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 26, 2006
1. The New York Times at War With America - RealClear Politics
The New York Times is acting like an adolescent kicking the shins of its
parents, hoping to make them hurt while confident of remaining safe under
their roof. But how safe will we remain when our protection depends on the
Times?
2. Saddam's WMD - Wall Street Journal Op-ed
Rep. Peter Hoekstra and Sen. Rick Santorum ask why our intelligence
community is holding back.
3. 55 Guardsmen Decrease Mexican Border Infiltration 21% in 10 Days - Human Events
While the press continues to pretend that the real central story in the
ongoing illegal immigration debate remains in Congress, where the liberal
Senate amnesty bill just had its feeding tube removed by Speaker Hastert, a
miracle has taken place in the deserts of the Southwest.
4. Utah race closes to virtual dead heat - Washington Times
Rep. Chris Cannon, facing a stiff primary challenge here over his stance on
immigration, has lost a comfortable lead and heads into tomorrow's primary
in a statistical tie, according to the latest poll by the Salt Lake City
Tribune.
5. Thank the Feds - New York Post Op-ed
The feds, who have
successfully prevented a terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11, get
attacked no matter what they do. If they devise innovative ways to take down
terrorists, a trash-America paper blows the secret on Page One. Yet the same
voices warning so self-righteously of "threats to our civil liberties" will
be the first to screech that the government failed when terrorists strike us
again.
For previous issues of the Morning Murmur, go to www.GOPsecretary.gov
FULL ARTICLES BELOW:
1. The New York Times at War With America
- RealClear Politics
By Michael Barone
Why do they hate us? No, I'm not talking about Islamofascist terrorists. We
know why they hate us: because we have freedom of speech and freedom of
religion, because we refuse to treat women as second-class citizens, because
we do not kill homosexuals, because we are a free society.
No, the "they" I'm referring to are the editors of The New York Times. And
do they hate us? Well, that may be stretching it. But at the least they have
gotten into the habit of acting in reckless disregard of our safety.
Last December, the Times ran a story revealing that the National Security
Agency was conducting electronic surveillance of calls from suspected al-Qaida
terrorists overseas to persons in the United States. This was allegedly a
violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. But in fact
the president has, under his war powers, the right to order surveillance of
our enemies abroad. And it makes no sense to hang up when those enemies call
someone in the United States -- rather the contrary. If the government is
going to protect us from those who wish to do us grievous harm -- and after
Sept. 11 no one can doubt there are many such persons -- then it should try
to track them down as thoroughly as possible.
Little wonder that President Bush called in Times publisher Arthur
Sulzberger Jr. and top editor Bill Keller, and asked them not to run the
story. But the Times went ahead and published it anyway. Now, thanks to The
New York Times, al-Qaida terrorists are aware that their phone calls can be
monitored, and presumably have taken precautions.
Last Friday, the Times did it again, printing a story revealing the
existence of U.S. government monitoring of financial transactions routed
through the Brussels-based Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial
Telecommunication, which routes about $6 trillion a day in electronic money
transfers around the world. The monitoring is conducted by the CIA and
supervised by the Treasury Department. An independent auditing firm has been
hired to make sure only terrorist-related transactions are targeted.
Members of Congress were briefed on the program, and it does not seem to
violate any law, at least any that the Times could identify. And it has been
effective. As the Times reporters admit, it helped to locate the mastermind
of the 2002 Bali bombing in Thailand and a Brooklyn man convicted on charges
of laundering a $200,000 payment to al-Qaida operatives in Pakistan.
Once again, Bush administration officials asked the Times not to publish the
story. Once again, the Times went ahead anyway. "We have listened closely to
the administration's arguments for withholding this information, and given
them the most serious and respectful consideration," Bill Keller is quoted
as saying. It's interesting to note that he feels obliged to report he and
his colleagues weren't smirking or cracking jokes. "We remain convinced that
the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of
international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be,
is a matter of public interest."
This was presumably the view as well of the "nearly 20 current and former
government officials and industry executives" who were apparently the
sources for the story.
But who elected them to make these decisions? Publication of the Times'
December and June stories appears to violate provisions of the broadly
written, but until recently, seldom enforced provisions of the Espionage
Act. Commentary's Gabriel Schoenfeld has argued that the Times can and
probably should be prosecuted.
The counterargument is that it is a dangerous business for the government to
prosecute the press. But it certainly is in order to prosecute government
officials who have abused their trust by disclosing secrets, especially when
those disclosures have reduced the government's ability to keep us safe. And
pursuit of those charges would probably require reporters to disclose the
names of those sources. As the Times found out in the Judith Miller case,
reporters who refuse to answer such questions can go to jail.
Why do they hate us? Why does the Times print stories that put America more
at risk of attack? They say that these surveillance programs are subject to
abuse, but give no reason to believe that this concern is anything but
theoretical. We have a press that is at war with an administration, while
our country is at war against merciless enemies. The Times is acting like an
adolescent kicking the shins of its parents, hoping to make them hurt while
confident of remaining safe under their roof. But how safe will we remain
when our protection depends on the Times?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/the_new_york_times_at_war_with.html
2. Saddam's WMD - Wall Street Journal
Op-ed
Why is our intelligence community holding back?
BY PETER HOEKSTRA AND RICK SANTORUM
Monday, June 26, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
On Wednesday, at our request, the director of national intelligence
declassified six "key points" from a National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC)
report on the recovery of chemical munitions in Iraq. The summary was only a
small snapshot of the entire report, but even so, it brings new information
to the American people. "Since 2003," the summary states, "Coalition forces
have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded
mustard or sarin nerve agent," which remains "hazardous and potentially
lethal." So there are WMDs in Iraq, and they could kill Americans there or
all over the world.
This latest information should not be new. It should have been brought to
public attention by officials in the intelligence community. Instead, it had
to be pried out of them. Mr. Santorum wrote to John DeFreitas, commanding
general, U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, on April 12, asking to
see the report. He wrote, "I am informed that there may well be many more
stores of WMDs throughout Iraq," and added, "the people of Pennsylvania and
Members of Congress would benefit from reviewing this report." He asked that
the "NGIC work with the appropriate entities" to declassify as much of the
information as possible.
The senator received no response. On June 5, he wrote again, this time to
John Negroponte, director of national intelligence, "concerning captured
Iraqi documents, data, media and maps from the regime of Saddam Hussein." He
mentioned his disappointment that many captured Iraqi documents had been
classified, and that he still had received no response from Gen. DeFreitas.
Some 10 days later, still with no response, he shared his dismay with one of
us, Pete Hoekstra, chairman of the House Permanent Committee on
Intelligence, who on June 15 wrote to Mr. Negroponte, urging him to
declassify the NGIC analytic piece. Mr. Hoekstra was also dismayed because
he had not been informed through normal intelligence channels of the
existence of this report.
To compound matters, during a call-in briefing with journalists held at noon
on June 21, intelligence officials misleadingly said that "on June 19, we
received a second request; this time asking that we, in short order--48
hours--declassify the key points, which are sort of the equivalent to key
judgments from something like a National Intelligence Estimate, from the
assessment." The fault was their own; we had been requesting this
information for nine weeks and they had not acted.
On Thursday, Mr. Negroponte's office arranged a press briefing by unnamed
intelligence officials to downplay the significance of the report, calling
it "not new news" even as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was reiterating
the obvious importance of the information: "What has been announced is
accurate, that there have been hundreds of canisters or weapons of various
types found that either currently have sarin in them or had sarin in them,
and sarin is dangerous. And it's dangerous to our forces. . . . They are
weapons of mass destruction. They are harmful to human beings. And they have
been found. . . . And they are still being found and discovered."
In fact, the public knows relatively little about weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq. Indeed, we do not even know what is known or unknown.
Charles Duelfer, former head of the Iraq Survey Group, stated that the ISG
had fully evaluated less than 0.25% of the more than 10,000 weapons caches
known to exist throughout Iraq. It follows that the American people should
be brought up to date frequently on our state of knowledge of this important
matter. That is why we asked that the entire document be declassified, minus
the exact sources, methods and locations. It is also, in part, why we have
fought for the declassification of hundreds of thousands of Saddam-era
documents.
The president is the ultimate classifier and declassifier of information,
but the entire matter has now been so politicized that, in practice, he is
often paralyzed. If he were to order the declassification of a document
pointing to the existence of WMDs in Iraq, he would be instantly accused of
"cherry picking" and "politicizing intelligence." He may therefore not be
inclined to act.
In practice, then, the intelligence community decides what the American
public and its elected officials can know and when they will learn it.
Sometimes those decisions are made by top officials, while on other
occasions they are made by unnamed bureaucrats with friends in the media.
People who leak the existence of sensitive intelligence programs like the
terrorist surveillance program or financial tracking programs to either
damage the administration or help al Qaeda, or perhaps both, are using the
release or withholding of documents to advance their political desires, even
as they accuse others of manipulating intelligence.
We believe that the decisions of when and what Americans can know about
issues of national security should not be made by unelected, unnamed and
unaccountable people.
Some officials in the intelligence community withheld the document we
requested on WMDs, and somebody is resisting our request to declassify the
entire document while briefing journalists in a tendentious manner. We will
continue to ask for declassification of this document and the hundreds of
thousands of other Saddam-produced documents, and we will also insist on
periodic updates on discoveries in Iraq.
This is no small matter. It is not--as a few self-proclaimed experts have
declared--a spat over ancient history. It involves life and death for
American soldiers on the battlefield, and it involves the ability of the
American people to evaluate the actions of their government, and thus to
render an objective judgment. The people must have the whole picture, not
just a shard of reality dished up by politicized intelligence officers.
Information is a potent weapon in the current war. Al Qaeda uses the
Internet very effectively and uses the media as a terrorist tool. If the
American public can be deceived by people who withhold basic information, we
risk losing the war at home, even if we win it on the battlefield. The
debate should focus on the basic question--what, exactly, we need to do to
succeed both here and in Iraq. We are dismayed to have learned how many
people in our own government are trying to distort that debate.
Mr. Hoekstra is the chairman of the House Permanent Committee on
Intelligence. Mr. Santorum is the chairman of the Senate Republican
Conference Committee.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008568
3. 55 Guardsmen Decrease Mexican Border
Infiltration 21% in 10 Days - Human Events
by Mac Johnson
Posted Jun 19, 2006
How many illegal aliens does it take to change a light bulb? AY CHIHUAHUA!
The National Guard is coming, change it yourself!!!
That pretty much summarizes what was undoubtedly the most important news
story of the last week, a report that was all but buried by the mainstream
media. While the press continues to pretend that the real central story in
the ongoing illegal immigration debate remains in Congress, where the
liberal Senate amnesty bill just had its feeding tube removed by House
Speaker Dennis Hastert (R.-Ill.), a miracle has taken place in the deserts
of the Southwest.
Total detentions of aliens attempting to sneak across the Mexican border
have plummeted an unimaginable 21% in the first 10 days of June compared to
the same period last year. This drop occurs at a time when enforcement
efforts are at a recent high, due to political concerns, and reflects a
precipitous drop in total attempted border crossings. According to an
Associated Press report, Jorge Vazquez, a director of "Grupo Beta," an
agency funded by the Mexican government and that works to aid and abet
Mexicans seeking to enter the United States illegally, his agents have seen
a similar drop in traffic on his side of the border.
The shocking drop-off in human smuggling is attributed to one factor: the
arrival of the National Guard on the border. That's quite an accomplishment
for just 55 guardsmen, who did not even arrive until June 3 and are working
entirely in support roles with the Border Patrol. What has really stemmed
the tide is just the idea that troops are coming to the border-a fact that
has found widespread exaggeration in the Mexican media.
The small National Guard deployment that started as a political stunt by
President Bush and the other proponents of amnesty has ended up disproving
one of the most cherished myths of the open borders propaganda machine: that
nothing can stop the human tide that has been allowed to flood across our
borders. It seems that just the rumor that we might be getting serious about
enforcement can stop thousands of aspiring illegal aliens in their literal
tracks.
The AP report quoted the operator of one "shelter" for infiltrators waiting
to cross the border as saying, "Some migrants have told me they heard about
the troops on television and, because the U.S. Army doesn't have a very good
reputation, they prefer not to cross."
Actually, it sounds to me like the U.S. military has an ideal reputation. It
must be the Border Patrol that has a poor reputation within the Mexican
smuggling community.
The snipe at the military's reputation was in reference to "reports of abuse
in Iraq." If this explanation is true, then it should forever end any claim
that the war in Iraq has not made America any safer. I mean, really, we
should get Lyddie England a Sombrero and new digital camera immediately. One
pixelly snapshot of her pointing menacingly at some muchacho's machismo and
we may not even need to build a border fence.
But of course a better explanation might be that the fear of the military
among so-called "migrants" has more to do with their own experiences with
the Mexican military. The Mexican army is hypocritically stationed on the
southern border of Mexico to intercept illegal aliens trying to sneak into
Mexico from Central America and is reported to routinely beat, rob, bully
and rape the Guatemalans and Hondurans that are just trying to do the jobs
that no Mexican will do. But whatever the true source of the fear, its stark
result shows just how effective it can be to declare that the "wink, wink,
nudge, nudge" games are over.
Compare the chilling effect that the talk of enforcement has had on border
infiltration to the opposite effect that all the previous talk of amnesty
had, when border apprehensions and crossings spiked. Francisco Loureiro,
apparently the same shelter operator that the AP quotes last week as saying
that his shelter was nearly empty due to the fearsome reputation of the U.S.
military, was credited in a separate article during the Senate's slide
toward a guest-worker amnesty last April as saying that "he has not seen
such a rush of migrants since 1986, when the United States allowed 2.6
million illegal residents to get American citizenship."
The drastic change in traffic through Loureiro's hidey-hole hotel is
powerful proof that amnesty cannot be part of the solution to illegal
immigration. Amnesty simply encourages illegal immigration. Enforcement,
pure and simple, is the only effective solution to illegal immigration. When
the law is taken seriously, it is obeyed. When it is declared optional, it
is not.
The government and the media can bury it, or ignore it, or distort it, but
the incredible change on the border this month demonstrates beyond any
reasonable doubt that the illegal alien invasion has been an invited one,
caused by government sending all the wrong signals about America's
commitment to border enforcement.
The only way to undo such damage is to send a new message, loudly and
clearly: anonymous border infiltration is illegal and will result in summary
deportation, or worse. Those who wish to immigrate will apply, be screened
and wait for our permission to enter our country.
The problem is already 21% solved. Failure to follow through now would be a
waste of a huge opportunity to speak through actions.
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15624
4. Utah race closes to virtual dead heat
- Washington Times
By Charles Hurt
Published June 26, 2006
SALT LAKE CITY -- Rep. Chris Cannon, the five-term Republican facing a stiff
primary challenge here over his stance on immigration, has lost a
comfortable lead and heads into tomorrow's primary in a statistical tie,
according to the latest poll by the Salt Lake City Tribune.
The survey of 400 voters found that 44 percent of "likely" Republican
primary voters prefer the incumbent Mr. Cannon, compared with 41 percent who
prefer developer and political newcomer John Jacob, who promises to crack
down on illegal immigration. The three-point gap is within the poll's
five-percentage-point margin of error.
Of those who said they are "definite" about voting in the primary, Mr. Jacob
netted 45 percent and Mr. Cannon netted 44 percent. Among both groups, the
15 percent of "undecideds" will determine the outcome of the race. The
district is heavily Republican -- voting 77 percent for President Bush and
63 percent for Mr. Cannon in 2004 -- and whoever wins the Republican primary
is expected to coast to victory in November.
Mr. Jacob surprised Mr. Cannon by winning the May Republican convention,
although his victory -- 52 percent to 48 percent -- did not get the 60
percent support needed to avert a primary. But at the time, Mr. Jacob was
hardly known outside the most active Republicans who attended the
convention, and the polls then had him trailing by as much as 20 points
among Republican voters in general. The new poll, conducted by Mason-Dixon
Polling & Research, shows that wide support for Mr. Jacob has since spread
to party regulars.
House Republicans are banking their control of the chamber in November's
elections on the issue of immigration and their resistance to any plan they
see as amnesty, including the bill passed by the Senate last month. Though
House leaders -- along with Mr. Bush -- support the incumbent in this race,
they are watching it closely, aides say, to see how the issue of immigration
plays out.
So far, the race has cost more than $1 million, according to both
candidates, and it has been almost exclusively about immigration.
Of those polled by Mason-Dixon, 91 percent said the issue was important.
Among backers of Mr. Jacob, 97 percent said the issue is important and 69
percent said immigration is the primary reason they support him. And among
supporters of Mr. Cannon, 64 percent said immigration is the primary reason
they back him.
While Mr. Cannon says that he opposes granting amnesty to any of the
estimated 10 million to 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S., he has
convinced many Republicans here that he's soft on the issue.
Mr. Jacob's supporters point to a comment Mr. Cannon made four years ago
while accepting an "Excellence in Leadership" award from the Mexican
American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
"We love immigrants in Utah, and we don't oftentimes make the distinction
between legal and illegal," Mr. Cannon said. "In fact, I think Utah was the
first state in the country to legislate the ability to get driver's licenses
based on the matricula consular and of that I am proud."
The matricula consular is an identification card issued by the Mexican
government.
Adding to his problems, Mr. Cannon was given the award for his support of
legislation to allow the children of illegal aliens to get in-state tuition
rates at state colleges and universities. An earlier poll by the Tribune
found that 71 percent of Utah residents want that law repealed.
Mr. Cannon now says he opposes the Senate immigration bill that would grant
citizenship rights to millions of illegals. He does, however, support a
"guest-worker" program that would allow illegals to remain in the country
indefinitely.
"But they wouldn't get citizenship," he said.
If they give birth to children while in the U.S. as "guest workers," do they
then become citizens?
"Well, yes," Mr. Cannon replied when asked by The Washington Times. "But I'm
willing to address that problem."
Mr. Jacob says he opposes any "guest-worker" program for now and only wants
to see the border secured. Solutions for dealing with those already here or
the need for cheap labor can be handled later, he said.
When told about the poll results by a Tribune reporter, Mr. Jacob said he
was pleased but not surprised given the passionate views voters --
particularly Republicans -- have about the issue of immigration here, more
than 800 miles from the Mexican border.
"People are sick and tired of this," he said before a debate on public
television with Mr. Cannon. "It's time for a change. It's time for somebody
new in Congress."
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060626-124024-2948r.htm
5. Thank the Feds - New York Post Op-ed
By RALPH PETERS
June 26, 2006 -- WITH the fifth anniversary of 9/11 approaching, we need
another vote on Capitol Hill: a vote of thanks to the federal career
employees who've kept us free from terror attacks while politicians
blathered, appointees bungled and our enemies did their best to kill
Americans.
It's time to give credit where it's due, to the ever-criticized,
never-thanked feds, from the FBI agents who busted the Miami Seven last
Thursday, through the intelligence professionals working diligently amid all
the political flak, to the Border Patrol agents who daily face some of the
most miserable tasks in government.
This isn't to slight the great work down at the state and local levels. But
it's the feds who get attacked no matter what they do. If they devise
innovative ways to take down terrorists, a trash-America paper blows the
secret on Page One. Yet the same voices warning so self-righteously of
"threats to our civil liberties" will be the first to screech that the
government failed when terrorists strike us again.
The feds aren't perfect. Only God is. But in our War on Terror the greatest
proof of success is a negative - the absence of attacks. And since the
horrors of 9/11 (so soon forgotten by so many), al Qaeda and its surrogates
have not been able to stage a single strike on American soil. And it isn't
because they haven't wanted to hurt us.
The viciousness which those on the left aim at honest - and underpaid -
federal employees was on evidence again this weekend. After the Thursday
bust of the al Qaeda wannabes down in Liberty City, it took less than 48
hours for the critics to mobilize. By Saturday, we were being told that
those arrested weren't a serious threat, that they'd been entrapped, that
they're just misguided youths who need a hug.
The entrapment charge won't hold up. If there's one thing the FBI
understands, it's how to build a case. But the left will nonetheless
champion murderous thugs again ("Free Mumia!"). We'll hear ad nauseum that
the Miami Lice were incompetent, that they had no weapons or money, that it
was all talk.
Now consider how Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols & Co. would have come across
had they been popped for conspiracy three or four months before the Oklahoma
City bombing - namely, as nuts with delusions of grandeur. Jobless and
living on the edge of poverty, McVeigh and Nichols would've seemed pathetic,
not deadly. Losers. Like the perps in Miami.
It only took a pile of cheap fertilizer, an old vehicle and one committed
killer to bring down the Murrow Federal Building, kill 168 people and
shatter thousands of lives. And it wouldn't have taken very much for those
half-baked fanatics in Miami to kill hundreds, if not thousands.
Then we would've heard endless shrieks of "Intelligence failure!" The
Pelosi-Dean-Kerry Surrendercrats would've damned the Bush administration as
asleep at the wheel and incompetent. And the elite media would've expressed
outrage that no undercover programs were in place to detect terrorists
before they struck.
The FBI did exactly the right thing in Miami: It took madmen seriously. Yet
the agency damned for overlooking Zac Moussauoi pre-9/11 is now under attack
for busting up a terror ring before it achieved operational capabilities.
What do the critics want, besides putting cowards in office? Even if the
Miami Seven could only manage to bomb a suburban Starbucks, instead of the
Sears Tower, wouldn't we want to stop them?
It isn't the scope of their vision or their lack of resources that matters -
it's their intent to kill innocent Americans.
It's both legitimate and necessary to criticize our government when
criticism is deserved. But fair's fair. When the men and women charged to
protect us 365 days a year get it right, they should be applauded, not
pecked at by critics who never did a single act of service to this country
in their lives.
The courts will decide whether the Miami Seven are criminals or not. They'll
get a fair trial at the expense of those they wished to kill. But the FBI
has already been condemned by the terrorist-huggers. We are a miserably
ungrateful nation.
If Sept. 11, 2006, passes without a terrorist attack on our soil, Congress
should thank our homeland defenders with a formal resolution. Before the
November elections. And let's see who votes against it.
Ralph Peters' new book, "Never Quit the Fight," will be published July 10.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/thank_the_feds_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm
### |
