Printer Friendly December 14, 2005 Don’t get caught flat-footed in front of the press! Below is a quick rundown of today’s “must reads.” – John T. Doolittle, House Republican Conference Secretary The Morning Murmur – Wednesday, December 14, 2005 1. History lessons – Washington Times Editorial 2. One finger at a time - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Columnist 3. Sunni Bastion Now Turning to Ballot Box – New York Times 4. Reauthorize the Patriot Act – Washington Times Op-ed, Alberto Gonzales 5. Clean Gene's Other Legacy – Wall Street Journal Editorial For previous issues of the Morning Murmur, go to www.GOPsecretary.gov FULL ARTICLES BELOW: 1. History lessons – Washington Times Editorial From Sept. 3, 1998, congressional testimony of Scott Ritter, former UNSCOM inspector, before the Senate: http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20051213-092318-6304r.htm 2. One finger at a time - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Columnist By Salena Zito Iraq is under siege. And, for a moment, it has nothing to do with "insurgents," Saddam meltdowns or weak-kneed U.S. politicians. This siege is one that your average American is pretty familiar with: that mentally fatiguing final week leading to Election Day. Iraq resembles a targeted swing state; sophisticated media have taken hold. Savvy radio and television commercials bear a striking similarity to those produced here; political consultants are even advising campaigns on media saturation and how to react to developments. With campaign signs plastering every vertical surface available, the only thing missing is James Carville or Karl Rove huddled around some candidate in the stretch. We need to lay off the negative media-juice and think about this: 32 months ago, the statue of Saddam Hussein came down. Not 32 years ago, not 32 decades ago -- 32 months ago. Since that statue-toppling day, Iraq has shifted light-years away from a crushing dictatorship -- a brutal regime that suspended or perverted every institution of national life. No real political or judicial system existed. If the significance of that does not resonate yet, consider this: Iraqis have held an election, drafted a constitution, ratified it and, on Thursday, will hold another election to set up a permanent government. All accomplished in 32 months. All under the constant threat of violence. Next time you consider not voting because it's inconvenient, remember the courage of the Iraqis. As deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Ambassador David Satterfield has a front-row seat to this birth of democracy. He told me in a telephone interview from Baghdad that he anticipates an "extremely broad" turnout at the polls, including Sunnis. "Unlike the election in January, when the Sunni community almost completely boycotted the election, Sunnis now show a growing desire to participate in the political process," he said. "Iraqis, like Americans, need an inclusive, participatory political process, and that is exactly what has been developing here." With Sunnis now peacefully taking part, democracy is moving forward. Political debate inside the Beltway has kept the average American unaware of the progress in Iraq. And time has dulled our recollection of our own struggle toward a democratic republic. We've forgotten our fights over the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, the Whiskey Rebellion and that messy little War of 1812. And the Civil War? That stain on our history reverberates to this day. Similarities between our founding patriots and the Iraqis are not lost upon Satterfield: "The terrorists' outrages have had no effect on the ability of the Iraqi security services to recruit and they have no effect on people willing to serve in government." Yet politics has buried the successes in Iraq. John Kerry is the perfect example of a verbal bomb-thrower. We expect the inane from Howard Dean, but Kerry should just plain know better. Once again, we are knee-deep in negativity. But a positive movement is afoot and it will be interesting to see if our nation buys into its simple message. A grassroots organization -- Purple Finger for Freedom -- is encouraging solidarity with Iraqis by asking Americans to sport a purple finger, imitating the ink stains used to mark voters who brave the gunfire and other dangers in that beleaguered country. Ambassador Satterfield appreciates the gesture. "I think any recognition by the American people of the courage and commitment of Iraqis to the democratic process is a very welcome thing." On Thursday, Iraq's Election Day, we should consider the successes there -- one finger at a time. Salena Zito can be reached at szito@tribweb.com. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/zito/s_402532.html 3. Sunni Bastion Now Turning to Ballot Box – New York Times December 14, 2005 TIKRIT, Iraq, Dec. 13 - Along the main boulevard here in Saddam Hussein's hometown, hundreds of campaign posters have flowered where insurgents once tossed homemade bombs at American troops. The guerrilla war found fertile ground in Tikrit, and defiant Sunni Arabs boycotted the elections in January. But turnout in the parliamentary elections on Thursday is expected to be high, reflecting the shift in attitude of many Sunni Arabs toward the American-engineered political process. "Last January, the elections were quite different than they are now," Wael Ibrahim Ali, 61, the mayor of Tikrit, said as he strode Tuesday along the grounds of the palace where Mr. Hussein used to celebrate his birthdays. "The people refused to vote, and now they see it was a wrong stand or wrong position." This Sunni-dominated province of Salahuddin had a 29 percent turnout in January, one of the lowest in the country. In the past year, though, Sunni Arabs, who make up a fifth of Iraq's population, realized they had shut themselves out of the transitional government. They have been frustrated by the rule of the religious Shiite parties, fearful of their Iranian-trained militias and galvanized by anger over mass arrests and detentions - especially in light of the recent disclosures of mistreatment of prisoners by official Iraqi forces. "Most of the leaders feel abandoned by the national government," said Capt. Chris Ortega, 28, the head civil affairs officer for the Second Battalion, Seventh Cavalry Regiment of the Third Infantry Division, charged with securing Tikrit. "They feel that because this is Saddam's hometown and province, they're being punished by the national government. They feel they're not getting the proper allocation of resources." The Sunni Arabs know, too, that Thursday's vote is for a full, four-year government, one whose reach will be far greater than that of the current transitional one. "The Sunnis have suffered enough from this government," said Dhiab al-Ibrahim, a campaign manager for Mishaan al-Jubouri, a tough-talking Sunni Arab candidate who is popular in Tikrit. "They governed us for one year, and look what they've done to us. What will happen if they rule us for four years?" This town of 110,000, situated along the west bank of the Tigris River, has become the epicenter of an intense get-out-the-vote campaign by Sunni Arabs, rivaling the flurry of political activity in the Shiite south and Kurdish north. Volunteers for political parties trudge through neighborhoods handing out fliers. American commanders have been meeting daily with Mayor Ali and officers from the Iraqi Army and police, mostly Sunni Arabs, to forge a plan for securing the polling sites, 33 in the greater Tikrit area, 19 in the city itself. On Tuesday morning, the final shipment of blank ballots to be distributed in Salahuddin Province was loaded onto an Iraqi Army convoy at a warehouse on the outskirts here. The trucks drove south, with an American Apache attack helicopter flying cover. In the Tikrit area, all the polling stations are at schools, and some electoral officials have already begun setting up the brown cardboard voting booths, two to each classroom. Inside Mr. Jubouri's campaign headquarters, a two-story villa off the town's main avenue, Mr. Ibrahim and a colleague, Awad Khalaf, watched as their candidate popped up on his own satellite channel. The program showed Mr. Jubouri, draped in a brown jacket, striding proudly through a primary school that he had helped finance in his hometown of Sherkat, 60 miles to the north. "All the people who boycotted the last elections will vote for Mishaan," Mr. Khalaf said. "He's the voice of this city." That voice, though, may not be one the Americans want to hear, even though Sunni Arab political engagement is central to the Bush administration's hopes for persuading the insurgency to lay down its arms. Many politicians here and in other parts of the Sunni heartland are pushing the message of opposition to win over the electorate: Vote for me and I will rid Iraq of the Americans. Or, vote for me and I will thwart the plans of the Shiites and Kurds. One of Mr. Jubouri's campaign posters shows two violent images: a boy in a blue baseball cap pointing a Kalashnikov into the air, and an American Humvee near a ball of flame. Voting for Mr. Jubouri, the slogan above them reads, "is the best way to end the occupation of Iraq." Mr. Jubouri took part in the last election and managed to get a seat in the current Parliament. Since the Jubouri tribe is one of the largest in the area, he is expected to do well again in Salahuddin. The tribe is spread out across farming towns surrounding Tikrit, and Mr. Jubouri has spent more time on his campaign stops visiting sheiks in those areas than in the city itself. Sheik Naji al-Jabara, the head of the local sheiks' council and a member of the Jubouri tribe, has pledged to support Mr. Jubouri. There are other front-runners here. Residents say Ayad Allawi, the former prime minister and Baath Party enforcer who later broke with Mr. Hussein, is popular. The Iraqi Consensus Front, made up of religious Sunni parties, also has its supporters. In fact, the diversity of candidates is testament to the popularity of elections here. Mr. Ali, the mayor, said a voter in this province would be confronted with a choice of 48 political groups on the Thursday ballot. At a Tuesday lunch in the former birthday palace that was attended by Mr. Ali, American commanders and Iraqi officers, one Iraqi Army colonel held up his purple index finger to show a reporter that he had already voted. Soldiers, hospital patients and detainees were allowed to vote Monday. The colonel, Dakhul Hassan Hamood, a Sunni Arab, said he had decided to support Mr. Allawi, a secular Shiite. "He isn't prejudiced against Sunnis or Shiites," the colonel said as he sipped a cup of tea. "He's right in the middle. He's the only one who can help us. He doesn't discriminate." Colonel Hamood commands 1,200 soldiers across half of Salahuddin Province. Before the lunch on Tuesday, he and other Iraqi officials met with American commanders in a palace conference room to try and iron out the security procedures for the next few days. This was, after all, Mr. Hussein's hometown, and one could not be too careful. Lt. Col. Tom Wood, commander of the Second Battalion, chastised the Iraqis for not ordering their forces to properly install concrete barriers and concertina wire outside the polling stations. "The biggest threat, I think, is the suicide bomber who tries to get into the election site," Colonel Wood said. "If the bomber's going to try to get something in, he'll walk it in, and that's what we've got to watch for." The colonel said afterward, though, that he expected the level of violence to be low, as it was in October during the constitutional referendum, when many Sunni Arabs in Salahuddin turned out to vote in order to try and reject the document. (The turnout was 90 percent, and more than 80 percent voted no.) By Tuesday afternoon, Iraqi police officers and soldiers had already taken up guard positions at the city's polling stations, some wearing black ski masks to hide their identities. Zuhair Damen, the electoral official in charge at the Khansa Girls' School, said he expected at least 2,000 of 2,800 voters registered at the site to turn out Thursday. "Democracy is better than nothing," he said. "It's not very good, but it's better than nothing." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/14/international/middleeast/14tikrit.html 4. Reauthorize the Patriot Act – Washington Times Op-ed, Alberto Gonzales By Alberto R. Gonzales On Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists inspired by hatred murdered nearly 3,000 innocent Americans. In response, Congress overwhelmingly passed the USA Patriot Act. Now, before it adjourns for the year, Congress must act again to reauthorize this critical piece of legislation. Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are at work: Their stated goal is to kill Americans, cripple our economy and demoralize our people. The bill to be considered this week is a good one. It equips law enforcement with the tools needed to fight terrorists, and it also includes new civil liberties protections. Members of Congress should put aside the rhetoric and focus on the facts surrounding this vital legislation. The Patriot Act has been successful in helping prevent acts of terrorism in many ways. First, it updated anti-terrorism and criminal laws to reflect evolving technologies. Second, it increased penalties for those who commit terrorist crimes. Third, it gave terrorism investigators the same tools used by those who pursue drug dealers and the Mafia. Most important, the act helped break down the wall preventing regular exchange of information between the law enforcement and intelligence communities. Four years later, after a lengthy and extensive public debate, Congress has produced a comprehensive reauthorization bill to permanently reauthorize 14 of the act's 16 expiring provisions. During this important debate, Republicans and Democrats have discovered that concerns raised about the act's impact on civil liberties, while sincere, were unfounded. There have been no verified civil liberties abuses in the four years of the act's existence. Furthermore, the new bill adds 30 safeguards to protect privacy and civil liberties. Specifically, it includes measures providing that those who receive national security letters may consult an attorney and challenge the request in court; requires high-level Justice Department sign-off before investigators may ask a court to order production of certain sensitive records, such as those from a library; and requires that the FBI describe the target of a "roving wiretap" with sufficient specificity to ensure that only a single individual is targeted. In addition, this bill further strengthens homeland security by creating a new national security division at the Justice Department, providing additional protections against the threat of attacks on mass transportation systems and at our seaports, and granting us additional tools to protect Americans from terrorism. Congress must act now or risk bringing terrorism prevention to a halt. For example, it is widely accepted -- and documented by independent bodies such as the Sept. 11 and WMD commissions -- that a lack of information-sharing and coordination in our government before the attacks of Sept. 11 compromised our ability to connect the dots about what our enemies were doing. The Patriot Act helped dismantle this barrier. And if we allow certain provisions to "sunset" on Jan. 1, we risk shutting down essential intelligence-sharing that occurs in the National Counterterrorism Center and other facilities where law enforcement officials sit side-by-side with intelligence professionals. Those who voice concern that Congress is rushing to reauthorize the expiring provisions fail to recognize the oversight it has conducted. In 2005, Congress held 23 hearings focused on reauthorization and heard from more than 60 witnesses. The Justice Department was pleased to provide witnesses at 18 of those hearings, with more than 30 appearances by our experts. I testified three times, explaining the importance of the act, responding to concerns and directly addressing the act's critics. My testimony was informed not only by the successes of the act but also by my personal meetings with representatives from groups such as the ACLU and the American Library Association. During the reauthorization discussion, I asked that certain provisions be clarified to ensure the protection of civil liberties, and Congress responded. For example, Section 215 of the act permits the government to obtain records on an order issued by a federal judge. I agreed that the statute should allow a recipient of such an order to consult a lawyer and challenge it in court. Further, I agreed that Congress should make explicit the standard under which such orders are issued: relevance to an authorized national security investigation. In 2001 one prominent Democratic senator agreed that the "FBI has made a clear case that a relevance standard is appropriate for counterintelligence and counterterrorism investigations, as well as for criminal investigations." The president has said that our number-one priority is preventing another catastrophic terrorist attack. Congress must act immediately and reauthorize the Patriot Act before the men and women in law enforcement lose the tools they need to keep us safe. The writer is attorney general of the United States. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/13/AR2005121301476.html 5. Clean Gene's Other Legacy – Wall Street Journal Editorial Eugene McCarthy's death Saturday at age 89 has offered antiwar liberals an opportunity to relive the glory days of 1968, when then-Senator McCarthy embarrassed President Lyndon B. Johnson out of the race with an insurgent run on an anti-Vietnam line. We hate to interrupt the self-reverie, but it's worth noting that Gene McCarthy's achievement in driving his own party's sitting President out the primary campaign is unlikely to be repeated any time soon. And the reason is campaign-finance reform. McCarthy took pleasure in being a maverick politician; he endorsed Ronald Reagan in 1980 because, he said, "anyone would be better" than Jimmy Carter. And party mavericks are just the sort of people that party machines love to keep down, or out. McCarthy himself could never have mounted his last-ditch campaign against Johnson without the backing of industrialist Stewart Mott and banker Jack Dreyfus. But it was not self-interest that motivated McCarthy's long opposition to campaign-finance reform. It was, rather, the conviction that restricting the supply of money would do more to entrench party establishments than it would to "take the money out of politics." The money will always be there, because politics will always cost money. Restricting the channels through which money can flow into politics does not "keep it clean." It merely empowers the gatekeepers. The irony of campaign-finance reform is that in the name of reducing financial contributions from the rich and powerful, it has made candidates far more likely to be either rich or powerful. A genuine believer in free speech, Gene McCarthy understood what too many of his fellow liberals have forgotten. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113443138892020648.html ###
|