Wednesday, March 15, 2006

 

Random Notes

Finally
Stephen Hayes reports in the Weekly Standard:
The Bush administration has decided to release most of the documents captured in post-war Afghanistan and Iraq. The details of the document release are still being worked out, according to officials with knowledge of the discussions. Those details are critical. At issue are things like the timeframe for releasing the documents, the mechanism for scrubbing documents for sensitive information, and most important, the criteria for withholding documents from the public. But some of the captured files should be available to the public and journalists within weeks if not days.

President George W. Bush has made clear in recent weeks his displeasure with the delays in getting the information out to the American public. On February 16, one day after ABC News broadcast excerpts of recordings featuring Saddam Hussein and his war cabinet, Bush met with congressional Republicans and several senior national security officials and said three times that the documents should be released. "This stuff ought to be out," he told National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley. "Put this stuff out." It seems Bush will soon get his wish.

I wonder what the terrorist Hitler McBushychimp's trying to hide now.

Iraq Al Qaeda Plot Foiled
The AP reports (via Yahoo):
The Iraqi interior minister said Tuesday that authorities had foiled an al-Qaida plot that would have put hundreds of its men at critical guard posts around Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone, home to the U.S. and other foreign embassies as well as the Iraqi government.

A senior Defense Ministry official said the 421 al-Qaida fighters were actually recruited to storm the U.S. and British embassies and take hostages. Several ranking Defense Ministry officials have been jailed in the plot, the official said on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information.


Four hundred and twenty-one al-Qaeda? That's a whole lotta skinnies for one operation in a "mostly domestic insurgency", isn't it? Think I'll wait for the official numbers.

H/T Thomas Joscelyn


NRO's Phi Beta Cons:
What Do We “Elite” Yalies Think about Our Taliban Schoolmate?
The predominant mood is confusion. The intelligentsia haven’t told Yalies what to think yet because even they haven’t made up their minds. Students aren’t sure how far their liberal open-mindedness is supposed to go.


Hashemi was a member of an evil and macabre terrorist group. Worse yet, he became their official spokesman and apologist to the world for their crimes — the Afghani Goebbels. The Taliban were not, as some suggest, a group of benevolent Afghani governors, but a gang of terrorists. Here’s the first of a series of Taliban-committed outrages listed in a Human Rights Watch report on the group:

Yakaolang and Bamiyan districts, June 2001: After retaking central Yakaolang, Taliban forces under the command of Mullah Dadaullah burned about 4,500 houses, 500 shops, and public buildings. As they retreated east, they continued to burn villages and to detain and kill Shi'a Hazara civilians in villages and side valleys in eastern Yakaolang and the western part of Bamiyan district.”

The fact that Hashemi didn’t do the actual killing does not absolve him; Geobbels didn’t shoot anyone either. Equally, the fact that he is now retired means nothing — he isn’t “redeemed” by his retirement any more than a mafia gangster would be. I do not care to have this fellow in my dining hall, my college, or my country.


Also at PBC
Senator Cornyn writes to Secretary Chertoff about Yale's Taliban Man:

Dear Secretary Chertoff:

I write to you regarding Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, the former Taliban spokesman currently attending Yale University on a student visa.

In 2005, Congress passed the REAL ID Act and expanded the terror-related grounds of inadmissibility. Under current law, an alien is inadmissible or removable on terror-related grounds if he is a representative of any designated or nondesignated terrorist organization. Further, an alien is inadmissible or removable if the alien endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization. The REAL ID is clear that the grounds of inadmissibility and removal apply regardless of when the conduct in question occurred.

Mr. Hashemi was an official spokesman for the Taliban, which gave safe haven and other material support to Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, and continued to do so even after the terrorist attacks of September 11th. Yet the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) admitted him into the United States on an F-1 student visa. I would like to know what steps the Department of Homeland Security is taking to determine whether Mr. Hashemi was properly admitted and whether the Department of Homeland Security will seek to deport Mr. Hashemi under one of the terror-related grounds of removal.

I am also concerned about the Department of Homeland Security’s role in reviewing Mr. Hashemi’s student visa application prior to its issuance. The report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States concluded that the key officials responsible for determining alien admissions (consular officers abroad and immigration inspectors in the United States) were not considered full partners in counterterrorism efforts prior to September 11, 2001, and as a result, opportunities to intercept the September 11 terrorists were missed.

Congress subsequently passed the Homeland Security Act, and section 428 allows DHS to assign staff to consular posts abroad to advise consular officers, review visa applications, and conduct investigations. Yet it is not clear that DHS officials were afforded an opportunity to review Mr. Hashemi’s visa application prior to its issuance. Please provide an update on the progress DHS is making in assigning officers to the consulate in Islamabad and whether those officers are fully integrated into the visa screening process.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
JOHN CORNYN

United States Senator


Russ Feingold has telegraphed the Democrats' post-'06 plan to pander to the idiots by attempting to impeach Bush. The Wall Street Journal has a word describing both Feingold's censure proposal and Dems' impeachment plans: preposterous. But the Journal acknowledges the silver lining to this story:

[Feingold's] doing voters a favor by telling them before November's election just how Democrats intend to treat a wartime President if they take power.

Not only do they want to block his policies, they also plan to rebuke and embarrass him in front of the world and America's enemies. And they want to do so not because there is a smidgen of evidence that he's abused his office or lied under oath, but because they think he's been too energetic in using his powers to defend America. By all means, let's have this impeachment debate before the election, so voters can know what's really at stake.

Yep--censure, impeachment, the Dems sure are a courageous bunch.


NRO's Jim Geraghty discusses how tipping point politics could help rescue the world from Islamofascism by shifting the danger from its critics to the fascists themselves.

I think I'm still optimistic and hopeful; as I wrote, "Thankfully, many would say that bin Laden never spoke for them, and they're ready and eager to do whatever it takes to eradicate Islamist terror cells," and "that some Muslims, after years of seeing a faltering, doubtful, self-hating and equivocal West taking on the relentless faith of Islamist fanatics, would come off the fence."

But here's a point that I should have added: Right now, if you're a Muslim, and you denounce Islamism, there is a severe price to be paid - Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Irshad Manji, etc. Often you have to live in hiding and dodge death threats.

If you embrace and/or endorse Islamism, there is little price to be paid. The West won't attack you for what you say. You don't have to worry about some crazy Westerner suddenly pulling a Pym Fortyn or a Van Gogh on you. Heck, in London, you can preach jihad for years before the authorities even think about deporting you.

Thus, our message gets stifled; their message gets amplified.

But what if we changed that equation? What if the bad guys had to live in fear? What if they had to be careful about who they told, who was in the crowd they addressed, who was listening? I bet it would go a long way to slow down their efforts.

This same strategy is bearing fruit against the idiot-left in the blogosphere.

UNC Terrorist Asshole: It's In The Koran.
"My attack on Americans at UNC-CH on March 3rd was in retaliation for similar attacks orchestrated by the U.S. government on my fellow followers of Allah..."

And so yet another military secret gets leaked to the enemy: US Marines in Iraq are killing indiscriminately with fully-loaded Jeep Cherokees.


"Operation Bringing Home the Goods" has done just that, capturing six Palestinian terrorists including the animal responsible for planning the murder of Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Zeevi. Abbas is livid, the EU is whining, and the world is marvelling at the new Palestinian Terrorist-Chic.



EU talking pinheads characterized the operation as "useless and unfair", "fatal" to Israel’s domestic political goals, "deliberately humiliating", and a “torpedo on peace”.

No word what any of them thought of Rehavam's murder.

Roger Simons offers his take:
Not missing a beat to curry favor with his constituents, desperate politician Mahmoud Abbas has called the Israeli raid on the Jericho prison an "unforgivable crime." Hyperventilating a bit there, are we, Mahmoud? Now let's see... Hamas says they are about to free a group of terrorists from that prison, including Ahmed Saadat (secretary general of the notorious PFLP), then the British and American monitors leave the premises, fearing for their own safety, and the Israelis are supposed to do what? Sit on their rear ends? Negotiate with Mahmoud Abbas - a lame duck who was never more than a figurehead in the first place and is now a joke? Talk to Hamas who doesn't even recognize their existence and are terrorists themselves? Let's get serious. Even if this weren't in the midst of an Israeli electoral campaign, the result would be obvious. The people who should really be playing close attention to this are the Iranians - and I would imagine they are. Because it is an example of how the Israelis take action when their interests are threatened. They'll do it again.

Yes they will. And that's a Good Thing.


Comments: Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?