It ain't over 'till the fat lady sings
By Mark Alexander · Friday, May 23, 2003
Lest anybody believe the war with Jihadistan would be easily wrapped up after successes in the battles of Afghanistan and Iraq, al-Qa'ida served several notices their Jihadi murderers are still in business. Note that "still." Despite Leftmedia queries over whether the terror group is "back in business," our Jihadi enemies have never quit but instead have been regrouping their forces -- particularly in Iran, Syria and East Africa -- and reconstituting their resources for further attacks.
The coordinated bombings early last week in Saudi Arabia and in Chechnya, were followed by bombings in Morocco and rapidly escalated homicide bombings in Israel. So much for roadblocks stopping Israel and the Palestinians from following that "road map" that purportedly points toward peace. "We're still on the road to peace. It's just going to be a bumpy road," affirmed President George W. Bush. We'll see!
Early suspicions that the Saudi attacks were the handiwork of al-Qa'ida have been confirmed. The U.S., Britain, and other Western nations responded by temporarily closing embassies and other consular offices in Saudi Arabia.
As if that were not wake-up call enough, al-Qa'ida Jihadis served up Web site warnings that new attacks are imminent, and a tape surfaced reportedly from Osama bin Laden's number two, Ayman al-Zawahri. (Preliminary analyis indicated the voice was consistent with al-Zawahri's, and he most likely is the speaker.)
Citing the "19 brothers who attacked America in Washington and New York with their planes" as an example, the speaker threatened, "The coming days will bring you heartening news, God willing." And this is a threat counterterrorism analysts advise should be taken very seriously. The last time al-Zawahri popped up in a tape, the bombings in Bali followed soon after.
This latest tape broadens the scope of Jihadi targets, including "Muslim rulers," for allying with the U.S. in freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein's murderous regime. Singled out by specific mention are leaders in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Yemen and Jordan. As for the Iraqis, the Jihadi call is for them to rise up in concert with the fedayeen in their midst, and the taped message concludes by urging Muslims worldwide to attack "the embassies of America, England, Australia and Norway, their interests, their companies and their employees." Norway?
There were additional warnings about domestic threats from the Department of Homeland Security, making clear that the war with Jihadistan remains hot. "The U.S. intelligence community believes that al-Qa'ida has entered an operational period worldwide, and this may include attacks in the United States," warned Secretary of HomSec Tom Ridge. "Weapons of mass destruction, including those containing chemical, biological or radiological agents or materials, cannot be discounted."
Though Iraq is no longer a primary source for weapons of mass destruction to asymmetric Jihadi proxies, the whereabouts of Iraq's biological and nuclear WMD remains a serious concern. As The Federalist noted last November, our intelligence sources indicate that Iraq's biological weapons -- particularly large quantities of weaponized anthrax and possibly two crude nuclear devices -- were moved out of Iraq through Syria in late October, while the French were busy obstructing U.S. efforts to get the UN Security Council on board for an allied campaign against Iraq.
According to our analysts, while al-Qa'ida cells around the world have been dealt a severe blow in the last year of preemptive covert and overt operations, their Jihadi terrorist cells in at least six U.S. urban centers on the East Coast -- cells materially supported by domestic Islamic groups -- remain largely intact. The next tier of attacks, when -- NOT "IF" -- they occur, will likely be against multiple urban targets in a narrow time frame for maximum effect, with the objective of substantially disrupting continuity of government and commerce over wide geographic sections of the nation.
In other news...
Conditions in Iraq continued improving under the stabilization phase of reconstruction. The UN Security Council finally approved, 14-0, removal of the 13-year-old sanctions on Iraq and lifted restrictions on the sale of Iraqi oil. The resolution also provides for the phasing out of the UN's corrupt oil-for-food program over the next six months.
For its part, the UN's post-war role is confined to "review the implementation of this resolution within 12 months of adoption and to consider further steps that might be necessary," a prerogative supposedly offered as a concession to the UNSC's pre-war naysayers. These developments reinforce The Federalist's position that "Old Europe" is backed into a geopolitical corner, with the UNSC as its last hold on international relevance.
Philip Carroll, the senior U.S. advisor to the Iraqi oil ministry, has publicly speculated that the country's interest may be best served if Iraq withdraws from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). "I make no presumptions about what the Iraqi government's policy will be toward OPEC, but if you assume that they remain as a member of OPEC, they will have to work with their fellow members to accommodate the volume they need to produce," Mr. Carroll said earlier this week. In short, says Carroll, these constraints on its oil exports could frustrate rebuilding efforts in a country hit hard by more than a decade of economic sanctions.
Carroll adds that input from the UN, World Bank and other international organizations (and, we presume, France), is largely unnecessary and their participation will be limited.
A founding member of OPEC, Iraq holds the world's second-largest known oil reserves, meaning that its departure from OPEC could break the cartel's grip on world oil prices. At the same time, the dilapidated state of Iraq's oil infrastructure means that only after years will the country return to full output.
Formation of an Iraqi interim authority, leading to federal republican self-government, is now set for July.
Quote of the week...
"We find our greatest security in the advance of human freedom. ... Freedom around the world will bring peace, and that's why America stands so strong for free people everywhere across this globe." --President George W. Bush
Open query...
"Is the War on Terrorism World War IV? That's the name given to this conflict by scholar Eliot A. Cohen and former Director of Central Intelligence James Woolsey. What they intend to suggest is that this war is as much of an existential threat as were the first and second world wars and the Cold War. Osama bin Laden would agree. ...When will the War on Terror be won? No one knows. The first step toward getting the job done is simply to accept that we are at war -- not everyone does accept that, even now. The second step is to understand who we are fighting and what it will require to defeat them. The third step is to do what is required." --Clifford D. May
News from the Swamp...
President Bush formally announced his bid for reelection, registering with the Federal Election Commission with Vice President Dick Cheney as his running mate. "The American people will decide whether or not I deserve a second term," the President said of his campaign for four more years. "In the meantime, I am focusing my attention today on ... helping people find work. And that's where I'm going to be for a while." (The Federalist reminds the President that the only way for government to "help people find work," "create jobs," etc., is to cut taxes, reduce spending and deregulate the private sector... just a reminder.)
In the House, Republican lawmakers agreed to the basics of the Senate's 10-year, $350-billion tax cut, down from the chamber's own $550-billion proposal and not remotely resembling the President's own meager $726-billion package. Last week, the Senate passed a version of the cut amounting to a gross $420-billion in tax cuts, though this includes an added $90-billion in tax increases, resulting in the $350-billion figure. House Speaker Denny Hastert noted, "The Democrats don't want to cut taxes. They want to spend.... [T]heir plans...move us in the direction of the big European economies, which are hamstrung by their huge social-welfare programs." President Bush traveled over to Capitol Hill Thursday to thank the House and Senate for passing at least a modicum of his proposed tax relief; he expects to sign the final bill when it lands on his desk, perhaps today.
The House Members on Wednesday were near unanimity (425-1) in approving the Child Medication Safety Act, which bars schools from coercing parents into medicating their children. Of note is a recent Academy of Pediatrics report indicating that of the children now being treated for Attention Deficit Disorder, many of them at the behest of government schools, only one in seven actually suffers from ADD. Many of them suffer from a chronic lack of parenting and discipline.
In Senate news, The Federalist has ruffled a few Leftist feathers with our latest PatriotPetition.US campaign encouraging Congress to reject legislation renewing the 1994 Clinton-Feinstein-Schumer Gun-Control Act. Even some of our readers, who identify themselves as "conservative" but think the central government should restrict the Second Amendment for their safety, are rejecting our challenge to this incremental encroachment on the right of all law-abiding citizens to own semi-automatic rifles for lawful purposes.
For the sake of argument, let's simplify this debate by setting aside the constitutional issue for the moment and asking this question: "How has the 1994 Clinton-Feinstein-Schumer Gun-Control Act made anyone safer?" Criminals in the U.S. (and every country in the world) have access to all manner of small arms, and they don't care if the weapons they're using comport with Feinstein-Schumer or any of the other 23,000 federal, state and local gun restrictions.
Contrary to the notion that such laws increase safety, a substantial body of evidence supports the conclusion that gun restrictions on law-abiding citizens have precisely the opposite effect of their stated intent (the law of unintended consequences). For example, states and cities with the most restrictive gun controls on law-abiding citizens tend to have the highest rates of violent crime, while those with the least restrictive gun control tend to have lower rates of violent crime.
The evidence is similar internationally. In Switzerland, by law, virtually every household must contain at least one fully automatic military "assault weapon," yet Switzerland's gun homicide rate is one of the lowest in the world -- far lower than in the UK, which has the strictest gun-control laws in Europe -- and the highest rates of crime.
Consider the gun-control issue in this context: Alcohol-related auto wrecks injure and kill far more Americans every year than criminals with guns. Yet Feinstein-Schumer and their Leftist cadre of Chardonnay-tippers are not suggesting a five-day waiting period to buy beer, or demanding six-ounce containers instead of 12-ouncers -- because anyone with a modest degree of common sense knows beer-control would make no difference. (Of note, alcohol and/or drugs are a factor in the vast majority of violent crimes.)
Or consider the incremental encroachment on the Second Amendment in this context: What if Feinstein-Schumer endeavored to encroach on First Amendment rights -- and declared that the indictment of their Socialist vision by e-journals like The Federalist constituted "hate speech" and was, thus, illegal. How would one propose to defend the First Amendment -- or any other -- if they had allowed the emasculation of the Second?
As noted by Justice Joseph Story, appointed to the Supreme Court by the author of our Constitution, James Madison: "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
As for those who would argue that the NRA, and other Second Amendment advocacy groups, are overreacting by suggesting the Left's ultimate objective is gun confiscation, one need only to re-read Ms. Feinstein's declaration after passage of her 1994 legislation: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate...for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it!"
The Federalist believes President Bush missed a brilliant opportunity to take a stand for the one constitutional right that ensures all the rest. It was a colossal blunder by his Beltway handlers to gamble that this legislation will not pass the House, rather than make a principled stand! Feinstein and Schumer will attempt to engineer a roll-call vote on this issue in the upcoming election year.
Feinstein-Schumer is an affront to the constitutional right of all law-abiding citizens to own semi-automatic rifles for lawful purposes. Please join fellow American Patriots on the front lines in defense of our constitutional liberties calling on Congress to reject renewal of the 1994 Clinton-Feinstein-Schumer Gun-Control Act. Link to -- http://patriotpost.us/petition/no-gun-ban/
For your friends and associates who still don't get it, we are printing some colorful stickers for their front door stating, "This is a gun-free household!"