Impossible Scissors

Cover Your Ass.

At least that's my interpretation of George Tenet's new autobiography. Not that I'm singling the former CIA director out here; practically all political figures do it, especially when they sit down to publish their memoirs. I've always been of the mindset that Tenet and other CIA officials should have been fired immediately after the 9/11 attacks. Tenet's book is a shot across the bow to people like me who feel that America was failed by its intelligence agencies.

It's interesting that Tenet talks about the strong warning he gave the administration in Summer 2001 about imminent terror threats. When Tenet testified before the 9/11 commission, he was far more reserved about the strength of such a warning. In my view, his recollection of events has probably been distorted by both time and a desire for self-vindication. In any event, the CIA failed to uncover any specifics of the plot which would have allowed it to be unraveled.

Tenet's other jab back at the administration is his attempts to repudiate the infamous "slam dunk" remark. Perhaps Tenet is correct in that it referred to making a case for war, rather than evidence for Iraqi WMD's. Still, for Tenet to make such a comment, he should have to believe that the evidence for such WMD's was solid. If he didn't believe that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, he should have been telling the president to put the brakes on the march to war. Instead, he told the president that it would be no problem in selling the war to the American people. All the way up to his resignation in summer 2004, Tenet consistently defended the CIA's intelligence and methods leading up to the invasion of Iraq.

In hindsight, the CIA's biggest errors in Iraq had less to do with WMD's and more to do with the nature of Iraqi society and infrastructure. The CIA had no agents inside Iraq during the decade prior to the invasion. The CIA completely missed the stockpiling of weapons which still fuel the insurgency, and underestimated the Fedayeen which provided the initial strength for the insurgency. The CIA became too dependent on satellites (which are quite limited in their ability to determine intent of a potential foe) and on unreliable defectors.

Tenet's book does include some interesting details on foiled attacks, such as an al Qaeda plot to assassinate then-VP Al Gore, and an aborted plot against New York subways with cyanide in 2003. He defends "advanced interrogation" methods, without going into too much detail about what these interrogations included. Tenet doesn't mention the bad intel that such interrogations also provided, including a fabricated link between al Qaeda and Iraq's chemical weapons program that came from a high-ranking al Qaeda figure.

George Tenet's book promises to be one of the more interesting political biographies this year. While the left will hold it up as a shining example of why George Bush equals Hitler, Tenet's book should be read with a skeptical mind that contrasts Tenet's version of events with his previous statements and the recollections of other key players.

Fifty years ago, Russian emigre Ayn Rand wrote a tome that was destined to become one of the most influential books of the 20th Century: Atlas Shrugged. It spelled out her objectivist philosophy, which emphasizes the value of free will, individualism, liberty, pursuit of self-interest, and the application of free-market principles to all aspects of life. While her ideas have influenced many individuals (Alan Greenspan, Clarence Thomas, Larry Elder, Mark Cuban, and Neil Peart,) there are many other Americans who have yet to catch on to her message.

Fast forward to 2007, and we're seeing the resurgence of big government, with themes all too similar to Rand's antagonistic "Unification Board" which seeks the "equalization of opportunity." Congress proposes to punish airlines for delayed flights, and force them to fly unprofitable routes. Congress seeks to tax windfall profits on "big oil" and force price controls on gasoline. Presidential candidates promise "health care for all" by 2009. Instead of bureaucrats like Wesley Mouch and government-shilling executives like Jim Taggart, we get political demogogues like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The world of Atlas Shrugged has individuals like Dr. Stadler and Floyd Ferris who manipulate science to scare people and push a political agenda; today, we have Al Gore and Laurie David trying to frighten us back into the stone age with dire predictions of global warming.

If the ideas of Ayn Rand's antagonists are embodied in modern-day politicians, we must also ask the question of "Who is John Galt?" In this case, the "John Galt"s are the industrialists who build the world economy. The Walton Family and Richard Branson embody the principles of John Galt; the same might have been said about Bill Gates before Microsoft Windows began to stagnate in the mid-90's.

In the spirit of Ayn Rand, we should go forth and celebrate the virtue of man's mind. It's a mind that allows us to overcome our circumstances, to boycott the things we find offensive, and to solve our problems without resorting to "the gun." Let us never forget that 'money is the root of all good,' and strive to achieve the best that is within us.

Bill Moyers has generated a lot of buzz with his documentary on how the media "sold" the American public on invading Iraq. While hindsight makes us regret the media's limited questioning of the Bush Administration's evidence for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, I think that it's naive to think that our media would have succeeded where our intelligence agencies failed. The CIA and other intel agencies were armed with aerial and space reconnaissance, human intelligence, and signals intelligence that reinforced their prevailing assumption that Saddam Hussein could never be trusted to disarm voluntarily. The US newsmedia was at an even greater disadvantage in terms of penetrating the Iraqi military-industrial complex and determining what its true motivations were.

Before we all buy into Bill Moyer's diatribes against the "warmongering, right-wing media," we should look at the decade of reporting on Iraqi WMD's that led up to the invasion of Iraq. While there was little questioning of the Bush Administration's assertions about Saddam's WMD programs, there was even less media dissent to those claims when they were put out by the Clinton Administration. Back in 1998, the Clinton White House alleged that a chemical factory destroyed by the US in the Sudan had been producing powderized VX nerve gas for both Saddam hussein and Osama bin Laden. During the Operation Desert Fox campaign, it was alleged that the Iraqis had converted jet training aircraft into unmanned delivery systems for chemical weapons. In hindsight, the claims appear to be absurd; but when they were first reported by the Clinton Administration, they were taken at face value by the "warmongering right-wing media."

It should be remembered that Bill Moyers is an unabashed leftist whose documentaries will contain evidence that supports his central thesis. In this case, Americans should feel let down by their media, but they never had much reason to trust the media in the first place. Nor should Americans feel that the media had a special deference to the Bush Administration; on the issue of building a case for war against Iraq, the Bushies got the same free pass that the Clintonistas received for eight years.

Marine General James Conway claims that the situation in Anbar province is turning around. While a credibility gap has grown between the pronouncements of military commanders and the reality on the ground, there is tangible progress to report. The question is whether this progress can be sustained. It doesn't seem too long ago when the Battle for Fallujah was pronounced as "Breaking the back of the insurgency." Building on that promise has been a formidable challenge.

Anbar has many unique qualities that distinguish it from Iraq's other 17 provinces. It's sparsely-populated, highly tribal, devoutly Sunni, and overwhelmingly hostile to foreigners.

In the past, Saddam was barely able to keep some control over Anbar, and only through bribery and intimidation of tribal leaders. Over the four years of occupation, the US has gradually stepped up its exploitation of tribal politics in the volatile area.

While the xenophobic nature of Anbar has made it dangerous for Americans to operate there, it has also led to waning support for al Qaeda, which is seen as a foreign menace. Tribal leaders are increasingly asking for arms to fight the jihadisys who infiltrate from Syria, Jordan & Saudi Arabia.

The US has had little luck in deploying the Shiite-dominated Iraqi Army to Anbar. Instead, police forces recruited from the cities of Anbar have formed the best way of using Iraqis to fight al Qaeda.

To solve the problem of violence in Anbar, the al Qaeda problem must be addressed before tackling any of the other challenges. The use of tribal militias and police forces would seem to offer far more hope than using the Iraqi Army. While this may finally solve the al Qaeda problem over time, the long-term danger is that Iraqi Sunnis will form their own Islamist movements in Anbar province (many already have.)

In fact, Anbar would be best served if it were granted a high degree of autonomy from the central government in Baghdad. The tribal leaders would oversee the city and provincial governments, and pledge their nominal allegiance to the government in Baghdad. The tribal militias would be recognized as legitimate by the Iraqi Army as long as they serve "on good behavior."

America's role should shift if the situation shows marked improvement. If the police can control the cities, America should pull back to bases outside the cities. If the police and militias and tribal leaders can keep a lid on violence and root out terrorism, they should be rewarded with public works projects. And America's might and technology will definitely be needed to secure the pourous border which allows al Qaeda to penetrate.

Fixing the problems with Anbar province will not be easy, but it's not impossible. The decision in 2003 to treat the province as an "economy of force operation," as described in Cobra II, caused problems that escalated into the sad state of affairs that exists today. For the US, the challenge is to continue with a strategy of empowering the locals to keep the peace while sustaining the willpower and force levels necessary to complete the mission.

Don Imus is in a lot of hot water after saying that Rutgers girls are "nappy ho's." Certain commentators, particularly "Reverend" Al Sharpton, have accused Imus of racism. I don't find Imus's comments to be inherently racist, but they're a slap in the face of Rutgers girls, many of whom are not "nappy ho's." Then again, Don Imus is one of radio's original shock jocks; offending people is how he stays employed.

In any event, Imus appeared on Sharpton's radio show to apologize for his remarks. Afterwards, Sharpton turns around and says that apologies aren't enough, and he wants Imus fired. That really set me off. Al Sharpton purports to be a Christian minister. But Al Sharpton won't grant forgiveness after Don Imus apologized. Al Sharpton wants vengeance. Right after Easter, Al Sharpton is choosing the way of Satan and rejecting Christ's teachings.

I'm reminded of the recent South Park episode "With Apologies to Jesse Jackson," where Mr. Marsh is ostracized for dropping the "N" bomb on television. It seems that if you're a white person who says anything that's remotely racist, you can never be forgiven by our modern society. That just strikes me as being very un-Christian. We are supposed to forgive everybody, even if they commit the sin of being un-PC. If a person can truly be sorry and examine his or her soul to purge the bigoted thoughts and feelings, they should be welcomed rather than scorned.

Four years ago, US forces demolished the statue of Saddam Hussein in Fierdos Square in the midst of a jubilant Shiite mob. The event is generally regarded as the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime. Yet four years later, jubilation turns to despair, and gratitude for liberation turns into hatred of occupation.

The events of the past four years have shown that Saddam Hussein's regime WAS Iraq, at least the western concept of a unified Iraqi nation. When the regime collapsed, so did the country. Saddam was a thug and a gangster, but his own people turned out to be little better. America now finds itself in a situation where there are few good guys to be found. Instead, Iraq looks like a rogue's gallery of different bad guys, wearing different stripes and having different agandas. Hatred of America is the only common cause for most Iraqis.

The Shiite mobs that cheered the toppling of the Saddam statue by America are now marching through Najaf and Kufa to display their hatred for America. They take orders from a cleric whose own father was killed by Saddam Hussein, and now issues edicts from his hiding place (most likely in Iran.)

Perhaps this sad episode should serve as a lesson to other countries: if you want liberation, you'd better do it yourselves. Why should America bear the burden for your ingratitude and ineptitude?

Of all the important issues that Congress faces in its current term, the one I expect them to willingly ignore is immigration reform. The reason? The Democrat-controlled Congress is juggling between two powerful constituencies that have very strong, very different views on the subject.

The Democrats have long allied themselves with labor unions; they've also relied on the support of the Hispanic community. The labor unions view illegal immigrants as a threat to union jobs and want a hard stance against violations of America's border. Hispanic activists view American immigration laws as racist, and seek a more open immigration policy.

The Bush immigration plan, in principle, seeks the right balance between enforcement of our borders and legalization of immigrants. We need stronger enforcement of our borders, but we also need to create more channels for people to immigrate legally to the US. Nevertheless, I get really mad when I see protestors complaining about reasonable meausres like fines for illegal immigrants who are already in America.

For the illegal immigrants who are already in America, the "fines plus citizenship" sounds like a pretty raw deal, especially when certain members of Congress are pushing for blanket amnesty and naturalization of all illegal immigrants. I would counter that "fines plus citizenship" is a lot more fair than rounding up the illegals and sending them back, which is what the law is supposed to provide.

For congressional Democrats, such protests against reasonable immigration propsals will only validate their lack of enthusiasm for any kind of action on the immigration issue. They were more than happy to use the immigration issue as a club against President Bush and congressional Republicans in the last election. Every night, CNN viewers could watch Lou Dobbs rail against the president using the talking points that the AFL-CIO probably gave him in the five minutes before the show began. But now that the Democrats have taken back congress, they actually have to take a position that's more detailed than "I hate George Bush." So far, they have failed coalesce around a viable proposal, torn between the irreconcilable positions of the unions and illegal immigrant activists. Hopefully the voters will remember that when the 2008 election takes place.

Much of the problem stems from the fact that our laws are totally broken and usually go unenforced when it applies to immigration. Common people may not agree with the laws, but they have no moral authority to break them on a whim. Government officials don't have to agree with the laws, but they are duty-bound to enforce them. Alas, we live in a country where illegal immigrants are unchallenged, and the corporations who hire illegal immigrants go unpunished. So much for "homeland security."