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 – Tuesday, December 6, 2005

1.  Rumsfeld on Iraq – Washington Times Editorial
President Bush, Rumsfeld and others in the administration find themselves having to stave off a strain of Washington defeatism that simply isn't reflected in the opinions of average Americans nor of people with real working knowledge of the on-the-ground situation in Iraq.

2.  'The Tax Cuts Are Working' – New York Sun Editorial
Yesterday, in Kernersville, N.C., the president showed that on a fundamental level he "gets it." He understands that economic policy should be oriented toward creating the wealth of the future, not divvying up the wealth of the past, so that growth-spurring tax cuts must be a centerpiece of any economic program.

3.  A parent's right to know – USA Today Op-ed
Abortion has become a zero-sum game for pro-choice groups: Every curb on abortion is seen as an equal loss for women's rights. It is a view that is not shared by most citizens, who see abortion in the context of other legitimate interests — not some absolute right that trumps all other rights.

4.  U.S. Interrogations Are Saving European Lives, Rice Says – New York Times
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice chastised European leaders, saying that before they complain about secret jails for terror suspects in European nations, they should realize that interrogations of these suspects have produced information that helped "save European lives."

5.  Politics Could Force Too-Hasty Withdrawal of U.S. From Iraq – Roll Call, Morton Kondracke
Sen. Joe Lieberman is concerned that members of his own party are more interested in attacking Bush than in winning a victory in Iraq.

For previous issues of the Morning Murmur, go to www.GOPsecretary.gov

FULL ARTICLES BELOW:

1.  Rumsfeld on Iraq – Washington Times Editorial

December 6, 2005
 
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is no fan of opinion polls. But even he couldn't resist highlighting the Pew Research Center's latest survey on the Iraq war. In a speech yesterday at the Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies to explain why success in Iraq is critical for American security, he showed what a strange moment this is -- one where President Bush, Mr. Rumsfeld and others in the administration find themselves having to stave off a strain of Washington defeatism that simply isn't reflected in the opinions of average Americans nor of people with real working knowledge of the on-the-ground situation in Iraq.

The Pew data's general-public findings show that Americans as a whole haven't succumbed to political-class pessimism. A majority of Americans are still optimistic about the future of Iraq. The study, released on Nov. 17, found a 56 percent to 37 percent split in the affirmative on the question of whether the United States will ultimately succeed in forging a free and democratic Iraq. Researchers also found that Americans are about evenly divided on the question of whether going to war in Iraq in the first place was a good idea, with slightly more saying yes (48 percent) than no (45 percent) -- noteworthy given the context of seemingly unrelenting "no's" to both questions from Washington. With the public far more favorably disposed to the war than Washington's current climate would suggest, then, this opens questions about why Washington got so pessimistic in the first place.

Presumably people on the ground in Iraq -- Iraqis themselves and U.S. servicemen -- would know if the facts warranted it. But both are notably more bullish than the politicians and media. The Pew study didn't look at Iraqi opinion, but last month, in a study Mr. Rumsfeld did not cite, the International Republican Institute found that 47 percent of Iraqis think the country is heading in a positive direction, compared to 37 percent who said it wasn't. Fifty-six percent believe that things will improve in six months' time. That judgment is echoed by military leaders, who are optimistic by a margin of 64 percent to 32 percent and are, by many accounts, downright puzzled by the acrimonious finger-pointing in Washington.

Compare all this to the relative pessimism of the intelligenstia and political classes. Sixty-three percent of journalists think the Iraq effort will fail; so do 71 percent of foreign-policy think-tankers and academics. "Jarring" was the word Mr. Rumsfeld used to describe the contrast between what Americans hear and read about Iraq and what Iraqis actually think. The description is apt. "You couldn't tell the full story of Iwo Jima simply by listing the nearly 26,000 American casualties over about 40 days; or explain the importance of Grant's push to Virginia just by noting the savagery of the battles," he said. The same goes for Iraq.

That observation was Mr. Rumsfeld's segue to what must have been this administration's most undeservedly gentle rebuke of the media for its coverage of the war. Reporters "have a tough job," he said, but using "a bombing or a terrorist attack to support a belief that Iraq is a failure ... is not the accurate picture" nor "is it good journalism." He asked: "How will history judge -- if it does -- the reporting decades from now when Iraq's path is settled?"

If the current tone of debate in Washington wins out, future generations will wonder how the United States collapsed upon its war effort. They will ask: Where did the defeatism arise? Was it a crisis of will? Was it a political game? They will compare it unfavorably to the relative resilience of World War II, Korea and possibly even Vietnam.

We don't yet know whether Washington is in the process of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. But certainly the jaws of defeat are not agape, except among Washington naysayers. Part of our answer to the contortions will be a series of daily editorials on unreported good news from Iraq -- a series which begins tomorrow.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20051205-094913-3994r.htm

2.  'The Tax Cuts Are Working' – New York Sun Editorial

December 6, 2005

Government does not create wealth. American businesses and workers and farmers and entrepreneurs create the wealth for this country. And so the role of the government is to create an environment where the small businesses can grow into a big business, where the entrepreneur can flourish, where people who dream about owning a home are able to own a home. In our economy, our most precious resource is the talent of the American worker - and there is no limit to what we can do when people have the freedom to make a better life for themselves and their family. –  President Bush, Kernersville, N.C., December 5, 2005

Supply-side is back, and not a moment too soon. In a major speech yesterday, President Bush finally retook the offensive in Washington's brewing economic policy fight. In the face of Democratic calls for allowing the president's first-term tax cuts to expire and Republican lack of willpower on spending restraint, Mr. Bush noted that those tax cuts are working to spur economic growth. His speech was not merely a matter of resting on his laurels. The president has struck the notes that many of us have been waiting for and that he can use to inspirit the next three years of his presidency.

Save for the dollar, he has made great gains, which he made the best of yesterday. Unemployment is down to 5%, better than the average for the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. The economy has expanded by 4.5 million new jobs since May 2003, including 215,000 in November. Just last week, the third quarter estimate for growth in domestic output was revised upward, to 4.3%.

Much of the credit goes to Mr. Bush's tax cuts both on individual income tax rates - which also, as he pointed out in his address yesterday, apply to many small businesses that file as individuals - and on capital gains and dividends.

The president's emphasis was on the need to keep this boom going and on his vision for how to do so. He comprehends that, as he put it, "we can't take this growth for granted." His proposed solution is "a commitment to keeping your taxes low, and at the same time being wise about how we spend your money." The post-tax cut numbers speak for themselves now that Mr. Bush is actually trumpeting them. His speech yesterday also reminded us of why the supply-side creed of tax cuts and spending restraint should be an easy sell for Republicans who bother to try.

When the president spoke of America being a "confident and optimistic nation," he used language that President Reagan proved resonates with the American public. It's a view that leads him to emphasize an ownership society in which Americans can buy into the American dream - hence his focus on expanding homeownership and offering health savings accounts, as well as keeping the Social Security reform debate alive. And to approach trade issues in the context of a broad optimism.

In the heart of protectionist North Carolina, Mr. Bush argued that "keeping this economy strong means welcoming opportunities that a global economy offers.... By opening up new markets for our goods and our farm products and our services, we will help our economy continue to grow and create opportunity for people right here in our country." He called on "economic isolationists" in Washington to "have more faith in the American worker and in the entrepreneur."

The president showed yesterday that on a fundamental level he "gets it." He understands that economic policy should be oriented toward creating the wealth of the future, not divvying up the wealth of the past, so that growth-spurring tax cuts must be a centerpiece of any economic program. He understands that this is a fundamentally optimistic message about the possibilities of America's markets and that the public will respond to this optimism.

Mr.Bush clearly comprehends the principles of the Reagan era. "Some of us remember hearing the pessimists in the 1970s and 1980s, when we were told that America was tired and could no longer compete with Japan. At that moment, Ronald Reagan's tax cuts were just beginning to kick in, and that set off one of the largest economic expansions in history," he said.

"At the start of this new century," Mr. Bush said yesterday, "we have proven that pro-growth economic policies out of Washington, D.C., do work, and can overcome some mighty obstacles. At the start of the century, we recommit ourselves to the notion that the more free people are, the better off your economy will be.... This economy is strong, and the best days are yet to come for the American economy." And, it would appear, for the Bush administration.

http://www.nysun.com/article/24018?page_no=1

3.  A parent's right to know – USA Today Op-ed

By Jonathan Turley

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, a case concerning the right of parents to be notified on abortions given to minor children. The case is seen as a bellwether on the court's shifting majority on abortion as well as the future of parental notice and consent laws in 43 states.

Cases like Ayotte are produced by a collision of two powerful interests: The right of parents to participate in major medical and moral decisions affecting their minor children vs. the right of children to have abortions.

Pro-choice advocates have opposed parental notice and consent laws with unbridled passion that often seems more a matter of blind faith than reasoned principle. Recently, Becca Pawling, who heads a women's group in Portsmouth, N.H., explained that opposition is based on the simple fact that "any limitations put on (abortion) is heading backward in time."

Pawling's comment captures how abortion has become a zero-sum game for pro-choice groups: Every curb on abortion is seen as an equal loss for women's rights. It is a view that is not shared by most citizens, who see abortion in the context of other legitimate interests — not some absolute right that trumps all other rights.

Polls have consistently shown that a vast majority of Americans, including pro-choice citizens, favor either parental notice or consent for abortions performed on minors. Last week, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll showed that 69% of citizens favored requiring minors to get parental consent. Polls routinely show that 75%-80% of citizens favor parental notice.

No absolute right

The absolutist view is equally at odds with our constitutional traditions. There are no absolute individual rights in our Constitution. The Framers forged a system protecting individual rights while recognizing legitimate countervailing interests of the state. In that balanced system, even such fundamental rights as the freedom of speech and free press, association and religion have been subject to some limitations.

For example, when states prohibit screaming "fire" in a crowded theater, they are not diminishing free speech. Such reckless conduct is not part of any reasonable definition of the right to free speech, just as the categorical exclusion of required parental participation is not part of any reasonable definition of the right to an abortion.
Pro-choice advocates would make abortion the only absolute right in our Constitution, even though it was not fully recognized by the Supreme Court until 1973. Conversely, parental rights have been recognized since the founding of our Republic but are routinely dismissed when they collide with the almighty right to an abortion.

As a pro-choice law professor, I was astonished to find myself on opposite sides with groups such as the ACLU when I helped draft Florida's parental notice amendment to its constitution. In Florida, a child could not get a tattoo or take an aspirin in school without parental consent, but any 12-year-old could walk into a clinic and demand an abortion without notifying her parents of a major medical procedure.

The amendment contained a requirement that any law would include a standard judicial bypass provision. Such bypass provisions allow courts to forgo parental notification for any number of reasons, including rape, incest, risk to the child, or where notification was not in the best interests of the child.

Hard-core minority

Pro-choice groups in Florida rallied against parental notice, even with a judicial bypass. As I sat in those hearings, I kept wondering whom these groups represent. Most pro-choice Americans favor parental involvement in abortions for minors. It is a hard-core minority that resists any and all limitations. Yet, those are the zealots that tend to give money and seek positions in advocacy organizations. The result is that both the pro-life and pro-choice movements tend to be led by the most extreme, not the most representative, voices of their respective constituencies.

Pro-choice groups generally cite anecdotal accounts of girls who are made pregnant by their fathers or have a history of abuse — ignoring the exceptions for such cases under bypass provisions. The fact is that most fathers are not incestuous rapists. Likewise, most parents are not unhinged throwbacks who simply cannot handle juvenile pregnancies. Indeed, parents know a lot more about their children than do abortion advocates or judges. They have the history and connection with their kids to help them get through the trauma of such a pregnancy. Even in the most caring families, though, children often try to hide misconduct rather than face recrimination or embarrassment. The law should not reinforce those inclinations by allowing minors to bar parental knowledge or consent.

What these groups fail to recognize is that the rights of speech, association and religion mean little if parents cannot teach and reinforce moral choices within their families. Family values and integrity are not the enemies of the right to privacy but the very things that privacy is meant to protect.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, consultant to the Legislature on the Florida Parental Notification Amendment, and a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-12-05-turley-edit_x.htm

4.  U.S. Interrogations Are Saving European Lives, Rice Says – New York Times

December 6, 2005
By JOEL BRINKLEY

BERLIN, Dec. 5 - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice chastised European leaders on Monday, saying that before they complain about secret jails for terror suspects in European nations, they should realize that interrogations of these suspects have produced information that helped "save European lives."

Her remarks were the Bush administration's official response to the reports of a network of secret detention centers in at least eight European nations, said to house dozens of terror suspects.

At the same time, she denied that the United States has moved suspects to these prisons to allow interrogators to use torture. "The United States," she said, "does not permit, tolerate or condone torture under any circumstances." At another point, she said, "The United States does not transport and has not transported detainees from one country to another for the purpose of interrogation using torture."

Intelligence gathered from these interrogations, she said, "has stopped terrorist attacks and saved innocent lives in Europe as well as the United States." But she declined to offer examples or provide any specific information to support her assertions. She said any information related to the prisons was classified. Ms. Rice did not explicitly confirm the existence of the detention centers, first described in news reports early last month. But acknowledgment of them was implicit in her remarks. Without the debate over the covert jails, there would have been no reason for her statement.

"We must bring terrorists to justice wherever possible," she said, "but there have been many cases where the local government cannot detain or prosecute a suspect, and traditional extradition is not a good option."

"In those cases," she added, "the local government can make the sovereign choice to cooperate in" the transfer of a suspect to a third country, which is known as a rendition.

"Sometimes," she added, "these efforts are misunderstood."

Officials from the White House, State Department and Central Intelligence Agency labored over Ms. Rice's statement for days and said it would serve as the basis of the government's official answer to an inquiry from the European Union - one of a half dozen under way.

Ms. Rice offered her remarks to reporters early Monday, at Andrews Air Force Base, before setting off for a trip to Europe. The timing, she said later, was not coincidental. She wanted to issue the statement "before I go to Europe so if there are questions I can answer them."

Her five-day trip will take her to Germany, Belgium, Ukraine and Romania. Analyses of flight records of United States government aircraft have suggested that Romania may have been the site of one covert detention center, but Romanian officials have said that no such facility existed. Ms. Rice arrived in Berlin too late Monday night to meet with any German officials or to gauge any reaction to her remarks in Washington.

According to a report Monday night on ABC News, which could not be confirmed, current and former C.I.A. officers say that 11 top Qaeda suspects have been moved from secret C.I.A. prisons in Europe to a new C.I.A. facility in the North African desert.

Administration officials, including Ms. Rice on Monday, have repeatedly maintained since the reports about the secret prisons began that the government is abiding by American law and international agreements. "We are respecting U.S. law and U.S. treaty obligations," she said several times on Monday. "And we are respecting other nations' sovereignty."

That is a change in the position of the Bush administration, which has repeatedly maintained in recent years that American law does not apply to prisoners held abroad. That is one reason some terror suspects were taken to Guantánamo Bay in Cuba and to other foreign locations.

Asked about that conflict while speaking to reporters on her plane, Ms. Rice did not answer directly and instead repeated her statement about respecting American laws and obligations.

Following the reports of a secret detention policy, the administration has come under criticism from the United Nations, at least two arms of the European Union and several European countries. The Europeans say the secret detention centers would be illegal in their countries. Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, wrote Ms. Rice on behalf of the European Union last week, seeking an explanation.

In Congress, Democrats are calling for an investigation of the prisons and the treatment of suspects held there, while Republicans are pushing for an inquiry to determine who in the government leaked the information to the news media.

News reports over the last month have said the C.I.A. began holding dozens of terror suspects in secret prisons in Europe shortly after Sept. 11. While the administration has not confirmed the reports, it has also not denied them.

The mistreatment of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq as well as the ongoing debate over the imprisonment of terror suspects at Guantánamo, have raised questions among Europeans and human rights organizations about the treatment of suspects held in the C.I.A. facilities, where no one can visit them or check on their treatment.

Ms. Rice insisted she could not confirm the existence of secret prisons because that would involve discussion of classified activities. "One of the difficult issues in this new kind of conflict is what to do with captured individuals who we know or believe to be terrorists," she said. Many are "essentially stateless, owing their allegiance to the extremist cause of transnational terrorism."

On her plane later, Ms. Rice expressed impatience with the spiraling investigations and inquiries.

"Democracies are going to debate these things," she said. "But they need to debate them not just on one side of the issue - that is, how the actual activities are being carried out." They should also consider, "are we doing everything we can to protect innocent lives?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/06/international/europe/06rice.html?oref=login

5.  Politics Could Force Too-Hasty Withdrawal of U.S. From Iraq – Roll Call, Morton Kondracke

December 5, 2005
By Morton M. Kondracke, Roll Call Executive Editor

In 1966, Republican Sen. George Aiken (Vt.) famously advised President Lyndon Johnson to “declare victory and get out” of Vietnam. There’s a danger that this will become U.S. policy in Iraq and lead to a too-early withdrawal of American troops and disaster in the Middle East.

In his speech last week at the Naval Academy — perhaps his most effective yet on the Iraq war — President Bush declared once again that he has no such intention.
“We will never accept anything less than complete victory,” he said, and defined victory as the time “when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq’s democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can provide for the safety of their own citizens and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks on our nation.”

I believe Bush means what he says. He warned that “there will be tough days ahead” and added “if our military leaders tell me we need more troops, I will send them.”
And yet, Bush, his military commanders and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are all sending signals that the buildup of Iraqi security forces will allow substantial troop reductions over the next year, down from the current 157,000 on hand to secure the Dec. 15 Iraqi elections to the normal level of 138,000 and possibly below 100,000 by the end of next year.

Administration officials all hasten to say that U.S. troop levels depend on “conditions on the ground” and that there will be no “artificial” deadlines or timetables.
Still, political pressures are such that optimistic projections can harden into expectations and cause the administration to overestimate the readiness of Iraqi security forces in order to meet them.

The enemy in Iraq can be expected to mount furious attacks in the next two weeks to undermine the elections and further deflate American morale, possibly seeking to duplicate the 1968 Tet Offensive in Vietnam, but afterward it might well lay low, saving its resources for the time when U.S. troop levels are reduced.

As Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) said in his courageous defense of the war effort last week, “almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if [U.S.] forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country.”

Like administration officials, he said the Iraqi forces are making surprising progress and that “if all goes well, I believe we can have a much smaller American military presence there by the end of 2006 or in 2007.” But he added that, “it is also likely that our presence will have to be significant in Iraq or nearby for years to come.”

Lieberman said he was concerned that members of his own party were more interested in attacking Bush than in winning a victory in Iraq and that Republicans “are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November’s elections.”

Bush’s speech was part of a broad offensive to regain public support for the war, mostly by convincing Americans that the administration has a coherent strategy and that more dramatic progress is being made on the political, security and economic fronts than people understand from the news media.

The speech, and a 35-page “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq” were greeted by a chorus from Democrats of “not enough.” In some cases, Democrats demanded a timetable, if not a deadline, for withdrawal. Others, notably House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), called for withdrawals to begin immediately.

To support their arguments, several Democrats have quoted former Republican Defense Secretary Melvin Laird as saying, in an article in the current Foreign Affairs, that “our presence is what feeds the insurgency and our gradual withdrawal would feed the confidence and the ability of average Iraqis to stand up to the insurgency.”

Laird was the author of President Richard Nixon’s first-term strategy of gradual “Vietnamization” — withdrawal of U.S. troops and a handover to Vietnamese forces — and his article calls for “Iraqiization” of the current war. This seems to be the Bush strategy.

What Laird also argues in the article, though, is that the United States lost the Vietnam War only because Congress voted to cut off funds to South Vietnam. For Laird, “the ‘cut and run’ crowd ultimately prevailed and our allies were betrayed after all of our work to set them on their feet. Those same voices would now have us cut and run from Iraq, assuring the failure of the fledgling democracy there and damning the rest of the Islamic world to chaos fomented by extremists.”

In the Iraq case, no one will own up to favoring “cut and run.” The functional equivalent would be a too-early decision to “declare victory and get out.”

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/kondracke/

###