AL GORE SELLS OUT TO THE SAUDIS and More..
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 13, 2006
frontpagemag.com
Earlier this week, I pointed out that the Jeddah Economic Forum had disinvited the Danes after their publication of the Prophet cartoons. Arab News reported that Al Gore and Steve Forbes had agreed to appear at the JEF prior to Denmark's exclusion, and several bloggers wondered whether they would endorse the Saudi position and attend after such a move.
Not only did Gore attend, but he sold out the US in order to suck up to the Islamists:
Former Vice President Al Gore told a mainly Saudi audience on Sunday that the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment.
Gore said Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. The former vice president said the Bush administration was playing into al-Qaida's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.
"The thoughtless way in which visas are now handled, that is a mistake," Gore said during the Jiddah Economic Forum. "The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States."
I'm stunned almost to speechlessness. We held mass roundups of Arabs? When? Where? What exactly were the "unforgivable" conditions of which Gore speaks? And as far as the visas go, when exactly did Saudis have a right to enter the United States at whim without any consideration of security? Perhaps the former VP has forgotten, but most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis.
In truth, Gore sold out the United States and any notion of freedom by appearing after Denmark got barred from attending an economic forum for the publishing decision of one of its privately-owned newspapers. Just showing up was bad enough. To make accusations about some mythical internment program for Arabs in the US just plays into the hands of the conspiracy-addicted Arabian press.
Thanks, Al. You've gone from a respectable politician to a Saudi suck-up in one of the worst political meltdowns in American history.
GETTING SERIOUS WITH IRAN?
According to the London Telegraph, the United States has begun serious planning for a military strike on Iran that will incapacitate its nuclear program. This game-planning appears more serious than just a normal update of security options, and the revelation of the planning will most likely create a further polarization of the mullahcracy from the rest of the diplomatic world:
Strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for devastating bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against Iran's nuclear sites as a "last resort" to block Teheran's efforts to develop an atomic bomb.
Central Command and Strategic Command planners are identifying targets, assessing weapon-loads and working on logistics for an operation, the Sunday Telegraph has learnt.
They are reporting to the office of Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, as America updates plans for action if the diplomatic offensive fails to thwart the Islamic republic's nuclear bomb ambitions. Teheran claims that it is developing only a civilian energy programme.
"This is more than just the standard military contingency assessment," said a senior Pentagon adviser. "This has taken on much greater urgency in recent months."
The prospect of military action could put Washington at odds with Britain which fears that an attack would spark violence across the Middle East, reprisals in the West and may not cripple Teheran's nuclear programme. But the steady flow of disclosures about Iran's secret nuclear operations and the virulent anti-Israeli threats of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has prompted the fresh assessment of military options by Washington. The most likely strategy would involve aerial bombardment by long-distance B2 bombers, each armed with up to 40,000lb of precision weapons, including the latest bunker-busting devices. They would fly from bases in Missouri with mid-air refuelling.
The Democrats have recently taken up the argument that Iran poses the worst national-security threat in the world at the moment, and that has allowed the White House much more room to consider military options. Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton both have called for immediate action to keep Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon, although the latter has been more vague about the action requested. Politically, it would appear that George Bush has enough bipartisan clearance -- I wouldn't call it support -- to launch a limited strike on Iran that targeted known nuclear facilities, at least domestically.
What would the international reaction be? Had Ahmedinejad not gone public with his genocidal rants about Israel, Bush would have immediately isolated himself. Even Britain would probably have declined to openly support such an attack, no matter what the pre-emptive value might be. However, with the Iranian leadership regularly issuing such hostile and irrational statements, along with its long history of supporting Islamofascist terrorism, that may no longer be the case. Certainly we would damage our relationship with Russia and China, but since they have proven rather useless in the war on terror (especially China), the loss may not be terribly significant. Western Europe can be counted on to object, but Eastern Europe will understand that they live within easy range of the Shahab-3 rockets at the mullah's command. They may not cheer the decision, but they will understand it.
All of that aside, will that bring us closer to our goal of democracy throughout Southwest Asia? It's doubtful. Iran has a large population that wants closer ties to America and more openness and freedom in Iran. They do not want America to invade Iran to bring it to them, but they want the support and assistance needed to overthrow the mullahcracy. Bombing their nation will do more to inflame anti-American sentiment than to bolster the democrats. I'm afraid, and we may lose a golden opportunity to inspire yet another velvet revolution.
The bombing plans may serve to push the Iranian democrats into action; if so, then they will have served their best purpose. The US may be signalling the activists that the time has come to rise up and topple the regime -- and if they can't, we will take the steps necessary to ensure that the mullahs' evil remains within Iranian borders from now on.
As our good friend Michael Ledeen often pleads .... faster, please. Sunday, February 12, 2006
CARTER SPIED, AND THEN HE LIED
Despite former President Jimmy Carter's pointed jabs at the Bush administration over the NSA surveillance program this past week, it turns out that Carter has more familiarity with warrantless eavesdropping than he let on. Today's Washington Times reports that Carter and his Attorney General authorized warrantless electronic surveillance on two suspected espionage agents, one of whom was an American citizen:
Former President Jimmy Carter, who publicly rebuked President Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program this week during the funeral of Coretta Scott King and at a campaign event, used similar surveillance against suspected spies.
"Under the Bush administration, there's been a disgraceful and illegal decision -- we're not going to the let the judges or the Congress or anyone else know that we're spying on the American people," Mr. Carter said Monday in Nevada when his son Jack announced his Senate campaign. ...
But in 1977, Mr. Carter and his attorney general, Griffin B. Bell, authorized warrantless electronic surveillance used in the conviction of two men for spying on behalf of Vietnam.
The men, Truong Dinh Hung and Ronald Louis Humphrey, challenged their espionage convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which unanimously ruled that the warrantless searches did not violate the men's rights.
In its opinion, the court said the executive branch has the "inherent authority" to wiretap enemies such as terror plotters and is excused from obtaining warrants when surveillance is "conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons."
Not only does Jimmy Carter betray his hypocrisy here, but his Attorney General told Congress when it debated the FISA law in 1978 that FISA would not impede the president from exercising precisely this power under the Constitution. The Times also notes that Jamie Gorelick said much the same thing in 1994. In any case, the appellate court certainly agreed with both Bell and Carter in 1980, even after passage of FISA the year after the surveillance took place.
Keep in mind that this surveillance took place to fight a simple espionage case, not to defend the country against an enemy that has already attacked American assets on numerous occasions and killed 3,000 civilians in one attack on American soil. Carter did not get an authorization for the use of military force against Viet Nam -- can you imagine him asking for one? -- and yet still claimed Constitutional authority for warrantless surveillance on Ronald Humphrey, an American citizen. And the courts agreed with Carter.
That gives a very strong precedent for Bush's argument that both Article II and the AUMF against Al-Qaeda gives him the authority to surveil international communications that may involve American residents without a warrant. It certainly has more common-sense standing than the case against Truong and Humphrey, which the 4th Circuit upheld and for which the Supreme Court denied cert, giving it the authority of precedent. It also shows what a complete hypocrite Carter has become in his bitter pursuit to damage George Bush in any way possible.
I wonder where all the Democrats who hailed stare decisis during the Alito and Roberts confirmation hearings have gone. My guess is that we won't hear from them about this precedent. (via The Anchoress)
UPDATE: Power Line noted this case earlier in its argument for the NSA program. It's good to have sharp lawyers on your side. Saturday, February 11, 2006
www.captainsquartersblog.com
*
MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF BRITAIN'S TERROR LINKS
About those “moderate” Muslims who demonstrated against the Danish cartoons in London yesterday: Terror link of ‘moderate’ Muslims at London rally. (Hat tip: LGF readers.)
The Muslim campaigners behind a mass rally in Trafalgar Square today have close links to Islamic terror groups, the Daily Mail can reveal.
Despite promoting itself as the ‘moderate’ voice of Islam, the Muslim Association of Britain includes a former military commander of Hamas, the Palestinian organisation behind dozens of suicide bombings in Israel.
The Association has also been described in Parliament as the British wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, the banned Egyptian group whose former members include Osama Bin Laden.
The revelations raise serious questions about support given by London Mayor Ken Livingstone to the rally, expected to attract 10,000 protesters against cartoons of Mohammed published in European newspapers. He hosted a press conference at his offices on Thursday to promote the demonstration as a chance to air the views of moderate Muslims.
However, Labour MP Louise Ellman said the MAB was an ‘extremist’ group whose members repeatedly advocated suicide bombings in Israel.
“They are an extremely dangerous organisation,” she said. “Leading members of MAB have indicated their links with Hamas and their support for suicide bombings abroad. It is not tenable for a group to support suicide bombings in another country while expecting to be seen as moderate in this country.”
Mike Whine, of the Community Security Trust, which monitors anti-Semitic behaviour, said: “The leading members have close links with the Muslim Brotherhood and have been active in anti-Jewish propaganda. We are worried about their increasing influence within the Muslim community.”
Azzam al-Tamimi - a Palestinian described yesterday by the MAB as one of its leading political thinkers - caused outrage 18 months ago when he told the BBC he would willingly carry out a suicide bombing in Israel. “Sacrificing myself for Palestine is a noble cause,” he said. “It is the straight way to pleasing God and I would do it if I had the opportunity.”
In 2004, Dr Tamimi arranged for Egyptian preacher Yusuf al-Qaradawi to visit the UK despite his calls for homosexuals to be stoned to death and his suggestions that rape victims be punished if dressed “immodestly”.
Last year, five MAB members were made trustees of the re-opened Finsbury Park Mosque, North London, which was closed in 2003 because of the activities of its imam Abu Hamza.
One trustee, Mohammed Kassem Sawalha, was named in a U.S. court case as a former senior Hamas commander responsible for terrorist activities in the West Bank in the 1990s. He is a former MAB president who admits he still supports Hamas. MAB leader Anas al-Tikriti is the son of Osama al-Tikriti, leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Iraq.
The organisation has strong historic links with Al Qaeda and other terror groups, including Islamic Jihad, which was behind the 1981 killing of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat.
In the past, the MAB’s website has encouraged followers to download images of the Star of David transformed into a swastika and has compared Israel to Nazi Germany. Sunday, February 12, 2006
littlegreenfootballs.com
*
BRITISH IMAM PRAISES LONDON TUBE BOMBERS
Another moderate Muslim. I wish those who take such hope from statements of condemnation like Ali's after the July 7 attacks will explain to us how we can distinguish sincere condemnations from insincere ones. From the TimesOnline, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:
A LEADING imam in the mosque where the July 7 bombers worshipped has hailed their terrorist attack on London as a “good” act in a secretly taped conversation with an undercover reporter.
Hamid Ali, spiritual leader of the mosque in West Yorkshire, said it had forced people to take notice when peaceful meetings and conferences had no impact.
He also praised the bombers as the “children” of Abdullah al-Faisal, a firebrand Muslim cleric, who was convicted of inciting murder and racial hatred in 2003.
Ali revealed that the leader of the London suicide bombers had attended sermons in Yorkshire by al-Faisal and tapes of al-Faisal’s teachings were still circulating within his mosque.
Al-Faisal, who has branded non-Muslims as “cockroaches” ripe for extermination, is serving a seven-year prison sentence but is eligible for early release next week.
Evidence of continuing extremism and terrorist sympathisers in the bombers’ community has been exposed by a six-week investigation by The Sunday Times. It contrasts with the public statements of condemnation by community leaders — including Ali — in the immediate aftermath of the July 7 attacks.
RUSSIA'S POLICIES ARE ANTI-U.S., NOT ANTI-ISRAEL
Sober political analysis from Herb Keinon at the Jerusalem Post:
...Putin's invitation to Hamas Thursday didn't come out of the blue. A week earlier at a mammoth press conference in the Kremlin, he made it clear that Moscow did not view Hamas the same way the US and Europe did.
His answer to a question about Hamas was extremely telling. Hamas's victory, he said, "is a big setback, an important setback for American efforts in the Middle East. A very serious setback."
And an American setback in the Middle East is good for Russia; it provides Russia with an opportunity.
Putin's invitation to Hamas was not a jab at Israel, although we will definitely feel the sting, as much as it was a swipe at US regional policies. Putin has identified a place where Russia can play a key position. If everyone else is boycotting Hamas and Russia talks with it, then Russia has just won itself a starring role... Sunday, February 12, 2006
jihadwatch.org
*
ARAB COMPANY MAY RUN EAST COAST PORTS
Great. Just great. Arab Biz May Run NYC port. (Hat tip: LGF readers.)
The city’s ports, considered a major target of terrorists, are about to be taken over by a firm based in the United Arab Emirates, a country with financial links to the Sept. 11 hijackers.
Dubai Ports World is set to complete a $6.8 billion deal to purchase Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a London company that already runs commercial port operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans and Miami.
If shareholders approve the deal tomorrow, it will give control of various dock operations at some of the country’s busiest points of entry to UAE-headquartered DP World.
The FBI has said most of the money for the 2001 terror attacks was funneled to hijackers through UAE banks, and much of the planning took place in the small but rich nation east of Saudi Arabia.
WHY IS GEORGETOWN PROVIDING A PLATFORM FOR A PRO-TERRORIST GROUP?
It’s kind of a surprise to see the Washington Post (who recently let their paper be used by a deported terrorist to spread Hamas propaganda) publish this hard-hitting op-ed by Eric Adler and Jack Langer on the terror-supporting hate group known as the Palestine Solidarity Movement (lgf: search), scheduled to hold a conference at Georgetown University: Why Is Georgetown Providing a Platform for This Dangerous Group?
This month Georgetown University plans to host the annual conference of an anti-Israel propaganda group called the Palestine Solidarity Movement (PSM). The PSM certainly is controversial. It is also dangerous.
The purported aim of the PSM is to encourage divestment from Israel. To this end, its conferences boast a cavalcade of anti-Israel speakers whose speeches often degenerate into anti-Semitism. At the 2004 conference at Duke University in North Carolina, for example, keynote speaker Mazin Qumsiyeh referred to Zionism as a “disease.” Workshop leader Bob Brown deemed the Six-Day War “the Jew War of ‘67.” Not to be outdone, Nasser Abufarha praised the terrorist activities of Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
The PSM maintains that it is a separate organization from the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), which sends foreign students to the West Bank and Gaza to foment anti-Israeli sentiment.
All the same, the two groups seem to have intimate ties. At the 2004 PSM conference, for instance, the International Solidarity Movement ran a recruitment meeting called “Volunteering in Palestine: Role and Value of International Activists.” In that session, the organization’s co-founder, Huwaida Arraf, distributed recruitment brochures and encouraged students to enlist in the ISM, which, she acknowledged, cooperates with Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Another ISM co-founder, George Rishmawi, told the San Francisco Chronicle in a July 14, 2004, news story why his group recruits student volunteers.
“When Palestinians get shot by Israeli soldiers, no one is interested anymore,” he said. “But if some of these foreign volunteers get shot or even killed, then the international media will sit up and take notice.”
Adler and Langer point out that Georgetown’s easy acceptance of this vile group, despite their well-documented support of suicide bombing and mass murder, might have something to do with that recent gift from Saudi Arabia:
In agreeing to host the PSM from Feb. 17 to Feb. 19, Georgetown can’t even claim that its regard for free speech and expression trumps all. In 2005 the university’s conference center refused to host an anti-terrorism conference sponsored by America’s Truth Forum on the grounds that it was “too controversial.” So why is free speech and expression of cardinal importance now? Perhaps it is related to the recent $20 million donation from Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal (lgf: search), a prominent financier of the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
NOTRE DAME EXPERT: CARTOON JIHAD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ISLAM
Huge crowds turned out in Turkey to scream and vent their rage and throw rocks at the French (a pretty safe pastime): Tens of thousands in Turkish protests at Mohammed cartoons.
ISTANBUL (AFP) - Tens of thousands of Turks have rallied in protests against the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, burning a Danish flag and throwing stones at a French consulate.
In what appeared to be the largest such demonstration since the caricatures were first published in Denmark in September, 50,000 people massed in the main square of the eastern city of Diyarbakir, shouting anti-Danish slogans.
In Istanbul, Turkey’s biggest city, about 150 people pelted the French consulate with stones and eggs, shouting “Allah is great” and “Revenge”.
But al-Reuters and a dhimmi at Notre Dame would like us all to know that Buddhism and Hinduism are just as violent as Islam: Mohammad cartoon protests aren’t unique to Islam.
CHICAGO (Reuters) - The violence linked to cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad is not unique to Islam, experts say, and the protests reflect political and cultural passions more than the faith’s core values.
Looking for distinct features that would make Islam liable for the cartoon-related violence around the world does little to explain it, said the Rev. Patrick Gaffney, an anthropologist and expert on Islam at the University of Notre Dame.
“There are parallel behaviors in every tradition,” he said. “Buddhism has a violent strain despite its pacifism ... You think about Hinduism and nonviolence but (Mohandas) Gandhi was assassinated by a Hindu.”
Other examples of religious violence involving various faiths abound in recent and past history. But attention has focused on Muslims this year as at least 11 people have been killed in protests in the Middle East, Asia and Africa after the publication of cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammad in newspapers in Denmark and elsewhere.
“You can’t say Islam has a gene for violence,” Gaffney said. “It has to do with the dynamics, political and economic, that are at play right now,” especially in Europe where there has been a long history of anti-Islamic prejudice that represents “an underlying kind of powder keg.”
The University of Notre Dame is currently allied with the ACLU, suing the US government to allow Islamist kingpin Tariq Ramadan to enter the country and teach at the University. Sunday, February 12, 2006
OUR FRIENDS THE SAUDIS
Apologies are not good enough, according to one of the top Islamic clerics in the world, in the heart of Islam’s “holiest” site. The cartoonists must be put on trial, convicted (a foregone conclusion), and severely punished. And then we must enact laws to prevent any further blasphemy: Saudi Cleric Demands Trial Over Drawings.
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - Saudi Arabia’s top cleric called on the world’s Muslims to reject apologies for the “slanderous” caricatures of Islam’s Prophet Mohammed and demanded the authors and publishers of the cartoons be tried and punished, Saudi newspapers reported Saturday.
Thousands of Muslims, meanwhile, took to the streets in London and several other European cities to protest the drawings that were first published in a Danish newspaper in September and recently reprinted in other European publications. One depicted the prophet with a turban shaped like a bomb with a burning fuse.
Denmark also announced it has temporarily withdrawn its ambassadors from Syria, Iran and Indonesia because their safety was at risk in the wake of the controversy.
Speaking to hundreds of faithful at his Friday sermon, Sheik Abdul Rahman al-Seedes, the imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, called on the international community to enact laws that condemn insults against the prophet and holy sites.
“Where is the world with all its agencies and organizations? Is there only freedom of expression when it involves insults to Muslims? With one voice...we will reject the apology and demand a trial,” Al Riyad, a Saudi daily newspaper, quoted al-Seedes as saying.
Al-Seedes said the cartoons “made a mockery” of the Islam and the Prophet and called them “slanderous.”
UPDATE: On Wednesday, Condoleezza Rice condemned Iran and Syria for inciting violence over the Danish cartoons, but didn’t say a single word about our friends in Saudi Arabia.
JAPAN APPEASES, MUSLIMS STILL THREATENING
Riding Sun reports that the Egyptian Ambassador to Japan has issued a not-very-veiled threat against Japan if the cartoons are published there:
Attacks like the ones on the Danish embassies in Syria and Lebanon last weekend could take place in Japan if the media here insult Muslims by reprinting cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad, Egyptian Ambassador to Japan Hisham Badr warned Friday.
“This is not a question of freedom of expression... This is a question of blaspheme of religion,” Badr said in an interview with The Japan Times. “It touches a very raw nerve” with Muslims worldwide.
Badr praised both Tokyo for urging media not to reprint the cartoons and news organizations for complying.
...“Reprinting (the images) is a provocation,” the ambassador said. “It is as if they are saying ‘we don’t care about your feelings.’” Saturday, February 11, 2006
littlegreenfootballs.com |
