Monthly Archives: January 2007

The Smoking Madrassah

Hillary whacks Obama.

Advertisements

An Israeli Dove Evolves

Power Line links to an essay by Israeli dove-historian Benny Morris whose thinking seems to have “evolved.”

Fitzgerald and Libby: Connecting the Dots

Sandy Berger goes unindicted and will soon have his security clearance restored while Scooter Libby stands to get 30 years in jail.

My theory for the Javert-like zeal of prosecutor Fitzgerald is his desire to fulfill the left’s need to “prove” a neocon (Jewish) conspiracy to “rush” us into war with Iraq, resulting ultimately, let’s say, in his becoming attorney general in the next Clinton administration. But the Wall Street Journal has another motivation, which while perfectly plausible, does not refute my theory:

As it happens, Messrs. Fitzgerald and Libby had crossed legal paths before. Before he joined the Bush Administration, Mr. Libby had, for a number of years in the 1980s and 1990s, been a lawyer for Marc Rich. Mr. Rich is the oil trader and financier who fled to Switzerland in 1983, just ahead of his indictment for tax-evasion by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Bill Clinton pardoned Mr. Rich in 2001, and so the feds never did get their man. The pardon so infuriated Justice lawyers who had worked on the case that the Southern District promptly launched an investigation into whether the pardon had been “proper.” One former prosecutor we spoke to described the Rich case as “the single most rancorous case in the history of the Southern District.”

Two of the prosecutors who worked on the Rich case over the years were none other than Mr. Fitzgerald and James Comey, who while Deputy Attorney General appointed Mr. Fitzgerald to investigate the Plame leak. Mr. Fitzgerald worked in the Southern District for five years starting in 1988, at the same time that Mr. Libby was developing a legal theory of Mr. Rich’s innocence in a bid to get the charges dropped. The prosecutors never did accept the argument, but Leonard Garment, who brought Mr. Libby onto the case in 1985, says that he believes Mr. Libby’s legal work helped set the stage for Mr. Rich’s eventual pardon.

This was all long ago, it’s true. But Mr. Libby and Mr. Comey tangled more recently as well. In 2004, as Mr. Fitzgerald was gearing up his investigation, Mr. Libby was the Administration’s point man in trying to get Justice to sign off on the NSA wiretapping program. In early 2004, Mr. Comey was acting Attorney General while John Ashcroft recovered from gall bladder surgery, and Mr. Comey reportedly refused to give the NSA program the greenlight, prompting the White House to seek out Mr. Ashcroft in the hospital in a bid to circumvent Mr. Comey.

Motive is a difficult thing to gauge. We don’t know whether this long personal history played any role either in Mr. Fitzgerald’s single-minded pursuit of Mr. Libby, or in Mr. Comey’s decision to grant the prosecutor plenary power even though the central mystery of the case had already been resolved. But connecting the dots linking the three men at the heart of this case seems worth doing given the puzzling nature of this prosecution.

The Journal also touches on another reason for Fitzgerald’s zeal, namely that any prosecutor can get a Washington D.C. jury of Democrats to convict a ham sandwich if the sandwich is Republican:

Mr. Fitzgerald’s main advantage may be a Washington, D.C., jury pool inclined to dislike anyone associated with the Bush Administration.

Our Very Worst Ex-President

A Commentary Magazine article puts Jimmy Carter’s presidency and ex-presidency in historical context.

The New York Sun provides evidence that Carter interceded on behalf of a Nazi SS man who was to be deported for murdering Jews.

Jefferson's Quran

I thought the complaints over Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison’s taking his oath of office with his hand on the Quran were misplaced, but here’s an interesting history of Thomas Jefferson, his Quran, and his confrontation with Muslims.

What Thomas Jefferson learned from the Muslim book of jihad.

By Ted Sampley, U.S. Veteran Dispatch January 2007.

Democrat Keith Ellison is now officially the first Muslim United States congressman. True to his
pledge, he placed his hand on the Quran, the Muslim book of jihad and pledged his allegiance to the United States during his ceremonial swearing-in. Capitol Hill staff said Ellison’s swearing-in photo opportunity drew more media than they had ever seen in the history of the U.S. House. Ellison represents the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota.

The Quran Ellison used was no ordinary book. It once belonged to Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and one of America’s founding fathers. Ellison borrowed it from the Rare Book Section of the Library of Congress. It was one of the 6,500 Jefferson books archived in the library.

Ellison, who was born in Detroit and converted to Islam while in college, said he chose to use Jefferson’s Quran because it showed that “a visionary like Jefferson” believed that wisdom could be gleaned from many sources. There is no doubt Ellison was right about Jefferson believing wisdom could be “gleaned” from the Muslim Quran. At the time Jefferson owned the book, he needed to know everything possible about Muslims because he was about to advocate war against the Islamic “Barbary” states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli. Ellison’s use of Jefferson’s Quran as a prop illuminates a subject once well-known in the history of the United States, but, which today, is mostly forgotten – the Muslim pirate slavers who over many centuries enslaved millions of Africans and tens of thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans in the Islamic “Barbary” states.

Over the course of 10 centuries, Muslim pirates cruised the African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and seizing slaves. The taking of slaves in pre-dawn raids on unsuspecting coastal villages had a high casualty rate. It was typical of Muslim raiders to kill off as many of the “non-Muslim” older men and women as possible so the preferred “booty” of only young women and children could be collected. Young non-Muslim women were targeted because of their value as concubines in Islamic markets. Islamic law provides for the sexual interests of Muslim men by allowing them to take as many as four wives at one time and to have as many concubines as their fortunes allow. Boys, as young as 9 or 10 years old, were often mutilated to create eunuchs who would bring higher prices in the slave markets of the Middle East. Muslim slave traders created “eunuch stations” along major African slave routes so the necessary surgery could be performed. It was estimated that only a small number of the boys subjected to the mutilation survived after the surgery.

When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the “Dey of Algiers”–an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria. Because American commerce in the editerranean was being destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations.

Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved sailors. Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again. Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the demands for tribute and wanted matters settled “through the medium of war.” He proposed a league of trading nations to force an end to Muslim piracy.

In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the “Dey of Algiers” ambassador to Britain. The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress’ vote to appease. During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey’s ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts. In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam “was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800. Not long after Jefferson’s inauguration as president in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Declaring that America was going to spend “millions for defense but not one cent for tribute,” Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines and many of America’s best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast.

The USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid all saw action. In 1805, American Marines marched across the dessert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves. During the Jefferson administration, the Muslim Barbary States, crumbling as a result of intense American naval bombardment and on shore raids by Marines, finally officially agreed to abandon slavery and piracy.

Jefferson’s victory over the Muslims lives on today in the Marine Hymn, with the line, “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, we will fight our country’s battles on the land as on the sea.” It wasn’t until 1815 that the problem was fully settled by the total defeat of all the Muslim slave trading pirates.

Jefferson had been right. The “medium of war” was the only way to put and end to the Muslim problem. Mr. Ellison was right about Jefferson. He was a “visionary” wise enough to read and learn about the enemy from their own Muslim book of jihad. I wonder if the “honorable” representative even knows the history of Jefferson and the Barbary pirates. Probably not but it won’t matter because no one in the media will embarrass him by pointing out that Jefferson used that Koran for insight into how to defeat the Islamic enemy.

Penn's Gain, Duke's Loss

Having made an ass of himself for years at Penn, “professor” Houston A. Baker continues the tradition at Duke.

Kathleen Parker writes:

Of all the questions still unanswered in this shameful saga [the “Duke Rape Case”], among the most perplexing is: How did so many smart people allow things to reach the level of hysteria we’ve witnessed in the past several months?

The answer is implicit in the question. Notwithstanding the rich brain trust created by the three points of North Carolina’s “Triangle” — Duke in Durham, the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill and North Carolina State University in Raleigh — university communities are fertile breeding grounds for the totalitarian mindset known as political correctness.

Between a perverse form of liberation feminism that sanctifies strippers, prostitutes and porn stars — and a dogma of victimology that places blame for all things at the feet of the white patriarchy — the players were instantaneously presumed guilty by virtue of their being white males and privileged jocks.

By the same reasoning, the dancer was assured victimhood by her status as a black single mother/student, reduced by centuries of white-male oppression to stripping for food and tuition.

…the Duke faculty formed the “Group of 88” — a coalition of 88 faculty members representing 13 departments — and ran an ad demanding that the lacrosse team players confess.

It’s been quite a spectacle. It also has been a damning indictment of an intellectually dishonest culture that pretends to the virtue of enlightened tolerance, but only for a select few. White males are the last remaining group approved for public vilification.

In a March 2006 letter to the Duke administration just days after the alleged rape, English professor Houston A. Baker Jr. brought clarity to the anti-white male, anti-jock bias that is today entrenched on many college campuses. It reads in part:

“How many more people of color must fall victim to violent, white, male, athletic privilege before coaches who make Chevrolet and American Express commercials, athletic directors who engage in Miss Ophelia-styled ‘perfectly horrible’ rhetoric, higher administrators who are salaried at least in part to keep us safe, and publicists who are supposed not to praise Caesar but to damn the unconscionable … how many?”

And he teaches English?

The Libby Trial or How the Jews Lied Us Into Iraq

The Libby trial, which begins tomorrow, should be renamed How a Cabal of Jews Got Bush and Cheney to Lie Us into Iraq.

As Jack Kelly writes:

When columnist Robert Novak revealed that Ms. [Valerie] Plame worked at the CIA, Mr. [Joe] Wilson accused the White House of leaking this information to get even with him. Democrats and the news media joined the brouhaha, and a special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, was appointed to find the leaker, and to determine whether the Intelligence Identities Protection Act had been violated.

Mr. Fitzgerald had been on the job only a few days before he learned that Ms. Plame had been manning a desk at Langley for more than five years, which meant she wasn’t a covert operator as defined by the statute, and that Mr. Novak’s source was then Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

Despite this, Mr. Fitzgerald proceeded as if Mr. Wilson’s accusation of White House persecution were true. He subpoenaed reporters and jailed one (Judith Miller, then of the New York Times) to get notes of their conversations with Mr. Libby. (Mr. Libby was indicted for perjury because he told the grand jury he learned of Ms. Wilson’s day job from journalists. Mr. Fitzgerald maintains he actually learned of it from CIA and State Department officials.)

So why didn’t prosecutor Fitzgerald either close up shop or indict Richard Armitage? The answer is that Armitage did not fit into the scenario of a neocon (translation: Jewish) plot to get gentiles Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld to go to war in Iraq in order to defend “Jewish interests,” that is, Israel.

The news that Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage was the source of the leak to Novak just didn’t fit the conspiracy theory. For one thing, Armitage isn’t Jewish and for another, he and his boss, media darling Colin Powell, were famously unenthusiastic about going to war in Iraq.

Libby, on the other hand, fit the scenario beautifully: he’s Jewish and he worked for Cheney, the leftish media’s favorite pro-war villain.

The cherished belief among prominent liberals like Chris Matthews and Maureen Dowd (and Jews like Frank Rich) that the Jews got us into Iraq will be on display in much of the media coverage of this trial. Just remember: the term neocon (often followed by the names Wolfowitz, Perle and Libby) is synonymous with Jew.

Jihad Jimmy

Jimmy Carter is against terrorism…well, sort of.

From a New York Post editorial:

Has a former president of the United States – a Nobel Peace Prize winner, no less – given his blessing to wanton murder and terrorist assaults against Israel?

Sure looks that way.

How else to read that astonishing statement on page 213 of Jimmy Carter’s new anti-Israel screed, “Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid”?

To wit: “It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.” (Emphasis added by Post)

You don’t have to read between the lines here.

Carter isn’t calling on the Palestinians to give up terror and murder now as a way to convince Israel they are serious about peace. Rather, he says they can wait until they’ve achieved their goals at the bargaining table. No need, says Carter, to give up terrorism until then.

Sandy Berger, International Man of Mystery

What did Sandy Berger take, why did he take it, and why isn’t the media interested?

Bush's Speech

I am not a general and have never been in the military. Most of my views on politics and current affairs are a product of my experience as a school teacher, and I tend to think that most human endeavors are pretty similar, whether it’s teaching English to public high school students or fighting a war.

Both endeavors require understanding what your goals are and employing the most efficient and effective means to achieve those goals. As an English teacher, my goal was to teach my students how to understand what they read and how to write clearly. I understood that as an employee of the taxpayers (as opposed to the parents of individual students), I would not be given limitless time and money to achieve this goal.

The public education system began to fail when school people convinced themselves that the taxpayers would give them unlimited time and money to pursue “innovative” techniques that would somehow educate students who didn’t want to be taught in an efficient manner, if at all. In other words, the schools lost the public’s confidence when they took their eyes off the goal of teaching a subject efficiently and went in search of methods that would make everyone -students, parents and politicians- happy.

This brings me to the Iraq War. The goal of war, as I understand it, is to defeat the enemy as quickly and cheaply as possible. Like with the schools, the public is not going to support an endless war, costing limitless amounts of blood and money. They are certainly not going to support it when they turn on their television sets every evening and see horrific violence caused by the people we are supposed to be fighting, with little response from us.

To me, this war has been fought not to destroy the enemy as efficiently and cheaply as possible, but rather to please or at least not offend, in no particular order of importance, the various Muslim sects, the so-called Arab street, our “European allies,” our “Arab allies,” the New York Times, the various “human rights” organizations, and everyone else who thinks that America and Western Civilization are responsible for all of the world’s historical injustices.

I don’t know whether Bush’s plan will work or not. But I do know that it will fail unless he forgets about pleasing the worthies I just mentioned and, instead, does what’s necessary to prevail.