Today, in an audio tape played by Al Jezeera, a man claiming to be [url=http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD69504]Osama bin Laden offered peace to all of Europe[/url]. Here is an excerpt from the tape:

“Therefore, in order to thwart opportunities for the merchants of war, and in response to the positive developments that were expressed in recent events and in the public opinion polls, which determined that most European peoples want peace, I urge … the establishment of a permanent commission to nurture awareness among Europeans regarding the justness of our causes, particularly the cause of Palestine, and that use be made of the vast media resources to this end.

“I hereby offer them a peace treaty, the essence of which is our commitment to halt actions against any country that commits itself to refraining from attacking Muslims or intervening in their affairs, including the American conspiracy against the larger Islamic world.

Was Osama feeling especially kind today? Perhaps he woke up and thought, “its such a beautiful day, I think I’ll make peace with Europe!”

Or maybe he is sensing that the end is near for him, and is looking for a way to take some of the heat off. Maybe bin Laden is getting a bit desperate.

Think about bin Laden as a modern Hitler, with his hateful philosophy encompassing, not just the Jews, but all of Western civilization. Just like in the late 1930s and early 1940s, Americans were reluctant to engage in a full-scale war with a foreign enemy; until we were struck directly by that enemy.

Like Hitler, bin Laden has managed to surround himself with enemies. His old haunting grounds, Afghanistan, is now free again, his Taliban allies running for their lives, and his once friendly neigbhor, Pakistan, has 60,000 troops in the field, all intent on finding him and everyone who follows him.

Osama’s home nation, Saudi Arabia, is no better. Once passive in its stance to al Qaeda, it is now firmly committed to his destruction. Iraq has fallen, Sadr’s militia all but crushed, Iran under international pressure to prove that it is not trying to produce nuclear weapons, and Libya has opened its borders to the UN and is actively dismantling its WMD programs.

Is there any GOOD news for bin Laden? Only the vague hope that President Bush might be unseated in November and that his replacement, John Kerry, might not be as strong a leader in the war on terror.

But then, bin Laden remembers that America has waged wars both long and short, overt and covert. America outlived the mighty USSR. He remembers that because it was the Americans who helped the Afghanis to resist the Soviets in the 80s. Though the American people wavered in their stance towards Soviet aggression, the American government remained, with a few exceptions, steadfast in its opposition to Soviet expansionism.

One wonders if perhaps bin Laden thinks back to his decision to launch the 9/11 attacks and considers it a mistake. America is determined to find him, and even he knows that it is a matter of when, not if. We’ll find him sooner or later, dead or alive, under Bush or under another President. What is most scary is the fact that we almost had him once. We chase him tirelessly, which means that, eventually, he’s going to make a mistake. And then we’ll have him.

Now, because of Spain, all of Europe seems to have woken up to the reality of mass terror. Bin Laden is barely keeping his head above water as it is; if Europe enters the fray, it’s as good as over.

Which is perhaps why we suddenly see a generous offer of peace to the Europeans. How nice of bin Laden to make the offer, right?

Yeah, right.

Interested in some “waterfront” property? I know a guy.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

On Tuesday, April 13, President Bush gave the media a generous amount of time during his nationally televised press conference. Pointing out the need to finish the work we started in Iraq, he highlighted the fact that many critics of the war have chosen to disparage our heroes serving in the military. Whether Democrats know it or not, whether they care or not, they consistently give comfort to the enemy as this quote from [url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004948]Opinionjournal.com[/url] indicates:

Not everyone is persuaded of Kerry’s resolve. A United Press International dispatch from Baghdad quotes Ahmed, a pseudonymous member of the Army of Mohammad, a Fallujah-based Sunni group:

“God willing Bush will fall down by the hands of Fallujah,” he says, combining military and political rhetoric. “If John Kerry wins the election and withdraws the Americans troops from Iraq, and maybe just leaves a few in bases, then we will not fight. But Bush we will always fight.”

Iraq has become THE frontline for the war on terror and, just as President Bush has said, a victory in Iraq will be a devastating defeat for terrorists, advancing the cause of freedom in that troubled area of the world and across the globe. We must win in Iraq and, even more important, the Iraq people must know that we are totally committed to the cause of a free and democratic Iraq. Ironic, then, that the party that calls themselves “Democrats” should be offering comfort to the enemies of a free Iraq..

So, if you are as eager to see an end to global terrorism as President Bush and Vice President Cheney, please consider supporting their campaign for reelection. Today is [url=http://blogsforbush.com/wictory.html]Wictory Wednesday[/url]. Every Wednesday, dozens of bloggers ask their readers to [url=http://www.georgewbush.com/SignUp]volunteer[/url] and/or [url=http://www.georgewbush.com/grassroots/]donate[/url] to the Bush 2004 campaign.

Please help us make a difference for the nation and the world. Support Bush/Cheney 2004!

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

The White House, having chosen to call Ben-Veniste’s bluff has today published the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing. [url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,116766,00.html]Here is the full text[/url]:

Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the U.S. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and “bring the fighting to America.”

After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a [deleted text] service.

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told [deleted text] service at the same time that Bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative’s access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike.

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of Bin Laden’s first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the U.S. Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that Bin Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own U.S. attack.

Ressam says Bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation.

Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Laden associates surveilled our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

AI Qaeda members — including same who are U.S. citizens — have resided in and traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.

Two Al Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [deleted text] service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of “Blind Shaykh” ‘Umar’ Abd aI-Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers Bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or Bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.

On April 1st, I posted an article entitled, “[url=http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/04/01/002948.php]Be Careful What You Wish For[/url],” where I made these assertions:

• Partisans who have been hoping to hurt President Bush with 9/11 Commission wrangling just made a HUGE mistake.
• Forcing Rice to testify in public gives the initiative back to President Bush.
• Despite what Democrats might think, Dr. Rice is capable of handling teh worst that partisans on the commission can throw at her.
• The size of the audience tuning in to hear Dr. Rice’s testimony will be larger than the audience who heard Richard Clarke’s testimony.
• Americans who hear her testimony will “be impressed.”
• President Bush’s poll numbers will likely rise after Dr. Rice testifies.

So, Dr. Rice has testified and we’ve had a couple of days to see what the polls would say, lets take a look:

[url=http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Rice%20Testimony.htm]RasmussenReports.com[/url] posted the following results on Thursday, April 8:

• In the wake of Condoleezza Rice’s testimony before a national television audience, 50% of American voters have a favorable view of the nation’s National Security Advisor. Just 24% have an unfavorable view, while 26% are not sure or do not know who she is.
• Following the Rice testimony, [url=http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm]President Bush recorded his best single night of polling in over a week.[/url]
• Seventy-one percent (71%) of Americans said they followed news stories of the Rice testimony somewhat or very closely.
• Among those who were following the story closely, Rice was viewed favorably by 56% and unfavorably by 28%.
• Clarke is viewed favorably by just 27% of voters and unfavorably by 42%.
• [url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115208,00.html]Fox News[/url], [url=http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040409/ap_on_el_pr/president_ap_poll&cid=694&ncid=716]AP [/url]and [url=http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=815]Zogby[/url] polls all show a statistical dead-heat, with President Bush up by one percentage point in each poll

Ironically, on one of the Fox News shows this morning some of the talking heads were expressing the need to get rid of Dr. Rice because she had become such a “political liability.” Maybe they are the ones who need to go find a new job.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Here is an excerpt from the “Review & Outlook” section of [url=http://www.opinionjournal.com]Opinionjournal.com[/url], posted today:

Rice on the Record
Democrats on the 9/11 Commission inadvertently underscore Bush’s successes.
Friday, April 9, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

We predicted yesterday’s Condoleezza Rice show would be more about the 9/11 Commissioners themselves than anything the National Security Adviser had to say. But we confess we were unprepared for Bob Kerrey’s Vice Presidential audition.

We thought the former Senator had more class than to preface his remarks with a condescending allusion to the fact that Ms. Rice is a black woman. (”I’m very impressed . . . [by] the story of your life.”) Or to then complain that her attempts to answer his monologue were cutting into his time. In their zeal to show all the things that went undone before 9/11, Mr. Kerrey and other Democrats on the Commission inadvertently underscored all that President Bush has done since. Think of it as one long endorsement of pre-emption.

One genuinely interesting news nugget came in Ms. Rice’s opening statement. There she gave details of the Bush Administration’s first major national security directive, completed September 4, 2001. It covered “not Russia, not missile defense, not Iraq, but the elimination of al-Qaeda.” Obviously this didn’t prevent the events of a week later. But it does suggest, contra Richard Clarke, that the Administration was attentive to the terrorist threat.

Mr. Kerrey and his fellow partisans made much of an August 6, 2001, Presidential briefing titled “Bin Laden determined to attack inside United States.” But Ms. Rice properly observed that there is no obvious response to non-specific warnings that “something very big may happen.” She likewise dismissed Democratic insinuations of a bureaucratic “silver bullet,” such as dealing with issues at the “principals” level: Unlike his predecessor, President Bush was already conferring with his Director of Central Intelligence on a daily basis.

[url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004932]MORE… [/url]

Thanks to [url=http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,116563,00.html]Fox News Online [/url]for posting the full transcript of Dr. Rice’s 9/11 Commission testimony. For those interested, [url=http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,116563,00.html]here it is…[/url]

I think this has to be classified under the heading of WHAT WERE YOU THINKING!

[url=http://www.newsmax.com]Newsmax.com[/url] reports this today:

In an interview broadcast Wednesday morning, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry defended terrorist Shiite imam Moqtada al-Sadr as a “legitimate voice” in Iraq, despite that fact that he’s led an uprising that has killed nearly 20 American GIs in the last two days.

Speaking of al-Sadr’s newspaper, which was shut down by coalition forces last week after it urged violence against U.S. troops, Kerry complained to National Public Radio, “They shut a newspaper that belongs to a legitimate voice in Iraq.”

In the next breath, however, the White House hopeful caught himself and quickly changed direction, adding, “Well, let me . . . change the term legitimate. It belongs to a voice — because he has clearly taken on a far more radical tone in recent days and aligned himself with both Hamas and Hezbollah, which is a sort of terrorist alignment.”

But Kerry again seemed to voice sympathy for the Shiite terrorist when asked whether he supported al Sadr’s arrest. “Not if it’s an isolated act without the other kinds of steps necessary to change the dynamics on the ground in Iraq,” Kerry told NPR, in quotes first reported by the New York Sun.

[url=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/7/104340.shtml]MORE…[/url]

There are a million things I’d like to say regarding Kerry’s thoughtless words. I’ll say just two:

1. I HOPE that this is not true.
2. If it IS true, then Democrats may want to start looking for a new candidate.

Anybody but Bush? Perhaps not.

David Flanagan
[url=http://www.viewpointjournal.com]Viewpointjournal.com[/url]

This week, during a speech before an audience at the Brookings Institution, Ted Kennedy made the claim that “[url=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/5/235539.shtml]Iraq is George Bush’s Vietnam[/url].” Besides the fact that this comparison seems to be the tactic of the month for Democrats, the question still remains whether or not this is a valid claim.

Is there a comparison between Vietnam and Iraq? Ultimately I believe there is, but its not what most people think. Rather than Iraq being a “Vietnam” for Bush, as Kennedy claims, it is really more accurate to say that Iraq was President Clinton’s Vietnam.

Why? Because, during President Clinton’s time in office, the US was not able to demonstrate the political will to do what was necessary in dealing with Iraq. President Clinton was not interested in any conflict which could generate American casualties, as was demonstrated by the pullout ordered by President Clinton after Mogadishu. Unfortunately, by the end of 1998, our enemies believed that killing Americans was the way to get us to run.

During President Clinton’s two terms served, from 1992 through 2000, our policy in regards to Iraq was containment, not confrontation. This was a tactic which even former Presidential candidate Wesley Clark, a man who served under Clinton and an outspoken critic of the Iraq War, admitted was failing.

In Vietnam, our mission was also one of containment. We were there to keep the North from overrunning the South, but we were never allowed to invade the North and finish the job. Lacking the political will meant that it was just a matter of time before the North could claim victory.

Vietnam was a manufactured quagmire, and so was Iraq before President Bush came into office. I say “manufactured” because it was not like the quagmire that Europe found itself in during WWI, with soldiers dug in and massive deaths resulting from foolish charges on enemy lines.

American forces were winning the battles they fought against the North, but they were never allowed to finish the war. American forces would decimate North Vietnamese troops, only to have the North fall back, take whatever time they needed to regroup, and try again.

It’s like going into the ring with some the heavyweight boxing champ and, during the fight, asking for a breather before he knocks your head off in the ring. Well, knowing any heavyweight champ, they would just smile and proceed to remove you from the conscious world. But what if their manager kept stopping the champ, saying, “don’t finish him off, it’ll look bad.” Eventually the champ will wear down, or get frustrated. If you can’t win, why fight? On the other hand, if you are Saddam Hussein, or North Vietnam, and you have nothing to lose, why stop fighting?

See the difference? And that is where we have a true parallel.

Everyone who opposed removing Saddam and who now wants America to cut and run is asking for another Vietnam-like result. If you supported the status quo regarding Iraq, a policy of containment, you were supporting failure.

What President Bush did was to recognize, even before he was elected, that the situation with Iraq could not remain status quo. Even in 2000, while running for President, George Bush began issuing warnings to Saddam Hussein saying that, as President, he would not support the status quo strategy.

After 9/11, President Bush knew that patience in dealing with Iraq might result in thousands, or tens of thousands of additional American deaths. President Bush prevented another “Vietnam” by allowing our forces to, as VP Cheney has said, force Saddam from his Palaces to a bunker, from a bunker to a spider hole, and from a spider hole to a prison cell. Hopefully from there Saddam will go to a small wooden coffin, then into a non-descript hole somewhere in the deep desert.

But I digress…

Thanks to President Bush’s resolve, there will be no Vietnam in Iraq, and the quagmire that existed before the war stemming from our policy of containment has now been eliminated. Before the war, quagmire. After the war, progress.

Lets remember that, for 10+ years, Saddam laughed at us and did whatever he wanted, which included taking potshots at our jets at various times. Now, with Democrats attempting to attach the label of “quagmire” to Iraq, we must Senator Kennedy and others of his party to answer just a few questions. For example:

• How many billions were spent flying over 300,000 sorties in our attempts to contain Saddam?
• How many more billions keeping soldiers stationed in Kurdish territory, Saudi Arabia, and at various other places in the Middle East, again for containment?
• How many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis murdered or starved to death while Saddam built plush palaces?
• How many tens of thousands in the Middle East growing resentful of our presence and policies against Iraq during those 12 years?
• Does twelve years of failed attempts to contain Saddam sound ANYTHING like a winning strategy to you?

Sounds more like a QUAGMIRE to me!

Yes, we signed treaties with Saddam in 1991 and gave him the opportunity to show good faith. However, when he didn’t comply with resolution after resolution, what did Saddam learn about our resolve? In the end Iraq became a “Vietnam” during our 12 years of failed attempts to contain Saddam. That is, until President Bush brought Saddam to justice.

So, was Iraq more of a Vietnam for President Clinton or President Bush? The answer becomes obvious when you think about it.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

So I went up to the antiwar demonstration in Central Park this weekend, hoping to hear some persuasive arguments. After a couple of hours there, listening to speeches, reading the hate-America literature, I still don’t know what to think about Iraq—will an attack open a Pandora’s box, or close one?—but I think I know what I feel about this antiwar movement, or at least many of the flock who showed up in the Sheep Meadow.

Thus begins one of the most fascinating and enlightening articles I’ve read in years. Ron Rosenbaum, a dedicated liberal thinker bids farewell to what he calls the “knee-jerk, neo-Marxist idiocy” of many on the left in his article, “[url=http://www.nyobserver.com/pages/story.asp?ID=6434]Goodbye, All That: How Left Idiocies Drove Me to Flee[/url].”
>> Read more

Partisans who have been hoping to hurt President Bush with 9/11 Commission wrangling just made a HUGE mistake. You see, this week, they got what they wished for in that the President finally agreed to allow his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to testify publicly under oath in front of the 9/11 commission. Which brings to mind the old adage, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it!

By forcing Dr. Rice to publically testify, they have just given President Bush his own “Richard Clarke moment.” How so? It’s very simple.

When the time drew near for Richard Clarke to publically testify, the media began a frenzy of speculation about what he might say and the ultimate impact his testimony might have on President Bush’s reelection efforts. On the day that Richard Clarke testified, he had the attention of a far larger audience than he otherwise would have commanded, which is just what he wanted to help spur book sales. That, and the controversial nature of his testimony have put him all over the airwaves since, right where he wants to be.

How does this apply to Dr. Rice? Well, even before Clarke’s public testimony before the 9/11 Commission, Dr. Rice was the subject of great speculation by the press.

Since Clarke’s testimony, speculation increased exponentially. You see, Democrats and the media wanted what President Bush said they could not have, Dr. Rice’s public testimony under oath.

Because they wanted Dr. Rice’s public testimony, they and the media called the attention of the entire world to her, but they did it to hurt President Bush more than Dr. Rice. Then, this past weekend, Dr. Rice goes on to 60 minutes to tell everyone how she would love to testify, but that she cannot, and everyone knows that her hands are tied. She is not to blame, its politics and precedent.

But, suddenly, she can testify. What a coincidence! The media frenzy then intensified even more with speculation on what she might say during her testimony.

Now the issue of Dr. Rice’s testimony has received at least as much, if not more media attention than Clarke’s controversial book. And because Dr. Rice has yet to testify, it gives the media more speculative leeway and makes for a better story. All eyes are now focused on Dr. Rice, and Clarke’s new book, as well as his testimony, have taken a back seat.

Very bad move on the part of Democrats if you ask me, but good news for those of us who support the President. Democrats have given the initiative back to President Bush after having just gained it in a major way with Clarke’s testimony. And the fact that Dr. Rice is scheduled to appear sometime next week means that Clarke’s 15 minutes of fame are rapidly coming to an end.

For those who think that Dr. Rice is going to get beat up by partisans on the commission, think again. Dr. Rice is a powerful member of one of the most impressive cabinets ever assembled by a President. She has a resume that equals if not exceeds that of Richard Clarke, and she is equally articulate and persuasive.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg!

On top of that, Dr. Rice is a scholar, with the ability to analyze situations and deliver facts concisely and clearly. She is a perfect fit as a member of the Bush Administration because, like her boss, she has consistently been able to rise above the partisan fray that often rules the day in Washington.

When Dr. Rice goes before the commission next week, I’m betting the size of the audience tuning in to hear her testimony will be double the size that Clarke enjoyed, and the media will carry soundbites for days afterward. Even better, Americans will hear Dr. Rice’s testimony and be impressed by what they hear.

They’ll be impressed because Dr. Rice is an impressive person and I have no doubt that she’ll be convincing. And the rhetoric will have to remain at least somewhat subdued because partisans cannot afford to attack Dr. Rice to the point where she becomes a sympathetic figure in the eyes of Americans and they her persecutors.

After Dr. Rice finishes testifying, expect to see the President’s poll numbers go up. Why? Because he had the good sense to make such a person part of his team.

Can Democrats really have missed all of this?

Very few things in Washington happen by coincidence. Do Democrats really believe that the President finally acceded to the requests of the 9/11 Commission just coincidentally less than a week after Richard Clarke testified? I would hope they are not so naive, but, one way or another, allowing Dr. Rice to come before the commission at this point was a huge tactical error.

If they don’t realize it by now, they’ll know it for sure soon after Dr. Rice testifies. I can’t wait!

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com