Zawahri Video Coming Soon

Apparently, there is an advance wave of publicity building for a video by Ayman al Zawahri that is supposed to be released "soon". Websites used by Islamists are touting this and generating interest in it.

A banner warning of the upcoming message was posted on the site, which frequently airs al-Qaida videos. Wednesday's notice did not specify whether the new message was a video, audiotape or text, but al-Zawahri usually releases videos.

His latest came earlier this month, to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. Al-Qaida released a string of videos for the anniversary, showing increasingly sophisticated production techniques in a likely effort to demonstrate that it remains a powerful, confident force despite the U.S.-led war on terror.

Osama bin Laden and his deputy al-Zawahri are believed to be hiding in the Afghan-Pakistan border region. Many analysts believe that they no longer have centralized control to order or organize attacks by militants around the world. The capture and killing of many midlevel commanders has left al-Qaida more diffuse and amorphous.

But at the same time, the terror network's propaganda machine has grown more sophisticated, aiming to rally militants and romanticizing jihad, or holy war.

The banner did not give a specific time, saying only that al-Zawahri would release a message about the pope, Bush and Darfur "soon, God willing."

Our official in-house intelligence analysts believe that the video will be released as soon as Zawahri finishes picking out just the right subject matter.

A Record Of Failures

Richard Miniter writes a step-by-step timeline of Clinton administration responses to al Qaeda attacks throught the 1990s. It is instructive to look at it and think about the implications of reverting to the Clintonian policies regarding terrorism.

It is vital that this debate be honest, but so far this has not been the case. Both Mr. Clinton's outrage at Chris Wallace's questioning and the ABC docudrama "The Path to 9/11" are attempts to polarize the nation's memory. While this divisiveness may be good for Mr. Clinton's reputation, it is ultimately unhealthy for the country. What we need, instead, is a cold-eyed look at what works against terrorists and what does not. The policies of the Clinton and Bush administrations ought to be put to the same iron test.

With that in mind, let us examine Mr. Clinton's war on terror. Some 38 days after he was sworn in, al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center. He did not visit the twin towers that year, even though four days after the attack he was just across the Hudson River in New Jersey, talking about job training. He made no attempt to rally the public against terrorism. His only public speech on the bombing was a few paragraphs inserted into a radio address mostly devoted an economic stimulus package. Those stray paragraphs were limited to reassuring the public and thanking the rescuers, the kinds of things governors say after hurricanes. He did not even vow to bring the bombers to justice. Instead, he turned the first terrorist attack on American soil over to the FBI.

In his Fox interview, Mr. Clinton said "no one knew that al Qaeda existed" in October 1993, during the tragic events in Somalia. But his national security adviser, Tony Lake, told me that he first learned of bin Laden "sometime in 1993," when he was thought of as a terror financier. U.S. Army Capt. James Francis Yacone, a black hawk squadron commander in Somalia, later testified that radio intercepts of enemy mortar crews firing at Americans were in Arabic, not Somali, suggesting the work of bin Laden's agents (who spoke Arabic), not warlord Farah Aideed's men (who did not). CIA and DIA reports also placed al Qaeda operatives in Somalia at the time.

By the end of Mr. Clinton's first year, al Qaeda had apparently attacked twice. The attacks would continue for every one of the Clinton years.

Please read the whole timeline of events. It is a dreadful litany of complete and abject failure. It should rightfully be part of any discussion of how to deal with terrorism. Or rather, how not to deal with it.

The Nannies Of New York

As a former resident of upstate New York, I can attest to a commonly held view in that region. Many people in areas well away from New York City were, and likely still are, pretty sure that most politicians and government officials from the city were out of their ever-loving minds. (One pleasant exception was Rudy Giuilani, but that's another discussion). It was a source of endless amusement when some of the NYC politicians or bureaucrats spoke out on various issues. This time, though, the bureaucrats in New York City have topped themselves. They are proposing a ban on Trans Fats.

NEW YORK (AP) — Three years after the city banned smoking in restaurants, health officials are talking about prohibiting something they say is almost as bad: artificial trans fatty acids.

The city health department unveiled a proposal Tuesday that would bar cooks at any of the city's 24,600 food service establishments from using ingredients that contain the artery-clogging substance, commonly listed on food labels as partially hydrogenated oil.

Artificial trans fats are found in some shortenings, margarine and frying oils and turn up in foods from pie crusts to french fries to doughnuts.

Doctors agree that trans fats are unhealthy in nearly any amount, but a spokesman for the restaurant industry said he was stunned the city would seek to ban a legal ingredient found in millions of American kitchens.

"Labeling is one thing, but when they totally ban a product, it goes well beyond what we think is prudent and acceptable," said Chuck Hunt, executive vice president of the city's chapter of the New York State Restaurant Association.

He said the proposal could create havoc: Cooks would be forced to discard old recipes and scrutinize every ingredient in their pantry. A restaurant could face a fine if an inspector finds the wrong type of vegetable shortening on its shelves.

The proposal also would create a huge problem for national chains. Among the fast foods that would need to get an overhaul or face a ban: McDonald's french fries, Kentucky Fried Chicken and several varieties of Dunkin' Donuts.

Welcome to the nanny state writ large. There will be much shaking of heads in upstate New York today.

WaPo Drops The Ball, Too

The Washington Post is also spinning the negatives of the NIE and stressing the things that appear to damage the administration while ignoring the key assessments that need to be widely understood.

The overall estimate is bleak, with minor notes of optimism. It depicts a movement that is likely to grow more quickly than the West's ability to counter it over the next five years, as the Iraq war continues to breed "deep resentment" throughout the Muslim world, shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and cultivating new supporters for their ideology.

In describing Iraq as "the 'cause celebre' for jihadists," the document judges that real and perceived insurgent successes there will "inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere," while losses would have the opposite effect. It predicts that the elimination of al-Qaeda leaders, particularly Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed after the estimate was completed in April, would probably leave that organization splintered into disparate groups that "for at least a time, pose a less serious threat to U.S. interests" than the current al-Qaeda structure.

On the relative bright side, the assessment notes the unpopularity with "the vast majority of Muslims" of the jihadists' brutal tactics and ultraconservative ideology. Democratic reforms and peaceful political alternatives in Muslim countries will also counter terrorist aims, it says.

But "the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this estimate," the report notes. An intelligence official who was not authorized to speak on the record said the time frame is until early 2011.

The most important consensus in the document, again, is the flat statement that withdrawal from Iraq would hand the jihadists a major victory and would increase the danger to the US and the world. That aspect of the report appears to be willfully suppressed by the media right now. That is a very bad thing, I think. What is thoroughly disgusting in this article comes at the end:

Several active and retired intelligence officials, who were not authorized to speak on behalf of the intelligence community, expressed resentment at the administration's decision to have Negroponte issue the first official reaction to the weekend reports. They said he should not have become involved in what quickly became a political battle.

Apparently, it's perfectly fine for unnamed rogue elements inside the intelligence community to leak classified information with impunity. This is blatant double-speak.

“I’ve Arrested Bank Robbers Who’ve Had The Same Excuse.”

The words of Mecklenburg County (North Carolina) Sheriff Jim Pendergraph about the program in his county to catch illegal immigrants.

Mecklenburg County Sheriff Jim Pendergraph says there should be little sympathy for illegal immigrants caught by his program: They have already broken the law once by being here illegally, and then been arrested on suspicion of another crime.

"When any of them cross that border without proper documentation, they've violated the law — however insignificant it may seem to some people," he said. "I've heard sad stories about folks wanting to come up here and have a better life and earn money for their family. I've arrested bank robbers who've had the same excuse."

The program identifies illegal immigrants caught committing another crime and sends them for deportation. It does not "hunt" illegals. These are criminals caught doing other things. Their citizenship is checked after they have been captured.

While the program has led to the removal of many illegal immigrants charged with felonies, people arrested for lesser charges such as traffic violations are also subject to deportation. That, according to Hispanic leaders, has created a constant worry for people who are in the United States illegally and now fear deportation after a simple traffic stop.

Many illegal immigrants lack valid licenses. As a result, they now risk not only arrest but also deportation whenever they drive.

Last I checked, driving without a license is a crime. You can do jail time for it whether you are a citizen or not. This article has the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth from the usual voices. But the bottom line is local police agencies are having to step up enforcement action because of Federal failures. The situation is becoming critical as the increasing number of illegal immigrants breaking laws is reaching a serious level in many areas. This is the dark side of the illegal immigration issue that advocates downplay. The sheriff statement is spot on.

Asking The Right Questions

I don't think I've ever completely agreed with anything David Ignatius of the Washington Post has written (that I have read at least). Today is no exception. But today, he has written a column that I thinks reaches the right conclusions even if I disagree with some of the things he says along the way. He points out the glaring omission in all the Democratic party attacks on Bush and Iraq. He is brutal in his assessment.

No matter how you slice it, the National Intelligence Estimate warning that the Iraq war has spawned more terrorism is big trouble for President Bush and his party in this election year. It goes to the heart of Bush's argument for invading Iraq, which was that it would make America safer.

Many Democrats act as if that's the end of the discussion: A mismanaged occupation has created a breeding ground for terrorists, so we should withdraw and let the Iraqis sort out the mess. Some extreme war critics are so angry at Bush they seem almost eager for America to lose, to prove a political point. Even among mainstream Democrats, the focus is "gotcha!" rather than "what next?" That is understandable, given the partisanship of Republican attacks, but it isn't right.

….

An example of the Democrats' fudge on Iraq was highlighted yesterday by Post columnist Dana Milbank in his description of retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste's appearance before the Senate Democratic Policy Committee. Senators cheered Batiste's evisceration of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld but tuned out Batiste's call for more troops and more patience in Iraq, and his admonition: "We must mobilize our country for a protracted challenge."

Here's a reality check for the Democrats: There is not a single government in the Middle East, with the possible exceptions of Iran and Syria, that favors a rapid U.S. pullout from Iraq. Why? The consensus in the region is that a retreat now would have disastrous consequences for America and its allies. Yet withdrawal is the Iraq strategy you hear from most congressional Democrats, whether they call it "strategic redeployment" or something else.

I wish Democrats (and Republicans, for that matter) were asking this question: How do we prevent Iraq from becoming a failed state? Many critics of the war would argue that the worst has already happened — Iraq has unraveled. Unfortunately, as bad as things are, they could get considerably worse. Following a rapid American pullout, Iraq could descend into a full-blown civil war, with Sunni-Shiite violence spreading throughout the region. In this chaos, oil supplies could be threatened, sending prices well above $100 a barrel. Turkey, Iran and Jordan would intervene to protect their interests. James Fallows titled his collection of prescient essays warning about the Iraq war "Blind Into Baghdad." We shouldn't compound the error by being "blind out of Baghdad," too.

Ignatius is simply coming from the assumption that the war in Iraq was a mistake from the get-go. I disagree with that, but the rest of what he is writing here is important. Cut and run is the absolute wrong answer. Precipitous withdrawal damages the United States immeasurably. The threat of cutting off funds for the war if the Democrats take power is one of the most stupidly short-sighted policies the Democrats could have. Yet that is exactly what some of them are advocating openly.

AP Backpedals A Bit

The Associated Press has amended its lead article about the NIE to make it at least appear to be a little more balanced. They still spin it in the most negative light possible, mind you. But they have added that there are things in the report that will strengthen Republican assertions about Iraq.

WASHINGTON - White House release of a previously secret intelligence assessment depicting a growing terrorist threat gives both political parties new ammunition in the election-season fight over the Iraq war.

For Republicans, the excerpts of the document — declassified under orders from President Bush on Tuesday — are more evidence that Iraq is central to the war on terrorism and can't be abandoned without giving jihadists a crucial victory.

For Democrats, the report furthers their argument that the 2003 Iraq invasion has inflamed anti-U.S. sentiments in the Muslim world and left the U.S. less safe.

They do continue with the negative spin, but the funniest thing of all happens at the end of the article. They remind readers who make it al the way to the very end of the piece that NIE documents have been wildly wrong in the past. They never once, to my knowledge, pointed that particular information out when they were shilling the straight Democrat line.

But they can be wrong. A 2002 assessment, for example, concluded that Iraq had continued its development of weapons of mass destruction, held arsenals of chemical and biological weapons and "probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade." None of those assertions turned out to be true.

The media and the left blogospere are flogging this mightily, but honest people on both sides of the issue need to read the entire portion of the NIE that was released. The most important statement regarding Iraq in the document is this, in my opinion:

We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and
operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the
struggle elsewhere.