Printer Friendly December 7, 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 7, 2005 1. On balance – Washington Times Editorial 2. Condi's European Torture – Wall Street Journal Editorial 3. Dean Scream II – Investor’s Business Daily Editorial 4. House Republicans Stand By DeLay – Congressional Quarterly Today 5. Hillary Clinton Heckled in Chicago – NewsMax For previous issues of the Morning Murmur, go to www.GOPsecretary.gov FULL ARTICLES BELOW: 1. On balance – Washington Times Editorial December 7, 2005 The first in a series of editorials on underreported good news from Iraq. http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20051206-091140-1752r.htm 2. Condi's European Torture – Wall Street Journal Editorial It has been quite the spectacle this week, with Condoleezza Rice touring Europe amid mock dismay over the fact that the CIA may have detained terrorists in European jails. If the Secretary of State weren't so diplomatic, she'd cancel her tour and say she won't come back until the Continent's politicians decide to grow up. One of Europe's moral conceits is to fret constantly about the looming outbreak of fascism in America, even though it is on the Continent itself where the dictators seem to pop up every couple of decades. Then Europe dials 9-11, and Washington dutifully rides to the rescue. The last time was just a few years ago, as U.S. firepower stopped Slobodan Milosevic, who had bedeviled Europe for years. In return, it would be nice if once in a while Europe decided to help America with its security problem, especially since Islamic terrorism is also Europe's security problem. But instead the U.S. Secretary of State has to put up with lectures about the phony issue of "secret" prisons housing terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans.
We put "secret" in quotes because the CIA could hardly carry on operations in Europe without the knowledge of the countries involved. Rather, as Ms. Rice dryly put it, the U.S. often engages "the enemy through the cooperation of our intelligence services with their foreign counterparts." So the so-called "rendition" programs at issue--involving the transportation, detention and questioning of terror suspects--are precisely the kind of anti-terror efforts that multilateral Europeans ought to love. Yet as soon as the Washington Post began reporting on the "secret" detention facilities, the pretend questions began. A shocked, shocked British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw wrote the U.S. on behalf of the European Union demanding "clarification" to "allay parliamentary and public concerns." EU Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini threatened "serious consequences," including the "suspension of voting rights" against any EU member found to be involved. The anti-American press that dominates Europe has been in full cry. What gives? Mostly opportunism and political cowardice. The two countries mentioned in the press for helping the U.S.--Poland and Romania--ought to be applauded for doing so. But the European media have spun so many wildly false stories about U.S. detention policy that anti-American demagogues see an opening and even friendly European politicians are afraid to push back. Ms. Rice's pledge that the U.S. isn't "torturing" anyone on European soil, or anywhere else, ought to be all the reassurance Europeans need. According to the CIA sources leaking these stories, the "secret" prisons were for housing only about a dozen top al Qaeda leaders, such as 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. And the most aggressive interrogation technique authorized against such men is "waterboarding," which induces a feeling of suffocation. That's rough treatment, but the technique has also been used on U.S. servicemen to train them to resist interrogations, and we suspect many Europeans would accept it if they believed it might avert another Madrid. If not, they certainly ought to explain the other realistic options. One possibility is sending terrorists to the likes of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, where their intelligence services can do the interrogating. Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger once memorably explained this policy as sending suspects to countries where justice is "streamlined"--which is putting it mildly. This kind of "rendition" strikes us as far more morally problematic than taking responsibility for interrogation ourselves.
Meanwhile, the claim that aggressive interrogations of these hard cases are unnecessary and unproductive is simply naive. On Monday, ABC News reported that "Of the 12 high-value targets housed by the CIA, only one did not require waterboarding before he talked." The exception was Ramzi bin al-Shibh, who "broke down in tears after he walked past the cell of" KSM. "Visibly shaken, he started to cry and became as cooperative as if he had been tied down to a water board," ABC's sources said. The broad reality, of course, is that European intelligence and security services have been helping the CIA in fighting terror, both before and after 9/11. There have been arrests of terror-cell members, and even successful prosecutions. The failure has come at the level of political leadership, where elected officials refuse to acknowledge such cooperation, or to defend its moral necessity. The danger here is less to America--which will continue to protect itself in any case--than it is to Europe. The phony outrage over American anti-terror practices will only make it harder for European governments to take the actions required to stop terror on their soil--witness French paralysis in the wake of the recent riots. More dangerous for the longer term, the Continent's preening anti-Americanism has also been duly noted on this side of the Atlantic. Europeans should worry that their moral hauteur may well be repaid by American popular opinion the next time they call on the Yanks to put down one of their homegrown fascists. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html 3. Dean Scream II – Investor’s Business Daily Editorial 12/6/2005 Leadership: Top Democrat Howard Dean contends America can't win in Iraq. His absurd ideas on military deployment would mean never winning anywhere. Dean's on-stage scream after losing in the Iowa caucuses in January 2004 came to symbolize the collapse of his presidential bid. This week, the Democratic National Committee chairman was interviewed on a San Antonio radio station and came out with a new rant that's at least as wacky — and dangerously irresponsible — as anything he yelled then. Comparing Iraq to Vietnam, Dean said: "The idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong." Among those who disagree are Iraq's president and prime minister, who know a timetable for withdrawal could lead to a terrorist victory. Coming only a week and a half before Iraq's elections, Dean's remarks raise the question of what's more important to him and his supporters: a victory for America or political gain for his party. It also makes one wonder how many Vietnams Dean thinks the U.S. can endure. The really crazy stuff, though, was the glimpse of Dean's vision of national security. He called for an immediate withdrawal of 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops, claiming "They don't belong in a conflict like this anyway." Why not? Would Dean wait for an invasion of our homeland before activating our Guard and Reserves? He also wants to move 20,000 troops to Afghanistan because "it's a place where we are welcome." So we should deploy our forces only where they will be welcome? Not a very Churchillian notion. Crazier still, Dean called for "a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq but in a friendly neighboring country to fight (al-Qaida military chief Abu Musab) Zarqawi, who came to Iraq after this invasion." He failed to explain just how Zarqawi would be instilled with fear and trepidation by the U.S. retreating from Iraq. Furthermore, who's to say our forces won't be attacked in Dean's hypothetical "friendly" Mideast countries, too — and perhaps killed in significant numbers? And what would he and his friends advise that we do then? Run home with our tails between our legs? America's ability to assert itself in defense of our vital interests abroad could be crippled by such a scenario. What Dean and other prominent Democrats seem to want is a U.S. military deployed in places where our troops don't get killed much. But in the post-9-11 age, our armed forces have serious — and dangerous — work to do. It's alarming that the man running the Democratic Party doesn't see the war on terror as off-limits to political posturing. http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp 4. House Republicans Stand By DeLay – Congressional Quarterly Today House Republicans have all but ruled out holding new leadership elections before February, even in the wake of a ruling in Texas that leaves the future of former Majority Leader Tom DeLay in doubt for at least several weeks, if not longer. House Majority Leader Roy Blunt, R-Mo., who succeeded the Texas lawmaker after he relinquished his leadership post due to criminal indictments, said Tuesday he believes DeLay will soon be exonerated of money laundering charges either by the judge granting a motion to dismiss them or a speedy trial in which he is acquitted. DeLay would then under GOP conference rules be automatically reinstated in the No. 2 House leadership position, perhaps as early as February, Blunt said. “I wouldn’t oppose an effort” to hold leadership elections, Blunt said. “I just don’t know if the members ever get there. Clearly if the determination of this issue involving Mr. DeLay is in sight, I wouldn’t imagine that the conference would take that action.” Texas Judge Pat Priest threw out a conspiracy charge against DeLay on Dec. 5, but declined to dismiss two money laundering charges connected to the 2002 Texas statehouse elections. The judge is expected to consider a DeLay motion to dismiss the remaining charges based on prosecutorial misconduct, but if a trial does occur, it is not likely to begin until at least January. The House is not expected to reconvene for the second session of the 109th Congress until possibly Jan. 31. So it is feasible a December dismissal or a speedy January trial in which DeLay is exonerated could put him back in power by early February, Blunt suggested. Blunt predicted that in the interim, members would likely refrain from demanding new elections to permanently remove DeLay and install someone else. Several rank-and-file GOP members said they agree the conference should try to avoid potentially messy leadership elections. But others said they would make a decision on whether to push for new elections after DeLay’s fate is more clear and after assessing how the temporary leadership handles a controversial budget-cutting bill and other key legislation targeted for completion by the end of the year. (Story, p. 4) “Other than a few individual members, most of us are not anxious to have the tumult and disorder that would result from a leadership election,” said Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla., a member of the conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC). “It would be a useless disruption at this point.” Other GOP members agreed that they remain in a “wait and see” mode regarding DeLay, even though a few who have been outspoken on the issue continue to call for a permanent replacement with either Blunt or another candidate filling the slot. “The last thing anyone wants is to have a leadership team going through a tough election year with ‘interim’ behind its name,” said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., another member of the RSC. Flake said if there is not enough desire for leadership elections now “there will be,” by February, when DeLay’s legal fate will be, perhaps, more clear. Still, Flake said some members have conveyed to him privately their views that it is “increasingly unlikely” that the Texan will be quickly exonerated. Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut is one Republican who has made no secret of his desire to install a new leadership team now. He said Tuesday that “more and more” members want to remove DeLay sooner rather than later, if not for the Texas indictments, then for his entanglements with lobbyist Jack Abramoff, whose relationship with members, including DeLay, is the subject of an ongoing Justice Department investigation. “I think we need to move on,” Shays said. “I think we need to have elections.” But other members said the Dec. 5 ruling by Priest to allow the case to move forward is simply further evidence that the charges in Texas against DeLay are politically motivated. “People outside of Congress may not realize it, but in here we realize there are politics being played down in Texas,” said Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind. “The vast majority of the conference is pretty patient.” Rumor Control As if to signal that fact, Thomas M. Reynolds, R-N.Y., chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, sent a memo out to members to dispel rumors that he is seeking the majority leader’s post. The fate of the leadership lineup, he said, will depend on the performance of those now in charge. There is no desire among members to hold elections now, he stressed. Despite the judge’s ruling, DeLay appeared confident Tuesday that he will be able to resume his old job soon and that his GOP colleagues won’t try to oust him before his case is resolved. “There is no leadership election. None of that is going on. I’m still the elected majority leader,” he declared. Republican Conference Chairwoman Deborah Pryce, R-Ohio, seemed to agree with DeLay’s assessment. To permanently oust DeLay, “half the conference would have to feel that way,” Pryce said. “And that’s going to be a very weighty decision.” 5. Hillary Clinton Heckled in Chicago – NewsMax Sunday, Dec. 4, 2005 2008 presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton was heckled by a crowd of high school and college-age students in her hometown of Chicago yesterday, with ABC News reporting that security guards eventually "dragged some of the protesters out of the auditorium." The former first lady was onstage only a few seconds when the crowd erupted with shouts of "Troops out now! Troops out now!" As anti-war leaflets poured from one balcony, umbrellas were unfurled from another displaying the message "Out of Iraq." Mrs. Clinton initially tried to bargain with her critics, pleading, "Give me a chance and I'll address that if you'll then be quiet." But as the heckling continued, security guards pounced on at least two protesters and dragged them away. After delivering her prepared remarks, Mrs. Clinton returned to the subject of Iraq. "I disagree with those who believe we should immediately pull out," she told the crowd. "And I disagree with those who say we should stay there forever." http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/4/134034.shtml ###
|
