many of America's bygone, no-longer-reliable authorities? (d) All of the above?
The correct answer is (d).
In the Fifties, before he became the brand of the "CBS Evening News," he hosted a charming, clunky, weekly show called "You Are There," in which present-day reporters "covered" historic events like the Constitutional Convention--history reported as news. The charm outweighed the clunk because the moral was that history was like the present, only it was over. It was knowable. Newsmen cut through the fog to get the real story. Cronkite, a former wire service reporter highly regarded for his World War II work, had the look and voice (steady, unflappable) of a man who found things out.
In 1962, Cronkite succeeded to the anchorship of the then only 15-minute-long "CBS Evening News," and when the show went to a half-hour in 1963, his influence was felt immediately. It was no small deal to occupy such a place at an American network. The three networks were just about the whole TV story. CBS and NBC had the half-hour nightly news shows all to themselves until 1967, when ABC caught up. Those were the days of three networks, three auto companies, three breads (white, wheat, rye), with a scatter of marginal alternatives (DuMont, Studebaker, pumpernickel). The news was The News the way that Chevy was The Car. "And that's the way it is," Cronkite's close-off, was a steady advertisement for TV's ability to know what a citizen needed to know.
That meant, for the most part, reading his copy poker-faced and baritone, without any more inflections than a wire-service report. When Cronkite broke out of the ritual and, sitting at his desk, took off his glasses when he reported that John F. Kennedy was dead, and then swallowed hard, he was certifying what a massive truth that was.
Most doves thought he was dovish on the Vietnam war; most hawks thought he was hawkish. In 1962, he had narrated an anti-communist government propaganda film called The Eagle's Talon. (In 1971, when the producer of The Selling of the Pentagon wanted to include a clip, he objected. It was included anyway. The tide had turned.) Cronkite had, in fact, helped turn it. In February 1968, after a Tet offensive that wasn't supposed to happen, he stepped out of his anchor chair--and out of character--and went to Vietnam to find out for himself what was happening.
I asked John Laurence, formerly one of the stars of CBS's Vietnam reporting, what he remembered of Cronkite's special report. "The reason his Vietnam War broadcast in 1968 had such a big impact," he wrote back in an e-mail, "was that it was so unlike him to take a position on anything. It just wasn't done in those days." Laurence recalled dinner the night before Cronkite left Saigon:
Walter said he wanted to know what was really going on. The senior US military officers he had spoken with had told him the Tet Offensive was turning out to be a huge success for the allies because they were killing so many VC and NVA. They were predicting victory. I acknowledged the huge numbers of deaths, but pointed out that the Northerners would replace their losses and come at us again. And again, and again. And that the sooner we realized the fact that we were not going to win this fucking war, the better for everyone, especially the Vietnamese and Americans who were being butchered by the thousands. For no good purpose. I got a bit emotional and [chief CBS Vietnam correspondent Robert] Schackne gave me a polite but stiff kick in the shins under the table at one point, to suggest that I cool it.
CBS special aired on February 27, 1968, with this peroration:
To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion. On the off chance that military and political analysts are right, in the next few months we must test the enemy's intentions, in case this is indeed his big gasp before negotiations. But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could.
These words were neither incendiary nor novel. That the war was unwinnable was already the view of the secretary of defense and a staple of public opinion. But Cronkite's step out of character was a formidable symbol of broken legitimacy in an age that liked its symbolism straightforward.
In 1972, Cronkite threw his weight as managing editor behind another extraordinary break from the evening-news-as-usual. One of his field producers, Stanhope Gould, was convinced that the Watergate story was so complicated that the fragments trickling out day after day didn't add up to a comprehensible narrative. With Cronkite's approval, Gould put together a two-parter of unprecedented length. On October 27, 1972, Part I ran for 14 minutes and 40 seconds, roughly two-thirds of the entire news hole--a veritable War and Peace of the evening news, and eleven days before the election at that. Part II was ready to run at roughly the same length minutes. Said Gould in an e-mail, "Walter was the reason" the program broke precedent by going so long. "He pulled Managing Editor rank."
No sooner did Part I run than Nixon operative Charles Colson phoned CBS chief William S. Paley to complain that the network was playing politics and issue a veiled threat, whereupon Paley called the late CBS president Richard Salant, who, said Gould, "left that encounter sure that Paley wanted Part II exterminated with extreme prejudice." Gould, who thought the piece needed unusual length and repetition to drive the story home, was willing to compromise on an 8 minute version, which made a case that Nixon intimates H. R. Haldeman and John Mitchell were implicated. Cronkite, who had (according to varying accounts) either sized up the limits of his influence or acceded to a top producer's desire to hold him back in reserve, stayed out of the meeting where Salant accepted the deal.
Cronkite wasn't hell-bent on opposition, in either case. Eventually, his conventional patriotic persona went back to work. Beginning on the 50th day of the Iran hostage crisis, in 1980, Cronkite followed "and that's the way it is" with "the 50th [100th, etc., up to Day 444] day of captivity for the American hostages in Tehran." Two months after the hostages returned, he relinquished the anchor chair.
But the more truncated, parochial, and craven the networks became subsequently, the more Cronkite spoke out as the trustworthy personification of straight, unquestionable news to which attention needed to be paid. In many public statements over almost three decades, he lashed out at the trivialization of the news under increasingly desperate corporate management. One suspects that while his successor, Dan Rather, closed his own broadcasts with the words "That's part of our world tonight," Walter Cronkite persisted in the naive but sturdy faith that it was possible, and obligatory, to tell the big truth of his time, to establish a base-line of fact which all America, with its Big Hearth, ought to know and had reason--not least in his honesty--to believe.
Todd Gitlin, professor of journalism and sociology at Columbia University, is the author of many books on America and its culture, including The Sixties and The Whole World Is Watching.
9) Targeting Terrorists
By RICHARD A. CLARKE
Washington is embroiled in a manic swing of opinion about the efficacy of covert action, including targeted assassinations.
Not since 1975 when the Church Commission investigated Nixon-era abuses in intelligence agencies, have such unusual things occurred in the world of Washington intelligence agencies as in these past few weeks. The Democratic House of Representatives threatened to pass an intelligence authorization bill which the Democratic White House has promised to veto. The former Democratic congressman who now heads the Central Intelligence Agency has been having a public disagreement with leading House Democrats about whether the CIA lies to Congress. There is a controversy about a secret CIA program to do something most Americans presumably want the CIA to do, to kill al Qaeda terrorists. The attorney general is rumored to be looking for a special prosecutor to investigate CIA interrogators, even though the president seemed to have earlier told CIA employees that there would be no prosecutions about alleged torture. Former CIA employees are publicly trotting out the claim that all of this attention “hurts the Agency’s morale” and that damage could result in another successful terrorist attack on the U.S. Even seasoned Washington policy wonks are finding it hard to navigate their way through all of those stories and make some sense of what has been going on.
Unless we understand what all of this drama is really about, we will not get the delicate balance right between the needs of a democracy and the rule of law on one side and the requirements of a secret intelligence service on the other. And this democracy needs a functioning secret intelligence service to protect it against the current genres of threat.
All of this recent Washington activity about intelligence is perhaps best understood as three distinct, but related stories playing out against a backdrop of suspicion about what the previous administration may have done in reaction to the 9-11 attacks. It is also part of a 60-year historical pattern of manic swings of opinion in Washington about the efficacy of covert action.
The first story should probably have been headlined “House Democrats finally realize intelligence oversight system is broken.” Most of the time the CIA collects and analyzes information, but on rare occasions it goes beyond reporting and tries to change things in the world by carrying out activity in secret, activity which it does not want attributed to the United States. For three decades laws have required the president to inform key Congressional leaders before the CIA undertook such “covert actions.” For most of those three decades few of the Congressional leaders eligible to be briefed took that responsibility very seriously. Often they would grudgingly make time to meet with someone from the CIA, ask a few questions, and go on their way. That Congressional disinterest generally suited the CIA, which did not really want any serious supervision of covert action by anyone outside of the Agency, least of all by members of Congress. Had a Congressional leader really wanted the oversight responsibility for covert action, the notification system would have made that almost impossible.
Here is how that system works for sensitive programs: Eight Congressional leaders get calls from the CIA director’s office, asking for an immediate appointment to brief on a “sensitive matter.” The CIA does not say what the subject of the briefing is, so there is no way the congressmen can get ready for the meeting. The briefing usually occurs with only one congressman in the meeting at a time. None of the expert staffers from Congress can come to the meeting, or even know after the fact what was discussed. If the congressmen find the proposed covert action troubling, there is little they can do but express that opinion orally in the meeting. Because the subject is highly classified, the congressmen cannot easily send a letter to the president dissenting.
In short, the oversight of covert activity was more of a ritual than a reality. House Democrats seemed finally to understand that this month in the wake of confusion about what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was or was not told several years ago about waterboarding. They, therefore, proposed an amendment to significantly broaden who in Congress could be told about covert action. The CIA, reasoning that if more people knew about a proposed covert action the chances of a program leaking to the media would increase, persuaded the White House to issue a rare veto threat if the amendment passed. What is unusual is that the White House staff did not succeed in working out a compromise behind closed doors and avoiding the public spectacle of warring Democrats.
The second intelligence-related story last week involved a several-year-old secret program which CIA Director Leon Panetta allegedly learned about in late June. When Mr. Panetta asked if Congress had been briefed, he reportedly was told that former Vice President Dick Cheney had blocked such notification. Mr. Panetta is said to have then cancelled the program and immediately informed the Congressional intelligence committees. Rather than being pleased by such quick action, the House Democrats used this diligence by Mr. Panetta as an example of how the oversight system does not work and why their amendment to expand the notification process should be passed. CIA proponents used the story as an example of how highly classified programs get leaked if you tell Congress about them. The initial news stories did not, however, reveal what the canceled program had been. Only after several days of investigation did the Wall Street Journal report that the hush-hush effort, which provoked Mr. Panetta’s wrath, was a program to kill al Qaeda terrorists. Most Americans might not think it was a big secret that CIA agents were trying to kill al Qaeda members, but in the weird world of Washington intelligence, it was.
For over a decade, in three different presidencies, there has been an ongoing debate about whether and how to kill al Qaeda terrorists and what part of the U.S. government should have the mission. The 9-11 Commission report details how President Clinton decided that killing Osama bin Laden and his supporters was not a violation of the ban on assassinations, how he authorized attacks, and how the CIA failed successfully to use that authority. Several media accounts this week indicate that after 9-11, the CIA put together a more serious effort to take out terrorists, but that the program was variously activated, deactivated, and put on hold by the four directors the CIA has had since 9-11. Senior CIA officers have been reluctant for years to create hit squads, fearing that a wave of CIA assassinations of terrorists would provoke a major al Qaeda retaliation against U.S. intelligence officers worldwide. They have also, with good reason, doubted the ability of their own agency to successfully kill the right people and then escape. Some have pointed to the Israeli terrorist targeting effort as evidence that such killings can be counter-productive, providing the terrorist groups with propaganda victories. Israeli experts are themselves split on the effectiveness of their killings, but it does seem likely that it has made it harder for terrorist leaders to operate.
It is puzzling that some people object to U.S. personnel killing terrorists with sniper rifles or car bombs, but have little apparent problem with CIA and Department of Defense personnel tracking down specific terrorist leaders with Predator drones and then killing those leaders with the unmanned aircraft’s Hellfire missiles. The terrorist groups probably see little difference in how we choose to kill their leaders. The dramatically increased Predator strikes that began last October have reportedly killed much of the leadership of the Taliban, al Qaeda, and related groups operating near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Without those attacks, the situation in that region would undoubtedly have become much worse. One unnamed administration intelligence official recently told a reporter that the Predator hits on terrorist leaders are “the only game in town” because of the inability of the CIA to come up with any other way of effectively combating terrorists along the border. Thus, the real reason some in U.S. intelligence may not want attention given to the issue of hit squads against terrorists may be their embarrassment that for both bureaucratic reasons and lack of capability, the CIA has been unable and often unwilling to attack terrorist leaders except from the air. The two top leaders of al Qaeda have now been fair game for the CIA for a decade.
The third of the recent CIA-related stories was about the possibility that Attorney General Eric Holder may appoint a special prosecutor to investigate whether some CIA interrogators broke the law by the way in which they used waterboarding and other “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Mr. Holder is said to have been sickened by the description of what some CIA personnel may have done, as detailed in a 2004 report by CIA Inspector General John Helgerson. Most people thought the president had put the prospect of such an investigation to rest when he went to CIA headquarters and promised the staff that there would be no prosecutions. Examined carefully, however, what the president said was no one would be charged for carrying out what were, at the time, the procedures approved by President Bush and his Justice Department. The Helgerson Report apparently says some CIA personnel went well beyond even what the Bush guidelines permitted. The report is also alleged to say that little of real intelligence value was gained by the torture.
If a special prosecutor investigates, he may have to decide whether to accept the defense of “I was only following orders.” The United States rejected that defense at Nuremberg. If it rejects it again, low-level CIA staff and contractors might be tried. Or, they might be offered a way out if they detail whose orders they were following. There is, therefore, at least some potential for political-level officials being tried. The distracting and divisive frenzy that would ensue is probably one of the last things the Obama White House wishes to see. Nonetheless, as the history of special prosecutors shows, once launched, such investigators cannot be easily recalled or redirected.
It is this prospect of some CIA personnel being investigated, as well as the moves to expand Congressional oversight, that have provoked several former CIA staff and unnamed current intelligence officers to complain to the media that they are on the verge of damaging the Agency’s morale. If that morale is decreased, they warn, some intelligence officers will quit, others will become even more risk averse, and the probability of another 9-11 like attack will increase. Of course, if people keep telling CIA employees that their morale should be poor, it may become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
One thing that these recent stories have in common is that they occur in an atmosphere in Washington in which many believe that after 9-11 the previous administration, guided by the former Vice President, ignored laws, abused power, illegally hid their activities and engaged in excesses that, in the end, were counter-productive. Backers of the former Administration, of course, contend their actions were not counter-productive and, they claim, prevented attacks. In the absence of some Commission or Group of Wise People creating the definitive account of what did and did not happen, those suspicions stand and, it seems, grow. To date, however, President Obama and former Vice President Cheney are in agreement that such a truth commission would be a bad idea because it might become a diverting, dividing, and partisan circus. Others fear that it would set a precedent that would allow new administrations to criminalize the acts of their predecessors. Those objections could be addressed by a truly bipartisan panel of respected statesmen, if there still are people who can rise above partisan politics. The Commission would also need both subpoena and immunity powers to preclude criminal charges. Until we have such a Commission, these issues will linger and make it difficult for policy makers, legislators, and intelligence officers to know where the boundaries are.
Overarching all of this controversy is whether, when, and how the United States should engage in covert action. One former CIA director once told me that “CIA should do intelligence collection and analysis, not covert actions. Covert actions almost never work and usually get the Agency in trouble.” Can a nation with as many interests and enemies as we have be safe with no covert action capability? There have repeatedly been periods since World War II, when White House policy makers saw a threat so concerning that they wanted the CIA to use lethal force secretly against an enemy (the Viet Cong, the Sandanistas, al Qaeda). The Agency has often responded in a way that involved excesses, which eventually triggered investigations and recriminations. The ensuing public review often becomes partisan and reflects on the entirety of CIA. The Agency then enters into a period when it dismantles much of its covert action capability and loses its institutional memory. Then time passes, another threat emerges and the wheel is reinvented. Often that wheel is not round.
Since well over 90% of the CIA’s personnel are not engaged in covert action, but are doing the important work of intelligence collection and analysis, this cycle of contentiousness suggests that perhaps covert action should be done by someone else. We need a professional intelligence gathering and analysis organization and it would be better if that agency were not tied to, prejudiced by, and often tainted with a connection to covert action. If we are capable as a nation of learning from history, we should also take this opportunity to decide that covert operations should be done rarely, and then only by a special component of the military and perhaps by a small, separate, civilian agency under the joint supervision of a group of experienced administration and bi-partisan Congressional overseers. Democracy and the rule of law are not inherently incompatible with self defense involving a secret intelligence service. Its just that the way we do it now does not work well.
Mr. Clarke was a national security official in the White House for three presidents. He is chairman of Good Harbor Consulting, a security risk management consultancy for governments and corporations.
10) Hillary and Barack: Can this relationship be saved?
By Rosslyn Smith
The political marriage of convenience between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is fraying seriously in the face of the changed political dynamic in the last few weeks. Important segments of the voting public that once supported Obama are moving away from him.
The recent extended Fourth of July weekend may have marked a political watershed. For over a week the media was full of stories about Sarah Palin's decision to announce her own independence from the constrictions of trying to be a spokesperson for conservative causes on a national level while governing remote Alaska. Now it has became apparent through various polls that American voters also began to reevaluate the Obama presidency around that time.
Since several components of the Democrats' coalition are held together in the nature of marriages of political convenience, this may also have long term implications.
Pundits talk obsessively about the first hundred days of a presidency but voters are more likely to reassess events in reference to important dates on the calendar. We say to ourselves, I'll wait until Easter to decide, or I'll try again after Labor Day. Sometimes the very meaning of the day helps force the issue. A lot of relationships end before Valentine's Day when one party realizes they are just going through the motions. Others end soon afterward when someone realizes their affections were not fully reciprocated. Either way, the modern merchandising hype built up around the day almost forces people to assess if their current relationship has a future. On the other hand, the decision to get married is often made during the period between Thanksgiving and Christmas when couple are also making plans that revolve around their extended families. Some twenty percent of engagement rings sold are sold in the month of December.
The Fourth of July symbolizes not only this nation's independence, it marks the midpoint of the year. Thus it often factors into people's decision making process. This year, it seems to be mark the point when a significant number of voters decided that Obama's grace period was over and it was time to expect results from the unprecedented spending, Indeed, the daily Rasmussen tracking poll, which uses a three day average, shows a definite shift in the opinion of likely voters starting around the summer solstice and ending when Rasmussen suspended polling for the three day holiday weekend. Before then, the so called "passion index", the net of those who strongly approve versus those who strongly disapprove had been fluctuating between +3 and +6 with the occasional outlier since April. After July 8 it once again appears stable, but at -6 to -8.
I suspect that something else of significance also happened around the Independence Day milepost. While Rasmussen reports that 58% of Democrats still Strongly Approve of the President, the willingness to display this approval seems much diminished of late. Many who commentate on conservative websites have noted that last year's bumper stickers seem to be melting away.
As both an avid gardener and a gourmet cook accustomed to dining on ethnic fare who went John Galt in 2003, I visit a wide range of markets on my regular trips into the city to shop. Of late I've noticed that Obama bumper stickers are still much in evidence in the parking lots of upscale area retailers such as Earth Fare and BB Barnes , They are still seen at middle market Ingles, especially in more upscale neighborhoods. They have become rarer than they were just last month, however, at the Wal-Mart Supercenter and the decidedly down market GO, a local chain selling overstock items where the budget conscious hope to find Gwaltney boloney for $1/lb. Furthermore, it is a telling sign of the mood of consumers that for the past several months, GO has been unusually busy. For the first time ever, I had to search for a parking space in their lot earlier this week.
The distribution pattern of Obama bumper stickers eight months after the election is hardly surprising. For all their talk about being for the working class, from the beginning Obama's most die hard local supporters were not the type to responded to the slogan Save Money. Live better. The Obama bumper sticker is as much a symbol of their superior taste as a fondness for grass fed Australian beef and their willingness to pay $3/lb for a whole chicken fed a vegetarian only diet and transported to market by trucks that use only bio-diesel White blue collar voters, on the other hand, were among the slowest Democrat block to warm to Obama. As the group being hit hardest by the recession, it makes sense that they may also be the first to lose faith in Obama's economic baloney. I have a neighbor who recalls his mama, a Blue Dog Democrat, making cornmeal mush fried in bacon drippings for dinner several times a week during the hard times of his youth in the 1970s. He was incredulous when I told him that the customers at Earth Fare will pay $3 for a plastic tube of polenta -- which is nothing more than a few cents of cooked corn meal mush given a fancy Italian name. The social chasm between these two voting blocks is extremely wide.
I suspect that something in addition to the disaffection of working class Democrats may also be at work. On one recent trip into the liberal enclave of Asheville, NC I noticed several cars sporting Hillary bumper stickers. Given the diminished number of Obama stickers, they really stood out. Maybe it was just an anomaly, an improbable conjunction of my route with that of a handful of dead enders from last Spring's bitterly fought primaries. But I suspect the PUMAs are getting ready to roar once again.
I base this on the many women who strongly backed Hillary early in the primary cycle and only switched to Obama when it became apparent that he had won the nomination. White liberal guilt contributed to their desire to see Obama win the general election, but he clearly hadn't been their first choice. Not only has that guilt now been expiated, the Obama administration seems to be playing out an old familiar script in the lives of professional women of a certain age.
Last summer, many professional women in the over 50 age bracket who supported Hillary saw Obama as the hot shot with little more than a flashy resume. He seemed to epitomize the type of outsider executive recruiters would bring in when the boss retired or died, during the era before women were given the opportunity to be top executives. Often everyone at lower levels in an organization knew the retiring male executive's female assistant had been doing all the work for the last five years, but it didn't matter. Only men were ever considered for the high level jobs.
It now has been a year since Hillary was defeated and half a year since her usurper stepped triumphantly into the Oval Office. While Obama was admired as a great orator, his lack of ability to actually get things done is more apparent by the day. Even though these women are loyal Democrats, ingrained gender politics makes it hard for them to resist the I told you so attitude.
There is added emotional resonance among such women because, like the executive assistant of old who was never considered for her boss's job, Hillary loyally supported Obama in the general election and agreed to serve in his cabinet. In their eyes she has been doubly victimized by a condescending whippersnapper who first gave her the finger on the campaign trail only to now fall on his face in the executive suite.
With the hints already out there that all is not well between the Clintons and Obama, this bears watching. The Clintons' strength has always been among those Democrat groups that Obama was slow to win over and with whom his appeal may already be weakening. After voters soundly rejected the liberalism of Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton pushed the Democratic Party towards the center for eight years. It has now shifted even further left than Dukakis and many voters don't seem to like the idea much. Specific items on Obama's agenda do poorly when separately polled. Hundreds of thousands of those not among the political class have taken the unusual step of participating in both both large scale general demonstrations and small scale picketing of the local office of Senators and Representatives. Perhaps because of them, Democrats in Congress have even started to notice that the polls showing that Obama is still personally popular are not the whole story. Some people might be thinking that events are shaping up for a different Clinton to pull the party back toward the political middle.
The Clinton marriage surveyed Bill's many infidelities because presumably they each were getting something valuable out of the union. It will be interesting to see if Hillary's political union with Barack will survive a prolonged decline in Obama's popularity.
11)A dangerous new al Qaeda cell in strike mode from Gaza
Only casualty of Al Qaeda's new stunt - bomb horses - from Gaza
An aggressive new al Qaeda cell calling itself Jaljalat has been responsible for the last spate of cross-border attacks from the Gaza Strip. Counter-terror sources report Saudis, Yemenis and Egyptians who fought in Iraq and fled after being beaten down by US-led forces make up its hard core plus a score of Palestinian Hamas dropouts.
Sunday, July 19, Israeli Shin Bet director Yuval Diskin disclosed "world Jihad" elements had recently infiltrated the Gaza Strip. In his briefing to the cabinet, he said they - not Hamas - were responsible for all the recent attacks on Israel military forces guarding the Israel-Gaza border.
Hamas immediately denied the allegation as "unfounded.
This week, al Qaeda's Gaza branch issued a message warning that its members had taken an oath of allegiance to Osama Bin Laden, pledging to carry out “very big” attacks on American and Israeli targets in the Middle East. "Jaljalat" is the first word of al Qaeda's anthem, which means: “We have been saved” [implicitly by jihad].
Although the Gaza Strip is under close scrutiny by many undercover agencies - especially American, Israeli and Egyptian - very little is known about the new cell's makeup, modus operandi and method of communication with fraternal al Qaeda branches across the Middle East.
From the little known, it seems that Jaljalat is headed by a man known only as Abu Talib, and is increasingly attracting disillusioned operatives of Hamas' military wing, the Ezzedeen al-Qassam Brigades.
It attempted to mount its first multiple operation against several Israeli military border patrols on June 8. In a new departure from al Qaeda's usual tactics, several dozen terrorists used trucks loaded with mounted horses to which explosives were attached. They burst out of the trucks and galloped toward the border to attack Israel positions athwart the first "bomb horses" in the history of suicide terror. None made it across. They were cut down by Israeli mortar fire.
Jaljalat most likely carried out the anti-tank missile attack on an Israeli military squad patrolling the Gaza border at Nahal Oz Sunday night, July 19. No Israelis were hurt this time either, but it is feared that the new al Qaeda cell is just getting into its stride.
Experts have two theories to explain why Hamas is taking al Qaeda attacks from its turf lying down: Its leader find it hard to strike out against former members - is one. Another is its leaders have other fish to fry - Diskin believes they are deeply engaged in a bid to wrest the Palestinian leadership from the Fatah leader, the Palestinian authority chairman, Mahmoud Abbas, and are not averse to fellow-jihadists keeping up their war operations against Israel. This also muddies the water for Israeli retribution.
12)The Obama Agenda Bogs Down: Democrats got what they wanted in the stimulus bill. The public knows it
By FRED BARNES
It usually doesn't happen this quickly in Washington. But President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are finding that the old maxim that what goes around, comes around applies to them, too. Less than six months into his term, Mr. Obama's top initiatives -- health-care reform and "cap and trade" energy legislation -- are in serious jeopardy and he has himself and his congressional allies to blame.
Their high-pressure tactics in promoting and passing legislation, most notably the economic "stimulus" enacted in February, have backfired. Those tactics include unbridled partisanship, procedural short cuts, demands for swift passage of bills, and promises of quick results.
With large majorities in Congress and an obsequious press corps, Mr. Obama was smitten with the idea of emulating President Franklin Roosevelt's First 100 Days of legislative success in 1933. Like FDR, Mr. Obama tried to push as many liberal bills through Congress in as brief a time as possible.
He made a rookie mistake early on. He let congressional Democrats draft the bills. They're as partisan as any group that has ever controlled Congress, and as impatient. They have little interest in the compromises needed to attract Republican support. As a consequence, what they passed -- especially the $787 billion stimulus -- belongs to Democrats alone. They own the stimulus outright.
That makes them accountable for the hopes of a prompt economic recovery now being dashed. With the economy still faltering and jobs still being lost, Mr. Obama's credibility is sinking and his job approval rating is declining along with the popularity of his initiatives. Republicans, who had insisted the stimulus was wasteful and wouldn't work, are being vindicated.
The political fallout that mattered most, however, has been among Democrats in the House who will face tough re-election fights next year. They're in a state of near-panic over the lingering recession. Their confidence in Mr. Obama is fading, and they no longer believe in quickly passing the president's agenda. Cap and trade has been put off until the fall and health-care reform is starting to stall.
For Mr. Obama, this is all a potentially disastrous turn of events. On Capitol Hill, delay favors the opposition and tends to lead to defeat. The longer a bill sits around, the more its contents are dissected and the less likely it is to pass. Mr. Obama realizes this fact, which is why he is pressing for a quick vote on his health-care reform.
His plan has been to exploit the economic downturn to enact his entire agenda, not just the stimulus. The president's position, which he repeated again this week, is that his health, energy and education reforms are necessary to create a sustainable economic recovery. It's a clever political argument, but it makes little economic sense and few people buy it.
That's not all. The stimulus is such a large increase in spending that it turned the deficit into a political issue. There is a growing national wariness to adding billions (or trillions) to the budget, even for a relatively popular cause like health care.
Had Mr. Obama and Democrats proceeded differently, they'd have better odds now for enacting their agenda. They are victims of their own tactics.
Republicans hold 41% of the seats in Congress. That's a position of weakness, but not completely powerlessness. Rather than ignoring GOP proposals, Democrats might have been better off giving Republicans 20% of the stimulus funds to spend. Republicans probably would have spent it on tax reforms that encourage economic growth. Had that happened, the stimulus might have provided a mild boost to the economy by now.
Or what if Democrats had heeded Republican advice and trimmed the size of the stimulus? The economy wouldn't be any worse for it, but the deficit and public fear of it would be smaller.
During the presidential campaign last year, Mr. Obama said he was committed to bipartisanship. But congressional Democrats aren't, as he surely knew. They rejected input from House Republicans on the stimulus -- without a peep of protest from the president. Minor concessions to three Republicans gave them the 60 votes to pass the bill in the Senate.
The president's vow of bipartisanship wasn't the only promise to crumble. Democrats said they'd give Republicans (and the public) 48 hours to read a bill before a vote. But the final version of the 1,071-page stimulus package was unveiled in the House at 1 a.m. on Feb. 13 and passed later that day after one hour of substantive debate. Every Republican voted no. The Senate vote came 16 hours after the three renegade Republicans agreed to an amended version of the stimulus.
In urging fast action, Mr. Obama sounded apocalyptic: "If we do not move swiftly to sign the [stimulus] into law, an economy that is already in crisis will be faced with catastrophe. . . . Millions more Americans will lose their jobs. Homes will be lost. Families will go without health care."
Once the stimulus passed, Democrats said the impact would be practically instant. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D., Md.) predicted "an immediate jolt." Economic adviser Larry Summers said, "You'll see the effects almost immediately." White House Budget Director Peter Orszag said it would "take only weeks or months" to be felt.
A similar sequence of appeals, claims, promises and a speedy vote was followed when the cap and trade bill, which would put a ceiling on greenhouse gas emissions, came before the House on June 28. The bill's architect, Rep. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.), presented a crucial 300-page amendment at 3 a.m. It passed 16 hours later.
But even that was not fast enough. Mr. Waxman was irritated by House Republican leader John Boehner's hour-long address in opposition. As Mr. Boehner spoke, Mr. Waxman demanded he be cut off. He wasn't, but after Mr. Boehner finished, Mr. Waxman asked the presiding officer, who was then Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D., Calif.), how long the "two minute speech" had lasted. "The customary amount of time" for the minority leader, she replied.
Mr. Waxman's testiness won't make final passage of cap and trade easier. Nor will the Obama administration gain from its crude attempt last week to punish -- and silence -- Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) for saying the stimulus should be cancelled. Four cabinet members wrote to his governor, Republican Jan Brewer, to ask if she wanted to forfeit stimulus money for her state.
Mr. Obama's health-care and energy initiatives, the core of his far-reaching agenda, were bound to face serious opposition in Congress in any case. Hardball tactics and false promises have only made the hill he has to climb steeper. Now he may lose on both. The president and his congressional allies should have known better.
Mr. Barnes is executive editor of the Weekly Standard and a commentator on Fox News Channel.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment