Printer Friendly
June
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 – Monday, June 12, 2006
1. How They Killed Him - TIME
The inside story of how al-Qaeda informants turned on Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi,
led U.S. forces to the terrorist's lair and ended a frustrating hunt for
Iraq's most wanted man.
2. Democrats Are Winning... Except at the Polls - RealClear Politics
So vitriolic and all-consuming is the Democrats' hatred for George W. Bush
that they skip right over the worthy goals we have been, with some
considerable success, seeking in Iraq -- a democratic government, with
guaranteed liberties for all, a vibrant free economy, respect for women --
and call this a war for oil, or for Halliburton.
3. Blending In, Moving Up - Washington Post Op-ed
Beneath the surface of the immigration debate is a debate about shared values.
If we look at just three of those values -- the English language, family and
hard work -- we see a higher level of Latino assimilation than is often
presumed.
4. The devaluing of human life - Washington Times Op-ed
The devaluing of human life did not end with making abortion legal, and
therefore, to some people, moral. The word "baby" does not appear in Roe v.
Wade, let alone the word "killing." And so, the termination of "lives not
worth living" goes on.
5. Army Meets Recruiting Goal Again - Associated Press
The Army said Friday it
surpassed its recruiting goal for May, marking the 12th consecutive month of
meeting or exceeding its target.
For previous issues of the Morning Murmur, go to www.GOPsecretary.gov
FULL ARTICLES BELOW:
1. How They Killed Him - TIME
By SCOTT MACLEOD, BILL POWELL
The dinner party had gathered last Wednesday evening in a farmhouse in the
fertile, fruit-growing countryside just outside Baqubah, 30 miles north of
Baghdad. One of the attendees was Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi, the leader of
al-Qaeda in Iraq. With him were at least three women and three men,
including Sheik Abdul-Rahman, al-Zarqawi's so-called spiritual adviser and
confidant. Also in the house was one of al-Zarqawi's most trusted couriers,
an aide tasked with relaying messages from the commander to militants in the
field. What al-Zarqawi could not have known was that U.S. and Jordanian
intelligence officials had been tracking the movements of Abdul-Rahman and
the courier--whom Jordanian intelligence refers to as Mr. X--for weeks.
Fewer than half a dozen members of a U.S. reconnaissance and surveillance
team from Delta Force hid in a grove of date and palm trees, watching the
building. After years of hunting, they finally had the prey in their sights.
But almost as soon as they took up position, the commandos feared they were
about to lose him. A special-operations source tells TIME that the
surveillance team was worried that there wasn't enough time to assemble a
ground assault force to raid the house and capture al-Zarqawi; the commandos
at the site lacked sufficient manpower and weaponry to attack on their own.
As dusk neared, the team fretted al-Zarqawi might slip away if they waited
too long. A knowledgeable Pentagon official says the Delta team "saw one
group come into the house and one group exit." Al-Zarqawi was not in the
departing group, but the commandos were afraid he might be in the next one.
The recon unit's leader radioed his superiors to request an air strike. Two
Air Force F-16s on another mission miles away were given the assignment. At
6:12 p.m., the first of two precision-guided 500-lb. bombs fell on the
farmhouse. For anyone still inside, there was nowhere left to hide.
The U.S. wasn't taking chances. During the three-year hunt for him, al-Zarqawi
was a maddeningly elusive target--a master of disguise who could pass as a
woman in a burqa one day, an Iraqi policeman the next. He traveled in groups
of women and children to lower suspicion and frequently moved with ease
through checkpoints in Iraq. Although military commanders believe they came
close to capturing al-Zarqawi on at least half a dozen occasions in the past
two years, few had reason to anticipate an imminent breakthrough. But
military and intelligence officials in Washington, Baghdad and Amman tell
TIME that the net around al-Zarqawi tightened significantly in the weeks
leading up to the strike--boosted by the cooperation of al-Qaeda informants
willing to betray their leader. The U.S. scored the war's biggest triumph
since catching Saddam Hussein thanks to the determination of a small group
of American hunters, to a Jordanian King's desire to avenge an attack on his
country and, as always, to a good deal of luck. "This wasn't two hours', two
nights' or two weeks' work," says a government source. "This was years of
work to get this one guy."
For all his bravado, al-Zarqawi knew he could be caught at any time. In
January 2004, U.S. intelligence officers intercepted a 17-page letter
addressed to Osama bin Laden in which al-Zarqawi expressed concern for his
longevity. "[Iraq] has no mountains in which we can take refuge and no
forests in whose thickets we can hide," he wrote. "Our backs are exposed and
our movements compromised. Eyes are everywhere."
By that time, hunting al-Zarqawi and his senior aides was the primary
responsibility of a secretive special-operations task force whose number
designation changed constantly (it was recently called Task Force 145). It
was made up of military intelligence operatives, counterterrorism commandos
of the Delta Force, and the Navy's SEAL Team 6, plus Army Rangers. Although
the task force had helped capture Saddam in December 2003, the search for
al-Zarqawi proved more frustrating. In late 2004, Iraq security forces
caught him near the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah, but the al-Qaeda
leader was able to talk his way out of custody. Several months later,
according to special-ops sources, the task force's commandos closed in on
his vehicle west of Baghdad near the Euphrates River, but he escaped. After
every getaway, al-Zarqawi went further underground and beefed up his
personal security. "I would like to say that every time we had a near miss,
we got closer and closer," says a knowledgeable Pentagon official. "But
that's not necessarily the case. After both close calls, there were periods
where we had no information on him."
But early this year, the secret task force's luck began to change. Tips came
in from Iraqi insurgents, former Baath Party members loyal to Saddam, some
of whom objected to al-Zarqawi's viciousness and attacks against Shi'ites.
U.S. officials say they also received valuable assistance from the
government of Jordan, al-Zarqawi's home country. A Jordanian security
official tells TIME that one month after the November 2005 suicide attacks
on three hotels in Amman, which killed 60 people, Jordanian King Abdullah II
ordered his intelligence officials to set up a new security branch, the
Knights of God, to launch an offensive against terrorists outside the
country's borders and eliminate al-Zarqawi. In addition to providing support
to anti-Zarqawi tribes in Iraq, the Jordanians sought sources inside
al-Qaeda who could lead them to the al-Qaeda boss. The official says that
one informant, described as neither Jordanian nor Iraqi, made contact with
three of al-Zarqawi's couriers, all of whom the Jordanians referred to as
Mr. X. According to the official, the informant reported spotting one Mr. X
in an area outside Baqubah last week. "Mr. X went to Baqubah, so we knew
Zarqawi went there," says the official.
Meanwhile, U.S. intelligence operatives gave the special-ops task force a
tantalizing lead. For nearly a month, the commandos had monitored every move
of Abdul-Rahman, the spiritual adviser, whose locations had been revealed by
an al-Qaeda operative captured in May near the Iraq-Jordan border. When
Abdul-Rahman surfaced near Baqubah last week--apparently in the same
location as the Jordanians' Mr. X--the commandos moved in for the kill. "We
had absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Zarqawi was in the house," Army
Major General William Caldwell told reporters in Baghdad the day after the
strike. The Jordanian security official told TIME that the bombing killed
Abdul-Rahman and Mr. X, in addition to al-Zarqawi's 16-year-old wife.
Remarkably, al-Zarqawi apparently survived the attack, at least for a short
while. Iraqi police, Iraqi security forces and military helicopters bearing
U.S. soldiers from the 4th Infantry Division swarmed over the safe house
immediately after the strike. Iraqi police, Caldwell said, were the first on
the scene, and they put al-Zarqawi onto a stretcher. A special-ops
exploitation team trained to glean intelligence from raids arrived with
photos, fingerprint smudges and descriptions of the scars and tattoos on his
body, much of which had been supplied by Jordanian intelligence. As the team
began examining him, according to Caldwell, al-Zarqawi muttered something
and tried to "turn away off the stretcher." He was quickly "resecured" and
died of his wounds shortly thereafter. After investigators on the scene
positively identified him, word reached Pentagon officials as they awoke
Thursday in Washington. "It's been a long, long effort," says one. "But we
finally got the bastard."
In the wake of the attack, says the Jordanian security official, members of
al-Zarqawi's organization in Iraq launched a series of interrogations in
search of those who sold out their leader, leading Jordanian officials to
hope that the hit is already causing dissension in jihadist ranks. U.S.
intelligence officials believe al-Qaeda in Iraq is likely to name a
successor soon, and the Bush Administration was careful to point out that
the insurgency will outlive al-Zarqawi. But no one who comes next will have
his twisted star power, at least not for a while. "The violence is not only
al-Qaeda," says the Jordanian security official. "But this weakens one
important link. It's a warning to all these groups that they are not immune.
If we can get Zarqawi, we can get you too." [The following descriptive text
appears within A diagram] The Strike
Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi had eluded U.S. forces for years. A special team of
intelligence operatives was tracking his spiritual adviser, hoping for a
break.
Then they learned the two were going to meet Wednesday afternoon THE HOUSE
A small Delta Force team of perhaps half a dozen, together with a handful of
Iraqi security personnel, watches the house and confirms that al-Zarqawi and
Sheik Abdul-Rahman, his adviser, are inside
6:12 p.m. TWO EXPLOSIONS
With darkness approaching and lacking enough forces to storm the house, the
surveillance team calls for an air strike. Two Air Force F-16 fighters
respond. One drops two precision bombs
Evening POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION
After the bombing, Iraqi security and 4th Infantry Division troops swarm
over the scene. Al-Zarqawi dies of his injuries soon after he is found. His
identity is confirmed through scars, tattoos and fingerprints F-16 FIGHTING
FALCON A compact, light and versatile fighter jet. It is highly maneuverable
and able to perform in both air-to-air and air-to-surface combat THE TARGET
The house, made of cinder blocks and reinforced concrete, was set back in a
grove of date palms, about 1.25 miles (2 km) northeast of the village of
Hibhib First bomb GBU-12 A 500-lb. (227 kg) smart bomb that follows a laser
signal to its target. An electronics pod under the aircraftÑor a spotter on
the ground illuminates the target with a laser. A guidance system in the
nose of the bomb detects that spot and controls the movements of the
airfoils in the rear to steer the bomb toward the target. The bomb has a
range of about eight miles (13 km) Second bomb GBU-38 Similar in weight to
its counterpart, this one finds its target using GPS coordinates and
satellite guidance
With reporting by SALLY B. DONNELLY, DOUGLAS WALLER/WASHINGTON, MARK
THOMPSON, Saad Hattar/Amman, Reported by Brian Bennett, Charles
Crain/Baghdad with TIME''s Baghdad bureau
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1202929,00.html
2. Democrats Are Winning... Except at
the Polls - RealClear Politics
By Michael Barone
"This is just to cover Bush's (rear) so he doesn't have to answer questions"
about things in Iraq, said Rep. Pete Stark, second ranking Democrat on the
House Ways and Means Committee. "This insurgency is such a confused mess
that one person, dead or alive at this point, is hardly significant today,"
said Rep. Jim McDermott, formerly the lead Democrat on the House ethics
committee. The deceased, said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a candidate for the 2004
presidential nomination, was a small part of "a growing anti-American
insurgency." He said the United States should get out of Iraq. "We're there
for all the wrong reasons."
Such was the reaction of the left wing of the Democratic Party to the
killing of al-Qaida terrorist Abu Masab Zarqawi in Iraq. It was not the
dominant note sounded by Democrats. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi,
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and 2004 presidential nominee John Kerry
all hailed the death of Zarqawi in unequivocal terms. And if Democrats also
made the point that his death probably won't end the violence in Iraq, they
were only echoing what George W. Bush said.
Nevertheless the Stark-McDermott-Kucinich reaction, echoed and amplified,
often scatologically, by dozens of commenters on the popular dailykos.com
and myDD.com left-wing Websites, tells us something disturbing about the
Democratic Party -- and provides a clue why Democrats were unable to eke out
a win in last week's special congressional election in the 50th
congressional district of California.
It comes down to this: A substantial part of the Democratic Party, some of
its politicians and many of its loudest supporters do not want America to
succeed in Iraq. So vitriolic and all-consuming is their hatred for George
W. Bush that they skip right over the worthy goals we have been, with some
considerable success, seeking there -- a democratic government, with
guaranteed liberties for all, a vibrant free economy, respect for women --
and call this a war for oil, or for Halliburton.
Successes are discounted, setbacks are trumpeted, the level of American
casualties is treated as if it were comparable to those in Vietnam or World
War II. Allegations of American misdeeds are repeated over and over; the
work of reconstruction and aid of American military personnel and civilians
is ignored.
In all this they have been aided and abetted by large elements of the press.
The struggle in Iraq has been portrayed as a story of endless and increasing
violence. Stories of success and heroism tend to go unreported. Reporters in
Iraq deserve respect for their courage -- this has been an unusually deadly
war for journalists, largely because they have been targeted by the
terrorists. But unfortunately they and the Bush administration have not done
a good job of letting us know that last pertinent fact.
We are in an asymmetrical struggle with vicious enemies who slaughter
civilians and bystanders and journalists without any regard for the laws of
war. But too often we and our enemies are portrayed as moral equivalents.
One or two instances of American misconduct are found equal in the balance
to a consistent and premeditated campaign of barbarism.
All of this does not go unnoticed by America's voters. The persistence of
violence in Iraq has done grave damage to George W. Bush's job rating, and
polls show that his fellow Republicans are in trouble. Yet when people
actually vote, those numbers don't seem to translate into gains for the
Democrats. In 2004, John Kerry got 44 percent of the votes in the 50th
district of California. In the April 2006 special primary, Democrat Francine
Busby got 44 percent of the votes there. In the runoff last week, she got 45
percent and lost to Republican Brian Bilbray.
The angry Democratic left set the tone for the 2003-04 campaign for the
party's presidential nomination, and John Kerry hoped that it would produce
a surge in turnout in November 2004. It did: Kerry got 16 percent more
popular votes than Al Gore. But George W. Bush got 23 percent more popular
votes in 2004 than in 2000.
In California's 50th, both parties made mammoth turnout efforts, but the
balance of turnout and of opinion seems to have remained the same, even
though Democrats had a seriously contested primary for governor and
Republicans didn't. The angry Democratic left and its aiders and abettors in
the press seem to have succeeded in souring public opinion, but they haven't
succeeded in producing victory margins for the Democrats. Maybe they're
doing just the opposite.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/democrats_are_winning_except_a.html
3. Blending In, Moving Up - Washington
Post Op-ed
By Tyler Cowen and Daniel M. Rothschild
Monday, June 12, 2006; Page A21
Beneath the surface of the immigration debate is a debate about shared
values. If we look at just three of those values -- the English language,
family and hard work -- we see a higher level of Latino assimilation than is
often presumed.
Despite claims to the contrary, census data show that most Latino immigrants
learn and speak English quite well. Only about 2.5 percent of American
residents speak Spanish but not English. The majority of residents of
Spanish-speaking households speak English "very well."
Only 7 percent of the children of Latino immigrants speak Spanish as a
primary language, and virtually none of their children do. Just as they did
a century ago, immigrants largely come knowing little English. But they
learn, and their children use it as a primary language. The United States is
not becoming a bilingual nation.
A key indicator is the rise of the English-language Latino publication
market. National magazines such as Hispanic Business (circulation 265,000)
and Latina (circulation 2 million) are published in English. So are regional
publications in cities including New York, Houston and Los Angeles. The
reason is simple: English is becoming the language of Hispanic American
commerce and culture. Just as few Jewish-interest magazines are published in
Yiddish, in a generation most Latino-interest publications will probably be
in English.
The family has long been the core social unit in America, and immigrants
share that value. Census data show that 62 percent of immigrants over age 15
are married, compared to 52 percent of natives. Only 6 percent of Latino
adults are divorced, compared with 10 percent of whites and 12 percent of
African Americans. Latino immigrants are more likely to live in
multigenerational households rather than just visiting grandparents a couple
of times a year.
Most Latino immigrants want to become U.S. citizens. This process takes
years, so recent immigrants are not a good barometer. But according to the
2000 Census, the majority of Latinos who entered the United States before
1980 have become citizens. And second-generation immigrants are more likely
to marry natives than immigrants, further assimilating their children. The
majority of immigrants also own their own homes, a key part of the American
dream.
Immigrants from Central and South America share the American predilection
for hard work and economic advancement. Data from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics indicate that Hispanic men are more likely than white men to be
in the labor force. While immigrant Latinas initially lag behind native
women, Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn of the National Bureau of Economic
Research have shown that, despite initial inclinations to be stay-at-home
moms, immigrant women quickly assimilate into the American workforce.
The children of Latino immigrants do especially well at work. James P. Smith
of Rand Corp. has shown that the children and grandchildren of Latino
immigrants come very close to closing educational and income gaps with
native whites. This is the same as it has always been in American
immigration: Newcomers know what keeps them outside the mainstream and work
hard to make sure that their children do better. Immigrant Latino men make
about half of what native whites do; their grandsons earn about 78 percent
of the salaries of their native white friends.
Studies such as Smith's, because they track trends over time, are better at
discovering patterns of assimilation than studies that compare immigrants in
2006 to natives. The latter present a snapshot; they can't demonstrate
long-term trends.
It's true that recent immigrants have not been closing the wage gap as fast
as earlier immigrants. But David Card of the University of California at
Berkeley, John DiNardo of the University of Michigan and Eugena Estes of
Princeton attribute this to an increase in inequality nationwide.
Controlling for this, Latino immigrants are doing as well as immigrants a
century ago.
Of course, assimilation is not instantaneous. First-generation immigrants
often hold on to the language and customs of the old country. Some
immigrants ghettoize themselves and avoid the mainstream. But the overall
patterns are far more positive than many recent debates have suggested.
Let's not forget that assimilating into American culture means taking the
bad with the good. Robert Sampson of Harvard has found that immigrants are
45 percent less likely than third-generation Americans to commit violent
crime. Divorce rates increase with each generation.
For all the rhetoric on both sides, the evidence deserves a closer look.
Latino immigrants, like generations of immigrants before, are entering the
mainstream of life in the United States. Ours is the best country in the
world at assimilating immigrants. This should be a badge of honor, and one
that we wear proudly.
Tyler Cowen is a professor of economics at George Mason University and
general director of its Mercatus Center. Daniel M. Rothschild is associate
director of the Global Prosperity Initiative at the Mercatus Center.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/11/AR2006061100922.html
4. The devaluing of human life -
Washington Times Op-ed
By Nat Hentoff
Published June 12, 2006
A friend of mine told me of a recent conversation at his family's dinner
table that keeps reverberating in my mind. His wife, a physician, also
performs abortions. And their 9-year-old son -- hearing the words and
curious about its meaning -- looked up from his plate and asked, "What is an
abortion?" His mother tried carefully to describe it in simple terms.
"But," said her son, "that means killing the baby." The mother then
explained that there are certain months during which an abortion cannot be
performed, with very few exceptions. The 9-year-old shook his head. "But,"
he said, "it doesn't matter what month. It still means killing the babies."
Hearing the story, I wished it could be repeated to the justices of the
Supreme Court, in the hope that at least five of them might act on this
9-year-old's clarity of thought and vision.
The boy's spontaneous insistence on the primacy of life also reminded me of
a powerful pro-life speaker and writer who, many years ago, helped me become
a pro-lifer. He was a preacher, a black preacher. He said: "There are those
who argue that the right to privacy is of a higher order than the right to
life.
"That," he continued, "was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the
existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private
and therefore out of your right to be concerned." This passionate reverend
used to warn: "Don't let the pro-choicers convince you that a fetus isn't a
human being. That's how the whites dehumanized us... The first step was to
distort the image of us as human beings in order to justify what they wanted
to do and not even feel they'd done anything wrong."
That preacher was the Rev. Jesse Jackson. Later, he decided to run for the
presidency, and it was a credible campaign that many found inspiring in its
focus on what still had to be done on civil rights. But Mr. Jackson had by
now become "pro-choice," much to the appreciation of most of those in the
liberal base.
The last time I saw Mr. Jackson was years later, on a train from Washington
to New York. I told him of a man nominated, but not yet confirmed, to a seat
on a federal circuit court of appeals. This candidate was a strong supporter
of capital punishment which both Mr. Jackson and I oppose, since it involves
the irreversible taking of a human life by the state.
I asked Mr. Jackson if he would hold a press conference in Washington,
criticizing the nomination, and he said he would. The reverend was true to
his word; the press conference took place; but that nominee was confirmed to
the federal circuit court. However, I appreciated Mr. Jackson's effort.
On that train, I also told Mr. Jackson that I'd been quoting in articles and
in talks with various groups from his compelling pro-life statements. I
asked him if he'd had any second thoughts on his reversal of those views.
Usually quick to respond to any challenge that he is not consistent in his
positions, Mr. Jackson paused, and seemed somewhat disquieted at my
question. Then he said to me, "I'll get back to you on that." I still
patiently await what he has to say.
As time goes on, my deepening concern with the consequences of abortion is
that its validation by the Supreme Court, as a constitutional practice,
helps support the convictions of those who, in other controversies involving
euthanasia, assisted suicide and the "futility doctrine" by certain hospital
ethics committees, believe that there are lives not worth continuing.
Around the time of my conversation with Mr. Jackson on the train, I attended
a conference on euthanasia at Clark College in Worcester, Mass. There, I met
Derek Humphrey, the founder of the Hemlock Society, and already known
internationally as a key proponent of the "death with dignity" movement.
He told me that for some years in this country, he had considerable
difficulty getting his views about assisted suicide and, as he sees it,
compassionate euthanasia, into the American press.
"But then," Mr. Humphrey told me, "a wonderful thing happened. It opened all
the doors for me." "What was that wonderful thing?" I asked.
"Roe v. Wade," he answered.
The devaluing of human life as the 9-year-old at the dinner table put it
more vividly did not end with making abortion legal, and therefore, to some
people, moral. The word "baby" does not appear in Roe v. Wade, let alone the
word "killing." And so, the termination of "lives not worth living" goes on.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060611-094355-4289r.htm
5. Army Meets Recruiting Goal Again -
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Army said Friday it surpassed its recruiting goal for
May, marking the 12th consecutive month of meeting or exceeding its target.
Before it began the streak in June 2005, the active Army had missed its
target four consecutive months. And even though results improved during the
summer months, it missed its full-year target for the first time since 1999.
The Army National Guard and Army Reserve also fell short of their 2005 goals
but are doing better now.
The regular Army signed up 5,806 new recruits last month, compared with its
target of 5,400, and the Army National Guard and Army Reserve also exceeded
their May goals, according to statistics released by the Pentagon.
Nonetheless, eight months into its budget year, the active Army is barely
beyond the halfway mark of recruiting its goal of 80,000 new soldiers.
Through May it had signed up 42,859, meaning that in the final four months
of the period it will have to enlist an average of nearly 9,300 per month to
reach the 80,000 target.
Last year, the only month the active Army came close to signing up 9,300 in
a single month was August, when it got 9,452.
The Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps also met their May recruiting goals,
the Pentagon said.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MILITARY_RECRUITING?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-06-09-18-18-31
### |
