Hillary's Iraq Village Puppet Show

Hillary Clinton believes it takes a village to raise a child, but what is her solution when the one being raised prefers independence and resents interference from Hillary’s village? The concept of village influence seems to be the centerpiece of Hillary’s foreign policy goals, and it manifests itself most clearly in her ever-evolving policy statements on Iraq. Most recently the 2008 presidential candidate joined the shrill and gratingly off-key chorus of Carl Levin, most congressional Democrats, and a few Republicans auditioning for cabinet positions, who have called for an Iraqi no-confidence vote in Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his removal despite an on-going war. Not content to allow Iraqis the fundamental right of self-rule, Hillary applied her “it takes a village” approach to the realm of diplomacy, apparently convinced that the best way for Iraq to resolve its internal disputes was to have the world village step in and try to settle them rather than patiently allowing Iraqis to do it themselves.

It is an interesting irony that Senators Clinton and Levin refuse to adhere to diplomatic protocol in their interactions with and comments about Iraq. Both act as if the fact that America has nearly 150,000 troops in Iraq gives American congressmen carte blanche in what they say about that nation’s elected government. Even Republican Mitch McConnell described the Iraqi government as a “huge disappointment.” America does not have 150,000 troops in France, and there is no question that we considered former French President Jacque Chirac’s government to be a huge disappointment. Yet neither the Republicans nor Democrats in congress publicly stated that sentiment because France deserves respect and decorum from the American government as a sovereign nation. Senators Levin and Clinton do not extend such diplomatic courtesies to Iraq’s Prime Minister, and they should be required to explain the disparate treatment.

Likewise, our elected officials do not attempt to inject themselves into the internal political workings of other, longer-established nations yet think nothing of calling for the ouster of al-Maliki. Where are the cries from Democrats for Fidel Castro’s ouster, or Hugo Chavez’s ouster? Both of those leaders are sworn enemies of America, while al-Maliki risks his own safety each day working with America to preserve a budding democracy in Iraq.

Al-Maliki, a man under constant threat of physical attack by insurgents and al-Qaeda linked terrorists, was not cowed by Levin’s and Hillary’s harsh criticisms. Demonstrating his mastery of the sound byte and his familiarity with America’s distaste for Hillary’s vision of the global village, al-Maliki fired back brilliantly at Senator Clinton:

Maliki hit back on Sunday, saying: "There are American officials who consider Iraq as if it were one of their villages, for example Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin."

"This is severe interference in our domestic affairs. Carl Levin and Hillary Clinton are from the Democratic Party and they must demonstrate democracy," he said. "I ask them to come to their senses and to talk in a respectful way about Iraq."

The semantic slap regarding Democrats acting undemocratically was well-crafted and effective. It is shameful that an elected Prime Minister of a nation we are working with closely in a sensitive region felt compelled to defend himself against a barrage of criticism from the American Congress and remind our self-important congressmen that speaking respectfully about Iraq is an expected aspect of diplomatic protocol that many have neglected.

Lost in the verbal exchange between al-Maliki and America’s congressional vultures circling Iraq’s demise with great expectation was the failure of media outlets to press Senators Levin and Clinton on what would seem to be a critical question: who would they suggest take al-Maliki’s place as Prime Minister? Neither has come forward with any suggested replacements even though both have access to raw intelligence regarding the current political situation in Iraq. Likewise, neither addresses the obvious difficulty al-Maliki’s replacement would face from being labeled an American puppet leader. It is highly unlikely that Iraq would become more stable under different leadership if the Iraqi perception was that America called for al-Maliki’s removal and chose his successor. Middle Eastern governments considered puppets of America do not have a history of long-term survival.

On Sunday, leaders representing Iraq’s Shiite, Sunni Arab, and Kurdish communities made further progress in resolving internal disputes. The leaders agreed on provisions to make it easier for former members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath party to serve in Iraq’s government and military, facilitated the future release of Sunni’s detained and held without charge, and endorsed a draft oil revenue sharing law. Each of these must survive parliamentary debate and votes, but the agreements were a clear show of unity and progress in direct refutation of Senator Clinton’s and Senator Levin’s low opinion of the Iraqi government.

America’s patience with Iraq’s government should not be dictated by our presidential campaign schedule. A stable and free Iraq deserves support beyond the 2008 election and merits respect regardless of which party wins the White House. Expecting Iraq to resolve all of its internal political squabbles and secure itself from foreign terrorists by next month or next year is imposing our will and political timetable on a free people. Factions within a government arguing, boycotting, and stalling important legislation are hallmarks of America’s Congress and should not be considered disappointing characteristics of Iraq’s fledgling democracy.

The Iraqis do not want to be considered throughout the world as America’s puppet, nor do they want their government to be raised and nurtured by Hillary’s global village. She should stop treating al-Maliki’s government like a child and let the Iraqis experience their own political maturation.

Technorati Tags:
Al-Maliki, Hillary Clinton, Carl Levin, Puppet Government, Iraqi Government, Diplomacy, It Takes A Village

Blowing Down Gore's House of Straw Polls

Only in America can only thirty-five people gather in a living room to talk politics, cast a vote for their favorite candidates, and find the results of their tiny get-together linked to as a major story on the Drudge Report, a news site that attracts around 14.5 million hits per day. Matt Drudge is a master of titillating or misleading headlines, and Wednesday's story link "Gore Wins Democratic Straw Poll in Arizona" was a good example of Drudge's subtlety. Everything in the headline was technically true. Al Gore did in fact win a straw poll in Arizona. The Drudge headline, however, was apparently selected to create the impression among potential readers that Al Gore won a substantive political victory in a statewide Democratic straw poll in Arizona, when in reality his straw poll victory was neither statewide nor substantive. Forty Democrats from the Scottsdale area gathering in a living room to vote in a straw poll is hardly a sweeping political movement worthy of international media attention, nor can any credible political observer extrapolate from it the eventual outcome of the Arizona Democratic primaries. But don't tell that to Matt Drudge, whose headline gave Gore credibility where none was merited.

The epic tale of Gore's Lilliputian victory in a Scottsdale living room straw poll as championed by Drudge appeared in the Arizona Republic, and the Republic clearly made every effort to report the straw poll results as a genuine story with deep political ramifications not only for Arizona Democrats, but for the national race for the party's nomination as well. However, a careful reading of the article revealed that only thirty-five of the forty Democrats who showed up for the straw poll actually paid the $20 fee to obtain a ballot and vote. Votes for "first choice" and "popularity" were later tallied accurately (no hanging chads in the Southwest), and unannounced but quietly salivating at the prospect candidate Al Gore won the "first choice" vote with 51 percent followed in a distant second place by John Edwards with 17 percent of votes cast. These numbers may seem meaningless, but as they say in TV infomercials, "but wait, there's more!"

We rarely associate the words "Democratic votes" and "calculator" with the words "fun" or "interesting," yet the application of a calculator to the Scottsdale straw poll results generates more entertainment than one would initially think. For example, it was fascinating that Democrats, who have whined for 7 years that the popular vote should count more than electoral votes or percentages reported the Scottsdale straw poll results in, of course, percentages only. No raw vote count totals were provided in the Republic news report. Why? Perhaps because the media can take insignificant poll results and make them sound as if the participants in the poll represented a much larger segment of the overall population than they really did. A handy calculator helps illustrate how this is achieved.

The Arizona Republic reported the vote count as follows:

When tallying the votes, the local party leaders considered both the "first choice" of voters and the "popularity" of candidates.

The popularity vote was important because it showed who voters would chose if Gore does not run.

Gore won the first choice by 51 percent, followed by Edwards with 17 percent, national front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton with 14 percent, Sen. Barack Obama by 9 percent, Sen. Joe Biden by 6 percent and Rep. Dennis Kucinich by 3 percent.

Edwards won the popularity vote by 29 percent, followed by Gore with 26 percent, Obama with 19 percent, Clinton with 14 percent, Kucinich with 6 percent, Biden with 4 percent and Richardson with 2 percent.

All those double-digit percentages certainly helped readers forget that only 35 people actually participated in this vote. Thus, Al Gore's 51 percent, which when converted to actual votes signified that he was the first choice of a whopping 17.85 actual voters in an Arizona living room, seems much less impressive than merely reporting that he garnered 50 percent of an Arizona straw poll. Perhaps if they find that hanging chad or a pregnant chad gives birth they will find the other 0.15 of a vote.

Likewise, Edwards' second place finish with 17 percent converts to only 5.95 actual votes. However, the big mystery was Bill Richardson, who as Governor of New Mexico and a fellow southwest Democrat, only polled 2 percent, which when converted is only 0.7 of a vote. By reporting Richardson's straw poll showing in percentages rather than vote count, the Arizona Republic performed a small act of sympathetic kindness. When your party holds a straw poll in a neighboring state and you receive only seven-tenths of a vote, it may be finally time to "redeploy" and wait for other career options than the presidency.

Despite a valiant reporting effort by the Arizona Republic and international recognition courtesy of a Drudge Report link, a community straw poll involving thirty-five votes simply could not be taken seriously, especially when compared to the well-organized statewide Republican straw poll held in Iowa and won by Mitt Romney. Romney's opponents and snide media pundits were quick to minimize the perceived importance of Romney's decisive victory in the Iowa straw poll, but perhaps the irrelevance of the Scottsdale Democratic straw poll will serve as a contrast that will bring Romney's success in a larger poll more sharply into focus.

The time fast approaches when Al Gore's performance in straw polls and primaries will signify something substantial and ominous in the realm of electoral politics. The Scottsdale straw poll was not the long-awaited sign of the Al Gore apocalypse upon us. The so-called "Democratic straw poll in Arizona" merely gave one homeowner and thirty-four members of her community a few moments to bask in the global warming of a media spotlight.

Technorati Tags: Al Gore Straw Poll Arizona Democrats Arizona Republic Drudge Report Matt Drudge Presidential Candidates Scottsdale Bill Richardson John Edwards Poll Results

Governator Channels TR's Immigrant View

If, like John Edwards, you believe in channeling, then you might get the impression that California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is channeling Teddy Roosevelt, and without knowing it, he is channeling my mother as well. While few criticized Roosevelt for his outspoken opinion that immigrants who do not learn English were not really Americans, Schwarzenegger has come under fire from Spanish language journalists and Democrats for urging immigrants to avoid Spanish language media and immerse themselves in English to learn the language faster. Learning to speak, read, and write in English is critical for a successful life in America, but publicly stating so has become politically incorrect.

This issue has personal importance in my life, as my mother, who emigrated from Germany in the 1950s, immersed herself in English media to learn the language, which was required for her naturalization process. She acquired a fondness for American movies and television programs, particularly westerns, and these helped in her assimilation of English. She attended citizenship and government courses and became the most patriotically “American” American I have ever known. She cut all ideological ties to her birthplace and in fact never returned to visit it because she cannot bear to leave America, even temporarily. She passed her fierce loyalty to the United States on to her children, teaching us that service to this country, in any capacity, was the least we could do to show appreciation for the freedoms we are blessed with as Americans. She truly followed Teddy Roosevelt’s advice to immigrants, given many years earlier in 1919 (not 1907, as some sources have erroneously claimed):

In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.

But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here.

Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all.

We have room for but one flag, the American flag.

We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...

…and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.

Roosevelt’s remarks did not differ greatly from the statements by Schwarzenegger that attracted media attention yesterday. Fox News reported the “Governator’s” comments on learning English as follows:

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's remarks that immigrants should avoid Spanish-language media if they want to learn English quickly left some Hispanic journalists shaking their heads.

"You've got to turn off the Spanish television set" and stay away from Spanish-language television, books and newspapers, the Republican governor said Wednesday night at the annual convention of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. "You're just forced to speak English, and that just makes you learn the language faster."

Schwarzenegger, who emigrated to the U.S. from Austria, was responding to a question about how Hispanic students can improve academic performance. The audience included many journalists who work for Spanish-language media outlets.

"I know this sounds odd and this is the politically incorrect thing to say and I'm going to get myself in trouble," he said. "But I know that when I came to this country, I very rarely spoke German to anyone."

Whatever one thinks of Schwarzenegger as a politician, the truth of his message about learning English quickly is undeniable. Language immersion is unquestionably the most effective method for English assimilation or assimilation into any language. Of course, the Spanish-language journalists despised his comments because they fear for their careers. While they claim to offer a public service for Spanish speaking immigrants, they in fact perpetuate poverty and doors closed to social and economic opportunity by providing a crutch that permanently hobbles Spanish-language media users rather than supporting them in their assimilation into American culture. Perhaps that is the key. Unlike Teddy Roosevelt’s vision of immigrants becoming Americans, Spanish-language media accentuate and maintain cultural divides, in essence encouraging immigrants to make America more like their native country than to make their lives conform to America’s cultural history.

Schwarzenegger’s critics responded to his remarks:

"I'm sitting shaking my head not believing that someone would be so naive and out of it that he would say something like that," Alex Nogales, president and CEO of the National Hispanic Media Coalition, said Thursday.

Nogales said immigrants need Spanish-language media to stay informed and "function in this society."

Pilar Marrero, the political editor for the Spanish-language newspaper La Opinion, chuckled at the governor's comments, saying many Hispanics did not have time to learn English.

"They're too busy working," she said.

Alex Nogales and Pilar Marrero are, of course, trying to preserve their media empires built on the Spanish-language enslavement of immigrants. Nogales believes that immigrants need to stay informed and “function in this society” by watching Spanish-language media, yet the opposite is true. To function in this society as a whole, and not just small geographic pockets of other Spanish-speaking immigrants, they must learn English, and English media immersion is an effective way to achieve that goal. Clearly Nogales has a vested interest in downplaying the importance of learning English.

Pillar’s comment that Hispanics have no time to learn English because they are too busy working is also disingenuous and self-serving. I learned a foreign language in an intense immersion program where we were expected to speak that language with our colleagues 24 hours a day, 7 days per week. Immigrants, according to Democrats and President Bush, are working jobs “Americans won’t do,” like picking fruit, washing cars, trimming lawns, and so forth. As an American teen many years ago I worked many such jobs and I can assure Marrero that there is ample opportunity for these workers to practice speaking English with each other while they are in the fields, traveling to and from jobs, or waiting by a Home Depot for selection as day laborers. I never hear them speaking anything but Spanish, and it is not because they have no time, it is because it is easier to speak Spanish than struggle with learning English. They go home at night and watch television, in Spanish, and thus miss the opportunity for vocabulary growth as well as the practice time with English speakers. That has been and continues to be a recipe for economic and social subservience for immigrants, and learning English is the key that will open countless doors for entrepreneurial and educational ventures.

Teddy Roosevelt, a revered American president, would be ridiculed by today’s politically correct Democrats, if their reactions to Schwarzenegger are any indication:

In October, the governor was criticized by Democrats when he said some Mexican immigrants "try to stay Mexican" when they come to the United States and urged them to learn English and U.S. history and "make an effort to become part of America.

This begs the question, why do Democrats want immigrants not to learn English or U.S. history? Perhaps it is because once immigrants learn English and embrace America’s history they are far more likely to become economically independent, more capitalistic, and less reliant on socialist government benefits that rely on poverty and ignorance for program survival. Perhaps it is because when immigrants learn English they can better understand the language of government and law, which is far more complex than conversational English. Perhaps they do not want Hispanics to read the bills being debated in Congress or understand the laws they are expected to obey. Hispanic immigrants should ask themselves why one political party does not want them to become truly American or fluent in English.

My mother, like Schwarzenegger and millions of other legal immigrants immersed themselves in English because they understood that success in American life could only be achieved through learning the language and because they were attracted to the culture, ideals, freedoms, and values of America. They wanted to be Americans first, no hyphenations, no latent loyalties to any other land, and no wishing America were more like their birthplace. Spanish-language media and Democrats may attack Schwarzenegger for espousing these ideas, but in doing so they are merely exposing an ugly and selfish desire to maintain a class of immigrants with little hope of upward mobility because they lack English language skills. This approach by Spanish media and Democrats may be good for their bank accounts and ballot boxes, but it is harmful for Hispanic immigrants.

Technorati Tags:
Arnold Schwarzenegger, English Immersion, Theodore Roosevelt, Immigration, Spanish Language Media, Assimilation, English as Official Language, Democrats

Are Iraqis Worth It? Hanson Nails Issue

We daily scour the blogosphere and news columns for stories or opinions that strike a chord within us, that indicate the author is a kindred spirit, that demonstrate that someone else out there “gets it” when it comes to the important issues of our time. Today while reading National Review Online I read an article by an author I read with regularity and had such an experience. Even before this week, with the passage in the House and Senate of the Iraq White Flag Surrender Turn Tail and Flee Beginning October 1st Bill dominating the headlines, I wrote about the real reason why some Americans are not willing to sacrifice long and hard for the fledgling democracy in Iraq, and today prominent author and NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson took up this issue in a brilliantly written and bluntly articulated article titled, “Iraq, and the Truth We Dare Not Speak.”

Hanson shared my view that much of the war weariness among Americans is due to a feeling of superiority, that somehow democracy and freedom are exclusive American virtues and rights, and at the least sign of difficulty, we assume other peoples are not prepared of capable of governing themselves as we do. Hanson wrote:

But, again, most Americans now don’t think it is worth it — and not just because of the cost we pay, but because of what we get in return. Turn on the television and the reporting is all hate: a Middle Eastern Muslim is blowing up someone in Israel, shooting a rocket from Gaza, chanting death to America in Beirut, stoning an adulterer in Tehran, losing a hand for thievery in Saudi Arabia, threatening to take back Spain, gassing someone in Iraq, or promising to wipe out Israel. An unhinged, secular Khadafi rants; a decrepit Saudi royal lectures; a wild-eyed Lebanese cleric threatens — whatever the country, whatever the political ideology, the American television viewer draws the same conclusion: we are always blamed for their own self-inflicted misery….

But the real catalysts are the endemic violence and hypocrisy that appear nightly on millions of television screens. When the liberal Left says of the war, “It isn’t worth it,” that message resonates, as the American public rightly suspects that it really means “They aren’t worth it.” Voters may not like particularly a Harry Reid, but in frustration at the violence, they sense now that, just like them, he also doesn’t like a vague somebody over there.So here we are in our eleventh hour. A controversial and costly war continues, in part so as to give Arab Muslims the sort of freedom the West takes for granted; but at precisely the time that the public increasingly is tired of Middle Eastern madness. In short, America believes that the entire region is not worth the bones of a single Marine.

In my previous posts about Indonesia’s successes as a Muslim democracy and the Democrats unwillingness to be patient with Iraq’s governmental development, I, like Hanson, questioned why so many Americans, the Democratic left in particular, were so eager for a rush to withdraw without victory in Iraq. Their behavior demonstrated what I described previously as a “carrot and stick” approach, with Pelosi and Reid holding the stick of abandonment over free Iraqis who are working and dying to cement democracy for future generations of Iraqis and other aspiring but oppressed populations in the Middle East. I concluded:

There are only two possible explanations for the behavior of Speaker Pelosi and the anti-war Democrats: first, they despise President Bush so much that they cannot afford to allow the Iraq War to be won, as a victory there would cement President Bush’s legacy as the man who brought democracy to the Middle East and ensure a Republican sweep in the 2008 elections; or second, Democrats are prejudiced in their belief that democracy should not be shared or supported in Muslim nations because Muslims are too backward in their thinking to truly want democracy.

In World War II, Americans had little trouble relating with and having empathy for the European populations our soldiers died to free from the Nazis. However, fighting to preserve democracy or at least halt the spread of Communism in Korea and Vietnam, Americans demonstrated far less cultural understanding or will to share the blessings of freedom with Asian peoples. Is this same phenomenon occurring now in Iraq? Is our minimal knowledge of Middle Eastern cultures, languages, and religious groups causing us to consider those peoples less worthy of our money, time, and blood than Europeans were in two world wars? Perhaps the most salient question is, if we give Iraqis a taste of freedom and democracy and abandon them before they can sustain their freedom, will any other peoples rise up to overthrow tyranny knowing that the bastion of freedom, the United States, cannot be trusted to defend democracy?

Victor Davis Hanson’s article was a gem that Capital Cloak heartily recommends to all readers.

Reid & Pelosi Ignore Allies on Timetable

The irony of the day award belongs to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Congressional Democrats who refuse to meet with President Bush to discuss the Iraq War funding bill. The irony lies in the fact that the Democrats have thus far refused to present President Bush with a “clean bill” that does not set a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. Troops from Iraq, while at the same time the heads of state in Iraq and Jordan are urging the U.S. not to abandon Iraq prematurely or set timetables for withdrawal. Apparently the Democrats' "alternative foreign policy" mandates that traveling to and counseling with Syria and Iran (terror sponsors extraordinaire) is good, but listening to Jordan (an ally) and Iraq (democratically elected Prime Minister and ally) is bad.

President Bush is often vilified by the left for his “unilateral” decision to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein, and for ignoring French and German leaders who opposed military action in Iraq. This “cowboy diplomacy,” the left claims, hurt America’s image among Europeans and, to use a Kerry-ism, made America “an international pariah.” In an effort to address this criticism of his political personality, President Bush has frequently engaged Iraqi leaders and solicited their opinions as well as those of regional heads of state (except for Syria and Iran, who are waging war on the U.S. within Iraq). In these open discussions with world leaders, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has a much better view of what is occurring in his country than Democratic Congressmen, has advised President Bush since last October not to set timetables for withdrawal.

The King of Jordan, Abdullah II, echoed this sentiment, warning America that early withdrawal from Iraq and setting timetables “without preparing the necessary conditions that would ensure a strong central government able to run the affairs of the state and an Iraqi force able to ensure security and stability, may only worsen the problem and contribute to increasing violence and conflict among Iraqis.”

Prime Minister al-Maliki, clearly frustrated by the timetable issue, stated that a timetable was not necessary because his government “is working as fast as we can.” The impatience for Iraqi progress displayed by the Democratic Congress has been shameful. In reality, the Democrats are attempting to set a timetable for a sovereign foreign democracy that we have committed to preserving until its government can fully defend itself to achieve self-reliance.

The timetable issue is a prime example of President Bush being “darned if he does and darned if he doesn’t” when it comes to counseling with world leaders. When he counseled too little with Europe before Operation Iraqi Freedom, he was roundly criticized as a “cowboy.” When he counsels now with Middle Eastern leaders who oppose a timetable, Harry Reid and Congressional Democrats refuse to meet with him unless he accepts their imposed timetable regardless of the fact that Iraqi and Jordanian leaders advise against it.

As Americans, our commitment to defending democracies should be open-ended. It has been with Israel, another Middle Eastern democracy, so why are the Democrats so eager to shorten or completely end our commitment to Iraq? Is it because it is a Muslim democracy and Democrats do not believe Muslims capable of living within a democratic society? If it is not the soft bigotry of low expectations, what fuels the maniacal timetable frenzy? We committed to defending European democracies imperiled by Nazi fascists in WWII, but for some reason Democrats refuse to commit to defending a Muslim democracy from Islamic Fascists sworn to quench the flame of freedom in the Middle East.

Imagine if after Hurricane Katrina a foreign nation provided thousands of men and heavy machinery to rebuild the city along with New Orleans residents, but after a few years the foreign nation’s leaders decided that since the local residents were not rebuilding fast enough, the reconstruction was no longer worthwhile and imposed a timetable on the storm ravaged citizens of New Orleans or help would be withdrawn because of the high violent crime rate. What was once a compassionate and generous offer of mutual assistance would have become the stick in a carrot and stick approach to diplomacy. Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi have been holding that proverbial stick over free Iraqis for selfish personal political motives.

The mixed messages sent by Democrats on this issue would confuse any president. Should he listen to the counsel of world leaders or not? The President is right to reject any attempt to include a timetable for withdrawal in the war funding bill. Perhaps if Speaker “For Assad’s House” Pelosi visits the Middle East again, she should take Senator Reid along and together they could look Prime Minister al-Maliki in the eye and tell him they just do not believe Iraqis will ever be capable of sustaining a democracy and are thus not worth defending. Then they could jet to Amman and explain to King Abdullah II that they know better than he does and he is wrong about timetables and their influence on a war being waged across his border.

The left claims that President Bush is arrogant, but the Democrats’ efforts to micromanage the war, impatiently criticize Iraq’s courageous and fledgling government, and conduct their own foreign policy have set a new standard of arrogance.

Why Courts Cannot be Entrusted with the War on Terror: Blind Judicial Trust and the Need to Keep Detainees at Gitmo

For anyone still clinging to the fallacious belief that the War on Terror should be chiefly a law enforcement effort involving prosecution in the U.S. court system, as the Clinton administration attempted, an AP report today provided another illustration of why that approach has never been, and will never be, a successful path to eventual victory.

As reported in the New York Sun, Mohammed Salah, a convicted suspect awaiting sentencing in Illinois for perjury in a case involving a conspiracy to launder money for the terror group HAMAS, was not considered a flight risk by U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve, and will be allowed to remove a court-ordered electronic tracking device for his upcoming pre-sentencing vacation at Disney World. According to the Sun article, the Assistant U.S. Attorney in the case tried in vain to convince the judge that Salah’s promises to return to court for sentencing in June, made as they were by a convicted perjurer with links to a terror group, should not be trusted. The judge dismissed this logic, stating, “I’m confident that he will come back.” A delighted Salah reacted to the judge’s permissiveness:

"I get to take it off," a smiling Salah told reporters after court, pointing to a bulge under his left sock where the government has placed an electronic monitoring bracelet to make sure he stays under house arrest.

Judge St. Eve is living proof that President Bush has not appointed exclusively conservative judges during his terms in office. St. Eve, whose views and education are consistent with 1960s liberalism, admitted at her appointment in 2002 to not sharing the President’s political ideals: “Had there been a litmus test on a hot-button conservative issue, ‘I don't know how I could have passed,’ she confesses.” St. Eve's trusting nature is merely a symptom of the larger problem within the judiciary: Not taking the threat of terrorism seriously. For further examples of cases where judges ruled against the War on Terror, click here.

While Salah is grateful for St. Eve’s liberalism and happily sheds the ability of the Justice Department to monitor his whereabouts, another developing story demonstrated that misplaced faith in the judicial system’s efficacy in fighting terrorism is not limited to gullible judges. The Richmond Times-Dispatch (VA) reported today that Democratic members of the U.S Congress are pursuing legislation to close the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and move detainees to brigs at military bases on the east coast, including the Quantico Marine Corps Base.

While Democrats have claimed that the expenses associated with Guantanamo justify closure of that facility, their pious demand for fiscal responsibility on this issue should be met with skepticism. Democrats have sought throughout the War on Terror to curb President Bush’s war powers, and forcing a closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo would be more than a symbolic victory in the only war they want to win, the War on Bush. Closing Guantanamo and moving prisoners to bases in the U.S. would effectively remove the detainees from Bush’s control as Commander in Chief and place them under the protective care of the Democrats’ preferred source of all rights and authority, the judicial system. The Times-Dispatch article confirms that granting legal rights and defense attorneys to terror detainees is at the heart of the matter:

Rep. James P. Moran, D-8th, said yesterday that he favors bringing Guantanamo detainees who have been charged with offenses to military brigs in the jurisdiction of the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"That's the most conservative circuit court" in the nation, said Moran, a senior member of the House defense appropriations subcommittee. "So nobody can charge [the detainees] won't get a speedy and disciplined trial."

Representative Moran and his Democratic colleagues have not learned from the mistakes of the Clinton administration and continue to put their trust in a judicial system that has already proven incapable of investigating, punishing, and deterring terrorism. While the Clinton Justice Department investigated and ultimately prosecuted Ramsey Yousef for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, others were planning and training for upcoming attacks on our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, the USS Cole, and eventually 9/11. There is nothing in a criminal trial that can force a defendant to divulge operational information about his organization or co-conspirators. As long as the defendant is willing to accept prosecution and a prison sentence as a form of martyrdom for the cause, prosecutors have no leverage to apply in order to obtain intelligence information that could prevent future attacks or identify other terrorists.

From a purely practical perspective, the argument that operating the detention facility in Guantanamo costs the taxpayers too much money is dubious. If the detainees are moved to bases within U.S. District Court jurisdiction, taxpayers will be financing the legal costs for court proceedings, which will endure for years through endless appeals, as well as what would surely be upgraded housing and dietary provisions compared to Guantanamo. Representative Moran should be challenged to produce a cost comparison between current Guantanamo expenses and those his proposal would incur. Since this is actually a political stunt rather than a legitimate cost-cutting measure, I suspect Americans will never see any such comparison study made available for review.

How did Virginia’s Republicans react to the proposed move of these detainees to bases inside the U.S.? From the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star:

"The Democrat Congress may think it's a great idea to move Islamic Jihadists less than 35 miles of the Pentagon, but it strikes me as poorly conceived," said RPV chairman Ed Gillespie, in a press release. "Moran's proposal would not be good for our national security, and it would not be good for the people in Stafford and neighboring counties."

Rep. Jo Ann Davis, R-Gloucester, also released a statement criticizing the proposal--including the anonymous suggestion of keeping terrorism suspects at Quantico--calling it "reckless policy."

"Bringing terrorists to Quantico, among other places, poses a homeland security threat," said Davis, whose district includes Stafford. "We in Congress are supposed to be working to keep terrorists out of America, not helping to bring them in."

Our court system does not strike fear in the heart of any terrorist and offers no hope for deterrence of future terrorist attacks. One need only point to the juries in the O.J. Simpson or “Scooter” Libby trials for examples of how easily juries can be duped by cleverly presented appeals to their racial or political sympathies. Terrorists would consider it a great luxury and good fortune to be prosecuted in U.S. courts. They would like their chances for acquittal, but even if convicted they would enjoy planning their subsequent unmonitored trips to Disney World.

Perhaps Judge St. Eve and Representative Moran could collaborate with Disney World on a project that would end terrorism through our liberal goodwill: Disney Detainee Day! After a few hours of continuous sailing through “It’s a Small World,” the jihadists will desperately sue for peace. On second thought, we are told that torture is an ineffective tool in the War on Terror. The ankle bracelet-free Salah would surely agree that when it comes to prosecuting terrorism in America’s courts, “it’s a world of laughter. . . .”