Levitt Letter Extra News

by Yaakov Katz,
Jerusalem Post

While sticking to its demand for the establishment of an independent inquiry into a blast on a Gaza beach that killed seven Palestinian civilians, the Human Rights Watch conceded for the first time since the incident that it could not contradict the IDF’s exonerating findings.

Major-General Meir Klifi — head of the IDF inquiry commission that cleared the IDF of responsibility for the blast — met with Marc Garlasco, a military expert from the HRW who had claimed that the blast was caused by an IDF artillery shell. Following the three-hour meeting, described by both sides as cordial and pleasant, Garlasco praised the IDF’s professional investigation into the blast, which he said was most likely caused by unexploded Israeli ordnance left laying on the beach, a possibility also raised by Klifi and his team.

“We came to an agreement with General Klifi that the most likely cause [of the blast] was unexploded Israeli ordinance,” Garlasco told The Jerusalem Post following the meeting. While Klifi’s team did a “competent job” to rule out the possibility that the blast was caused by artillery fire, there were still, Garlasco said, a number of pieces of evidence that the IDF commission did not take into consideration.

The main argument between Klifi and HRW surrounded the timeline of the blast, which the IDF said took between 16:57 and 15:10, at least 10 minutes after artillery fire in the area had stopped. HRW however disputes this claim and basing itself on Palestinian hospital documentation, claims that the explosion actually took place right around the time of the IDF artillery fire.

Meanwhile, The Post learned that the IDF was currently inspecting a second piece of shrapnel doctors had retrieved from one of the Palestinians wounded in the blast and currently being treated at Soroka Hospital in Beersheba. A first piece of shrapnel, examined by the IDF as well as by an independent academic institute in Beersheba was found to not have come from a 155 mm shell, the type used in IDF artillery attacks on Kassam launch sites in the Gaza Strip. The second piece of shrapnel, sources said, was currently being examined in an IDF lab.

Garlasco told Klifi during the meeting that he was impressed with the IDF’s system of checks and balances concerning its artillery fire in the Gaza Strip and unlike Hamas which specifically targeted civilians in its rocket attacks, the Israelis, he said, invested a great amount of resources and efforts not to harm innocent civilians.

“We do not believe the Israelis were targeting civilians.” Garlasco said. “We just want to know if it was an Israeli shell that killed the Palestinians.”

Lucy Mair — head of the HRW’s Jerusalem office — said Klifi’s team had conducted a thorough and professional investigation of the incident and made “a good assessment” when ruling out the possibility that an errant IDF shell had killed the seven Palestinians on the Gaza beach.

‘We differ when it comes to other pieces of information from other sources that don’t relate to the military strike such as the timing and the type of injuries,” Mair explained. “While they [the IDF] made a very good presentation, we still think there are enough unanswered questions that have not been examined by Klifi’s team… and that is why we believe there should be an independent investigation.”

By Ben Johnson
What’s in store for America if Democrats take over congress.
www.frontpagemagazine.com

On “Meet the Press” June 18th, John Murtha endorsed al-Qaeda’s foreign policy.

The upwardly mobile, cut-and-run specialist (who, by the way, is a “war hero”) told Tim Russert he still supports the foreign policy that convinced Osama bin Laden to launch the 9/11 attacks:

Now, the other day we were doing a debate, and [the Republicans] said, “Well, Beirut was a different situation. We cut and run.” We didn’t cut and run. President Reagan made the decision to change direction because he knew he couldn’t win it. Even in Somalia, President Clinton made the decision, “We have to, we have to change direction… need to change direction. We can’t win a war like this.”

Murtha revealed we must take this step days after the death of al-Zarqawi, because we’re “losing”:

And if you’re not winning, if you’re losing, and that’s what’s happening… [A]t some point you got to reassess it like Reagan did in, in Beirut, like, like Clinton did in Somalia, you just have to say, “OK, it’s time to change direction.”

Murtha’s was an unfortunate choice of historical precedent. As the Washington Post has reported, “As examples of alleged American cowardice, bin Laden frequently cites the case of the withdrawal from Lebanon after the 1983 truck bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut and the withdrawal from Somalia after the 1993 killings of U.S. servicemen in Mogadishu.”

The terrorist mastermind told the infamous Peter Arnett in 1997:

After a little resistance, the American troops left after achieving nothing… We learned from those who fought there, that they were surprised to see the low spiritual morale of the American fighters in comparison with the experience they had with the Russian fighters… If the U.S. still thinks and brags that it still has this kind of power even after all these successive defeats in Vietnam, Beirut, Aden, and Somalia, then let them go back to those who are awaiting its return.

In 1998, bin Laden boasted to ABC’s John Miller:

America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers.

Miller, in turn, told Osama, “You are like the Middle East version of Teddy Roosevelt.” (But there’s no media bias. And please, don’t question his patriotism.)

Indeed, the Saudi jihadist cited both Beirut and Mogadishu in his original 1996 fatwa.

Both retreats emboldened Osama bin Laden to strike the Great Satan in the belief no serious consequences would follow. More than 5,500 American deaths later, Jack Murtha still thinks this was capital statesmanship.

Nor is he alone on the Left. Lawrence Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, the George Soros-funded/pro-Hillary Clinton think tank headed by former President Clinton chief of staff John Podesta, urged President Bush to emulate the “quick and decisive way Reagan dealt with the terrorist attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983.”

President Reagan told the press on October 24, 1983, that remaining in Beirut despite the bombing of the Marine barracks was “central to our credibility on a global scale,” but by the end of the following February, we had completely withdrawn our forces. Unlike Clinton’s disastrous surrender — and his malfeasance and nonfeasance following subsequent attacks on the Khobar Towers, Kenya, Tanzania, and the USS Cole — Reagan acted against the backdrop of the Cold War, where he saw Lebanon as an unnecessarily emboldening sign of U.S. weakness… to the Soviets. (At that time, both parties evaluated the rising Islamic jihad in terms of how it affected the balance-of-power between Washington and Moscow.) The modern Cold War, which was thrust upon the West by Osama and his cohorts, is between Islamic fanatics and those committed to democracy, freedom of religion, and individual liberty. Reagan would not retreat in that context; then, as now, the Left would.

In counseling this approach, Murtha candidly acknowledges he is contradicting himself and advocating a “premature” withdrawal that would leave Iraq in “disarray”:

Russert: But in 2004, you had a view that was much different than you had now, and this is what you wrote in your book: “A war initiated on faulty intelligence must not be followed by a premature withdrawal of our troops based on a political timetable. An untimely exit could rapidly devolve into a civil war, which would leave America’s foreign policy in disarray as countries question not only America’s judgment but also its perseverance.” Aren’t you now advocating that?

Murtha: Yeah, you’re absolutely right… there comes a time when you got to change direction.

His current prescription is less a contradiction than a pathology of deaftism from the ineducable Left. Murtha advocated our withdrawal from Somalia and Lebanon, too. He warned the Today show in September 1993, “Our welcome has been worn out.” A month later, he assured the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette he could not “see any achievable goal or national security interest in this operation.” And Murtha boasted on “Meet the Press” Sunday, “When we went to Beirut, I said to President Reagan, ‘Get out.’”

Murtha claims we need to withdraw now, because, “It’s worse today than it was six months ago when I spoke out initially.” His evidence? Insufficient rubbish collection. “When I spoke out, the garbage wasn’t being collected, oil production below pre-war level–all those things indicated to me we weren’t winning this, and it’s the same today, if not worse. ”

His sunny assessment of war-torn Iraq makes one question his grip on reality. For instance, did you know, “The first six months we went in there, not a shot was fired”? Better yet “when I first went to Iraq, you could drive any place.” This kind of thinking led to his assessment the Armed Forces should redeploy “to Okinawa… you know, our fighters can fly from Okinawa very quickly.”

If the Democratic Party does as well as predicted in the November elections, he may have a new station from which to propound his wisdom. Murtha announced earlier this month that if the Democrats recapture the House, he will seek the position of Majority Leader. A few days later, a flummoxed Nancy Pelosi stated, “In the spirit of unity to achieve our goal of winning a Democratic majority in November, Congressman John Murtha has informed me that he will suspend his campaign for Majority Leader until after we win a Democratic majority of the House.” On Sunday, Murtha defended his announcement on the grounds that “in this business you have to make sure you get your foot in the door.”

Which is exactly what he did by being the front man for the Democrats’ withdrawal policy. As a “war hero,” he was, to use Ann Coulter’s term, “a human shield,” unassailable and invested with a Cindy Sheehan-like “absolute moral authority.” His decision to hide his intention to lead the Democratic Party — like Pelosi’s coerced pledge from John Conyers that in a Democratic House there would be “No Rush to Impeachment” — was intended to hide the Left’s stated legislative agenda… which is the only way Democrats have successfully sought higher office in the last 30 years. (See “Carter, Jimmy” and “Clinton, Bill.”) It is an agenda of full legal protections for terrorists and no quarter warfare for their political enemies. And they’ve proven 23 years of hindsight cannot cure the blindness their ideological mania has inflicted.

Next to Barbara Lee, John Murtha is Osama bin Laden’s most dependable voice in the House. He may soon be Majority Leader. Then he can make his nightmares our reality.

By Caroline B. Glick
www.jewishworldreview.com

As the leadership of Israel and the U.S. lose their collective will to reconcile themselves to the reality of war, it falls on the shoulders of private citizens to tell them that they are wrong

On Sunday Palestinian Hamas Authority Foreign Minister Mahmoud Zahar was in Teheran meeting with his boss, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad reportedly devoted the meeting to reminding Zahar that jihad is the only path for the Palestinians, and demanding that Hamas redouble its attacks against Israel.

This report tells us little we don’t already know about Hamas and Iran.

Since last year, Hamas leaders Zahar and Khaled Mashaal have been traveling to Iran to meet with Ahmadinejad and commanders of Iranian intelligence and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards units on a monthly, twice-monthly and even weekly basis.

This meeting merely served to remind us what has been clear for months, namely, that Iran today is the leader of the global jihadist axis. More interesting than the meeting is how Iran and Hamas’s chief enemies — the United States and Israel — have responded to the war the Iranian-led jihadist axis is waging against them.

Two words aptly describe the Bush administration and the Olmert government’s responses to the escalating war. They are respectively: appeasement and capitulation.

The Bush administration’s decision to negotiate directly with Iran over the genocidal mullocracy’s race to achieve nuclear capabilities represents the White House’s clearest renunciation of everything that President George W. Bush claims to have been fighting against since the September 11 attacks.

The Iranian regime, with its openly stated intention to annihilate Israel; its active participation in the war against US-led forces in Iraq; its support and sponsorship of other terror forces fighting US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan; its active subversion of pro-Western regimes throughout the Middle East; its support for anti-US regimes and political forces throughout the world; and its race to acquire intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of attacking the continental US, represents everything that Bush pledged to bring down in the aftermath of the attacks on the US five years ago.

THERE HAVE been many attempts to rationalize, justify and excuse the move.

Some say it is a result of political distress. It is hard to see why Bush would think that attempting to appease America’s worst enemy will placate his political support base. But more important than the reasons for his policy reversal are the content and consequences of his new position.

In providing an opening to Teheran, the Bush administration has adopted the policy that former president Jimmy Carter forced down the throat of the Clinton administration in its dealings with the North Korean Stalinists in 1994. Twelve years ago, Carter invited himself to North Korea to “defuse” the crisis the North Koreans had fomented by openly developing nuclear weapons. Since then-president Bill Clinton had no policy for dealing with North Korea, he allowed Carter to negotiate the deal that Bush is now offering Teheran.

www.omegaletter.com

In 1992, candidates Bill Clinton and Al Gore attempted to enlist God in their campaign by invoking what sounded like Scripture.

In his turn, Bill Clinton rewrote 2nd Corinthians 2:9: “But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him.”

In the Clinton version, God is a liberal construction foreman: “As it is written, eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, the THINGS THAT WE CAN BUILD.”

When it was Al Gore’s turn, he also quoted something that sounded like Scripture: “In the words of the Bible, “Do not lose heart, this nation will be renewed.”

At least in Clinton’s case, one could tell which Scripture was being mangled. Gore made his up out of whole cloth.

I found it fascinating then, (and still do today), that not one single member of the audience or member of the press noticed that the Clinton-Gore team was rewriting Scripture in order to co-opt God into their political campaign.

Nobody noticed that God didn’t really say anything about what ‘we can build’ or that the ‘words of the Bible’ quoted by Al Gore were made up by Al Gore.

Back in ‘92, Al was still racking up the sales of his eminently unreadable ‘Earth in the Balance’ in which Gore declared himself to be a fundamentalist Christian before going on to advance some of the craziest Eastern mystic and pagan-environmentalist claptrap ever committed to paper.

(Gore devoted an entire chapter to explaining the ‘Gaia complex’ — pagan earth worship in which Gaia is the ‘earth mother’ of mankind.

After declaring himself a Bible-believing fundamentalist, Gore went on to reject creationism and advance Darwinism. Gore asks rhetorically, “Is it a coincidence that human beings have the same chemical composition as the earth?” — before explaining it was because we all evolved from sea creatures, rather than the fact God formed man from ‘the dust of the earth’ as the Scriptures teach.

To Al Gore, God was a liberal then, and He’s moved quite a bit to the Left since.

Assessment:

Nearly two decades later, Gore is still crusading to protect the Earth Mother from the ravages of human civilization, invoking God and Scripture when convenient, while rewriting inconvenient Scripture passages as necessary.

I found it particularly ironic in light of the theme of his speech, “An Inconvenient Truth.”

“Every faith tradition has teachings that are directly on point [to climate change],” Gore told the packed audience of liberal environmentalists. To prove it, Gore invented another ‘convenient truth’– this time, rewriting Genesis and Revelation to prove that God is on Gore’s side.

“The Book of Revelation [says] God will destroy those who destroy his creation,” Gore told the crowd.

Of course, the Book of the Revelation says nothing of the kind. The Book of the Revelation outlines God’s judgement poured out against the earth and its inhabitants for unrepentant sin and for rejecting His gift of pardon.

In Gore’s version, God’s judgement is poured out against polluters. But his audience not only never noticed, they roared with laughter when Gore added, “Whatever works.”

In the Gospel According to Al Gore, “Noah was commanded to preserve biodiversity” before noting that man — and not God — “is the most powerful force in nature, now.”

“We are literally changing the relationship between the Earth and the Sun,” he said. “It has the capacity to bring civilization itself to a dead halt.”

Lawrence Bender, the director of Gore’s documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth” said during a two-hour panel discussion that, thanks to Gore’s religious instruction, “I have become evangelical basically.”

It is worth noting that the members of the discussion panel did not include any scientists that are skeptical about global warming — they were true believers all.

(It is also worth noting that the event was sponsored by a $250,000.00 grant from Teresa Heinz-Kerry.)

Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” was aptly named — whenever the truth was inconvenient, it was rewritten and reworked until it was.

The Gospel according to Al Gore says that the earth is warming because of man’s ecological insensitivity.

The Gospel according to Luke forecasts something similar, but it isn’t because of man’s insensitivity to the ecology. It’s because of mankind’s insensitivity to sin. It is also a warning of the soon return of Jesus Christ.

Man can’t stop it, because, despite the Gospel according to Gore, man is not the ‘most powerful force in nature’.

But Al Gore’s speech, despite his mangling of Scripture and blending of New Age theology to create a new kind of evangelicalism, is another confirmation of the signs of the times.

In the Gospel according to Luke, no less an authority than Jesus Christ warned that, just before His return;

“… there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.”

According to the Gore Gospel, all that is true, but man caused it, and man can fix it.

According to Luke’s Gospel, “when these things BEGIN to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” (Luke 21:26-28)

Jesus’ explanation makes more sense. But then He isn’t running for office.

By Mary Katharine Ham
www.townhall.com

“I was aiming to follow in the footsteps of one of my role-models, Mohammad Atta.” -Mohammad Taheri-azar

Do you remember Taheri-azar? The 25-year-old Iranian graduate of the University of North Carolina rented an SUV in March and drove it into The Pit, a campus gathering place for UNC students. He accelerated into the standard college crowd of preachers, smokers, gawkers, and cause-hawkers. He hit nine people and injured six. None died, much to Taheri-azar’s chagrin.

He told the press and the judge and anyone who would listen that he was seeking vengeance for the deaths of Muslims at the hands of bigoted Westerners in a post-9/11 world. He told everyone that he had intended to kill, had premeditated the killing. He even told the 911 dispatcher, just minutes after he had used a group of UNC co-eds as jack stands.

He was immediately arrested and charged with nine counts of attempted first-degree murder and nine counts of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury with intent to kill.

A couple weeks later, just eight miles down the road in the city of Durham, three Duke lacrosse players were accused of brutally assaulting and raping an exotic dancer at a party on March 13.

There were not dozens of witnesses to the crime; there was not an overabundance of physical evidence; the boys did not confess and turn themselves in; they did not announce to 911 dispatchers that the rape was premeditated and that they felt like their “white privilege” entitled them to certain liberties with those of other races and socio-economic classes.

It was weeks before any lacrosse player was charged with a crime, by which time, the results of DNA tests administered to the entire team had come back revealing no matches at all.

Now, let’s compare the treatment of the accused in each case by local officials, the press, and the local community. I think the results are reflective of a bit of a priority problem in the moral clarity department.

Local Officials

The president of each university made a statement on the occasion of his school’s respective controversy.

Chancellor James Moeser of UNC:

I agree, this could feel like terrorism, especially if you’re standing in front of a Jeep that’s heading toward you trying to kill you. As we have investigated this, we’ve come more and more to the conclusion that this was one individual acting alone in a criminal act.

Well, no. Why would we call him a terrorist? I’m told that “will of Allah” talk is routine in a traffic violation such as this. Moeser also urged more understanding of Muslim groups on campus and stressed the need for religious tolerance.

Meantime, when the rape scandal hit at Duke, President David Brodhead started a letter to the Duke community like this:

Allegations against members of the Duke Lacrosse team stemming from the party on the evening of March 13 have deeply troubled me and everyone else at this university and our surrounding city. We can’t be surprised at the outpouring of outrage. Rape is the substitution of raw power for love, brutality for tenderness, and dehumanization for intimacy. It is also the crudest assertion of inequality, a way to show that the strong are superior to the weak and can rightfully use them as the objects of their pleasure. When reports of racial abuse are added to the mix, the evil is compounded, reviving memories of the systematic racial oppression we had hoped to have left behind us. If the allegations are verified…

Thank goodness for the “if,” which comes after a couple paragraphs about the alleged attack and its allegedly racial motivations, conspicuously omitting the word “alleged.” Brodhead did not urge more understanding of athletic teams on campus and stress the need for athletic tolerance.

Press Coverage

Here’s a sampling from coverage of Taheri-azar:

“Former high school honor student.”

“He was one of those students who was very assertive in asking questions,” Pitz explained. “He obviously cared a lot about his performance. Even in the very large class I taught, he was very willing to ask questions and get involved in discussions.”

Friends describe him as unfailingly polite, yet he enjoyed provoking his teachers… He was reserved — “He didn’t even cuss,” said Sean Cordova, another high school friend.

They are nice to him, no? The lacrosse team got different treatment. Strangely, their high-school extracurriculars and good grades were not often mentioned:

“An alarming record of misconduct in recent years.”

“In a column entitled, ‘Black Panthers right on, finally:’ Shabazz and his New Black Panther Party were in Durham, almost at Duke’s door, to declare ‘guilty’ the white Duke Lacrosse players accused of raping a black dancer hired from an escort service.”

“From the Today Show: And still to come, the Duke lacrosse rape case. Is there something about the sport of lacrosse that causes players to act out of bounds?”
“Other professors call for nothing less than an end to big-time sports at Duke”
“There’s a culture of rape at Duke…”

Local Community

Within days of Taheri-azar’s attack, students were reclaiming The Pit, having interfaith prayer vigils and “dialogues” for religious tolerance on campus, implying of course that it was the campus’ religious tolerance that needed improvement, not the guy who wanted nothing more than to paint his white walls red with some American, non-Muslim blood.

There was one, small anti-terrorism rally put on by a group of conservative students, who wanted the administration to call the incident an act of terrorism. Those students were pilloried by the skittish campus and the administration for “inflaming” the situation and not being “understanding” enough.

In Durham, a poster featuring about 40 members of the Duke lacrosse team, none of whom had yet been charged, was plastered all over campus by citizens and students, associating all 40 of them with the alleged rape.

There is still, months later, a candlelight vigil outside the house where the alleged attack took place, every Sunday night, bemoaning the sexual violence and racial insults which may or may not have happened there.

The New Black Panthers have been to town to protest on behalf of the accuser. Jesse Jackson has offered her tuition for the rest of her college education, regardless of the truth of her allegations.

The lacrosse team’s season was canceled. Its coach resigned. Its recruits are transferring to other schools. The university had a panel investigate whether or not the lacrosse program should even be reinstated.

Much of this happened before three lacrosse players were even indicted.

I have heard it said that what America needs to win the war on Islamofacism is moral clarity–a strong belief that our ideology and theirs are not comparable; that there is a good and an evil and we are on the good side; that Western civilization, for all its faults, is a damn sight better than that which seeks to destroy it.

Taheri-azar and the Duke Lacrosse players were all technically innocent until proven guilty. In one case, public officials, the press, and the local community did their best to deny the accused that particular courtesy of American justice. Tellingly, it was not the case of the murderous thug who confessed to attempting to kill his classmates, in a fashion reminiscent of Mohammad Atta, just for being non-Muslims-and then detailed his plans and motivations in letters to a local paper.

By Joseph Klein
www.frontpagemagazine.com

Leftists will be the last to acknowledge the truth about the war in Iraq. Obsessed by their hatred of President Bush and suffused with self-righteousness, they are blind to the fact that we are slowly but surely winning the war and bringing about a fundamental change in the region that has the terrorists running scared.

The terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead. His legions of insurgents are decimated and demoralized. Democracy is beginning to take hold, which is like kryptonite to the Islamofascists who thought that the U.S. would back away from a real fight. Key compromises have been reached among the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds to enable a unified national government to begin asserting control and bringing the country back from the brink of civil war that the terrorists have tried to foment from day one. Coalition casualties have been declining, while daily life for Iraqis has improved since the fall of Saddam Hussein according to polls taken of the Iraqis themselves.

These are singular accomplishments of the United States and its coalition partners. The Islamofascists wantonly kill fellow Muslims in mosques, wedding ceremonies or on the street while our brave young men and women put their lives on the line to save the innocent from slaughter and enable them to have better lives in freedom.

Of course, total victory is not assured. There will be more struggles ahead, with more casualties. War is hell, no doubt about that. But sometimes it is necessary to prevent an even more hellish future under tyranny — a reality of life that many liberals are constitutionally unable to accept. They want the United States to lose in Iraq so that they can say “I told you so.” They accuse their own government and troops of committing war crimes, while giving a free pass to the terrorists who revel in death and mayhem. But when the opportunity in the Senate to stand up and be counted for their cut and run philosophy presented itself last week, most of the left-wing appeasers ran for cover. At least in the House, more leftists were willing to show their true colors in voting against a resolution which, among other things, “declares that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary”, recognizes the fact that “the terrorists have declared Iraq to be the central front in their war against all who oppose their ideology”, and “declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq” (Democrats, 42 in favor, 149 against; Republicans, 214 in favor, 3 against).

The leftists have a powerful ally, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who stubbornly continues to defend his unsupportable assertion that the United States started an “illegal” war in Iraq since it was not formally approved by the Security Council. In a press conference held at UN headquarters on June 15th, he tried to maintain the veneer of impartiality while continuing to take potshots at our country:

“Q: Mr. Secretary-General, Warren Hoge picked up a little bit on this question. This is just going a little further. A big debate opened up recently on the issue of the impartiality of UN officials. You yourself have come out with statements — for instance, back in 2004, ahead of the election, you mentioned that the war in Iraq was illegal. Recently you defended?
SG: What is [partial] about that? How does that take sides?
Q: It would be interesting to hear your definition of impartiality, but be that as it may, you defended Mark Malloch Brown recently for his speech, in which some critics said that he criticized the United States. How do you view impartiality and what do you say to some of your critics who are saying that, actually, the timing of, for instance, your remarks about Iraq and Mr. Malloch Brown’s remarks are coming ahead of some crucial elections in the United States?
SG: First of all, as international civil servants, we don’t get involved in national politics. I have been here many years; I have watched many elections and I have not been involved in any of the elections or the campaigns.

We deal with world events. Events happen and this Organization is sometimes required to act on them. Depending on the direction of events, you may say something that may not necessarily fit the position of one party or the other. They may take it amiss and think you are criticizing them or taking sides, but that is never the intention. For example, the example you gave, that when one says that something is illegal or the war is illegal, one is taking sides. That is very difficult to accept…”

Of course, Annan was taking sides — against President Bush and with the murderous Saddam Hussein whom he once described as a man he could do business with. Similarly, our homegrown anti-war liberals, who relentlessly attack the President’s veracity and motives for prosecuting the war in Iraq, would have preferred to let Hussein continue his genocide against his own people and to let al Zaqarwi strengthen al Qaeda’s foothold in Iraq under Hussein’s protection rather than give the benefit of the doubt to our own President. Despite his opponents’ carping, the President acted in accordance with the United Nations Charter and the authority already granted by 12 years’ worth of prior Security Council resolutions which Saddam Hussein chose blatantly to ignore.

Many leftists have an aversion to America’s exercise of military power without international approval, no matter how noble America’s purpose and how cynically manipulative the reasons for other countries’ obstructionism. If Annan said the Iraq war is illegal, then it must be so according to the far-Left MoveOn.org crowd. When United Nations Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown insulted the American “heartland” recently for not understanding the true value of the United Nations and asked rhetorically “Who will campaign in 2008 for a new multilateral national security?”, he was speaking to the choir — an elitist audience of progressive globalists, including the multi-billionaire George Soros and an assortment of Clinton loyalists. Many liberals, like John Kerry, are all too happy to join Malloch Brown’s United Nations cheerleader squad, believing that America’s actions in Iraq or elsewhere must pass a “global test” in order to be legitimate and that the United Nations is the sole arbiter of global legitmacy. During the 2004 Presidential campaign, John Kerry said that if elected “(W)ithin weeks of being inaugurated, I will return to the UN and I will literally, formally rejoin the community of nations and turn over a proud new chapter in America’s relationship with the world.’” Fortunately, the American people rejected his obsequious bow to the UN alter, but he is back again for another run for the White House with even more apologist rhetoric.

What many liberals desperately hold onto is the untenable position that in order to support the principle of multilateralism in Iraq or elsewhere one must wholeheartedly support the United Nations as its only legitimate manifestation. It is time to break the romantic fiction of the UN — where there is no threshold for membership and functioning democracies are outnumbered by autocratic states — as the only claimant to multilateral ‘legitimacy.’ When the United Nations is paralyzed by its own dysfunctionalism from taking effective action to combat a widely acknowledged threat like Saddam Hussein or Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the choice is not between UN multilateralism and U.S. unilateralism. A coalition of democracies is certainly one alternative. After all, how can any rational democracy entrust its security to a ‘world organization’ that has not only consistently failed to halt grave threats to peace, but allows overt aggressors to pervert its founding principles to suit themselves?

The United States acted legally and morally in removing Saddam Hussein from power, with the full backing of the United Kingdom and its other coalition partners, and is winning in an important battle against the destructive forces of global terrorism. Too bad that intelligent liberals are such an endangered species. Otherwise, they would understand that the United States remains a force for good in the world, and they would support our valiant troops in Iraq wholeheartedly.

By Herman Cain
www.townhall.com

The death in Iraq of Muslim terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and the recent arrest of 17 Muslim would-be terrorists in Canada, reminds us that the war on terrorism is global and it will be fought forever. Too many people do not understand the origins and motivations of our enemy — Muslim terrorists.

This lack of understanding causes some politicians to make stupid and anti-American statements that the liberal media lap up and highlight dozens of times. The media hardly mentioned the important developments in Iraq that coincided with al-Zarqawi’s death — namely, that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has completed the appointment and approval of all cabinet positions in the new government. Iraq can now move forward. The media and politicians forget that Iraqis voted for the first time just last year.

I have some breaking news for those who value politics more than patriotism. Our enemy is not the peaceful Muslims of the world, many of whom remain noticeably silent out of fear of reprisals from terrorists. Our enemy is that group of Muslim terrorists whose sole objective is to kill all of us and end western civilization.

Consider the roots of this hatred, which causes so many Muslims to choose terrorism. This is not meant to be a comprehensive description of the teachings of Islam, but rather a broad overview that points to some of the factors that motivate Muslim leaders and their followers.

The roots of Islam began in modern day Saudi Arabia in the year 610 A.D. The Arabian city of Mecca was, and still is, the Arabs’ center of worship. According to Pastor Rod Parsley, author of Silent No More, Arabs from over 270 tribes regularly gathered around a building called the Ka’aba to worship their individual tribal gods. The Quraysh tribe, of which Muhammad was a member, worshipped the god Allah.

Muhammad was an illiterate desert nomad who one day began hearing voices and loud bells in his head. The voices told him he was Allah’s prophet. Muhammad thought he was losing his sanity, but with the encouragement of his wife he began to believe the voices. Muhammad eventually saw it as his mission to unify the Arabian tribes under the teachings given to him by his one true god — Allah.

Muhammad died in 632 A.D. Since Muhammad was illiterate and never wrote anything down, his followers spent the next 60 years compiling his teachings and revelations, based on their memories and notes. The resulting document is the holy book of Islam, called the Quran. But, as Pastor Parsley notes, the Quran is only authoritative in Arabic: “In any other language, the Quran is unofficial and unsuitable for doctrine.” When we consider the fact that approximately two-thirds of the world’s Muslim population today is illiterate, this means the majority of Muslims cannot read their religion’s most important book. Further, it means that Islam can be interpreted and taught any way its leaders desire.

One aspect of Islam that Muhammad taught is the obligation to jihad. Jihad means “struggle” and Islam teaches that men should engage in four struggles: jihad of the tongue, jihad of the hand, jihad of the heart and jihad of the sword. The jihads of the tongue, hand and heart refer to personal discipline and character development. The jihad of the sword requires Muslims to spread their faith throughout the world and convert Christians and Jews — infidels — or put them to death. Numerous passages in the Quran encourage violence against non-Muslims, including “And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere” (Surah 8:39, from the Quran).

Another Islamic principle is the religion’s unique view of the afterlife, in which Muslims will be allowed into its version of Heaven. In the Islamic version of Heaven, men are provided those pleasures denied them on Earth, including wine and women with whom they can freely mate. The Quran is unclear, however, on exactly who is assured a place in Heaven. The devout Muslim tries to live his life according to Islam’s teachings, but he can never be sure if he has done enough good deeds — with one key exception.

Pastor Parsley explains further: “Thus, when Muhammad began to teach that all who die in righteous fighting go to paradise, he established the only means by which a Muslim can be certain of his place in eternity.” In other words, live a devout life according to the Quran’s teachings and you may be allowed a place in paradise. Or, fly a jet plane into the World Trade Center, killing yourself, your partners and 3,000 Americans. You are now an instant martyr and your place in paradise is assured.

Nearly every day, somewhere in the world, a Muslim commits a terrorist act. The arrest of the would-be terrorists in Canada should send a clear and chilling message — that the breeding ground for terrorism is not only in the Middle East, but anywhere fanatical Muslims gather to plot jihad of the sword.

The war on terror has a real enemy — Muslim terrorists. The better we know our enemy, the better we can fight and win the war.

Hamas mourns Zarqawi. In Iraq, the sane are celebrating.

BY MOHAMMED FADHIL
Iraq the Model blog

BAGHDAD, June 11—Hamas’s reaction to the death of Zarqawi caused the contempt of so many Iraqis. The printed and watched Iraqi media lashed out vigorously on Hamas, politicians and ordinary people on the streets are just equally angered by some Arabic official and media reactions which spoke of the criminal as if he were a hero. It is totally unimaginable why someone would describe the head chopping, children murdering terrorist as a hero. It’s disgusting and infuriating beyond words.

This wrongful description of evil is a major reason for misery in this region and it only contributes to justifying more unjustifiable death and violence. This makes one sometimes whishes that Iraq is somehow lifted away from these perverted sociopaths who surround us.

To say I was angry is the least I can say to describe how I felt reading the comments from Arabs (in Arabic) on a BBC forum. There was no surprise that all Iraqi commentators were pleased that we got rid of that vicious terrorists but on the other hand there was probably 90% of non-Iraqi Arab commentators who mourned him as a martyr.

Here I’m choosing only one comment that drew my attention because it shows how when hate prejudice reaches certain levels it blinds the minds and hearts of people. This one comment may be the most accurate to describe how thousands if not millions of people think in this region; this Arab commentator is telling frankly why he’s sad without lying and without using decorated speech:

I think it reflects the truth in the way of thinking of unfortunately many Arabs; a truth that was released by an individual mouth carrying more courage of expression than those who appease and keep their inside hidden … Zarqawi’s death means nothing at all because it’s the byproduct of the despotic policy that exists in his home country, Jordan. There are thousands of Zarqawis in our nation who are getting persecuted and terrorized so they found their way to Iraq where they can vent, thanks to America who brought destruction to the region with the help of her agents (the rulers). And for your information, our information about Zarqawi is vague … is he a national hero, or a criminal terrorist? We don’t know for sure but we see that our enemies are so happy that he’s killed and that is what makes me feel sad for his death.

I’ll end this with a comment from an Iraqi commentaror:

I used to be against killing people because of their perverted opinions or their anti-freedom doings but after I have seen and lived through their terrorism and anti-humanity extremism I say now that the only solution is to end the life of those who are not even humans. They poison the minds and thoughts of sane people. People, let the world live in freedom and happiness … I say it to all the sane and rational people; congratulations on the death of Zarqawi. [emphasis added]

I couldn’t agree more, so if you are sane, come celebrate the moment with us, but if not, get prepared to mourn more demons.

By Joseph Klein
FrontPageMagazine.com | June 12, 2006

If you are thinking of visiting France this summer, be forewarned. You will be paying more for your airline ticket, starting this July 1st, thanks to French President Jacques Chirac. With UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s strong backing, Chirac has pushed forward a new tax on international airline tickets for passage from France ranging from about $5 to $50 a ticket depending on travel distance and ticket class, which is designed to be the precursor to an array of global taxes such as taxes on international financial transactions, fuel and the Internet. Other countries such as Brazil, Chile and Norway are also getting on board with the new airline tax. Chirac and Annan justify putting their hands into our pockets as a necessary means to alleviate poverty and fight disease in the most undeveloped countries of the world, without any thought about how to guarantee that the monies raised will actually be used as intended and not end up in the Swiss bank accounts of those countries’ corrupt leaders.

Those who seek to take taxpayers’ hard earned money to finance their thinly disguised global wealth redistribution programs say that they want their “international solidarity levies” to reflect the “contributory capacity (i.e., the wealth) of each participating country” and make globalization “more equitable.”

However, in reality, it is a power game. Chirac, for his part, has always seen global governance under a strong United Nations as a counter-weight to the hegemony that he ascribes to the United States. Indeed, Chirac has called for global taxes going back to 2003, brushing aside all national sovereignty concerns. A first hand source with high-level links to the United Nations establishment, whom I quoted in Global Deception, told me that the global tax issue is very much alive and that he himself had been asked to chair a portion of a meeting last year called by Chirac to discuss a proposed tax on aviation fuel. He said that global taxes are the “only way you can raise additional resources” required to fund the UN’s myriad programs on poverty and other causes and that they are ‘fair’ because everyone’s favorite boogieman, ‘the rich’, are the only people who will have to pay them.

Global taxes are all about ensuring what Kofi Annan has called “a constant stream of money” to keep replenishing the UN’s coffers. Annan likes this idea because it reduces his dysfunctional organization’s financial dependency on the American people, whom his chief deputy, Mark Malloch Brown, arrogantly derided in a speech before an elitist progressive audience in Manhattan on June 6th for ‘Middle America’s’ supposed ignorance about the U.N. Annan thinks such financial dependence creates “a democracy deficit in the way we govern the United Nations.” Apparently, he has not taken a careful look at how many times the American position has been ignored or outright rejected in the General Assembly and how often the U.S. attempts to get meaningful decisions from the Security Council have been thwarted.

Meanwhile, the leaders of many of the developing countries, who want to run the UN as their own fiefdom while paying next to nothing for the privilege, are using their collective voting power in the General Assembly to block any budgetary controls and managerial reforms insisted upon by the two member states paying over 40% of the freight, the United States and Japan. Global taxes are a way to blunt any power of the purse that the governments of the United States, Japan or other developed countries may currently have as a means of leverage to counterbalance the irresponsible spending sprees that the General Assembly approves. This is because the UN would be deriving substantial revenue directly through global taxes imposed on individuals or companies, rather than depending on budget approvals and dues payments by the wealthier member state governments.

Malloch Brown used his broadside against the United States to question its motives in seeking genuine reform at the United Nations that even he admits is needed. He invoked, with apparent agreement, “a perception among many otherwise quite moderate countries that anything the US supports must have a secret agenda aimed at either subordinating multilateral processes to Washington’s ends or weakening the institutions…” All this carping — simply because the United States and the other major dues paying countries, which would collectively pay the vast bulk of the proposed $3.8 billion dollar regular United Nations budget for 2006-2007, do not want to write a blank check. The United States and Japan, in particular, want to continue imposing a tight leash like the six month spending limit that ends this June 30th, in order to get serious reforms enacted that the developing world has so far resisted. In an interview with the Inter Press Service in May, Malloch Brown sided with the developing countries, as represented by their 132 member coalition known as G-77, in their “numbers versus pocketbooks” conflict with the United States. “I am with the G-77 on this one. I think it is a very imprudent tactic by donor countries to threaten that crude financial power,” he intoned. In other words, under this Alice-in-Wonderland sort of logic, the largest dues paying countries should just shut up and let their money continue to be wasted.

Global taxes — what the UN bureaucrats euphemistically refer to as “innovative sources of financing” — are the preferred mechanism of the parasites to keep their UN gravy train going without any real accountability to anyone. However, these leeches conveniently forget that the United Nations is an organization of sovereign countries according to the United Nations Charter, not a sovereign entity unto itself. The UN is only accountable to its member states from which it receives its funding in the form of dues and voluntary contributions. The UN remains subject to the fiscal control of its member states — unless its Charter is amended. The UN Charter provides for no other mechanism for funding and surely not for global taxes which, in any case, would violate one of our most fundamental principles of self-government and national sovereignty under our own Constitution. Nor would it matter if the Senate were to ratify a treaty with a global tax provision, if the treaty itself violates the Constitution by giving to an unaccountable foreign institution a non-delegable power that only our elected representatives can exercise. And it is safe to say that most Americans would firmly oppose having to pay any such illegitimate levies. That is why the global tax proponents want to start with something that they hope to keep under the radar, so to speak, like the international airline tax.

So, the next time you are planning a trip abroad, just remember that if you choose France or the other countries imposing their redistributionist international airline tax, you are supporting a stalking horse for many more global taxes to come.

By Barry Rubin
www.jerusalempost.com

There is a major struggle going on that could be described as the biggest internal Palestinian conflict in memory, perhaps in history. The question is whether this conflict will develop into a full-blown civil war.

The battle is between Hamas and Fatah, between Islamism and nationalism. It is also a struggle between two groups each wanting the fruits of leadership: power, prestige and money.

With the demise of unchallenged Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and — no less important — Fatah’s inability to gain a state due to its own intransigence, the way lay open for Hamas’s rise. This trend was also made possible by Arafat’s encouragement of anarchy and attempt to use Hamas for his own purposes.

Of course, it can also be traced to Fatah’s corruption and incompetence in running the Palestinian Authority for twelve years.

The turning point was Hamas’s landslide victory in the January 25 election, partly due to Fatah’s internal splits. Another factor was Fatah’s incredible arrogance and inflexibility. It assumed that no one else could possibly lead the Palestinians.

Fatah’s campaign manager told me before the balloting: “People will vote for Mahmoud Abbas and everything will be okay.” Since then, power has been divided between Abbas, the PA’s leader and self-styled president, and a Hamas-dominated parliament and cabinet.

Abbas has unilaterally given himself control over borders, the media, and some security agencies. Hamas is fuming but cannot do much about this power grab. To make matters worse for Hamas, the 60,000-member PA bureaucracy, including security forces, is dominated by Fatah members.

International sanctions against giving money to the Hamas regime also hurt the Islamists. Yet the European Union had earlier stopped aid to the PA because of its financial irresponsibility. This kind of thing should be remembered in the face of a strong temptation to declare Fatah, as opposed to Hamas, the “good guys,” or at least the lesser of two evils.

While Fatah is somewhat less horrible than Hamas, it is Fatah’s past incitement, terrorism and refusal to make real peace that are at the root of the current situation. There is no reason to believe it would do better in the future if restored to power.

THERE IS much discussion of why Hamas won the elections. Some would say that Palestinians supported Hamas’s program; others that voters were merely reacting against Fatah’s corruption. Both points are valid, but there is more to the story.

About half of Hamas’s voters have shown they support its program. The other half has no problems with its views except that of Islamizing society. Yet regarding terrorism, Israel, peace and general world view there is not a big difference between Fatah and Hamas, except on the religious issue.

What of the future?

First, can Fatah return to office? This is possible but far from certain.

Not the slightest reform has taken place in Fatah, nor has any of the leadership been replaced or the younger generation fully incorporated.

Fatah, as was once said of France’s reactionary Bourbon dynasty, has learned nothing and forgotten nothing.

A Hamas-Fatah deal is also possible, but not so likely. Any such arrangement would necessitate Fatah accepting the role of junior partner, which Hamas never did. Given the Fatah mind-set this seems unlikely, though some cadre may join Hamas out of their own views or opportunism.

One reason for keeping up the pressure on the Hamas regime is to discourage such a rapprochement.

SECOND, how is Fatah competing with Hamas? Certainly, it is not doing so by laying out an alternative, moderate line. If Fatah so wished it could take the option available to it for a decade and urge an end to the eternal struggle with Israel that would quickly win it a state and international support.

While a few people in Fatah do think this way, Abbas among them to some extent, there is no sign that anyone is seriously considering such a strategy. Instead, Fatah is competing by trying to prove that it is just as militant as the Islamists, including the escalation of its own attempts at terrorism.

Since the election, Fatah statements and actions are more, rather than less, extreme.

Of course, Fatah can also hope that Western and Israeli pressures will bring down Hamas and simply hand it power once again. Fatah is encouraging its supporters to blame Hamas for the economic problems of the PA and to demonstrate, demanding their pay. Equally, Fatah is resisting any moves by Hamas to take over the security forces and put its own people into the bureaucracy.

This effort may even succeed. But such an outcome cannot be taken for granted.

FINALLY, WILL there be a civil war? Clearly, armed resistance to Hamas’s encroachment on Fatah-controlled areas and institutions is happening periodically. Yet both sides are trying to avoid an all-out struggle.

Continuing anarchy and periodic clashes seem more likely than full-scale battle.

It is important not to underestimate the staying power of either Hamas, Fatah or the PA. The stakes are too high for both sides to give much ground. Equally, there is a deep-seated strategy of being willing to sacrifice the welfare of the Palestinian population in the fight against each other and Israel.

Let them suffer, the activists and gunmen argue, and that suffering will force the West and Israel to ease the pressure and give into their demands without Palestinian concessions.

This seems a strange approach, but it is one that the Palestinian movement has used for a half-century and does not seem to have yet transcended. On more than one occasion in the past it has even worked. Often, however, it has led to disaster.

In this case, the latter appears more likely.