MORE ON ARTHUR FINKELSTEIN

He's the GOP hypocrite who headed the New York-based campaign to stop Hillary's re-lection. Below I noted that he went to Massachusetts in order to marry his male partner. I didn't recall that he lived there.

G.O.P. Consultant Weds His Male Partner

By ADAM NAGOURNEY

Published: April 9, 2005

WASHINGTON, April 8 - Arthur J. Finkelstein, a prominent Republican consultant who has directed a series of hard-edged political campaigns to elect conservatives in the United States and Israel over the last 25 years, said Friday that he had married his male partner in a civil ceremony at his home in Massachusetts.

Mr. Finkelstein, 59, who has made a practice of defeating Democrats by trying to demonize them as liberal, said in a brief interview that he had married his partner of 40 years to ensure that the couple had the same benefits available to married heterosexual couples.

Mr. Finkelstein's associates declined to provide his spouse's name. He was married at his home by a gay state official, whose name and office were not released. The ceremony was attended by relatives of both men, a few friends and a state legislator, an attendee said.

None of Mr. Finkelstein's better-known political clients, among them Gov. George E. Pataki of New York and former Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato of New York, attended, that person said. Mr. Finkelstein has been allied over the years with Republicans who have fiercely opposed gay rights measures, including former Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, and has been the subject of attacks by gay rights activists who have accused him of hypocrisy.

In Israel, Mr. Finkelstein used similar attacks against the Labor Party as an adviser to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and as a consultant to the winning and losing campaigns of Benjamin Netanyahu, the former prime minister.

PARANOIDS ON AOL

AOL's Daily Blogger had a post asking the readers to rank Bush & Cheney as a historian would. They both fared poorly but I was struck again by the diehard wingnuts, sticking to their memes to the bitter end.

Here are a few samples:


GW BUSH will be judged as one of the best presidents and VP CHENEY as one the best vice presidents, you poor poor liberal, islamofacist, muslim lovers can't get over 2000 and 2004 can you? You and your partners in crime the mainstream media are trying to take down this country, and hopefully GW will be able to finish the job he was elected to do before you kill all of us. W IN 08!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment from hoelspark - 3/7/07 9:59 PM


How will history judge the U.S. al media s treatment of Pres.Bush,V.P.Cheney & our Military as the enemy?
Comment from aflights - 3/7/07 9:43 PM

The Communist media crucified Ronald Reagan for 8 years also and today he is judged as one of the greatest Presidents ever.

George Bush inherited a mess (recession, weakened military and intelligence agencies, 8 million illegal aliens who entered the U.S. during the 90's, terrorist attacks against us occuring regularly, etc).

Despite this, he's led one of the most successful economies in the history of our country. One far better than the Clinton economy, which the Democrats and Communist media constantly over-state.

He's kept our country from being attacked again since 9/11, in spite of over 90% of the people at that time thinking we would be attacked again within two years.

He's rebuilt the military and intelligence agencies and built the Homeland Security Department, which didn't even exist when he took office.

He recognized all this along with the cost of catastrophes of 9/11 and the various major hurricanes would cause a budget deficit but were things that had to be done.

He's paid a political price, but unlike Clinton who swayed with the winds of public opinion, Bush stands steadfast in his principles of what needs to be done. He does them despite the damage done to his own image, by false reporting by the media and his other political enemies.

History will eventually recognize him as it has Ronald Reagan.
Comment from crystalball2114 - 3/7/07 8:50 PM


The liberal Democrats in congress are the best propaganda voice the Al-Queda terrorists have. Al Jazeera can not top the un-American, cut and run, surrender to the radical Islamic Jihadist terrorist’s propaganda coming from the mouths of unpatriotic liberal Democrat traitors in congress! The American people are more and more seeing the unscrupulous cowardly acts by the Democrats in congress and we will hold these traitors accountable one day!

President Bush, our country's Commander in Chief will not waver and will not surrender so long as he is in office. He is a great president!

Comment from hawkofaragon - 3/7/07 8:46 PM

HUMPHRIES ON COULTER

I was a bit surprised to hear Rusty Humphries denounce Coulter and her remarks at CPAC. He said she should admit that she was wrong and apologize. Humphries then went on to say that he had met Coulter and that he found her "mouthy" and "very arrogant." He concluded by saying "She has made herself kind of a joke."


I wonder how Rusty feels about the large part of the GOP base that adores her?

THE MACHINE IS WARMING UP

And by that I mean the Republican Noise Machine. (Via Atrios) Digby has a link to an LA Times article about the "Hillary is the Anti-Christ" machine.

GOP activists circling Clinton's campaign
Conservatives don't hold back on early attacks.
'I know how to defeat them,' she says.
By Stephen Braun, Times Staff Writer
February 18, 2007

Clinton is being targeted by conservative and Republican-allied activists intent on derailing her campaign before the start of next year's primaries. They have surfaced with a flurry of planned projects: a Michael Moore-style documentary film, book-length exposes, and websites such as StopHerNow.comand StopHillaryPAC.com.

"People are doing what they're doing because they want to defeat her before she has a chance to win. You can't hold off your silver bullet to the end," said veteran Republican operative David N. Bossie, who is involved in the film project with Dick Morris, a former advisor to Bill Clinton.

"Those Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were the real heroes of the 2004 election," one online exhortation reads. "We at the StopHillaryPAC want to do the same thing to Hillary." That group's website, headed by former Rep. John LeBoutillier (R-N.Y.), collected enough early funding to launch a round of negative television ads on Iowa stations timed to Clinton's visit there in late January.

Bossie's film, scheduled for release by year's end, is being funded through appeals from Citizens United, a conservative interest group.

Citizens United's chairman is Floyd G. Brown, a GOP media consultant who worked on the 1988 "Willie Horton" ad that blamed Democratic presidential candidate Michael S. Dukakis for the weekend furlough of a convicted murderer who went on to commit a rape. Democrats charged that the ad exploited racial fears.

Bossie worked with Brown in the 1992 presidential campaign and later served as chief investigator for a House investigation of Clinton administration fundraising scandals. Bossie was fired from that post in 1998 for releasing transcripts of prison conversations involving Hillary Clinton's convicted former law partner, Webster L. Hubbell.


"We're doing our own thing," said Dick Collins, a Dallas businessman who gave $135,000 in StopHerNow.com seed money. The site is a spinoff from a PAC originally aimed at Clinton's Senate reelection by New York GOP strategist Arthur Finkelstein. [NOTE: Finkelstein went to Massachusetts to marry his male partner]

L. Brent Bozell III, who heads the conservative Media Research Center, said Brock's group does the same, only as "part of the Clinton machine." Bozell has more than a passing interest in Clinton's campaign. He is working on his own Clinton book, aiming to expose "media complicity in Hillary's attempted makeover as a centrist."

RUGY G IS TOAST!!!

The first big-time fundie has come out against him.


Evangelical leader says Giuliani's divorce a problem
POSTED: 8:02 a.m. EST, March 7, 2007


NASHVILLE, Tennessee (AP) -- A Southern Baptist leader said Tuesday that evangelical voters might tolerate a divorced presidential candidate, but they have deep doubts about GOP hopeful Rudy Giuliani, who has been married three times.

Richard Land, head of public policy for the Southern Baptist Convention, told The Associated Press that evangelicals believe the former New York City mayor showed a lack of character during his divorce from his second wife, television personality Donna Hanover.

"I mean, this is divorce on steroids," Land said. "To publicly humiliate your wife in that way, and your children. That's rough. I think that's going to be an awfully hard sell, even if he weren't pro-choice and pro-gun control."

HANNITY HEARTS COULTER

It didn't take Sean long to come to the defense of his "best friend forever." This is from the Tuesday Hannity & Colmes:

HANNITY: Well, I think there's a lot of selective moral outrage. I mean, you know, Dick Durbin compares our troops to Nazis. He's a senator. He could have an impact on the troops and their future. You have Howard Dean, you know, Republicans are dark, evil, brain dead. They can't get African-Americans in a room unless the wait staff is there. You know, we have the former Klansman who was the head of the Democrats. Ann, is this selective moral outrage? Are they trying to use you now as a fund raiser?

COULTER: Oh, yes, absolutely. It happens every six months, and you're always there to put me on TV, Sean.

HANNITY: But what...

COULTER: And somehow, it has not driven that conservative base away. And by the way, the examples you are talking about aren't — were not even intended as jokes. I mean, Alan can say, oh, well, that wasn't funny. Well, OK. This audience of 7,000 people thought it was funny. It was intended as a joke. Even if you think it was a joke that did not work, it was a joke. What Sean is talking about here aren't even intended jokes.

[SNIP]

COULTER: And by the way, if they're going to start apologizing for everything I say, they better keep that statement handy, because there's going to be a lot more in the next year!

CADDELL: Oh, my God. Oh my God.

HANNITY: All right, we'll cover it all.

CADDELL: Here we go.

HANNITY: Come on, Pat, you — we're all good friends here.

CADDELL: I know. It's just — we'll be back and we'll do it again. OK.

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: We'll just put it on the calendar, every other Tuesday, Ann will be here to defend it. Thank you.

DRUDGE SETS CNN'S AGENDA

Greg Sargent of HorsesMouth (TalkingPointsMemo) finds that CNN picked up on Drudge's "command" and pushed the Hilary-Southern accent story after initially ignoring it.

MALKIN ON COULTER

From Falafel Boy's Monday show:

KIRSTEN POWERS, FOX NEWS ANALYST: I think that everything she said was right, but it begs the question of why she was there. Because last year, she also spoke at CPAC, and she called Iranians towel heads.

And in the last year she ran -- sorry. And then she in the last year said a lot of horrible things. She attacked the 9/11 widows. She called Al Gore a total fag on television. She's done all these things.
And I don't understand why, if this is the preeminent conservative movement place to be speaking, why she is chosen to be a person to speak. And why you have, like Michelle is saying, you have young people that are in there. I was also down there. Young people in there looking for somebody to look up to. But that's the person that they put in front of them.

O'REILLY: Why do you think they invited her, Michelle?

MALKIN: She's very popular among conservatives.

COULTER IN DENIAL

She appeared on Hannity and Colmes last night and has this to say about her word usage:

COULTER: (inaudible) and you weren't legally discriminated against -- you hear this when people say we cannot use the word illegal alien, because that's like using the N word. No, those are words that are specifically used to demean a particular race. The word I used has nothing to do with sexual preference. It is a schoolyard taunt, and unless you're going to announce here on national TV that John Edwards, married father of many children, is gay, it clearly had nothing to do with that. It's a schoolyard taunt.

COLMES: Ann, you are tap-dancing around my question. I asked you a very simple question...

COULTER: No, I'm not.

COLMES: I didn't ask about the N word. I simply said, you write this off and say, oh, it was only a joke...

OULTER: And I just said why I wouldn't.

COLMES: But you used a word that's very offensive to gays. Would you use a word offensive to another group of people and say, oh, it was only a joke? Where do you draw the line?

COULTER: It isn't offensive to gays. It has nothing to do with gays. It's a schoolyard taunt, meaning wuss. And unless you're telling me that John Edwards is gay, it was not applied to a gay person.

SOURCE:
(From Lexis-Nexis)
SHOW: FOX HANNITY & CO 9:00 PM EST
March 5, 2007 Monday
TRANSCRIPT: 030501cb.253
ECTION: NEWS; Domestic
LENGTH: 3338 words
HEADLINE: Interview with Ann Coulter
BYLINE: Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes, Pat Caddell
GUESTS: Ann Coulter

FATS & THE PARANOID STYLE

Today, Fats was a textbook case of the paranoid style in American politics. He was so upset by the Libby verdict that he lashed out at the media, the bureaucracy, the Washington establishment, Joe Wilson & Valerie Plame, Richard Armitage and Colin Powell: they are all liberals conspiring to get Bush and the conservatives!

When Fats mentioned the bureaucracy, I thought of the Nixon administration:

"In its eye the permanent bureaucracy was a wily and aggressive champion of policies and programs the voters had repudiated in the 1968 election. ... the bureaucracy was certainly regarded as an enemy by the Nixon White House..." ¹

This distrust accounts for the tendency of Republican administrations to appoint hacks to high level posts:

"The Reagan White House was constantly putting out fires caused by hacks in bureaucracies like the U.S. Information Agency (run by the husband of Nancy Reagan's best friend, who secretly taped conversations with top officials in hopes of cashing in on a memoir) and the Environmental Protection Agency (a former toxic-waste cleanup official was convicted of lying to Congress about favoring her ex-employer). According to The Washington Post, Reagan's personnel office, which was charged with staffing the federal bureaucracy, was "a study in cronyism," run by a crony of Reagan crony Meese."

We also know that Pres. Fredo likes hacks (Michael Brown) and even nominated one to the Supreme Court (Harriet Miers), so three Republican presidents have appointed hacks because, among other things, they distrust the "liberal" bureaucracy.

Limbaugh complains that there aren't conservatives in the bureaucracy but how can one expect them even to apply for government jobs when GOP leaders constantly disparage it?


¹ page 222 from "Bureaucracy in the American Constitutional Order" by Francis E. Rourke, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 102, No. 2. (Summer, 1987), pp. 217-232.

SLUDGE CALLS IT

Last night, he kept playing a clip of Sen. Clinton speaking in a Southern accent and was accusing her of pandering to her mostly black audience. At one point, he decided not to play it again because "you'll getplentyof it tomorroe." How right he was! Fats and Fox both jumped on it.

I don't know if his listeners caught it, but Sen. Clinton was quoting an old hymn, as Rush has on his website:

MRS. BILL CLINTON: Let us say with one voice the words of James Cleveland's great freedom hymn: “I don't feel no ways tired. I come too far from where I started from. Nobody told me that the road would be easy. I don't believe he brought me this far to leave me.”

Note also the term of address Fats uses for Sen. Clinton.

MORE "WINNING HEARTS & MINDS"

This edition brought to you from Afghanistan:


Karzai slams U.S. troops on deaths
POSTED: 8:50 p.m. EST, March 5, 2007
CNN

KABUL, Afghanistan (Reuters) -- Afghan President Hamid Karzai has condemned U.S. troops for allegedly shooting dead civilians at the weekend as officials said nine more -- five women, four children and an old man -- had been killed in an air strike.

U.S. marines shot dead at least eight civilians in the east on Sunday, in what the U.S. military said was a "complex" Taliban ambush involving a suicide bombing and gunfire in a populated area outside the city of Jalalabad, near Pakistan. (Full story)

The military said the soldiers fired in self-defense and 16 civilians were killed in the suicide raid and subsequent firing.

Wounded in hospital said U.S. soldiers just opened fire.

"The Americans fired at us without any justification," said Sayeda Jan, a passenger in a passing vehicle who was shot.

"Karzai should raise his voice and intervene, but he won't because he is thinking about his power. We were in the car and saw the convoy coming from the opposite direction and they fired at us."

FLEEING COULTER

The DKos folks had an effect: companies are pulling their ads from Coulter's website. And CNN reports it!

Even more wingnuts are distancing themselves from sweet Ann.

I wonder if Sean Hannity will give her more air time?

FATS BACKS COULTER

This isn't surprising:


Rush Weighs In on the Coulter Kerfuffle
March 5, 2007

Now, the Ann Coulter remarks. I've been fascinated looking at the response. When I heard that this had happened, the first thing I did is I went to some blogs. They had a blog row at CPAC. Ann made these comments about the Breck Girl on Friday afternoon. Mitt Romney had introduced her. Mitt Romney is a Republican presidential candidate, as we all know.

I'm looking at the blogs, and the bloggers are uniform in their condemnation of Ann Coulter. “This is disturbing and it's distracting to the conservative movement. This is not what we're about. It unnecessarily makes all conservatives a target for continuing attacks by the left,” and so forth and so on. Then some time passed and the bloggers began getting comments from their readers. After a couple of hours, I checked back, and the bloggers were mostly writing about how they were being excoriated by their readers for criticizing Ann Coulter; that finally somebody like Coulter had the guts to stand up and say what things are for, because the left gets away with this and does it all the time. The bloggers admitted that they were taking it on the chin from their readers in the comments of all their blogs from people who were very supportive of Coulter. I went to my own e-mail, and the vast majority of e-mail I got was, "Rah-rah," and, "Right on!" I'll tell you what I think this means.

I think what people misunderstand about the rank-and-file in the Republican Party is that they're sick and tired of taking it on the chin day in and day out. The mainstream press can assault every one of our icons. The mainstream press, the Drive-By Media and the left, can assault every one of our presidential candidates. They can call George Bush "Hitler."

So when somebody like Ann Coulter comes along and says what she said, they simply react to it. “All right! Somebody's fighting back! Somebody is saying something in return to these people and pointing out their hypocrisy.” I think that's why the support that is there for Ann Coulter is there, because she represents something that the leadership of the party doesn't provide them. The leadership of the movement these days doesn't provide them an outlet for their own anger.


you have a number of people who clearly loved it and thought it was fabulous and want to hear more like it -- and not so much more like it. They just want to hear somebody fighting back and somebody doing something to point out the absolute ridiculousness of the people on the left, and Ann Coulter did it.

POP QUIZ

Guess when this was written:

"Not only is the entire right-wing movement infused at the mass level with the fundamentalist style of mind, but the place in its ranks of fundamentalist preachers, ex-preachers, and sons of preachers is so prominent as to underline the mutual congeniality of thought."

"Today" is a reasonable answer but in fact it was written over 40 years ago by Richard Hofstadter in "Pseudo-Conservatism Revisited - 1965." This and other essays have been reprinted in THE PARANOID STYLE IN AMERICAN POLITICS and other Essays and I highly recommend reading Part 1 if you want a fuller understanding of where our current wingnuts are coming from.

Because of Hofstadter, Altemeyer, Block, other researchers and even Hayek, I am less inclined now to see modern American conservatism as a coherent ideology and more inclined to see it as a personality trait centered on fearfulness. The explicit ideological commitments will vary with the historical period (Communism in the 1950s, Jihadists in the 2000s) but the style of thinking remains the same.

RIGHTIES NEED A NEW MEME

All the crap we've been told by Hannity, Levin, Limbaugh, Ingraham, Brit Hume and many others about how conservatives support the troops (and liberals don't) has been officially declared "inoperative" by the revelations of shoddy healthcare by the Washington Post. The gasbags were silent(!) about this until very recently. Last night, Drudge praised the coverage by the WaPo and said it deserved a Pulitzer Prize and this morning, Ingraham had nothing but praise for the WaPo. This may be a trend so I'll try to find out what Fats, Shams and Foamer have to say.

WINGNUTS ARE FUNNY

Even when they don't intend to be. Here's a photo caption from Malkin's blog:

Wounded Iraq war veteran Josh Sparling receives CPAC's Defender of the Constitution Award presented by Col. Ollie North.

Anyone recall the Iran-Contra Scandal? No? - OK, here's a refresher:

U.S. political scandal in which the National Security Council (NSC) became involved in secret weapons transactions and other activities that either were prohibited by the U.S. Congress or violated the stated public policy of the government.


In early 1985 the head of the NSC, Robert C. McFarlane, undertook the sale of antitank and antiaircraft missiles to Iran...

A portion of the $48 million that Iran paid for the arms was diverted by the NSC and given to the Contras, the U.S.-backed rebels fighting to overthrow the Marxist-oriented Sandinista government of Nicaragua. The monetary transfers were undertaken by NSC staff member Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North


SOURCE:Iran-Contra Affair. (2007). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved March 4, 2007, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9042741

GOP MOTTO: "WE GIVE NASTY SMEARS LIFE"

Ex-GOP candidates turn attacks back on national panel
By Rick Klein, BOSTON Globe Staff March 4, 2007

One advertisement accused the rival candidate of billing taxpayers for a call to a phone-sex line. One alleged that a candidate "fixed" his daughter's speeding tickets. Still others stated that a candidate endorsed a "coffee talk with the Taliban," and that another was supported by the Communist Party.

Each charge was misleading at best, demonstrably false at worst. Yet the National Republican Congressional Committee paid for each of those ads last year...

Annenberg Political Fact Check, a nonpartisan group that studies campaign advertisements, called the NRCC's ads "the very definition of political mudslinging."

"The National Republican [Congressional] Committee's work stands out this year for the sheer volume of assaults on the personal character of Democratic House challengers," stated the Fact Check report

INSIDE CPAC

A couple of brave liberal souls attended CPAC and have graciously shared their experiences with us.

Max Blumenthal of The Nation has a video clip of his visit and you'll see a few familiar wingnuts in it. I liked the Crazy Davy Horowitz segment because it provides another clue to an upcoming wingnut meme: the Left is a religious movement. This I believe is of a piece with Fats Limbaugh and Weiner claiming that those who think man-made global warming is a fact are in reality religious believers in warming.

Mike Stark of Calling All Wingnuts has a couple of audio clips up (here, here) and promises to have more soon.

"ANNIE" LEVIN & NATURAL LAW

Last week, I heard Foamer Levin state that "conservative principles are everlasting" and they are based on "natural law." I don't have a transcript so I can't get into a detailed analysis of what he meant but I think he means that conservative principles, whatever they are, derive from God, specifically the Christian God.

I recalled looking into natural law in the past and I remember reading somewhere that Clarence Thomas is the most powerful believer in natural law, so it's a small step to conclude that natural law is yet another bit of wingnuttery. A small step, but a mistaken one. What the wingnuts mean by natural law is only one facet of the concept, which goes back to Aristotle:

"Aristotle (384–322 BC) held that what was “just by nature” was not always the same as what was “just by law,” that there was a natural justice valid everywhere with the same force and “not existing by people's thinking this or that,” and that appeal could be made to it from positive law."¹

Here, "positive law" means what people and societies actually practiced. The rise of Christianity led to a slightly different conception of natural law and the first hint we have is from St. Paul²:

Romans 2:
14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

The step taken here moves natural law into theology and away from Aristotle's roughly biological notion. This would be developed further by St. Augustine and, most notably, St. Thomas Aquinas:

"The fundamental thesis affirmed here by Aquinas is that the natural law is a participation in the eternal law (ST IaIIae 91, 2). The eternal law, for Aquinas, is that rational plan by which all creation is ordered (ST IaIIae 91, 1); the natural law is the way that the human being “participates” in the eternal law (ST IaIIae 91, 2). While nonrational beings have a share in the eternal law only by being determined by it -- their action nonfreely results from their determinate natures, natures whose existence results from God's will in accordance with God's eternal plan -- rational beings like us are able to grasp our share in the eternal law and freely act on it (ST IaIIae 91, 2). It is this feature of the natural law that justifies, on Aquinas's view, our calling the natural law ‘law.’ For law, as Aquinas defines it (ST IaIIae 90, 4), is a rule of action put into place by one who has care of the community; and as God has care of the entire universe, God's choosing to bring into existence beings who can act freely and in accordance with principles of reason is enough to justify our thinking of those principles of reason as law."

Returning to Justice Thomas, we have a Claremont wingnut writing that

"Thomas is one of the few jurists today, conservative or otherwise, who understand and defend the principle that our rights come not from government but from a "Creator" and "the laws of nature and of nature's God," as our Declaration of Independence says, and that the purpose and power of government should therefore be limited to protecting our natural, God-given rights."

Another wingnut at the Ashbrook Center³ writes of Thomas:

"He represents a vital but almost forgotten branch of original intent jurisprudence -- the "natural law" approach. ... In his view, "the ’original intention’ of the Constitution" is to fulfill "the ideals of the Declaration of Independence." ...According to the Declaration, America’s basic moral and political principles are found in "the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God."

So, Thomas is a hero to the wingnuts because, like Scalia, he supports the view that our laws derive from the Christian God. We also know that the religious right is a key part of the GOP base, so when wingnuts talk about natural law, they are ingratiating themselves with the fundies.

Liberals and others can provide analyses of natural law that do not rely upon a "sky god," and this modern flavor of natural law comes to us from The Enlightenment:

In an epoch-making appeal, Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) claimed that nations were subject to natural law. Whereas his fellow Calvinist Johannes Althusius (1557–1638) had proceeded from theological doctrines of predestination to elaborate his theory of a universally binding law, Grotius insisted on the validity of the natural law “even if we were to suppose…that God does not exist or is not concerned with human affairs.” A few years later Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), starting from the assumption of a savage “state of nature” in which each man was at war with every other—rather than from the “state of innocence” in which man had lived in the biblical Garden of Eden—defined the right of nature (jus naturale) to be “the liberty each man hath to use his own power for the preservation of his own nature, that is to say, of life,” and a law of nature (lex naturalis) as “a precept of general rule found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life.” He then enumerated the elementary rules on which peace and society could be established. Thus, Grotius and Hobbes stand together at the head of that “school of natural law” that, in accordance with the tendencies of the Enlightenment, tried to construct a whole edifice of law by rational deduction from a hypothetical “state of nature” and a “social contract” of consent between rulers and subjects. John Locke (1632–1704) departed from Hobbesian pessimism to the extent of describing the state of nature as a state of society, with free and equal men already observing the natural law. In France Charles-Louis de Secondat Montesquieu (1689–1755) argued that natural laws were presocial and superior to those of religion and the state, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–78) postulated a savage who was virtuous in isolation and actuated by two principles “prior to reason”: self-preservation and compassion (innate repugnance to the sufferings of others).⁴

¹ natural law. (2007). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved March 4, 2007, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9055045

² St. Paul referenced in the preceding Britannica article
³ Ashbrook is a wingnut hive I hadn't come across before. In case there is some doubt that it is a hive, here's a snippet from the bio of one of its authors: "She interned this summer for the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C."

⁴ natural law. op. cit.

JUST HOW IMPORTANT IS CPAC?

Very important to the GOP and that's why Coulter's remarks about Edwards matter.


Former Arizona Gov. Mike Huckabee SEZ:

"CPAC brings together not just sort of peripheral activists, but the people who lead movements," he said. "So getting a message here, and connecting and resonating with the people of this group, is really resonating with the heart and soul of the Republican Party."

The Wapo describes the group as "an important Republican constituency."


Newsday gives us a glimpse of the type of person who attended: "David Kern, 65, a retired garden store operator from Cincinnati, was a typical attendee here, some of the most conservative voters in the Republican party: "Right to life is first and foremost to me. I'm a strong Second Amendment, NRA-type guy," he said, referring to the National Rifle Association."

Reuters described the attendees as "conservative activists" and had this observation from the leader of an important conservative group:

"There is some disillusionment, some demoralization and a hope that other conservatives jump in the ring. I don't find a sense of excitement about the candidates at all," said Steve Baldwin, head of the Council for National Policy, a networking group for conservative activists.

UPDATE:

Malkin was on Falafel Boy's (O'Reilly)show on 2/5/07 and said:

MICHELLE MALKIN, FOX NEWS ANALYST:...And just to provide a little bit of context, the CPAC conference is the preeminent conservative grassroots event of the year.

SOLIDARITY IN THE GOP

(Via Atrios)

Josh Marshall has some great pics of Annie of the 7 Words cozying up to the Romneys.

TENTATIVE CAPTION: WE ALL HATE FAGGOTS!!!

AVOIDING ANNIE OF THE 7 WORDS

Oopsy! Many in the GOP think Annie went a tad too far but maybe they shouldn't have invited her in the first place! (Ya think?)


G.O.P. Candidates Criticize Slur by Conservative Author
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: March 4, 2007
NY TIMES


The remarks by Ann Coulter, an author who regularly speaks at conservative events, were sharply denounced by the candidates, Senator John McCain of Arizona, Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. Their statements came after Democrats, gay rights groups and bloggers raised a storm of protest over the remarks.

The criticisms by the Republican candidates put them in a difficult position because the Conservative Political Action Conference has been gathering for conservative and Republican leaders for over 25 years.

The speakers this year included Vice President Dick Cheney and most of the presidential candidates, whose presence suggested the political influence the group holds in the party’s nominating process.

Of the major Republican candidates, only Mr. McCain did not attend

RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE, THEIRS & OURS

I was reading a short history of biblical research¹ and I was struck by how much intolerance there was, and how long it persisted, for anyone who questioned who exactly wrote the first 5 books of the Bible. I then recalled reading about an Egyptian professor of Islamic Studies, Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd who was accused of apostasy by radical Islamists and was divorced by an Egyptian court from his wife for that crime. A detailed investigation into this and other cases of Islamic apostasy can be found here and here is the summary of the situation:

The failure of the authoritarian Arab nation-states to win their wars and to guarantee economic development, social justice, and cultural integration mobilized a religious opposition against the secular state that called for a return to Islamic law through what is called "the codification of Islamic law" (taqnin al-shari'a). The states reacted to this demand in giving the form of legislative texts to classical or postclassical fiqh rules and in integrating them into their codes. In this way, apostasy laws were integrated, in 1991, in the Sudanese penal code; in 1994, in the Yemenite penal code and also, in 1982, in a penal code approved by the Egyptian parliament but never promulgated by the Egyptian president.

This development was accompanied by an increasing number of apostasy trials in the Arab world. These trials have been led against intellectuals, scientists, artists, and writers suspected of defending the political, legal, and religious culture of the secularizing state. They are led to establish the non-Islamic and heretical character of books, publications, university teaching, or public speeches. The apostasy trials form part of a political effort to deny suspect intellectuals the right to express their thought in public.

This mechanism is well exemplified by the apostasy trial of Cairo University professor Abu Zayd. Abu Zayd, a prolific writer, has published a series of books on classical Islamic subjects, ranging from the interpretation of the Koranic text to the teaching of ninth-century fiqh scholars. In his books he uses methods taken from modern linguistics to analyze the relationship between texts and readers. This approach forms the foundation for his thesis that each new generation of Muslims understands the Koran in the light of its own historical experience and thus discovers new dimensions of its meaning that allow the new generation to grasp aspects that were hitherto neglected.

In 1993, a group of lawyers, all of whom were known activists in Islamic movements, filed a legal proceeding against Professor Abu Zayd, accusing him of apostasy and asking the court to dissolve the professor's marriage with his Muslim wife. They pretended to have legal standing for such a plea because the fiqh orders every Muslim "to command the good and forbid the evil." In other words, they base their plea on the hisba rule of the classical fiqh. The court of first instance refused to accept their case because they did not prove their personal interest in it.

The pious lawyers appealed this judgment to the Cairo Court of Appeal. The court accepted the appeal and on June 14, 1995, condemned Professor Abu Zayd for apostasy and ordered him to separate from his wife. The Court of Cassation confirmed this judgment on August 5, 1996. Professor Abu Zayd and his wife left Egypt the same year. Abu Zayd is presently teaching at Leyden University.

The intolerance in Islam is new and still developing while in Christianity, it has been on the decline for 100s of years. The problem I see is that there aren't any quick fixes to Islamic intolerance, just as there was no quick fix to Christian intolerance. Indeed, we have also seen a rise in Christian intolerance in the United States by the religious right composed of the followers of Falwell, Robertson, Dobson and Land.



¹ Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Elliot Friedman, Prentice Hall, 1987, pp. 18-21:

Six Hundred Years of Investigation
At the first stage, investigators still accepted the tradition that Moses wrote the Five Books, but they suggested that a few lines were added here or there. In the eleventh century, Isaac ibn Yashush, a Jewish court physician of a ruler in Muslim Spain, pointed out that a list of Edomite kings that appears in Genesis 36 named kings who lived long after Moses was dead. Ibn Yashush suggested that the list was written by someone who lived after Moses. The response to his conclusion was that he was called "Isaac the blunderer."

The man who labeled him Isaac the blunderer was Abraham ibn Ezra, a twelfth-century Spanish rabbi. Ibn Ezra added, "His book deserves to be burned." But, ironically, ibn Ezra himself included several enigmatic comments in his own writings that hint that he had doubts of his own. He alluded to several biblical passages that appeared not to be from Moses' own hand: passages that referred to Moses in the third person, used terms that Moses would not have known, described places where Moses had never been, and used language that reflected another time and locale from those of Moses. Nonetheless, ibn Ezra apparently was not willing to say outright that Moses was not the author of the Five Books. He simply wrote, "And if you understand, then you will recognize the truth." And in an-other reference to one of these contradictory passages, he wrote, "And he who understands will keep silent."

In the fourteenth century, in Damascus, the scholar Bonfils accepted ibn Ezra's evidence but not his advice to keep silent. Referring to the difficult passages, Bonfils wrote explicitly, "And this is evidence that this verse was written in the Torah later, and Moses did not write it; rather one of the later prophets wrote it." Bonfils was not denying the revealed character of the text. He still thought that the passages in question were written by "one of the later prophets." He was only concluding that they were not written by Moses. Still, three and a half centuries later, his work was reprinted with the references to this subject deleted.

In the fifteenth century, Tostatus, bishop of Avila, also stated that certain passages, notably the account of Moses' death, could not have been written by Moses. There was an old tradition that Moses' successor Joshua wrote this account. But in the sixteenth century, Carlstadt, a contemporary of Luther, commented that the account of Moses' death is written in the same style as texts that precede it. This makes it difficult to claim that Joshua or anyone else merely added a few lines to an otherwise Mosaic manuscript. It also raises further questions about what exactly was Mosaic and what was added by someone else.

In a second stage of the process, investigators suggested that Moses wrote the Five Books but that editors went over them later, adding an occasional word or phrase of their own. In the sixteenth century, Andreas van Maes, who was a Flemish Catholic, and two Jesuit scholars, Benedict Pereira and Jacques Bonfrere, thus pictured an original text from the hand of Moses upon which later writers expanded. Van Maes suggested that a later editor inserted phrases or changed the name of a place to its more current name so that readers would understand it better. Van Maes' book was placed on the Catholic Index of Prohibited Books.

In the third stage of the investigation, investigators concluded outright that Moses did not write the majority of the Pentateuch. The first to say it was the British philosopher Thomas Hobbes in the seventeenth century. Hobbes collected numerous cases of facts and statements through the course of the Five Books that were inconsis¬tent with Mosaic authorship. For example, the text sometimes states that something is the case "to this day." "To this day" is not the phrase of someone describing a contemporary situation. It is rather the phrase of a later writer who is describing something that has endured.

Four years later, Isaac de la Peyrere, a French Calvinist, also wrote explicitly that Moses was not the author of the first books of the Bible. He, too, noted problems running through the text, including, for example, the words "across the Jordan" in the first verse of Deu¬teronomy. That verse says, "These are the words that Moses spoke to the children of Israel across the Jordan...." The problem with the phrase "across the Jordan" is that it refers to someone who is on the other side of the Jordan river from the writer. The verse thus appears to be the words of someone in Israel, west of the Jordan, referring to what Moses did on the east side of the Jordan. But Moses himself was never supposed to have been in Israel in his life. De la Peyrere’s book was banned and burned. He was arrested and informed that in order to be released he would have to become Catholic and recant his views to the Pope. He did.

About the same time, in Holland, the philosopher Spinoza published a unified critical analysis, likewise demonstrating that the problematic passages were not a few isolated cases that could be explained away one by one. Rather, they were pervasive through the entire Five Books of Moses. There were the third-person accounts of Moses, the statements that Moses was unlikely to have made (e.g., "humblest man on earth"), the report of Moses' death, the expres¬sion "to this day," the references to geographical locales by names that they acquired after Moses' lifetime, the treatment of matters that were subsequent to Moses (e.g., the list of Edomite kings), and various contradictions and problems in the text of the sort that ear¬lier investigators had observed. He also noted that the text says in Deuteronomy 34, "There never arose another prophet in Israel like Moses...." Spinoza remarked that these sound like the words of someone who lived a a long time after Moses and had the opportu¬nity to see other prophets and thus make the comparison. (They also do not sound like the words of the humblest man on earth.) Spinoza wrote, "It is...clearer than the sun at noon that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, but by .someone who lived long after Moses." Spinoza had been excommunicated from Judaism. Now his work was condemned by Catholics and Protestants as well. His book was placed on the Catholic Index, within six thirty-seven edicts were issued against it, and an attempt was made on his life.

A short time later, in France, Richard Simon, a convert from Protestantism who had become a Catholic priest, wrote a work that he intended to be critical of Spinoza. He said that the core of the Pentateuch (the laws) was Mosaic but that there were some addi¬tions. The additions, he said, were by scribes who collected, ar¬ranged, and elaborated upon the old texts. These scribes, according to Simon, were prophets, guided by the divine spirit, and so he regarded his work as a defense of the sancity of the biblical text. His contemporaries, however, apparently were not ready for a work that said that any part of the Five Books was not Mosaic. Simon was attacked by other Catholic clergy and expelled from his order. His books were placed on the Index. Forty refutations of his work were written by Protestants. Of the thirteen hundred copies printed of his book, all but six were burned. An English version of the book came out, translated by John Hampden, but Hampden later recanted. The understated report by the scholar Edward Gray in his account of the events tells it best: Hampden "repudiated the opinions he had held in common with Simon.. . in 1688, probably shortly before his release from the tower."

PEW TALK RADIO PROJECT

The Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism also covers talk radio. Here's what and who it covers:

Radio (Eight in all, Mon-Fri)

Headlines every day
ABC Radio headlines at 9am and 5pm
CBS Radio headlines at 9am and 5pm
NPR Morning Edition every day

Talk Radio
Rush Limbaugh every day
1 out of 2 additional conservatives each day
Sean Hannity Michael Savage
1 out of 2 liberals each day
Ed Schultz Randi Rhodes

Here are some excerpts from Pew's report for the week of 2/18 to 2/23:

On February 23, Sean Hannity welcomed listeners to his syndicated radio show with a greeting designed to rally folks less than keen on Senator Hillary Clinton. “This is the ‘Stop Hillary Express,’” declared the conservative talker. ”Jump on board.”

“If you listen to Hillary,” said Rush Limbaugh with more than a touch of exasperation on his February 20 show, “I’m still stunned….that anybody is willing to credit Mrs. Clinton with any kind of coherence.”

The Washington Post’s powerful February 18 and 19 expose of problems at Walter Reed Army Medical Center was picked up by much of the media last week, making the Iraq war on the homefront the fifth most covered story in the overall Index, at 5%.

But in the world of talk, where news is more a matter of perspective, it was not universal. In the content examined by the PEJ, the issue was not picked up by any of the conservative radio hosts or by the Fox News Channel talk anchors.

The last paragraph is consilient with what the General (Patriot Boy) discovered about the war bloggers.

RIGHT-WING EXTREMISM

Ann Coulter is once again a featured speaker at the Conservative Political Action Conference and Glenn Greenwald has a good post about this and what the political ramifications are. Glenn has this wonderful quote from a former wingnut, Andrew Sullivan:

When you see her in such a context, you realize that she truly represents the heart and soul of contemporary conservative activism, especially among the young. The standing ovation for Romney was nothing like the eruption of enthusiasm that greeted her. . . .

Her endorsement of Romney today - "probably the best candidate" - is a big deal, it seems to me. McCain is a non-starter. He is as loathed as Clinton in these parts. Giuliani is, in her words, "very, very liberal." One of his sins? He opposed the impeachment of Bill Clinton. That's the new standard. She is the new Republicanism. The sooner people recognize this, the better.

Last summer, Glenn wrote a perceptive review of John Dean's book, Conservatives Without Conscience. In it, Glenn summarizes one of Dean's points:

First, that what is currently described as the "conservative movement" bears virtually no resemblance to Goldwater's conservatism,...

Here I have to disagree with Dean and Greenwald. Goldwater WAS an extremist and he was proud to be one. He may not have cared for the then nascent religious right but he didn't have many problems with the John Birch Society.

UPDATE:

Here's the blurb for the CPAC

2007 invitED SPEAKERS


Vice President Dick Cheney - Sean Hannity - Senator Mitch McConnell - Ann Coulter - Tom Delay - Michelle Malkin - David Horowitz - Congressman Mike Pence - Newt Gingrich - Phyllis Schlafly - Wayne LaPierre - and many more!

CPAC features book signings by the nation’s leading conservative authors, live broadcasts of national and local radio talk shows, hands-on training sessions from grassroots activism to media strategy, internet row and a bloggers’ corner, and much, much more!

UM, WHO CARES ABOUT THE TROOPS???

(Via Atrios)

Patriot Boy did a nice little study of how concerned the wingnuts were about our troops. Turns out the answer is "not so much."

REPORTS ON THE 2001 GENOA CONFERENCE

Copyright 2001 Scottish Media Newspapers Limited
The Herald (Glasgow)
July 21, 2001
SECTION: Pg. 2
LENGTH: 631 words
HEADLINE: An eerie calm marks life in the red zone
BYLINE: Catherine Macleod Political Editor

Stepping from Tony Blair's plane at the airport, the Downing Street party and the UK press pack were whisked immediately to their respective "floating hotels". Journalists to the Splendid cruise liner, the prime minister to the European Vision. Only George W Bush, the US president, qualified for a warship.

Only the constant drone of helicopters and the batteries of anti-aircraft missiles bring any sense of the prevailing chaos on the streets.


Copyright 2001 Deutsche Presse-Agentur Deutsche Presse-Agentur
July 20, 2001, Friday, BC Cycle 16:33 Central European Time
SECTION: International News
LENGTH: 769 words
HEADLINE: 3RD ROUNDUP: Police say one dead as clashes overshadow G8 Genoa summit
BYLINE: By Shada Islam and Leon Mangasarian, dpa
DATELINE: Genoa, Italy

Genoa has become a virtual ghost-town under siege, with the airport, harbour and some major roads closed.

Copyright 2001 Agency WPS
What The Papers Say (Russia)
July 5, 2001, Thursday
SECTION: PRESS EXTRACTS
LENGTH: 314 words
HEADLINE: GENOA UNDER SIEGE
SOURCE: Tribuna, July 5, 2001, p. 3
BYLINE: Viktor Krupenin

Italian and foreign secret services are particularly concerned by reports from Russia indicating that terrorist Osama bin Laden intends to use the Genoa summit for terrorist acts against President Bush and other world leaders. President Vladimir Putin informed his American counterpart of bin Laden's intentions at their meeting in Ljubljana. Bin Laden and his accomplices are considering a car-bomb in the path of the presidential motorcade, or kamikaze planes against the presidential ship. Terrorists hope to take advantage of the chaos in the city generated by the abundance of foreign VIPs and anti-globalization activists, who Western secret services say are sponsored by bin Laden.

No information is available at this point on accommodation for the eight leaders. Not all of them want to stay on a ship. But Fulvio Martini, former head of military counterintelligence, says: "A ship is the best place for delegations in Genoa..."

Copyright 2001 ITAR-TASS News Agency
TASS July 11, 2001, Wednesday
LENGTH: 119 words
HEADLINE: Surface-to-air missiles to be placed to ensure security
BYLINE: By Vitaly Makarchev
DATELINE: LONDON, July 11

Italian authorities began to place surface-to-air missile systems in Genoa after one of the authoritative intelligences received information about plans to commit air terrorist acts during the G-8 summit scheduled for July 18, confidential British sources said on Wednesday.

One of the batteries will be deployed on the territory of Genoa's international airport for missiles interception and the destruction of any unidentified helicopter or light aircraft. During the work of the summit, the airport will be closed and only the planes of G-8 heads of state and government can land at Genoa's airport.

MORE ON RICE, GENOA & THE 9-11 COMMISSION

I have long believed that Rice lied when she told the 9-11 Commission that no one could've imagined the terrorists using planes as missiles. I found this AP report through Lexis-Nexis and it seems that she admits that she was wrong:

The Associated Press State & Local Wire
April 8, 2004, Thursday, BC cycle
SECTION: State and Regional
LENGTH: 1371 words
HEADLINE: Rice says U.S. 'not on a war footing' before Sept. 11
BYLINE: By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
DATELINE: WASHINGTON

Rice, recalling a rash of vague warnings over the summer, said, "One of the problems here was there really was nothing that looked like it was going to happen inside the United States." She said the threats pointed overseas to possible targets in the Persian Gulf, Israel or perhaps the summit in Genoa, Italy, of leaders of industrialized nations.

Under questioning, Rice acknowledged that she had spoken too broadly once when she said that no one had ever envisioned terrorists using planes and crashing them into buildings. She said that aides came to her within days and said there had been reports or memos about that possibility but that she hadn't seen them.

RADIO TIDBITS

Fats Limbaugh was attacking the notion of man-made global warming and played a clip of Charlton Heston reading a passage from Crichton's Jurassic Park. The passage tries to convey the fact that Life on Earth will continue no matter what Man does (and who is denying that?) and more interestingly, the passage assumes that the theory of evolution is correct. I suppose that will upset the fundies who listen to Fats.

As I was looking for the audio clip or the text from Crichton's novel, I came across a nice rebuttal of Crichton's screed against global warming, State of Fear.

THE OTHER SET OF COMMANDMENTS

We are all familiar with the Charlton Heston version but there's another set of Commandments in the Bible that are rarely mentioned. These supposedly supercede the first 10:

EXODUS CHAPTER 34

1 Now the LORD said to Moses, "Cut out for yourself two R1083 stone tablets like the former ones, and I R1084 will write on the tablets the words that were on the former tablets which you shattered.
2 "So be ready by morning, and come up in the morning to Mount R1085 Sinai, and present F727 yourself there to Me on the top of the mountain.
3 " R1086 No man is to come up with you, nor let any man be seen anywhere F728 on the mountain; even the flocks and the herds may not graze in front of that mountain."
4 So he cut out two R1087 stone tablets like the former ones, and Moses rose up early in the morning and went up to Mount Sinai, as the LORD had commanded him, and he took two stone tablets in his hand.
5 The R1088 LORD descended in the cloud and stood there with him as he F729 called upon the name of the LORD.
6 Then the LORD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate R1089 and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; F730
7 who keeps R1090 lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will R1091 by no means leave {the guilty} unpunished, visiting R1092 the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations."
8 Moses made haste to F731 R1093 bow low toward the earth and worship.
9 He said, " R1094 If now I have found favor in Your sight, O Lord, I pray, let the Lord go along in our midst, even though the F732 R1095 people are so obstinate, and pardon R1096 our iniquity and our sin, and take R1097 us as Your own possession." F733

10 Then God F734 said, "Behold, I R1098 am going to make a covenant. Before all your people I R1099 will perform miracles which have not been produced F735 in all the earth nor among any of the nations; and all the people among F736 whom you live will see the working of the LORD, for it is a fearful thing that I am going to perform with you.
11 "Be sure to observe what I am commanding you this day: behold, I R1100 am going to drive out the Amorite before you, and the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite.
12 " R1101 Watch yourself that you make no covenant with the inhabitants of the land into which you are going, or it will become a snare in your midst.
13 " R1102 But {rather,} you are to tear down their altars and smash their {sacred} pillars and cut down their Asherim F737 R1103
14 --for you R1104 shall not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God--
15 otherwise you might make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land and they would play the harlot with their gods and sacrifice R1105 to their gods, and someone might R1106 invite you to F738 eat of his sacrifice,
16 and you R1107 might take some of his daughters for your sons, and his daughters might play the harlot with their gods and cause your sons {also} to play the harlot with their gods.
17 " R1108 You shall make for yourself no molten gods.
18 "You shall observe the R1109 Feast of Unleavened Bread. For seven R1110 days you are to eat unleavened bread, as F739 I commanded you, at the appointed time in the month R1111 of Abib, for in the month of Abib you came out of Egypt.
19 " R1112 The first offspring from every womb belongs to Me, and all your male livestock, the first offspring from cattle F740 and sheep.
20 " R1113 You shall redeem with a lamb the first F741 offspring from a donkey; and if you do not redeem {it,} then you shall break its neck. You shall redeem all R1114 the firstborn of your sons. None F742 R1115 shall appear before Me empty-handed.
21 "You shall work six R1116 days, but on the seventh day you shall rest; {even} during plowing time and harvest you shall rest.
22 "You shall celebrate the R1117 Feast of Weeks, {that is,} the first fruits of the wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering at the turn of the year.
23 " R1118 Three times a year all your males are to appear before the Lord GOD, F743 the God of Israel.
24 "For I will drive F744 R1119 out nations before you and enlarge your borders, and no man shall covet your land when you go up three times a year to appear before the LORD your God. 25 " R1120 You shall not offer F745 the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread, nor R1121 is the sacrifice of the Feast of the Passover to be F746 left over until morning.
26 "You shall bring the R1122 very first of the first fruits of your soil into the house of the LORD your God. "You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk."

27 Then the LORD said to Moses, " R1123 Write down F747 these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a R1124 covenant with you and with Israel."

CURRENT INTELL ON IRAQ & IRAN

Here are some excerpts from a recent Senate hearing that bear on the questions of Al Qaeda in Iraq, the threat of Iran developing a nuclear weapon, the likelihood of the escalation working and the source of weapons for the insurgents.


Copyright 2007 Federal News Service, Inc.
All Rights Reserved Federal News Service
February 27, 2007 Tuesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING
LENGTH: 28512 words
HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE; SUBJECT: CURRENT AND FUTURE WORLDWIDE THREATS TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES; CHAIRED BY: SENATOR CARL LEVIN (D-MI); WITNESSES: THOMAS FINGAR, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE FOR ANALYSIS, AND CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE COUNCIL LIEUTENANT GENERAL MICHAEL MAPLES, U.S. ARMY, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY VICE ADMIRAL JOHN MCCONNELL, U.S. NAVY (RETIRED), DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE;
LOCATION: SH-216 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

ADM. MCCONNELL: First, the current security and political trends in Iraq are moving in a negative direction. Particularly after the February 2006 bombing of the mosque at Samarra, sectarian violence has become self- sustaining. Unless efforts to reverse these conditions gain real traction during the 12- to 18-month time frame of this estimate, we assess that the security situation will continue to deteriorate at a rate comparable to the latter half of 2006.

Second, success by the stronger and more loyal Iraqi security forces supported by the coalition in reducing violence could give Iraqi political leaders breathing space to pursue political compromise needed for progress and stability. But even if the violence declines, the current level of sectarian animosity will make political reconciliation difficult over the next 12 to 18 months.

Third, if coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the time frame of this estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi government, and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation. In addition, al Qaeda would be likely to use Anbar province to plan for increased attacks.

Fourth, while outside actors are not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects of stability, Iranian lethal support for select groups of Iraq Shi'a militants clearly intensifies the conflict in Iraq. Additionally, Syria continues to provide safe haven for expatriate Iraqi Ba'athists and to take less than adequate measures to stop the flow of foreign jihadists into Iraq.

While our information is incomplete, we estimate Iran could produce a nuclear weapon by early to mid next decade.

GEN. MAPLES: The situation in Iraq will remain an extremely complex and challenging security environment as the conflict remains fundamentally a sectarian struggle for power and the right to define Iraq's future identity.

We have noted a change in the character and the dynamics of the conflict. The perception of unchecked violence is creating an atmosphere of fear, hardening sectarianism, empowering militias and vigilante groups and undermining confidence in government and security forces. Conflict in Iraq is in a self-sustaining cycle in which violent acts increasingly generate retaliation.

Attacks by terrorist groups account for only a limited portion of insurgent violence...

Al Qaeda remains the most dominate terrorist organization and the most significant threat to U.S. interests worldwide. Despite being forced to decentralize its network, al Qaeda retains the ability to organize complex, mass casualty attacks and to inspire others. Al Qaeda's increasing cooperation with like-minded groups has improved its ability to facilitate, support and direct its objectives.

ADM. MCCONNNELL: I think the Iraqi political leaders have close to impossible tasks: (1) the sectarian violence on the one hand; and (2) pressure to make progress. The question is, will leadership emerge and be capable of taking the country to the next level?

SEN. WARNER: But why did we start the program until these components were in place before we put in harm's way the U.S. forces? That's my question. And do you have any further facts to share with this committee and the Congress about the participation today, this moment, of the Iraqi forces?

GEN. MAPLES: Sir, the Iraqis have moved two of the three brigades they said they would move into Baghdad.

SEN. WARNER: But they showed up with half force levels, didn't they?

GEN. MAPLES: Sir, the range that I have seen in the battalion manning is between 43 and 82 percent of manning in those battalions.

GEN. MAPLES:So the assessment by those who are embedded with the units and our commanders on the ground is that the units that are moving into Baghdad are in fact capable units. There are some limitations associated with that, and in fact, two of the three brigades are Kurdish brigades. And so you have some issues associated with language, with cultural understanding and with serving in an area in which the individuals were not recruited. And that will be an issue that has to be worked through.

SEN. WEBB:...What is your evaluation of the scope of influence of the current Iraqi government? What I mean by that is, how much control do you really believe it has in terms of implementing the requirements that we are attempting to put on it?

ADM. MCCONNELL: Senator, I don't think they yet have the kind of scope and influence that we would hope they would have, or that they could be successful in the short term.

SEN. WEBB: Would you compare the situation to, say, the situation in Lebanon?

ADM. MCCONNELL: Going back in time, I would compare it to Lebanon, yes sir, primarily because of the such deep divisions in the country with regard to the sectarianism and one force -- Sunni on Shi'a, Shi'a on Sunni.


SEN. REED: Well, the question would be, if you had to establish the probability of a successful attack being organized and directed against the United States, would it emanate from Pakistan, with this newly revised al Qaeda leadership, or would it come out of Iraq?

ADM. MCCONNELL: Two ways, two lines of reasoning to answer that. First of all, Iraq is a cause celebre for the jihadists in creating forces. My belief is the attack most likely would be planned and come out of the leadership in Pakistan. However, that said, there are al Qaeda elements, as you know, in Iraq and in Syria and other places, and even in Europe. And our information tells us they also are planning. Many would think of this as a command and control global net controlled from Pakistan. It isn't. There is some central planning and control and funding and so on, but individual, home-grown elements that are inspired by that vision are also a big problem for us.

SEN. BAYH: So if someone indicated in the last four months or so, let's say, that we were absolutely winning in Iraq, that is a mistaken assessment?

ADM. MCCONNELL: I wouldn't agree that we were winning. I think the conditions in 2006 were where it became most dramatically evident that the strategy was not being successful. And my sense is that's why there were adjustments made to the strategy.

SEN. BAYH: And based upon your understanding today, if, in the last couple of months, someone came to me and said that we had absolutely had enormous successes in Iraq, what would your response to that be?

ADM. MCCONNELL: Enormous successes in previous years?

SEN. BAYH: The bottom line in Iraq was that we had had enormous successes.

ADM. MCCONNELL: Sir, as we said in the estimate, it was going in a negative direction and sectarian violence was increasing. And my view is that's why the policy changed.

SEN. CLINTON:... . What is the best estimate of the U.S. intelligence community for how long it would take for Iran to develop nuclear weapons and the capacity to deliver them? And what degree of confidence do you have in that estimate?

ADM. MCCONNELL: The earliest they could produce a nuclear weapon would be early next decade, more likely mid-next decade.

SEN. CLINTON: And by mid-next decade, are we talking 2015?

ADM. MCCONNELL: We would be talking 2015.

SEN. CLINTON: And when that date is reached, 2015, which is the earliest that they could produce a nuclear weapon, would they then have the capacity to deliver that nuclear weapon?

ADM. MCCONNELL: It depends on how they develop their program. If they were to start the program for delivery consistent with the development of a nuclear weapon, they could match and marry up at the -- in the same timeframe. Normally it would take a little longer to have a delivery capability.

ADM. MCCONNELL: Two comments. One, there is an attempt of stop the flow of any traffic across that border, but most of the weapons that are being used inside Iraq are there now. I mean, it's not a matter of resupply; it's just that the stocks that were there from the Saddam era are just huge.

SEN. GRAHAM: Does al Qaeda believe that the outcome in Iraq is part of their overall strategy?

ADM. MCCONNELL: I wouldn't go so far as to say al Qaeda would necessarily believe that. Al Qaeda may have --

SEN. GRAHAM: Haven't they said that? (Chuckles.)

ADM. MCCONNELL: Well, they want to reestablish their base, and their objective could be in Afghanistan.

SEN. GRAHAM: Okay. So you don't think al Qaeda sees democracy in Iraq as a threat to their agenda?

ADM. MCCONNELL: Well, you describe al Qaeda as one large organization. There are elements of al Qaeda in Iraq and in --

SEN. GRAHAM: And -- I don't want to use any more -- the bottom line is, if we withdraw to Kuwait, what's the likelihood that al Qaeda-type elements would follow us to Kuwait?

ADM. MCCONNELL: Unlikely.