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 19, 2006
1. Deadly thinking - New York Daily News
Al Qaeda decided not to launch a deadly cyanide gas plot in New York's subways
because it wouldn't have killed enough people, according to the author whose
bombshell book revealed the frightening scheme.
2. North Koreans Are Reported Closer to a Missile Test - New York Times
North Korea appears to have completed fueling a long-range ballistic
missile, a move that greatly increases the probability that it will go ahead
with a test of a new long-range missile that might eventually have the
capacity to strike the United States.
3. Iraq and Congress - Wall Street Journal Op-ed
It was a good idea for Republican leaders to put Democrats on record and see
if they really had the courage of their antiwar convictions. Some
three-fourths of House Democrats have now put themselves on record as
favoring precipitous withdrawal. This is a policy that surely voters should
be aware of as they head for the polls.
4. Letter urges Bush to join House bill - Washington Times
Top conservative leaders have written President Bush telling him to drop his
insistence on a guest-worker program and a path to citizenship for illegal
aliens and instead support the 85 percent of congressional Republicans who
want to tighten law enforcement first.
5. An inconvenient fact - Washington Times Op-ed
In releasing his movie "An
Inconvenient Truth," former Vice President Al Gore has tied his political
fortunes firmly to a warmer climate.
For previous issues of the Morning Murmur, go to www.GOPsecretary.gov
FULL ARTICLES BELOW:
1. Deadly thinking - New York Daily News
Qaeda nixed subway attack, wanted more fatalities - book
BY MICHAEL McAULIFF
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON - Al Qaeda decided not to launch a deadly cyanide gas plot in New
York's subways because it wouldn't have killed enough people, according to
the author whose bombshell book revealed the frightening scheme.
"Al Qaeda's thinking is that a second-wave attack should be more destructive
and more disruptive than 9/11," writer Ron Suskind said in an interview with
Time magazine. "Why? Because that would create an upward arc of terror. ...
That fear and terror is a central goal of the Al Qaeda strategy."
News of the 2003 plot to use homemade cyanide bombs, the details of which
have been confirmed by the Daily News, was first revealed Friday in excerpts
from Suskind's book "The One Percent Doctrine."
The plot, purportedly masterminded by Al Qaeda's ringleader in Saudi Arabia,
Yusuf al-Ayeri, involved planting crude but effective cyanide canisters
around the subway system before the start of the Iraq war.
Sen. Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, wouldn't
confirm that Al Qaeda's No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, called off the
attack just 45 days before its execution because it would not be spectacular
enough. But Roberts (R-Kan.) said the premise that Zawahiri pulled the plug
"was correct."
"I think, when any terrorist considers an attack, they also consider the
public reaction," Roberts said on CNN's "Late Edition" yesterday.
City and federal officials learned of the plot from an Al Qaeda mole dubbed
"Ali" and beefed up security around the subways in hopes of heading off the
strike, which could have killed hundreds.
The plot "underscores the stupidity" of the Homeland Security Department
slashing the city's anti-terror funding by 40%, said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).
Rep. Pete King (R-L.I.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee,
agreed.
"It's just madness that [the Homeland Security Department] cut New York
City's funding by 40%," said King, who will put department officials on the
hot seat before his committee Wednesday.
If Zawahiri did squash the gas attack because it wouldn't be deadly enough,
that boosts the argument that the feds should not be spreading security
dollars around the country in places such as Louisville, Ky., and Omaha,
which saw major hikes in funding. Only in places such as New York and
Washington can terrorists hope to raise the ante from 9/11, King said.
"Some of these other cities just aren't going to get hit," he said.
When President Bush learned the cyanide plot had been nixed, according to
Suskind, Bush said: "This is bad enough. What does calling this off say
about what else they're planning? ... What could be the bigger operation
Zawahiri didn't want to mess up?"
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/428000p-360827c.html
2. North Koreans Are Reported Closer to
a Missile Test - New York Times
By HELENE COOPER and MICHAEL R. GORDON
WASHINGTON, June 18 - North Korea appears to have completed fueling a
long-range ballistic missile, American officials said Sunday, a move that
greatly increases the probability that it will go ahead with its first
important test launching in eight years.
A senior American official said that intelligence from satellite photographs
suggested that booster rockets had been loaded onto a launching pad, and
liquid-fuel tanks fitted to a missile at a site on North Korea's remote east
coast.
While there have been steady reports in recent days about preparations for a
test, fueling is regarded as a critical step as well as a probable
bellwether of North Korea's intentions. Siphoning the liquid fuel out of a
missile is a complex undertaking.
"Yes, looks like all systems are 'go' and fueling appears to be done," said
the official who discussed the matter only after being promised anonymity
because he was addressing delicate diplomatic and intelligence issues. A
second senior official, who declined to speak on the record for similar
reasons, also indicated that the United States believed the missile had been
fueled.
A launching would be a milestone in the North's missile capacity and
effectively scrap a moratorium on such tests declared by the North Koreans
after their last test in 1998. Moreover, a launching would have enormous
importance for American security because it would be North Korea's first
flight test of a new long-range missile that might eventually have the
capacity to strike the United States.
A launching could also ignite a political chain reaction in Japan, the
United States and China, which have been trying to re-engage North Korea in
stalled talks about its nuclear weapons program. The Bush administration
might step up financing for missile defense; Japan might increase its
missile defense efforts as well, while militant Japanese politicians might
push to reconsider the nation's nuclear weapons options. Such moves would
most likely alienate China.
The reported fueling of the missile has set off a flurry of diplomatic
activity, as officials from the United States, Japan and China worked
furiously to try to forestall a launching. Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice spoke to her Japanese and Chinese counterparts this weekend, urging the
Chinese, in particular, to try to press North Korea. Officials at the State
Department recently telephoned North Korean diplomats at that country's
permanent mission to the United Nations in New York, warning them directly
against going ahead with a launching. Such direct contact is highly unusual,
since American officials limit their direct talks with their North Korean
counterparts. But "we needed to make sure there was no misunderstanding," a
senior American official said.
American intelligence officials say they believe that the system is a
Taepodong 2 missile and that a three-stage version could strike all of the
United States. One administration official said the missile at the launching
pad was a two-stage version.
While North Korea claims to have developed nuclear weapons, it has never
allowed outsiders to see them. American experts believe that North Korea has
enough plutonium for at least half a dozen nuclear weapons and has produced
a small but growing nuclear arsenal. It is not known if the North Koreans
can build a nuclear warhead small enough to fit on a missile, but experts
say it seems plausible that they could do so.
"Assuming the missile is a Taepodong 2 and assuming the missile test is
successful, North Korea would demonstrate that they have made important
progress toward the ability to hit targets in the continental United States
with a missile large enough to carry a nuclear weapon," said Gary Samore, a
former senior aide on the National Security Council and a vice president of
the MacArthur Foundation.
It remained unclear late on Sunday how long North Korea might wait before
launching a fueled missile, what the diplomatic prospects were for averting
a launching, or what the missile's intended landing spot or projected range
might be.
In Japan, Foreign Minister Taro Aso warned that a miscalculation could
result in the missile landing on Japanese territory. "If it is dropped on
Japan, it will complicate the story," he told Japanese TV on Sunday. "It
will be regarded as an attack." Mr. Aso later toned down his language,
saying, "We will not right away view it as a military act," but adding that
Japan would seek an immediate meeting of the Security Council if the missile
were launched.
In its last test of a long-range missile, in 1998, North Korea fired a
Taepodong 1 missile over Japan - a launching that the Clinton administration
had warned against to no avail. American intelligence was surprised to learn
when the missile was launched that it had three stages, although the
solid-fueled third stage exploded in flight. That led Congress to step up
its push for deployment of antimissile defenses. In 1999, North Korea agreed
to a moratorium on long-range missile testing, and has not fired one since.
But five weeks ago American officials received satellite images that showed
North Korea preparing to test a multiple-stage Taepodong 2 missile. Some
Bush administration officials suspected that the moves were a grab for
attention while Washington's focus was primarily on Iran's nuclear
intentions, and a way to press the United States to agree to direct talks.
But since then, diplomats have become increasingly concerned that North
Korea indeed planned to conduct a launching.
"Why they are doing this, you will have to ask them," one senior Bush
administration official said Sunday. "It is not in anyone's interest;
certainly not theirs. For our part, we will not be derailed by their temper
tantrums, nor have any of our own."
Referring to the deadlocked six-party talks about North Korea's nuclear
program, the official said: "We'll continue to be guided by our policy of
protecting our people and of working closely, very closely with our partners
in the six parties. It is important in times like this not to give any mixed
signals and to be firm and clear. We support the six-party process as the
best means to solve what should be clear to all is a multilateral problem."
American knowledge about the Taepodong 2 is limited. In 2001, a National
Intelligence Estimate forecast that a three-stage version of it could reach
North America with a sizable payload. The first stage of the Taepodong 2 is
thought to consist of a cluster of Nodong missiles, which are single-stage,
shorter-range rockets; the second stage is believed to be a Nodong missile.
A third stage would probably be a solid-fueled system.
There was no mention of a missile in a report from North Korea's official
media on a national meeting on Sunday, according to news service reports
from the region. At the meeting, officials talked about increasing the
North's "military deterrent" - a phrase used by the country to refer to its
nuclear program. North Korea contends it needs the program for a defense
against a possible American attack; the United States says it has no
intention of invading.
American analysts say that if a missile launching occurs it is possible that
North Korea will describe it as part of a peaceful program to put satellites
in orbit. North Korea is a secretive Stalinist state, and figuring out the
motives of its leader, Kim Jong Il, has stymied diplomats for years. "It may
well be that Kim Jong Il is getting a lot of pressure from his generals to
verify the design" of the Taepodong 2 missile, said Robert J. Einhorn, a
former assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation under President
Bill Clinton.
But, he added, "Whenever the North Koreans act up, one has to assume in part
at least that they are trying to get the world's attention."
Just two weeks ago - a day after the United States offered to hold direct
talks with Iran over its nuclear program - North Korea invited Christopher
R. Hill, an assistant secretary of state and chief negotiator on the North's
nuclear weapons program, for direct talks in Pyongyang. That offer was
rebuffed by the White House, which insisted that the North return to the
long-deadlocked six-nation talks. The other nations involved in the talks
are China, South Korea, Japan and Russia.
North Korea has boycotted the talks in recent months after the United States
cracked down on financial institutions that dealt with the government in
Pyongyang, and with North Korean companies suspected of counterfeiting
American dollars and laundering money. If North Korea goes ahead with a
launching, the already floundering talks would go into the deep freeze.
David E. Sanger contributed reporting for this article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/19/world/asia/19korea.html?hp&ex=1150776000&en=9dd3cae8bd211697&ei=5094&partner=homepage
3. Iraq and Congress - Wall Street
Journal Op-ed
The Murtha withdrawal policy is a counsel of defeat.
Monday, June 19, 2006 12:01 a.m.
American and Iraqi forces are on the offensive once again, deploying around
the terrorist stronghold of Ramadi and beginning a drive to bring order to
Baghdad. This is welcome news, not least because it underscores how wrong
and defeatist Congressman Jack Murtha and his Democratic colleagues are in
demanding an immediate U.S. withdrawal in Iraq.
With a new Iraq government finally in place, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi dead,
now would be the worst time to tell Iraqis they are on their own. This is
the moment to capitalize on this recent run of good news to show the Iraqi
public, Sunnis and Shiites both, that the insurgency cannot win. If this
requires more American troops and more offensive operations for some months
to come, then that is what the Bush Administration should now consider.
It's in this context that last week's votes on Iraq in Congress are so
important. President Bush's surprise visit to Baghdad did a lot to assure
Iraqis about U.S. resolve. But the free Iraqi media have also made Iraqis
acutely aware of debates in the Congress, especially with the American media
trumpeting Mr. Murtha's demands for a U.S. retreat and House Democratic
leader Nancy Pelosi describing the war as a "grotesque mistake."
So it was a good idea for Republican leaders to put Democrats on record and
see if they really had the courage of their antiwar convictions. On Friday,
the House voted 256 to 153 to approve a nonbinding resolution acknowledging
Iraq as a central front in the war on terror and asserting that "it is not
in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary
date for the withdrawal or redeployment" of troops. The 153 votes for
retreat included three Republicans.
Over in the Senate, meanwhile, former Democratic standard bearer John Kerry
was embarrassed Thursday when Republican Mitch McConnell offered for a vote
on the floor the text of a withdrawal resolution that Mr. Kerry had been
promoting. Democrats cried foul and helped reject the resolution by 93-6.
But the vote was useful for exposing Democrats who say the U.S. should leave
Iraq but don't want to be responsible for the consequences of their
proposal.
The votes were also useful in exposing the kind of policy that the
Kerry-Murtha Democrats would pursue if they retake Congress in November.
Some three-fourths of House Democrats have now put themselves on record as
favoring precipitous withdrawal. This is a policy that even their own
potential 2008 standard bearer, Hillary Rodham Clinton, has said is not a
smart strategy. And it is surely an issue that voters should be aware of as
they head for the polls.
The most clever get-out-now supporters claim a U.S. withdrawal timetable
will give Iraqis a greater incentive to defend themselves. But the incentive
that Iraqis really need is the assurance that if they assist their new
democracy they won't be joining the losing side. That has hardly been clear
so far, especially in Sunni strongholds where the Coalition hasn't been able
to provide security.
As Iraq Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said when he stopped by our office
last week, Baathist intimidation is still very strong. He also told us that,
in a discussion among Iraqi politicians shortly before he left Baghdad last
week for a trip to the U.N., Sunni leaders were the most vocal that a
withdrawal timetable not be set. They know their own constituents have the
most to fear from the thugs.
At the same time, putting down the Sunni insurgency will also reassure the
Shiites that they don't need their own militias for self-protection. Mr.
Murtha claims that Iraqis are "fighting with each other and our troops are
caught in between" as targets. But by withdrawing before the Sunni
insurgency is defeated, the U.S. would only make a real civil war more
likely.
As for Mr. Murtha's proposal that U.S. forces should redeploy to some nearby
part of the Middle East, this is merely a disguise for what everyone would
understand was a defeat in Iraq. Anyone who doubts it should merely listen
to Mr. Murtha, who said again yesterday on NBC's Meet the Press that "We
can't win a war like this." It's more accurate to say that our troops have a
harder time winning a war with political leaders as inconstant as Mr.
Murtha, who voted to commit U.S. troops but now lacks the will to finish the
job.
Which brings us back to the Bush Administration and the current opportunity
in Iraq. President Bush has himself sometimes sounded as if he too is eager
to draw down U.S. forces, and within the Army there is also a strong desire
to come home. However, neither Republicans nor Army officers will get any
political relief from a withdrawal unless the Iraq project is seen as
successful. What frustrates Americans is taking casualties in an endless
deployment without a strategy for victory. The only politically winning path
to withdrawal is to help the new government provide security by beating the
insurgency.
Iraq is different from Vietnam in many ways, but its main similarity is that
any defeat won't be inflicted on the battlefield. The U.S. won big military
victories at least twice in Vietnam, in the 1968 Tet offensive and the 1972
bombing campaign, only to squander them because of defeatism in Washington.
The U.S. has sacrificed too much already in Iraq to withdraw just when
victory once again looks possible.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008537
4. Letter urges Bush to join House bill -
Washington Times
By Stephen Dinan
Published June 19, 2006
Top conservative leaders have written President Bush telling him to drop his
insistence on a guest-worker program and a path to citizenship for illegal
aliens and instead support the 85 percent of congressional Republicans who
want to tighten law enforcement first.
Signers include William J. Bennett, Robert H. Bork, Ward Connerly, David A.
Keene, Phyllis Schlafly and a number of think-tank academics and pundits.
The immigration debate is the first major issue on which Mr. Bush finds
himself opposing a majority of Republicans in Congress and depending on
Democrats to deliver a victory. In their letter, the conservatives tell Mr.
Bush to side with his fellow Republicans in Congress or risk repeating the
1986 immigration law that promised enforcement and amnesty but delivered
only the amnesty.
"Border and interior enforcement must be funded, operational, implemented
and proven successful and only then can we debate the status of current
illegal immigrants or the need for new guest-worker programs," 39
conservative leaders write in the letter, to be released today. A copy was
obtained yesterday by The Washington Times. The letter was addressed as well
to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois and Senate Majority Leader
Bill Frist of Tennessee.
Across the House and Senate, 85 percent of Republicans voted either for the
House bill, which is an enforcement-only bill, or against the Senate bill,
which dramatically increases immigration and offers a new right to
citizenship for illegal aliens.
"That's pretty overwhelming among congressional Republicans. That shows a
distance from [Senate bill sponsors Sens. John McCain and Edward M. Kennedy]
and what the White House has been saying recently," John Fonte, a senior
fellow at the Hudson Institute who is helping organize the letter, said in
an interview.
Mr. Fonte said the 39 conservatives -- all regular commentators on radio and
TV -- plan to push their case for enforcement-first over the nation's
airwaves and the Internet.
"Adopting cosmetic legislation to appear to be 'doing something' about
enforcement, but which actually makes the situation worse, is not
statesmanship, it is demagogy," the signers say.
The Senate faced this proposition, in the form of an amendment from Sen.
Johnny Isakson, Georgia Republican, that would have delayed the Senate's new
legalization program until after the borders were secure. It was defeated,
55 votes to 40 votes. Republican senators voted for it, 33 votes against 18
votes. Four Republicans did not vote.
Mr. Bush has tried to take the enforcement-first argument out of
consideration, announcing he would deploy 6,000 National Guard troops to the
border and hire more U.S. Border Patrol agents, and then by strengthening
interior enforcement by the Department of Homeland Security.
The White House argues that public opinion is swinging toward Mr. Bush's
position. Last week, press secretary Tony Snow pointed out a Wall Street
Journal poll that showed 50 percent favored a guest-worker program over
deporting illegal aliens. According to the poll of 1,002 adults, 33 percent
favored deportation.
That poll, like the White House's own polling, did not ask about the path to
citizenship for illegal aliens that both the Senate and Mr. Bush now favor.
Mr. Snow said that questions about border security have "gotten past that
important benchmark."
He said that means Republicans who want border security first now can say
they "got our way" and that Republicans can now consider a guest-worker plan
and a path to citizenship for some illegal aliens.
"In many ways, the president has answered the fundamental concern of many
House members in saying, we're going to go ahead, in taking affirmative
measures, to shore up the borders," Mr. Snow said.
But Mr. Fonte said the new steps are all the more reason to wait.
"Let's see if it works. Announcing a policy is one thing. Proven enforcement
is another, so let's see if it works."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060619-014021-3845r.htm
5. An inconvenient fact - Washington
Times Op-ed
Published June 19, 2006
In releasing his movie "An Inconvenient Truth," former Vice President (and
almost-president) Al Gore has tied his political fortunes firmly to a warmer
climate. Since the greenhouse effect does not seem to be all it's cracked up
to be, he has to pray for a hyperactive sun and more sunspots between now
and November 2008. He's not the only one rooting for a hotter climate.
Greenpeace, Environmental Defense, the Sierra Club and dozens if not
hundreds of enviro-groups around the world -- all grubbing for money --
would be most distressed if the climate should start to cool, as it did for
35 years following a warming peak in 1940. Wait a minute: Hasn't there been
a cooling trend since the peak temperatures of 1998? It's too soon to tell
whether that trend will continue.
In the meantime, Mr. Gore has pre-empted the topic against rivals in his own
party and for certain Republicans, like Sen. John McCain. He's winning the
support of all those who share in the government's $5-billion-a-year
climate-research bonanza. He's gaining the backing of blue-state governors,
mayors and civic organizations that loudly proclaim their "war against
warming," but would be the first to balk at the higher prices for gasoline
and electricity that would inevitably result. As the architect of the Kyoto
treaty in December 1997 (even after the Senate turned down the idea
unanimously in July of that year), Mr. Gore must be aware that it would
raise energy costs to the sky without getting any noticeable climate
results. No surprise then that Clinton-Gore never submitted Kyoto for Senate
ratification.
But after the impressions of his film wear off, after people forget about
the crashing ice from glaciers and the cute, computerized polar bear vainly
looking for an ice floe in the Arctic Ocean, some may ask: How do we know
whether the current warming is really caused by human activity?
The warming in the early part of the 20th century was natural and so was the
even warmer climate around A.D. 1000, when Vikings were establishing
agricultural settlements in Greenland and the north of England produced a
quite drinkable wine. There are those pesky scientists who keep doubting the
validity of the mathematical climate models and point instead to the
atmospheric data, which show little warming that can be traced to humans.
Mr. Gore calls these skeptics "deniers," but his movie denies the very
existence of any deniers.
Kind of confusing, isn't it? Well, Mr. Gore had better hope for a super-warm
summer in 2008, maybe even a big drought -- just like the one in 1988 that
started him on the road to abolishing climate change.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060619-123802-5358r.htm
### |
