Impossible Scissors

Iraqi insurgents recently claimed another victim: the backbone of North Carolina congressman Walter Jones.

At one point, Jones was a vocal supporter of the president's Iraq policy. He even coined the phrase "freedom fries" in response to France's years of perfidy regarding UN sanctions and their lack of will to get tough on Iraq after 9/11.

Jones now wants to set an arbitrary date of October 2006 for withdrawing from Iraq. He claims that deposing Saddam was a victory, and so was establishing the elected government. In his mind we're already winners. It's too bad that some of our leaders choose to surround themselves with a fantasy instead of taking an objective look at the world. The government we've installed still needs to incorporate Sunni nationalists, and the Islamists have the tools and will to unseat this new government unless we can devote the time, money, and bloodshed to build a better Iraqi army.

Jones has been deeply affected by the brave Americans who have been killed and wounded in Iraq. I am no different, and I think that all real Americans with any sense of decency feel the same way. Yet the potential failure of our mission, securing Iraq's freedom, would give our most feared enemies a foothold where they can operate freely and wreak havoc using Saddam's vast weapons caches. Leaving Iraq would save more Americans in the short term but lead to the deaths of far more in the long run. It's tough to lose 1,700 Americans in the course of two years in Iraq, but it's even tougher to lose 3,000 in the course of two hours during 9/11.

In short, pulling out early is a loss, and Walter Jones is a loser. His defeatist attitude only encourages further attacks against our soldiers by our fanatical foes. The Republican Party needs to censure or expel Jones before his intellectual cancer spreads throughout the party.

The media is trying to create the impression that Republican support for the war is a dam on the verge of breaking. Much of this impression is undoubtedly created by sensationalist reporting, but the danger of this eventually happening is real enough that tough action is needed now. Jones should be dealt with in the harshest of fashions by the Republican National Committee. Ken Mehlman (who keeps a much lower profile than his razor-tounged Democrat counterpart, Howard Dean) should use his position as RNC chair to reign Jones in.

I don't know if the party can formally expel one of its members, but there are plenty of things that Republicans can do to crush Jones. They can smear him with tawdry allegations, for starters, they can cut pork-barrel projects in his congressional district, or they can find another Republican to challenge him in the primaries. Walter Jones no longer has the stomach to take the fight to the enemies of freedom. Extraordinary measures are needed to remove him as a tumor on the body of the Republican party.

Douglas Wood, the Aussie-American who was miraculously freed by Iraqi forces, recently apologized to President Bush and Australian Prime Minister John Howard. When he was first kidnapped and put on al Jazeera, Howard was forced to denounce the occupation of Iraq. Howard now claims that the statement was made under duress, a common tactic amongst Islamist kidnappers who seek propaganda gains from their crimes.

It will be interesting to see if al Jazeera will give Mr. Wood's apology any airtime. After all, al Jazeera ran the original propaganda video from his captors. If the network has any journalistic integrity, it will try to correct the record. Yet that integrity will likely be hard to find in a network that is known for being "Jihad TV." It's hard enough getting the American press to report on Douglas Wood's penance; getting the truth out of Jihad TV will be nearly impossible.

The most enduring element from the recent Newsweek scandal (aside from increased Islamic rage against the United States) is the misused term "Koran Abuse," describing the alleged desecration of Islam's holy book. But does this desecration meet the definition of abuse?

A far more heinous form of Koran abuse exists in the world today, and it is practiced throughout the middle east. The real Koran abuse is committed by cavemen clerics who use it to justify hate, anti-Americanism, treating women like livestock, suicide bombing, beheadings, and all varities of anti-social behavior. The rioters in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Egypt (among other countries) are using Koran defacement as an excuse for unleashing the anti-American hate they've been fed by the real Koran abusers.

If the tables were turned and Muslims were defacing the Christian Bible (something that, I'm sure, happens on a routine basis,) I would certainly be offended by it. Yet my level of offense would rise to the offense I take when somebody defaces the flag of the United States. Obviously, this anger is mitigated; they cannot destroy the Bible's meaning by destroying its pages, nor can they destroy America by burning its flag. Desecrating the Bible does not alter its message that our God is a God of love and forgiveness. This message is lost upon the "holy warriors" of jihad.

How can we be holding Newsweek responsible when General Myers and Hamid Karzai blamed political strife for riots in Afghanistan? The answer lies in the complex synergy between people's attitudes and the actions that cause them to react. The Newsweek article was fuel on the fire. What may have started as a political riot has now taken a religious tone, steered by opportunistic Koran abusers. The winds of al Jazeera and other Islamist propagandists have spread the flames to places like Pakistan and throughout the region, including places where there wasn't an abnormal level of political strife.

Newsweek has shown incredibly poor judgement in breaking this story, just as Kevin Sites did during Operation Phantom Fury and "60 Minutes" and the Washington Post did in breaking Abu Ghuraib. During World War II, reporters put their loyalty to the country ahead of their role as journalists. If a story would strike a crushing blow to the nation's strategic objective, or if it would incite violence against Americans, it would have to be squashed before the public heard it. I have no doubts that in the coming weeks, somebody in Iraq is going to get their head cut off, and the murderers will cite Newsweek while holding the bloody head in front of a camera.

The difference between Abu Ghuraib and Guantanamo Bay is one of evidence. At least Abu Ghraib had photos to prove that abuse was taking place. In Guantanamo Bay, the most serious charges of abuse are coming from terrorists who are being released by the mercy of the United States. Who are we to believe: the Defense Department, or Islamic militants? Because of the vacuum created by secrecy at Guantanamo, the terrorists are free to make as many wild allegations as possible. All of these allegations are picked up on by the international media (who believes that America is inherently evil) and the U.S. mainstream media (who believes that President Bush is inherently evil, and isn't afraid of tarnishing the American national image to make that point.)

Is there any redemption for Newsweek? Maybe they can start by doing more balanced reporting that shows all of the humanitarian actions that Americans have performed in Muslim nations. It would serve as a symbolic baby step towards repairing the damage caused by the American press.

Several prominent lawmakers have suddenly gotten the idea that we'd be better off without Guantanamo Bay as a prison for captured al Qaeda fighters. This may prove to be the silliest suggestion in our enduring war against Wahhabism.

I have always maintained that the United States needs to enunciate a clear code of conduct regarding captured terrorists. While I'm disappointed that the Bush Administration has been writing this policy by the seat of its pants, it doesn't change the fundamental truths about the activities at Guantanamo. The prison has showed itself to be the ideal place for containing captured terrorists.

If a terrorist is captured in a combat zone by the U.S. or allied military forces, he should be placed in a MILITARY prison and tried by a MILITARY court. In the US, there is no precedent for allowing enemy prisoners of war to sit in civilian prisons or trying them in civilian courts. Captured terrorists aren't even prisoners of war under a strict interpretation of Geneva; why should they be treated any better? This is why I was so disgusted that the Supreme Court granted these terrorists the right to appeal their detentions in US courts. I'm even more disgruntled that the military tribunals are being held up by our civilian courts.

Guantanamo's location is ideal for storing these prisoners. If we kept them in Afghanistan, the prisons would become targets for local Islamic militants who seek to free their brothers-in-jihad. If we keep the prison in the continental US, we risk these dangerous war criminals escaping into the general population.

The reputation of Guantanamo Bay has been ruined due to the secrecy of the prison. The veil over the activities at the prison has created a void that has been filled with wild speculation. Our enemies have taken advantage, and accused us of all sorts of unspeakable horrors. Groups like Amnesty International have been quick to seize on our enemies' propaganda, because it supports their anti-American agenda. They are free to call the place a "gulag," despite the lack of forced labor. Newsweek is free to publish false stories about Korans being flushed down toilets. All the while, the U.S. military judiciously investigates the behavior of its members and punishes intentional violations of its policies.

I'm disgusted by a number of figures in Congress's Gitmo-related witch-hunts, particularly the contempt shown by Senator Patrick Leahy when questioning military generals like BGen Thomas Hemingway. Then we have self-righteous weaklings like Senator Dick Durbin who compare us to the Nazis and Communists and rogue regimes because we chain prisoners down and force them to listen to Christina Aguilera songs with the air conditioning turned on high. For Durbin and Amnesty International, the Gitmo terorrists deserve full POW protections under Geneva, the prison should be run like an episode of "Hogan's Heroes," and they should receive civilian trials. This is not a formula for a war on terrorism; this is an appeaser's attempt to make friends out of an enemy that seeks our destruction.

I agree with Senator Jeff Sessions in that our hand-wringing over the Gitmo issue only strengthens our enemy's resolve. We must show a strong and united front. Our enemies do not attack us where we are strongest; they attack us where we are weakest. Our courts and our Congress should stop protecting terrorists from the military justice system.

My hiatus, nearly a month long, finally ends today. My access to the Internet continues to be sproadic, and I don't expect the situation to improve soon. Nevertheless, I'd like to touch on a few topics that have endured over the past month.

All Jacked Up
I can't say I paid much attention to the Michael Jackson trial, but I have to say I'm shocked that Jacko got off scot-free. If his claims in the Bashir documentary are true (which I highly doubt,) you'd think that he would have stopped his inappropriate conduct around boys in order to avoid these allegations. Yet Wacko Jacko kept at it.

I think the jury was blinded by the lights of Hollywood; even though members of the jury thought Jacko was a child molester, they felt it was responsible to set him loose. Prosecutor Tom Sneddon certainly overplayed his hand, but the jury still had a responsibility to look at each individual allegation and make a determination of innocence or guilt. In that responsibility, they failed. I pray that no more children will fall victim to Jacko's sexual appetite.

Fili-bluster
Generally, I'm happy that a compromise averted the filibuster showdown. If I was a Democrat, I couldn't we really blame my party for filibustering the president's judicial nominees. After all, it's their last vestige of power. The real problem is that the Republicans have rolled over too many times in the past regarding judicial nominees. Perhaps they could have stopped Ruth Bader Ginsberg, or even Stephen Breyer, from getting on the Supreme Court. Now they unrealistically expect Democrats to do the same.

Of course, the hypocrisy of the Democrats blocking a judge for "judicial activism" is so thick, you could cut it with a knife. After all, it was judicial activism that overturned the abortion laws in 45 states back in January 1973. Now the Democrats are up in arms about Priscilla Owen because of a ruling she made on a vague abortion law in Texas. Their only choice is to shoot down any judge, no matter how qualified, who might have any second thoughts about abortion rights or environmental laws or the welfare state. Fail the Democrats' litmus test, lose your judgeship.

It remains to be seen what the Democrats will do about the two judges who were not covered under the compromise, or if the Republicans will sacrifice them. I'd also like to see a vote on John Bolton, seeing as how he's being filibustered, except that the Democrats refuse to call it that.

While the current filibuster rules have been treated like a golden calf by the media, and the destruction thereof is now called "the nuclear option," they are a historically recent invention. The best solution is to return the filibuster rules to what they were over forty years ago. If Senators want to filibuster, they should literally put their money where their mouths are. They get to speak for one hour on the topic of debate, after which they may talk about any other subject for as long as possible to stall a vote. In the spirit of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" and Strom Thurmond's 24-hour screed against the Civil Rights Act, Senators should have to work for it if they believe that bills and nominees should be filibustered. With all of the hot air billowing throughout the Senate chamber, the Senators should be up to the challenge.

Trumping Ground Zero
Donald Trump wants to rebuild the World Trade Center. In Trump's plans, the towers would be taller (111 stories each) and safer.

Originally, I was enthusiastic about the Daniel Liebeskind design that was unveiled in Fall 2002. It featured two towers (echoing the memory of the original towers) and a 1,776 foot "Freedom Tower." As "Freedom Tower" evolved, however, my enthusiasm cooled. Instead of being a majestic spire, it's now become an ugly tower with a pathetic-looking spike attached to the top to create the magic 1,776-foot figure.

Now that the Ground Zero reconstruction has been thoroughly mismanaged, and Liebeskind's inexperience has been brought to light, I feel that it's time to move on to a new design. The last straw, in my eyes, was the proposed "Freedom Museum" that will go on the Ground Zero site. I don't know how much truth there is to fears that the museum will be used to showcase American atrocities, but the museum itself has nothing to do with the events of 9/11 or the victims, and it should be scuttled.

Perhaps The Donald is the right man to do the job. If he proceeds, he should ensure that the new WTC is the undisputed tallest structure in the world. The current proposal is too wimpy to send the right message to our enemies. Rebuild the towers, and build them to last. Then give the Statue of Liberty a makeover--she needs to be flipping the middle finger instead of holding a torch.

Springtime in Paris
A lot of social Conservatives have been up in arms about a racy new commercial for Carl's Jr., featuring Paris Hilton washing a car. Obviously, there is a problem when people will let a scantily-clad woman sell them a burger. My biggest problem with the commercial, though, is the message it sends to Paris Hilton. She is an untalented waste of humanity who has used wealth and sluttiness to achieve fame. The commercial sends her the wrong messgae; it tells her that America finds her amusing. Clearly, many Americans (myself included) disagree.

Groundskeeper Galloway
I'm struck by how much George Galloway, the rebellious pro-Saddam British MP, sounds like Groundskeeper Willy (of "Simpsons" fame) when he talks. Unlike the cartoon character of similar Scottish ancestry, Galloway is hardly a doormat.

When confronted by Congress on May 17 during the Oil-For-Food inquiry, Galloway was completely defiant in defending himself against charges that he took Saddam's blood money. His primary defense mechanism was to deflect criticism. This is what I took from his screed: We can't blame the French or the Russians or him for flaunting the UN sanctions; American companies were worse. We can't blame him for meeting with Saddam, as Rumsfeld did too. Let's also blame the US for mismanaging Iraqi oil profits during the 14 months after Baghdad fell. He was right when the US was wrong about WMD--in your face!

The same "Groundskeeper Galloway" who called President Bush "a warmongering cowboy" while standing before British Parliament is acting equally petulant in front of the U.S. Congress. Here's to hoping that Groundskeeper Galloway will soon be mopping a prison cell for his aiding and abetting of Saddam Hussein.