| May 9, 2008 |
| Greiling's grandstanding |
Yesterday I noted that, in her letter to the editor of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Minnesota state Rep. Mindy Greiling accused Star Tribune metro columnist Katherine Kersten of "reckless journalistic standards" and "gross distortion of facts" with respect to her two columns on the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy.
Kersten's two columns on TIZA are accessible here (March 9) and here (April 9). Greiling's letter fails to cite a single fact that Kersten got wrong in her columns about the school. Here is an overview of the statements Kersten made:
The Facts:
1. TIZA's strong religious connections date from its founding in 2003. Its co-founders, Zaman and Hesham Hussein, were both imams, or Muslim religious leaders, as well as leaders of the Muslim American Society of Minnesota (MAS-MN).
These facts are established.
2. Since 2003, they have played dual roles: Zaman as TIZA's principal and the current vice-president of MAS-MN, and Hussein as TIZA's school board chair and president of MAS-MN until his death in a car accident in Saudi Arabia in January.
These facts are established.
3. TIZA shares MAS-MN's headquarters building, along with a mosque.
This fact is established.
4. MAS-MN came to Minnesotans' attention in 2006, when it issued a "fatwa," warning Muslim taxi drivers at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport that transporting passengers with alcohol in their baggage is a violation of Islamic law.
This fact is established.
5. The school has a central carpeted prayer space, and "vaguely religious-sounding language" is used in the school, as stated in the the March 2007 Minnesota Monthy article by Kevin Featherly.
Zaman acknowledges this.
6. Students pray daily, the cafeteria serves halal food -- permissible under Islamic law -- and "Islamic Studies" is offered at the end of the school day.
Zaman acknowledges this.
7. In fact, TIZA was originally envisioned as a private Islamic school. In 2001, MAS-MN negotiated to buy the current TIZA/MAS-MN building for Al-Amal School, a private religious institution in Fridley, according to Bruce Rimstad of the Inver Grove Heights School District. But many immigrant families can't afford Al-Amal. In 2002, Islamic Relief -- headquartered in California -- agreed to sponsor a publicly funded charter school, TIZA, at the same location.
These facts are established.
8. "After-school Islamic learning" takes place on weekdays in the same building under MAS-MN's auspices, according to the program for MAS-MN's 2007 convention. At that convention, a TIZA representative at the school's booth told me that students go directly to "Islamic studies" classes at 3:30, when TIZA's day ends. There, they learn "Qur'anic recitation, the Sunnah of the Prophet" and other religious subjects, he said.
Zaman acknowledges that after-school Islamic studies takes place.
9. When addressing Muslim audiences, school officials make the link to Islam clear. At MAS-MN's 2007 convention, for example, the program featured an advertisement for the "Muslim American Society of Minnesota," superimposed on a picture of a mosque. Under the motto "Establishing Islam in Minnesota," it asked: "Did you know that MAS-MN ... houses a full-time elementary school?" On the adjacent page was an application for TIZA.
Kersten cites the program she obtained at the MAS-MN convention.
10. TIZA has in effect extended the school day -- buses leave only after Islamic Studies is over.
Zaman acknowledges that no buses leave until Islamic Studies is over.
11. Seventy-seven percent of TIZA parents say that their "main reason for choosing TIZA ... was because of after-school programs conducted by various non-profit organizations at the end of the school period in the school building," according to a TIZA report.
This fact is established.
12. The Minnesota Department of Education's records document only three site visits to TIZA in five years -- two in 2003-04 and one in 2007, according to Assistant Commissioner Morgan Brown. None of the visits focused specifically on religious practices.
This fact is established. Kersten posted the Department of Education's statement to this effect on the Star Tribune Web site.
13. The department is set up to operate on a "complaint basis," and "since 2004, we haven't gotten a single complaint about TIZA," Brown said. In 2004, he sent two letters to the school inquiring about religious activity reported by visiting department staffers and in a news article. Brown was satisfied with Zaman's assurance that prayer is "voluntary" and "student-led," he said. The department did not attempt to confirm this independently, and did not ask how 5- to 11-year-olds could be initiating prayer. (At the time, TIZA was a K-5 school.)
These facts are established.
15. Until recently, TIZA's website included a request for volunteers to help with "Friday prayers."
This fact is established.
16. Charter schools are public schools and by law must not endorse or promote religion.
This is a matter of law.
17. Prayer services take place in the TIZA school building during school hours.
Zaman acknowledges this.
18. Zaman does not deny that "some" Muslim teachers "probably" attend prayer. According to federal guidelines on prayer in schools, teachers at a public school cannot participate in prayer with students.
19. The school schedule is built around prayer. Zaman acknowledges that teachers take students to prayer and supervise them while they wash.
Kersten's second column is framed on the first-hand observations of substitute teacher Amanda Getz:
Getz's observations:
1. Arriving on a Friday, the Muslim holy day, she says she was told that the day's schedule included a "school assembly" in the gym after lunch.
2. Before the assembly, she says she was told, her duties would include taking her fifth-grade students to the bathroom, four at a time, to perform "their ritual washing."
3. "The prayer I saw was not voluntary," Getz said. "The kids were corralled by adults and required to go to the assembly where prayer occurred."
4. Islamic Studies was also incorporated into the school day. "When I arrived, I was told 'after school we have Islamic Studies,' and I might have to stay for hall duty," Getz said. "The teachers had written assignments on the blackboard for classes like math and social studies. Islamic Studies was the last one -- the board said the kids were studying the Qu'ran. The students were told to copy it into their planner, along with everything else. That gave me the impression that Islamic Studies was a subject like any other."
Rep. Greiling does not cite a single fact in her letter to support her claim that Kersten grossly violated journalistic standards or that she should be asked to resign. Under the circumstances, her letter is an abuse of her legislative position. Rep. Greiling should demonstrate Kersten's "gross distortion of facts" or should resign herself.
Courtesy of Power Line |
| Posted by Scott Johnson at 8:43 AM - Link to this entry
|
|
 |
|
|
| May 9, 2008 |
| Obama's improbable history, part 2 |
Jack Kelly looks at the same passage in Obama's North Carolina victory speech that we touched on in "Obama's improbable history." Obama said:
I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.
Kelly provides a refresher course:
Our enemies in World War II were Nazi Germany, headed by Adolf Hitler; fascist Italy, headed by Benito Mussolini, and militarist Japan, headed by Hideki Tojo. FDR talked directly with none of them before the outbreak of hostilities, and his policy once war began was unconditional surrender.
FDR died before victory was achieved, and was succeeded by Harry Truman. Truman did not modify the policy of unconditional surrender. He ended that war not with negotiation, but with the atomic bomb.
Harry Truman also was president when North Korea invaded South Korea in June, 1950. President Truman's response was not to call up North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung for a chat. It was to send troops.
Perhaps Sen. Obama is thinking of the meeting FDR and Churchill had with Soviet dictator Josef Stalin in Tehran in December, 1943, and the meetings Truman and Roosevelt had with Stalin at Yalta and Potsdam in February and July, 1945. But Stalin was then a U.S. ally, though one of whom we should have been more wary than FDR and Truman were. Few historians think the agreements reached at Yalta and Potsdam, which in effect consigned Eastern Europe to slavery, are diplomatic models we ought to follow. Even fewer Eastern Europeans think so.
When Stalin's designs became unmistakably clear, President Truman's response wasn't to seek a summit meeting. He sent military aid to Greece, ordered the Berlin airlift and the Marshall Plan, and sent troops to South Korea.
Kelly contrasts Kenendy's pre-presidential military and politcal experience with Obama's paper-thin resume, but only refers glancingly to Kennedy's 1961 summit with Khrushchev in Vienna. That summit was a disaster for resasons that bear intense scrutiny. I think Vienna is actually a fair comparison and warning against Obama's potted history, but Kelly is harsher:
The closest historical analogue to Sen. Obama's expressed desire to meet with no preconditions with anti-American dictators such as Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the trip British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French premier Eduoard Daladier took to Munich in September of 1938 to negotiate "peace in our time" with Adolf Hitler. That didn't work out so well.
It is amazing that reporters haven't pursued Obama on this subject, or challenged him on his repeated assertion that we're not talking or haven't talked with Iran.
FOOTNOTE: Kelly attributes to Winston Churchill the statement that those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. The statement is George Santayana's.
Courtesy of Power Line |
| Posted by Scott Johnson at 7:05 AM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| May 8, 2008 |
| What might have been -- our government's plan for post-invasion Iraq |
Few topics have been more thoroughly misreported than our government's planning for post-Saddam Iraq. In the MSM narrative, a project called the "Future of Iraq" developed a plan for rebuilding Iraq, but neo-conservatives in the Defense Department dismissed it and offered nothing in its place. Thus, the conventional wisdom is that "we didn't have a plan" for dealing with Iraq in the aftermath of the invasion.
No one who knows anything about government could believe this. Government has many flaws but an inability or reluctance to draw up plans is not among them. Yet the "no plan" refrain is repeated endlessly. I've been on television with otherwise intelligent leftists (Christy Hardin Smith, in particular) who have put forth this facially absurd notion as an article of faith. Responding, other than through ridicule, has been difficult since I wasn't privy to the government's planning.
Doug Feith was not only privy to the planning, he did much of it. And in his new, invaluable, book War and Decision, Feith describes what the plan was, how it was developed, how the State Department fought against it, how President Bush approved it, and how L. Paul Bremer cast it aside. (In Feith's account, the vaunted "Future of Iraq" project was not a governance plan; it was just a series of ideas which, contrary to the conventional narrative, the so-called neocons thought were mostly fine).
In this post, I'll focus on the Defense Department's plan. In a follow-up post, I'll examine with more particularity the State Department's opposition to that plan. And I'll describe how Richard Armitage advocated a multi-year U.S. occupation even though he understood that it likely would result in instability and possibly terrorism against U.S. forces. Armitage was motivated by a determination to ensure that "externals" - Iraqi exiles and Kurds - would not assume leadership in Iraq. In the end, of course, we got both instability/terrorism and the "externals."
The Defense Department's plan might have avoided much of the instability and terrorism. It was predicated on the idea that the U.S. should not be viewed as an occupier because that perception would breed violence. Thus, it was vital to get the Iraqis involved and out-front promptly. The original concept, developed by Feith, was to follow the Afghanistan model. That meant installing a provisional government immediately and placing it largely in charge of governing the country.
However, Secretary Rumsfeld did not see the Afghanistan model as fully applicable. Afghanistan, he understood, was so bereft of resources and infrastructure that even a bad government could do only limited damage. Iraq, by contrast, was rich in oil and had a substantial military. Thus, a corrupt, incompetent, and/or vicious government could do major harm, for which the U.S. would be held responsible.
Rumsfeld therefore told Feith to modify the plan. Feith responded with the Iraqi Interim Authority (IIA), in essence a power-sharing plan under which Iraqis would be in charge of certain ministries, but not at first the key ones. As the government proved itself, additional ministries would be handed over to it.
The State Department opposed both a provisional government and the IIA concept. Its fear was that Iraqi exiles, and especially Ahmad Chalabi, would dominate in such an arrangement. The fear was rational in the sense that exiles, including Chalabi, might well dominate. What's less clear is why this prospect was so alarming as to become the touchstone for State's thinking. Feith speculates that this had to do with Chalabi's status as an anathema to Arab states, a status based on (a) his religion -- Shiite -- and (b) his association with the movement for Arab democracy. It is not unheard of for the State Department to accord substantial weight to the preferences of friendly, or nominally friendly, Arab governments.
Feith insists that the Defense Department had no particular interest in installing Chalabi or other "externals." It was not seriously pro- or anti-Chalabi. Feith says that while there are dozen State Department memos that talk about Chalabi in negative terms, he knows of no Defense Department memo that advocates on his behalf. In fact, Rumsfeld was unequivocally against tilting in Chalabi's favor. Consistent with that view, the IIA was to be a mixture of externals and internals. Elections would later decide which Iraqis ran the government.
To be sure, the Defense Department favored using the externals in advance of the invasion. It favored using them to obtain intelligence, which was in very short supply. Defense also wanted to hold a political conference among the exiles and the Kurds to develop the principles for a post-Saddam constitution. The purpose was not to favor Chalabi or anyone else; the purpose was to hit the ground running. Defense also wanted to train several thousands Iraqi troops. Here, again, the purpose was not sinister. The idea was to have Iraqis participate in their own liberation and to get a head start on developing a reliable security force. Armitage and others at the State Department fought vigorously against the political conference and the training. They were largely successful.
The Defense Department was successful, however, in getting President Bush to sign-off on their post-invasion plan. General Jay Garner, the head of the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, then set about to put it into effect (Garner states, by the way, that he never received any instruction or request to favor Chalabi; when Feith talked to him about potential leaders, he was neutral and objective).
But Garner's successor, L. Paul Bremer, decided to reverse course and implement the State Department's vision. That vision, and Bremer's decision, will be the topic of a follow-up post.
Courtesy of Power Line |
| Posted by Paul Mirengoff at 11:18 PM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| May 8, 2008 |
| Israel at 60 |
In what Middle East country do Arabs enjoy the greatest civil rights and political freedom? Algeria? Libya? Saudi Arabia? Egypt? Lebanon? Syria? The Palestinian Authority, either in its main branch or in Hamastan? Well, at least we're getting warm. The answer of course is Israel. It is a fact that captures much of the sickness of the unrelenting worldwide campaign against Israel. We have proclaimed ourselves proud friends of Israel since planting our site in the blogosphere and we salute the country today on its sixtieth anniversary.
Israel is a beacon of freedom and humanity in the world's toughest neighborhood. In every area of modern life the country boasts a genius that on a per capita basis must be unrivaled. Among the many articles and posts worthy of consideration regarding Israel's anniversary are those by Bret Stephens on "Israel's sixty-year test," Michael Oren on Israel as "America's best friend," Alan Dershowitz finding Israel "So deserving of praise," Andrew Bostom on "Israel at 60," and Steve Felder and Robert Sklaroff on "Israel at 60 -- give or take a few thousand years."
JOHN adds: As the site's resident Gentile, let me add that thirteen or so years ago, my wife and I spent two wonderful weeks in Israel, courtesy of a friend and client for whom I had the good fortune to win a hotly-contested case in the federal court here in Minneapolis. It was one of a handful of experiences that can, without hyperbole, be described as life-changing. Like most Americans, I'd always been pro-Israel, but spending some time there, and on the West Bank, strengthened immeasurably my appreciation of the Israelis' accomplishments and of the challenges they face.
We toured Jewish, Christian and Islamic holy sites; had a submachine gun pointed at us by a Palestinian guard on Temple Mount; boated on the Sea of Galilee; explored archaeological digs from one end of the country to the other; hung out in old Jerusalem; partied in Tel Aviv, one of the world's most cosmopolitan cities; and picked up off the ground mosaic tiles and pottery shards that dated from the eras of King David and Jesus.
So: Happy birthday, Israel! May there be many more.
PAUL adds: In addition to the birthday pieces Scott links to, David Hazony's somewhat sobering reflections are worth a look.
Courtesy of Power Line |
| Posted by Scott Johnson at 9:00 PM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| May 8, 2008 |
| Help me, Senator Obama, I've fallen and I can't get up |
We noted last month that a Hamas spokesman expressed a preference for Barack Obama over John McCain for president of the United States. Today Obama none too subtly asserted that John McCain had "lost his bearings" by noting this preference last month in a call with bloggers. McCain advisor Mark Salter comments:
First, let us be clear about the nature of Senator Obama's attack today: He used the words "losing his bearings" intentionally, a not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age as an issue. This is typical of the Obama style of campaigning.
We have all become familiar with Senator Obama's new brand of politics. First, you demand civility from your opponent, then you attack him, distort his record and send out surrogates to question his integrity. It is called hypocrisy, and it is the oldest kind of politics there is.
It is important to focus on what Senator Obama is attempting to do here: He is trying desperately to delegitimize the discussion of issues that raise legitimate questions about his judgment and preparedness to be President of the United States.
Through their actions and words, Senator Obama and his supporters have made clear that ANY criticism on ANY issue -- from his desire to raise taxes on millions of small investors to his radical plans to sit down face-to-face with Iranian President Ahmadinejad - constitute negative, personal attacks.
Senator Obama is hopeful that the media will continue to form a protective barrier around him, declaring serious limits to the questions, discussion and debate in this race.
Senator Obama has good reason to think this plan will succeed, as serious journalists have written of the need for "de-tox" to cure "swooning" over Senator Obama, and others have admitted to losing their objectivity while with him on the campaign trail.
Today, Senator Obama is complaining about comments John McCain made about a senior Hamas advisor stating that Hamas would welcome Senator Obama's election as president. Indeed, on April 13th, senior Hamas political advisor Ahmed Yousef said, "We don't mind - actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance."
The McCain campaign has never suggested that Senator Obama supports Hamas' agenda, but it is more than fair to raise this quote about Senator Obama because it speaks to the policy implications of his judgment.
Just today, the president of Iran, whom Senator Obama wants to meet with unconditionally, called the state of Israel a "stinking corpse." Iran is the paymaster and state sponsor of Hamas.
In his victory speech this week, Senator Obama stated that "wisdom" is meeting with our enemies, including Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, North Korea's Kim Jong Il, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Cuba's Raul Castro. John McCain couldn't disagree more. Rather than giving tyrants and dictators the prestige of meeting with an American president, John McCain will instead meet with the champions of human freedom around the world and opposition leaders fighting for liberty .
We understand why Senator Obama doesn't want to engage in a debate over leadership and judgment with John McCain, but the American people demand that debate take place.
These are serious times that call for a serious debate on the profound issues facing our future. John McCain is ready for that debate and we hope Senator Obama will one day get serious and join it.
Salter's comment nails one of Obama's rhetorical weapons of choice to fend off criticism. I'm sure we'll have an occasion or two to return to Salter's analysis in the coming days.
Courtesy of Power Line |
| Posted by Scott Johnson at 8:37 PM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| May 8, 2008 |
| UNRWA: Refuge of Rejectionism |
The GLORIA Center in Israel has published an important new report by Barry Rubin, Asaf Romirowsky, and Jonathan Spyer: UNRWA: Refuge of Rejectionism. The executive summary observes:
On the surface, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) seems a humanitarian group helping Palestinian refugees. In reality, it actually helps destroy the chance of Arab-Israeli peace, promotes terrorism, and holds Palestainians back from rebuilding their lives.
Unique in history, UNRWA's job is to keep Palestinian refugees in suspended animation--and at low living standards--until they achieve the goal set for them by the PLO and Hamas: Israel's extinction. In the meantime, their suffering and anger is maintained as a weapon to encourage them toward violence and intransigence.
UNRWA schools become hotbeds of anti-Western, anti-American, and anti-Semitic indoctrination, recruiting offices for terrorist groups. UNRWA's services are dominated by radicals who staff and subsidize radical groups while potentially intimidating anyone from voicing a different line. UNWRA facilities are used to store and transport weapons, actually serving as military bases.
In this process, UNRWA has broken all the rules that are supposed to govern humanitarian enterprises. Consequently, UNRWA is the exact opposite of other refugee relief operations. They seek to resettle refugees; UNRWA is dedicated to blocking resettlement. They help refugees to live normal lives so that they can move on with their existence; UNRWA's role is to ensure their lives remain abnormal so they are filled with anger and a thirst for revenge that inspires violence and can only be quenched by a victorious return. They try to create stable conditions for refugees; UNRWA's mission is to enable radical political activity and indoctrination by armed groups which ensures a continual state of near chaos.
The time has come, especially given the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip, which also signals a Hamas takeover of the UNRWA facilities there, to reevaluate the role of UNRWA. If it is indeed very much a part of the problem--a barrier to resolving the refugees' status and returning them to normal lives; a barrier to resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict; and a source of violence--it should be dissolved and replaced by something better.
Even though Gaza has undeniably become a lawless terror state, the old machinery of the United Nations (and "the peace process") creaks along. The GLORIA report should serve to awaken fresh thoughts on a deteriorating situation.
Courtesy of Power Line |
| Posted by Scott Johnson at 6:46 AM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| May 8, 2008 |
| A depreciating asset |
The financial problems of the Minneapolis Star Tribune made the news over the weekend when the New York Post reported that the paper was on the verge of bankruptcy. Star Tribune publisher and chairman Chris Harte has denied that report, but acknowledged that management has retained the Blackstone Group to restructure its balance sheet.
Avista Partners purchased the Star Tribune for $530 million only two years ago. The purchase price represented a 50 percent markdown over the price paid for the paper by the McClatchy Co. eight years earlier. Since Avista purchased the paper in 2006, it has continued to shed readers and advertisers. Avista has now written down the value of its $100 million investment in the Star Tribune by 75 percent, and the debt that accounted for most of the remainder of the purchase price paid by Avista is valued like junk:
To finance its acquisition of the Star Tribune, Avista borrowed $340 million that was valued recently at 56 cents on the dollar, according to bid prices for "institutional leveraged loans." A subordinate loan of $96 million trades for 10 cents on the dollar.
The Star Tribune's sports page must be one section for which readers buy the paper. Today sports columnist Patrick Reusse reflects on his 20 years with the Star Tribune, his 40 years as a local sports columnist, and the Star Tribune's financial difficulties.
One reason that the Star Tribune continues to shed readers is its left-wing editorial bias. Since the memory of man runneth not to the contrary, the paper's editorial page has served as a reliable voice of the Democratic Party calling for more government and higher taxes in one of the most highly taxed states in the country. For years its two metro columnists (Doug Grow and Nick Coleman) served as counterparts to the paper's editorial voice. The moment the Star Tribune added (my friend) Katherine Kersten to its lineup in 2005, Coleman decried Kersten's hiring in a bizarre message to Jay Rosen.
Although Kersten has done some of the paper's best reporting over the past three years, she is treated like a foreign body that must be expelled from its host. Kersten's columns on the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy, for example, which I wrote about in posts collected here, have provided a window onto a local scandal hiding in plain sight. The second of her two columns on TIZA was featured for a full day on Drudge and must have generated more traffic to its site than the Star Tribune has seen before or since. Yet not a single one of the Star Tribune's reporters or editors has seen fit to follow up Kersten's story with a look at the rest of the Twin Cities Muslim-oriented charter schools. The subject is obviously too hot.
The Star Tribune has now posted a letter to the editor calling for Kersten's ouster from the paper on account of her two columns on TIZA:
In response to questions prompted by Katherine Kersen's recent columns on Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (TIZA), I decided to visit the school myself.
What I learned during a tour late last month is that none of Kersten's concerns that the charter school is promoting religion in violation of a state law that prohibits public schools from doing so is valid.
What I did see was excellent teachers hard at work in the classroom focused on improving student achievement. I saw engaged students of different religious and cultural backgrounds learning reading, math, government and science. I spoke with parents, teachers and administrators who all stressed their high standards for TIZA students.
While an outsider, or someone like Kersten who is trying to validate a predetermined conclusion, might be tempted to brand Tarek ibn Ziyad as an "Islamic School" because it leases space from the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, the school, like other charter schools in Minnesota that lease space from churches, is a separate entity. It does comply with federal law that requires all schools to accommodate a student's right to practice his or her religion. And unlike other charter schools that have faced financial and other administrative challenges, the school was recognized with a 2008 School Finance Award from the Minnesota Department of Education for its "sound fiscal health and financial management policies."
Kersten's reckless journalistic standards have diminished this paper's credibility. Worse, they have threatened the safety of the children and staff at the school, which has been forced to take extra security measures in the wake of recent death threats. While I value a broad range of opinions from a variety of perspectives, I value the facts even more. Kersten's gross distortion of the facts in this case should compel Star Tribune management to ask for her resignation.
REP. MINDY GREILING, DFL-ROSEVILLE; CHAIRWOMAN, HOUSE K-12 FINANCE DIVISION
The letter fails to cite a single fact disputing Kersten's columns. It is more or less notable only as an act of thuggery on the part of its author and the Star Tribune editor of the letters section. It is difficult to imagine the paper running a comparable letter taking issue with Coleman or his like on the paper's editorial board.
The Star Tribune provides a sad illustration of how a newspaper can become a corrosive force on the political and civic life of the community it serves. The financial difficulties of the Star Tribune prompt the thought that the Twin Cities and the state of Minnesota would be improved by the paper's demise.
Courtesy of Power Line |
| Posted by Scott Johnson at 5:36 AM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| May 7, 2008 |
| Celtics ape Wizards defense |
In this post, I described how the Washington Wizards figured out how to stop Lebron James, at least on one final, game-deciding play. Their approach consisted of a matador defense, culminating in the last man turning his back to James.
Yesterday, the Boston Celtics used the same defense against James at the end of their opening play-off game with Cleveland, and with the same result. The Cavs were down by two points with time running out when James drove to the basket. James Posey turned his back and made a little contact. James missed the shot. Game effectively over.
Overall, Boston had better luck with James than the Wizards ever have. He went only 2-18 yesterday. Even more amazing is that Cleveland was in a position to tie the game, at Boston, in the final seconds.
If James doesn't come roaring back, I'll be surprised.
Courtesy of Power Line |
| Posted by Paul Mirengoff at 10:05 PM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| May 7, 2008 |
| Vindicating law through warfare -- a bridge too far |
Phillip Bobbitt is the Herbert Wechsler Professor of Federal Jurisprudence and the Director of the Center for National Security at Columbia University. He has a long history of high-level government service.
Bobbitt is the author of Terror and Consent: The Wars for the Twenty-First Century, a provocative attempt to re-conceptualize the war on terror. Bobbitt argues that many of the widely-held assumptions about this war are dubious at best. Among them are:
The view that because terrorism will always be with us, there can be no victory in a war against terror;
The view that the root causes of terrorism lie in conditions of poverty, economic exploitation, neglect of health and education, and religious indoctrination that must be reversed before a war against terrorism can be won;
The view that terrorism will not flourish in democracies;
The view that confronting hostile states can only make the wars against terror harder to win because it diverts resources and wins fresh adherents for the terrorist enemy;
The view that good intelligence provides the decisive key to defeating terrorism.
This list suggests (1) that Bobbitt is a post-partisan iconoclast and (2) that his book covers a lot of territory. I want to focus on one major theme that a group of us discussed with Bobbitt last night at a dinner held by the Hoover Institution. That theme can be summed up in the dedication of Bobbitt's book:
For Lloyd Cutler and Sir Michael Howard. Law and strategy; American and Briton: strongest and wisest when in concert.
At one level, it's difficult to argue against the notion that, in fighting terrorism, law and strategy should be in concert. It's also difficult to deny that the Bush administration should have paid more attention to a wider range of voices (particularly voices within the administration) with respect to legal issues relating to the war on terrorism. Similarly, it may well have been a mistake for Bush not to have worked with Congress early on to bring FISA into better harmony with modern strategic needs.
Bobbitt, though, goes further. He favors taking the rule of law to the battlefield. For example, he finds it "salutary" that lawyers are embedded in combat units and may even possess veto power over targeting and other decisions made by commanders in the heat of battle.
Bobbitt quickly acknowledges that nothing like this sort of "concert" of law and strategy existed during the wars of the twentieth century, and that by-and-large that worked out well for us. But he insists that we are in a different kind of war today, such that law and strategy now must be united as never before.
Few would dispute that we're in a different kind of war, but it's not clear to me why Bobbitt thinks this fact entails such a radical departure from past practice with respect to the role of law in the conflict (but then, I've only read a small portion of his book). Last night, Bobbitt based his thesis on our war aims (as he sees them). In essence, he argued that one of our very central war aims is vindication of the rule of law, and therefore our warfare should itself vindicate the rule of law.
But our desire to maintain (or vindicate) the rule of law does not strike me as a distinctive feature of the war on terror. We've fought to preserve our freedom before, and it's far from clear that Islamic and other terrorists pose a greater direct threat to the rule of law than did our enemies in World War II, for example. The distinctive feature of this war, I would have said, is the threat terrorists pose to the physical safety of our civilian population. Under these circumstances, the case for abandoning prior models regarding the role of law may be less compelling than Bobbitt supposes.
In any case, the challenge of successfully marrying strategy and law in the way Bobbitt contemplates seems nearly insurmountable. Right now, I would argue, the marriage is quite one-sided. The Supreme Court is dictating how we treat detainees and lawyers apparently are vetoing combat decisions. That's one side of the marriage. But what is the legal community doing to understand strategy? And what change to the legal culture and mindset is taking place that will overcome the aversion to risk that caused lawyers to veto efforts to kill bin Laden during the 1990s? Bobbitt seemed reluctant even to address these sorts of questions last night.
I don't mean to suggest that from now on, "law" will always have the upper-hand over "strategy." A few successful terrorist attacks could put strategy back in the saddle (but that might not be much of a marriage either). Stated differently, a few such attacks would probably make the law look significantly different than it does now. And that may be another argument against the marriage - law changes its mind too often.
The rule of law is a more constant notion. We vindicate it by adhering to binding court decisions, allowing both Congress and the president to play their proper constitutional role, and so forth. I doubt that we vindicate it in any fundamental way by partnering lawyers with battlefield leaders during combat. And, if we do, I question whether vindication to that degree should be a war aim in this conflict.
Courtesy of Power Line |
| Posted by Paul Mirengoff at 9:08 PM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| May 7, 2008 |
| Obama's improbable history |
Senator Obama's victory speech last night turned impressively to the general election campaign. He all but clinched the Democratic nomination last night. His speech sounded very much like a nomination acceptance speech. I expect that the themes he sounded in his speech last night will reappear in his speech this summer in Denver.
Tom Maguire caught this passage:
I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.
Maguire comments:
Obama's supporters are too young to know any of this, but Roosevelt led the United States in the war against Hitler; the Allied policy was unconditional surrender, so there was very little for Roosevelt and Hitler to discuss, and in fact, the two did not meet at all (but they did exchange correspondence before the war).
So my guess is that Obama is thinking of the Yalta Conference with Churchill and Stalin as talking to "our enemies," although of course we were still allied with the Soviet Union against Germany and Japan at that point. Beyond that, is the Yalta Conference something Obama and his advisers view as a success worthy of emulation? Puzzling.
And the United States has been talking with Iran right along in any event. It's not for lack of communication that Iran has been conducting its war on the United States.
When Obama invoked past Democratic presidents in his speech last night, he started with Roosevelt but omitted Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. Moving on from the Clinton era is part of the thesis of Obama's candidacy, so the omission is understandable. Of past Democratic presidents, none has set a better example of the pitfalls of "talking to our enemies" than Jimmy Carter, both in his presidency and his travels since (though Carter probably would not acknowledge that his interlocutors are our enemies).
Obama may not be smart enough to know he may not want to profess a desire to emulate Roosevelt at Yalta. He may believe that Roosevelt's name sanctions whatever action he can attach to it. But Obama is smart enough to know that he doesn't want to profess a desire to emulate Jimmy Carter, if only on political grounds. In substance, however, it seems to me that the president Obama most closely resembles on this point is Carter.
Courtesy of Power Line |
| Posted by Scott Johnson at 7:44 AM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| May 7, 2008 |
| "The biggest fairy tale ever" is about to come true |
Hillary Clinton held on to win the Indiana primary by a bit more than 20,000 votes, and two percentage points. Losing a neighboring state isn't usually a path to nomination, but in these circumstances it may well be enough effectively to end the hopes of his rival.
WIth Obama's nomination looking almost certain now, it's probably time to recognize Dafydd ab Hugh, who has been predicting forever that Hillary Clinton would not be the nominee. And John Hinderaker's instinct that Clinton would not be the next president appears to have been validated.
Having been wrong about most of the important stuff this primary season, it is probably foolish for me begin speculating about November. But the urge is irresistible.
I consider Obama the favorite. One can usually predict the outcome of the general election, and come pretty close on the margin, by considering just a few variables: how the economy is doing, whether we're at war and how popular the war is, which party holds the White House and how long it has held it, and how popular the president is.
This year, these "fundamentals" point to a Democratic victory of at least 10 percentage points.
Weighing against this outcome is, first, the fact that McCain is a better than average nominee in terms of electability. For one thing, he does not have a close association with the unpopular president. In addition, his appeal to independent and centrist voters is well known. Second, Obama may well prove a worse than average nominee. He lacks anything like the experience voters look for in a president, and he's an extremist as presidential nominees go, a perception that now is reinforced by some of his unusual associations.
At this stage, though, it seems more likely than not that these factors won't overcome the fundamentals.
What about all those Clinton voters who say they will vote for McCain? The short answer is, if they're Democrats I don't believe very many of them. Look for the party and its rank-and-file to rally around Obama.
The fact that many Dems will even say they'll vote for Obama is evidence that Obama has a problem with swing voters. But McCain will too. His problem will be that, though these voters like him as a man, they are skeptical at best about key policies he favors.
So I think McCain faces an uphill fight. Yet it's nothing like the fight he seemed to face last summer just to get the nomination. Besides, my very conventional mode of analysis may again prove worthless in this so-far highly unconventional year. .
Courtesy of Power Line |
| Posted by Paul Mirengoff at 5:42 AM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| May 6, 2008 |
| Obama limps towards the finish line |
Barack Obama appears to have won a decisive victory in North Carolina. Moreover, it looks like Hillary Clinton's win in Indiana probably won't match her recent big wins in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
In ordinary circumstances, Obama wouldn't have much to cheer about. Indeed, losing a state bordering on his home turf by any margin would be deemed a setback, particularly coming on the heels of several big defeats in key states.
But given the present state of play, tonight's results will suit Obama just fine. Not only can he legitimately claim to have "stopped the bleeding," but his lead among non-superdelegates seems insurmountable. Simply put, Clinton's recent string of good results, as impressive as it is, seems to fall short of what is needed to convince superdelegates to reverse the overall result of the primaries and caucuses.
What happens next? I assume that Clinton will come under great pressure to drop out. My guess is that she will resist that pressure until even deeper into the primary season, and probably until the end of it. Her hope must be that Obama will encounter a new set of serious problems. The current set, though it revived her campaign, has not been enough to put it over the top.
UPDATE: Although Hillary gave a victory speech in Indiana, and Obama is said to have conceded (I didn't see it), Fox News has not called the race. Moreover, Clinton's lead is down to 20,000 votes with 90 percent counted. Most of the uncounted votes are from Lake County which leans towards Obama.
Even assuming that Clinton holds on to her lead, the victory will be very narrow. So we may see a substantial movement towards Obama among superdelegates. Should Obama actually overtake Clinton, it could become a stampede. Thus, Clinton's days in the race may be numbered.
Courtesy of Power Line |
| Posted by Paul Mirengoff at 9:08 PM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| May 6, 2008 |
| McCain Nails It |
Senator McCain delivered an address on judicial philosophy at Wake Forest University today. It's very strong, very sound speech. You can read it here.
My favorite part is where McCain differentiates himself from his two Democratic rivals, and especially Barack Obama:
Senators Obama and Clinton have very different ideas from my own. They are both lawyers themselves, and don't seem to mind at all when fundamental questions of social policy are preemptively decided by judges instead of by the people and their elected representatives. Nor have they raised objections to the unfair treatment of judicial nominees.
For both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, it turned out that not even John Roberts was quite good enough for them. Senator Obama in particular likes to talk up his background as a lecturer on law, and also as someone who can work across the aisle to get things done. But when Judge Roberts was nominated, it seemed to bring out more the lecturer in Senator Obama than it did the guy who can get things done. He went right along with the partisan crowd, and was among the 22 senators to vote against this highly qualified nominee. And just where did John Roberts fall short, by the Senator's measure? Well, a justice of the court, as Senator Obama explained it -- and I quote -- should share "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy."
These vague words attempt to justify judicial activism -- come to think of it, they sound like an activist judge wrote them. And whatever they mean exactly, somehow Senator Obama's standards proved too lofty a standard for a nominee who was brilliant, fair-minded, and learned in the law, a nominee of clear rectitude who had proved more than the equal of any lawyer on the Judiciary Committee, and who today is respected by all as the Chief Justice of the United States. Somehow, by Senator Obama's standard, even Judge Roberts didn't measure up. And neither did Justice Samuel Alito. Apparently, nobody quite fits the bill except for an elite group of activist judges, lawyers, and law professors who think they know wisdom when they see it -- and they see it only in each other.
Exactly.
Should McCain's speech satisfy conservatives? Not in and of itself; actions speak louder than words. However, McCain's actions over the years have mostly been consistent with these words. For example, he was a solid supporter of Roberts, Alito, and nearly all of the court of appeals nominees that Democrats attempted to block. His decision to join the Gang of 14 seems to have been a tactical one -- he thought it would maximize success in confirming worthy nominees. One can disagree with that judgment, as I do, without seeing it as inconsistent with a sound judicial philosophy.
UPDATE: Earlier today, I explored some of the reservations conservatives have about McCain on these matters with Ted Olson, former Solicitor General of the United States and a top adviser to the campaign on legal affairs. Like me, Olson thought that the Gang of 14 deal was a mistake at the time and, on balance, he's still of that view. But Olson too sees this as a tactical issue. He also beleives that McCain's willingness to work with Democrats on this issue may prove helpful in dealing with some of the Democrats who might be inclined to block McCain's judicial nominees, should he be elected.
I also asked about the credible reports that, when speaking to a small group of conservative lawyers early in the campaign, McCain differentiated between Roberts and Alito and indicated that he was less than excited about having the latter on the Supreme Court. Olson said he was not at the meeting and didn't know what McCain said. He emphasized, however, that in his own talks with the Senator, McCain spoke highly of Alito and showed a clear understanding of the importance of nominating judges with a similar approach. Olson expressed complete confidence that McCain meant what he said on this score.
Finally, I raised the matter of McCain's opposition to the confirmation of Jim Haynes to the Fourth Circuit. Olson agreed with me that Haynes should have been confirmed and shared my disappointment that he wasn't. Olson attributed McCain's opposition to his reliance on Lindsey Graham. He added that McCain has assured him that, in selecting nominees, he will consult primarily with Olson, Sam Brownback, and Jon Kyl.
For my part, I don't expect that McCain will be perfect on these issues; indeed, even Reagan at times came up short. But I certainly agree that McCain understands most of the basics and that, in all likelihood, his approach to the judiciary will generally be sound.
Courtesy of Power Line |
| Posted by Paul Mirengoff at 3:56 PM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| May 6, 2008 |
| An insult to our intelligence |
The decision by Dartmouth's board of trustees to terminate the right of Dartmouth alumni to elect half of the board insults the intelligence of the men and women of Dartmouth. For it implies that Dartmouth alums are not capable of electing trustees of the same caliber that a small, self-appointed elite group can select. Indeed, the leader of that small group, Ed Haldeman, made this insult explicit when he declared that "elections can't guarantee" that trustees will have "the specific talents and experiences" Haldeman thinks the board needs. That, of course, is the traditional "we know best" lament of anti-democracy advocates everywhere.
Haldeman's dim view of the discernment of Dartmouth grads seems to be shared by John Mathias, leader of the slate of candidates for leadership of the Association of Alumni that promises to capitulate to Haldeman and his inner circle. Thus, in his guest column in the Dartmouth student daily newspaper, Mathias relies on a series of evasions and red herrings that suggests near-contempt for student and alumni intelligence. This is consistent with his slate's advertisement in the alumni magazine, which brands his ticket "positive." It's almost as if Mathias thinks he's running for third grade class president.
The issue that this election may well ultimately decide is whether Dartmouth's alumni will continue to elect half of the college's trustees. Yet Mathias does not address the merits of this issue at all. He expresses no view on whether alumni should retain this right or whether it was lawful for the trustees unilaterally to terminate it. It's as if a candidate for president was committed to ending the war in Iraq, and only that action, but refused to debate the merits of the war. Apparently, Mathias thinks few will notice his evasion.
Mathias focuses instead on the lawsuit that thus far has prevented the college's board-packing scheme. He says lawsuits are divisive and expensive. But as a lawyer, Mathias surely understands that the decision to sue cannot be divorced entirely from the underlying issue of the suit and the suit's merits.
In addition, Mathias' analysis of the consequences of the suit is breathtakingly superficial. He pretends that his slate's defeat would entail endless litigation. More likely, it will lead to a compromise. The trustees insist that there is an urgent need to expand the board. Thousands of alumni (and probably a majority, given Mathias' efforts to focus attention elsewhere) favor electing half of the board's members. The obvious resolution is to expand the board and keep parity. But this compromise is only possible as long as the board cannot both expand its numbers and end parity. If Mathias' slate is elected, the board will be entirely free to do both, and thus will have no incentive to compromise.
Such a compromise, moreover, is the only hope for healing the divisions Mathias says distress him and threaten the college's future. If the board-packing plan is rammed through, thousands of alumni will resent what they believe is their effective disenfranchisement. The resulting alienation likely will last for at least a generation.
Mathias tries to gloss this over with empty promises to address these matters through "constructive dialogue." But, again, if the suit is dismissed, the trustees will have no incentive to listen. Nor have they ever indicated a willingness to do. Read the board's announcement of its decision to end parity and ask yourself whether it leaves any room for compromise. Mathias' assertion that "the trustees welcome. . .dialogue" on this issue is as unsupported as it is vacuous.
Bereft of any substantial arguments to support capitulation, Mathias resorts to conspiracy theories. After taking the obligatory shot at the Dartmouth Review (which is hard to reconcile with his claim to be a figure of "unity"), he asserts that "outside interests" are "financing" the lawsuit. This is misleading because the suit is being financed by Dartmouth alums, either directly or via the Hanover Institute, a group consisting of Dartmouth alums. The Hanover Institute also accepts contributions from non-alums, but Mathias fails to explain why this is problematic. If the suit is important and meritorious, it would make no sense to turn down such contributions unless Mathias thinks the money is coming from terrorists or drug lords.
Mathias asserts that Dartmouth alums have a right to know the identities and motives of people who are contributing to the lawsuit. In his mind that "right" seems to trump the contractual right to elect half of the trustees. The motives of contributors can readily be inferred: agreement with the suit and/or the view that electing independent petition candidates under other than meaningless conditions can be a good thing. Mathias seems concerned that some contributors may also disagree, as many alums do, with some of Dartmouth's policies and trends. But this election is about whether alums (not "outsiders") will have a role in making decisions about Dartmouth; it is not about what those decisions will be.
Is Mathias concerned that "outsiders" will dominate elections in which only Dartmouth alums can vote? If so, this constitutes a further insult to the intelligence of the men and women of Dartmouth.
Courtesy of Power Line |
| Posted by Paul Mirengoff at 10:47 AM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| May 6, 2008 |
| Michelle Obama's gospel of bitterness |
This past Friday Michelle Obama gave essentially the same stump speech in Charlotte, North Carolina that she had given the week earlier in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Based on the stump speech, Yuval Levin calls Mrs. Obama "The unhappiest millionaire." Levin's NRO column carries a link to the C-SPAN video of Mrs. Obama's North Carolina speech. It is well worth watching.
Levin characterizes the pervasive themes of Mrs. Obama's stump speech as the "gospel of bitterness." Levin finds Barack Obama to be preaching a similar gospel, albeit one that benefits from "a peppier and more upbeat stump speech[.]" Senator Obama's enormous political skills make it much more difficult to discern the somewhat repulsive views and attitudes that are nakedly on display in Mrs. Obama's stump speech.
Michelle Obama seethes with bitterness. While she preaches the gospel according to Barack, she wears resentment and bitterness on her sleeve. It is therefore painful to listen to her. She's apparently even still angry about her SAT scores. She didn't test well in school, she explains. Somehow, she has overcome.
Mrs. Obama seeks to convey convey the impression -- she expands on the theme at great length -- that Senator Obama's campaign is, to borrow Joe McCarthy's formulation, the victim of "a conspiracy so immense..." It is not clear whether the Obama campaign can overcome the power of these sinister forces.
According to Mrs. Obama, the Obama campaign has been constrained by nameless forces constantly changing the rules of the game and thereby preventing Senator Obama from securing the nomination. Who are "they"? Mrs. Obama says just enough about these nameless forces for us to infer that "they" include the Clintons and their supporters. "They" seem also (incredibly) to include the mainstream media. These nameless forces ha | | | |
