In 1978, The President is Jimmy Carter. The U.S. Senate proceedings are broadcast for the first time, on radio. The Senate votes to turn over the Panama Canal. Tito is named President for Life in Yugoslavia. The Camp David accords commence, followed by a Nobel Peace Prize for Begin and Sadat. Vietnam attacks Cambodia in an attempt to end the regime of Pol Pot. The Jonestown tragedy occurs in Guyana. The Spanish Constitution officially restores democratic government in Spain.

In 1978, the Ayatollah Khomeini had not yet returned to Iran from exile in France, although the political ferment of the time is setting the stage. No hostages have yet been taken and the Shah is still in power. The Ayatollah Khomeini has not yet established state sponsorship of terrorism as a political tool. Egyptian Islamic Jihad is in its formative stages and Al Qaeda is not even a distant vision. Radical Islam as a political movement is yet to be broadly established.   

In 1978, The Soviet Union is still the dominant threat and the Cold War had not ended. The PLO and its offshoots are the dominant terror organization. Hamas and Hezbollah are yet to be established. And…….., the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is passed, FISA.

History provides the vehicle for attempting to freeze a comparative moment in time and create a sense of context.   The context simply is; when you consider technology, business systems, research and development tools, scientific advances, what can you point to in 1978 that still works just as well today? Providing the rhetorical answer, nearly nothing! 

FISA established a special court to review warrants related to national security investigations. It required a warrant similar to those required in criminal investigations to provide probable cause in support of the intended activity, typically surveillance. The Act, which grew out of the Church Committee hearings, was a response to abuses occurring under President Nixon and revelations related to covert activities undertaken by the CIA.

It is not an extreme consideration to assume that a 30-year-old law, from a nearly prehistoric technological universe and in the context of an entirely new threat scenario should be revisited and revised to the realities of 2008.

There is much back and forth over the issue, many mischaracterizations, carefully worded statements from Capital Hill and a fair share of enflamed rhetoric. The bill acknowledges the technological circumstances present today, provides retroactive immunity to telecom companies and extends a number of provisions in the original Patriot Act. The Bill recognizes that instantaneous communication and an enemy that understands how to utilize technology represents a set of national security issues that are very different than they were in 1978.

The bill authorized surveillance of calls with foreign points of origination or destination with a review process but not the same manner of warrant process. It allows the National Security community to move quickly when a threat has been identified and communication in support of that threat is ongoing. 

The National Threat Assessment specifically and frequently discusses the use of technology as a growing and aggressive threat. To date I am unaware of anyone who has argued this point of analysis. Common sense prevails. It is also worth revisiting the original intention of FISA, which did not assume that non-U.S. citizens have the presumption of rights granted to U.S. citizens related to probable cause. The lapse of the current Protect America Act (PAA), which replaced the original FISA, essentially means that U.S. Constitutional rights are provided to overseas terrorist organizations. They cannot be subjected to surveillance without a court order. Under the current status of a lapsed (PAA) we are legally returned to the 1978 provisions of FISA.

As pointed out by Andrew McCarthy, recent rulings by the FISA court overturning decades of practice under FISA was the original motivation for the PAA. Some of the FISA Court’s crucial rulings were overturned by a FISA Court of Review in recognition of the change in circumstances since 1978 and recent threat assessments. The lapse of the PAA returns the state of the law to that point where the motivation existed to change the law in the first case. Only in Washington.   

Oversees surveillance and intelligent operations cannot, by their nature, and by the nature of the enemy, apply domestically accepted standards of probable cause, nor should they. That standard assumes the possession of information that is not typically possible in intelligence operations, which have as their goal the procurement of information. 

A classic Catch 22 results. If you cannot provide enough information to procure a warrant whose purpose is to procure information, you are not allowed to go out and procure the information so that you can satisfy warrant standards of probable cause.       

The reluctance in the House is solely reluctance of the leadership. The legislation is nearly assured passage and in fairness, a significant number of Democratic Congresspersons have asked for the bill to be brought to the floor. In an unusual move, the bill is going to a Conference Committee in advance of The House passing a bill different from The Senate bill, which passed 2 to 1.

Civil liberty concerns are valid, but this bill provides no additional “space” related to domestic surveillance. The probable cause standards apply just as they have under the original FISA bill. The issue of retroactive immunity for telecom companies is also an issue. The simple fact is that without this grant of immunity and the ability of telecom companies to accept National Security Community certifications, telecom companies are not going to take the chance of granting access to the very infrastructure that the surveillance depends on, not if lawsuits occur as a result of accepting certifications.

This week the IAEA released another report on Iran’s nuclear programs, and ISIS (Institute for Science and International Security) has, thankfully, endeavored to interpret that report. 

The recent background to this, latest, IAEA report is twofold. The U.S. released to the IAEA intelligence material from a lap top computer reportedly smuggled out of Iran, which contains information related to nuclear weapons development including trajectories and altitude studies to determine the optimum characteristics for a nuclear explosion.

The U.S. further provided the IAEA with information that the U.S. believes links diverse component programs to an ongoing effort to develop nuclear warheads appropriate to existing Iranian mid-range missiles.

The “laptop documents” provided by the U.S. are referred to by the IAEA as the “alleged studies”. However, the IAEA report specifically supports the U.S. assessment of the documents inclusive of a schematic layout of the inner core of a re-entry vehicle. The IAEA assesses that the schematic is likely able to accommodate a nuclear device.

Additionally, an Iranian opposition group, the NCRI, also released new information. The NCRI was responsible for the first reports of the Iranian nuclear fuel program and the specific locations of the component parts of that program that began the current effort to identify the exact scope and intentions of the Iranian program.  

The new information from the NCRI features allegations that the nuclear warhead program is housed in a specified Iranian military base and that North Korean personnel are being bused to this high security facility. In the interest of general context, we now have reports of North Korean personnel being present in both Syria and Iran.

There are also questions related to specific points of procurement by the Iranians including: training courses on neutron calculations, effect of shock waves on metal, isotope separation, ballistic missiles, shock wave software and a variety of other procurements that could be used to design, evaluate and program nuclear devices. The IAEA refers to the procurement activities as “a matter of serious concern” in terms of the potential military dimension of Iranian nuclear activities. Serious indeed.

Iran responds! The need for shock wave software is related to the study of aircraft and automobile collisions, “airbags and the design of safety belts”. Interesting answer in light of the vast amount of open source material available for this particular discipline. 

The good news is that the Iranians continue to face technical problems with their P1 centrifuges and their technical performance with this equipment is below expectations. The bad news is that the are proceeding with the next generation centrifuge, the IR2, and that the initial cascade is up and running.

So worry not, the Iranians assure us that it’s not about nuclear weapons it’s about seat belts and airbags.

Sources:

Wall Street Journal, February 20, 2008

Associated Press, February 14, 2008

ISIS, February 22, 2008

IAEA, February 22, 2008

Unintended Consequences, Democratic Style

February 18, 2008

We now know all about “Super Delegates”. They represent about 20% of the overall delegates in the Democratic Party. They also represent the inherent power structure within the party. Personally, I had no idea they even existed two months ago. Nevertheless, looking at the big picture of this political construct seems to be reflective, as it should be, of the philosophical approach of the party and the inherent potential for unintended consequences. 

Were one to be a tad cynical one might make the following observations:

It’s the nanny state in microcosm. In a close race, “we, the Super Delegates, are positioned to make the “appropriate” decision.” Minority rule? It is reflective of the idea that we’ve seen repeatedly, if Congress and The President cannot get it right, the courts will do it for us.

It’s a reflection of the idea that a small body of elites know better and that they just don’t trust us to make appropriate personal choices, unless, of course, we agree with them. Many have identified the long list of social programs, laws and legislation that protect us from ourselves: to limit choice in the interest of a “greater good”. The very idea of Super Delegates is an internal reflection of just that. We must be taken by the hand and led to the right path, like it or not. 

Howard Dean, a couple of weeks ago, represented the proportional delegate system as a way to insure that “minority rights and interests are represented”. However, were the Super delegates to have remained a shadow dynamic within the party as opposed to being brought to the fore by the closeness of the race would, in fact, Mr. Dean’s representation hold up? If, despite pressure to the contrary, the Super Delegates hold for Mrs. Clinton it will be the most significant “minority rights and representation” rip off in memory! Unintended consequences indeed.

Mr. Dean has also alluded to the dangers of an ongoing nomination fight and the possible need to get the candidates together to “work something out”. Does working something out mean disenfranchising some millions of voters? Did the primaries do nothing more than set the stage for a “deal”? That idea does not smack of minority rights and representation. It smacks of inside politics.  

Mrs. Clinton, to significant criticism in hindsight, fundamentally ignored most of the caucus states. Could it have been a case of counting on the early commitments of Super delegates to replace those points of inattention?

It is clear that Mrs. Clinton’s strategy was to close the deal on Super Tuesday. It is also clear to all except the most blinded true believers that the Clinton’s will do nearly anything to win. The axiom about being careful with wounded animals applies here. As every day goes by the wound gets a little deeper and seems to resist healing. If the instincts of the Clinton’s remain consistent to their history, there is thunder on the horizon and a storm may be approaching.

The strategy of casting Mr. Obama as “the Black candidate” has been analyzed to death. However, what is again, striking is the “we’ll do anything” instincts of the Clinton’s. If they can’t be careful with the first Black candidate to have a realistic chance at the nomination heaven help the rest of us. If, the unintended consequence of the first “existential” Black President attempting to marginalize the first “real” Black candidate isn’t the ultimate irony I’m not sure what is. 

More from the “we’ll do anything file.” It is widely reported that Mrs. Clinton readily, nay gleefully, supported the Party’s position not to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations. This position made perfect sense to her at the time as the “we’ll win on Super Tuesday” strategy was in no apparent jeopardy. The immediate post Super Tuesday rhetoric was that they should be seated, that we can’t disenfranchise those voters because, well…….they voted for me. Any variety of surrogates have, understandably, been running this idea up the flagpole since, criticism not withstanding. 

The unintended consequence is that the absence of these two delegations makes the math almost impossible for either candidate short of a deal, seating Florida and Michigan, a redo, or a convention fight. 

The Florida and Michigan “unseating” is a clear signal that the party also assumed a Clinton Super Tuesday close out and were, inherently, discounting Mr. Obama. The party, at that time, had no problems with the potential disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan voters in advance, oops!   

Unintended consequence also appears in the form of ethical leadership. John Lewis announced that despite his commitment to Mrs. Clinton he would honor the will of his Congressional District and cast his Super Delegate vote for Mr. Obama. Good for you Mr. Lewis! However, Mr. Lewis’s statement is much more important than one vote. It’s a warning shot across the bow of the Democratic establishment by a universally beloved figure. The warning? That Super Delegates voting against the patterns in their districts or states risk real danger. Mr. Lewis is much more than just a single Black Congressman and the party knows it.

Democrats should be a little put off by all of this. The party assumed a winner, was prepared to disenfranchise voters in advance and held no respect Mr. Obama’s chances. Thank goodness, the Democrats have John Lewis.      

The NATO alliance is fast approaching the point where persistent, underlying problems will appear at the surface. The alliance faces seminal challenges, which could unhinge the basic formulations of the alliance. 

After September 11, for the first time, NATO invoked Article V. Article V applies the “attack against one member is an attack against all” provision. The U.S., for a variety of reasons, took the decision not to involve NATO in Afghanistan in any significant fashion at that time.

Now that the United States has attempted to engage NATO in Afghanistan a series of long recognized disconnects between the U.S. and its allies have come to the fore. The vast majority of NATO nations engaged in Afghanistan are not authorized by their governments to engage in combat operations, only in reconstruction efforts. While the number of NATO troops on the ground should be sufficient to the task the number is misleading and the task of engaging The Taliban in the only manner The Taliban understands goes begging. Notable exceptions are the Dutch, Canadians, British who have fought bravely, and well. However, the posture of other NATO allies is illustrated clearly by the U.S. decision to send an additional 3,500 U.S. Marines to Afghanistan. It is further illustrated by NATO nations continuing reluctance to approve changes in their military authorizations for combat related troop deployments.

The question presents itself: is an attack on one NATO nation, truly an attack on all? If NATO constituents are politically unable to respect and support the application of Article V provisions it becomes a matter of simple logic to question the validity of the alliance and the massive resources that have been committed to it.  

Additional questions present themselves: Is this an alliance in the true sense of an alliance or simply an inexpensive way for Europe to insure European security? It is also valid to wonder if our self-interest is being served by our commitment to NATO?

The disconnect is clearly evidenced by the “approved” activities of most of the NATO allies in Afghanistan and is fundamental. European attitudes on display in Afghanistan are the same ones that were on display during their failed efforts in the Balkan crisis. The belief that facilitation and never ending diplomatic engagement can overcome the evils inherent in any situation was disproved in that situation. The have been further disproved in the five year long negotiations with Iran and tragic failures in Darfur. 

While the blind faith in diplomacy is laudable in an esoteric sense, the facts on the ground argue that limiting a military force to reconstruction as a path to reconciliation and victory is chimera.  Frederick the Great famously contended, “Diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments”. The reconstitution of The Taliban has been, in part, a function of music without instruments. This year, offensive operations by The Taliban have increased by 25% and once again, an additional commitment of U.S. combat troops is necessary if failure is to be avoided.

There are other points of evidence in demonstration of the risk averse nature of the modern continental European states. In the aftermath of the Israeli, Hezbollah war in Lebanon last summer the world looked to the French, based on their longstanding relations with Lebanon, to provide a stabilization force. As two dozen French medical personnel, “stormed the beach” in Beirut the disappointment was almost palpable.

The Dayton Accords to resolve the Balkan conflict was a case of American bombing and diplomatic bullying to resolve what should have been a European issue. The Europeans declared it a European issue but were impotent in exercising their moral authority and fearful of military engagement in support of policy.

The fundamental disconnect is philosophical. Americans believe that the sacrifice of blood and treasure to defeat an enemy such as The Taliban is a worthy undertaking. Sacrifice as the means to offer to others the freedoms we enjoy is noble. Europeans, after decades of Social Democracy, the domination of moral equivalency as an accepted norm and an evolution away from traditional Judeo-Christian ideals, do not see it that way. Continental Europeans demonstrate a dramatic, indeed arrogant reluctance to sacrifice in a significant fashion to extend the same blessings of democracy to others that they enjoy. It may be their undoing in more ways than one. 

I have long quoted a former boss of mine who contended that there are “no good deals without good partners”. Experience has proven him correct time and time again. Regardless of how much money is on the table, evidence that partners might not share the same ethical foundation or philosophy as you do is reason enough to run for the proverbial hills.    

The initial focus of this week’s National Threat Assessment addresses the permanent extension of The Protect America Act (PAA), which, among other issues, allows private companies to be retroactively shielded from liability based on their past cooperation with the Intelligence Community (IC). It removes legal liability from companies that own the lines and interconnect infrastructure that the IC must access for surveillance of potential threats.  It also removes and invalidates the potential for the types of law suits we have seen recently that demand, in legal discovery, the exposure of classified materials based on nothing more substantial than the suspicion of the plaintiff that he or she may have been the target of illegal surveillance.  

There is a simple strategy in place for the tin foil hat crowd that sees a bogeyman under the bed. Contend that you have been the target of illegal wire taps, file suit and force the telecom companies to defend themselves. Filing a lawsuit does not require a standard of probability, nor does it require proof, only a complaint, a contention and a lawyer. For the House to be more concerned with spurious lawsuits than national security is, to understate the situation, unfortunate. It is also telling.

Should this liability limitation not be permanently extended cooperation of private communications companies will come to a halt and remaining provisions of the law rendered ineffective. Mr. McConnell estimates that by the time the eventual sunset provision of the PAA comes to pass, as much as a 75% reduction of capabilities could occur. 

House resistance to the retroactive provisions are stalling the bill. Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D, NY) is an apt spokesman for the resistance. He contends that current lawsuits should be allowed to progress in the courts, that it’s not Congress’s job to interfere. He remains concerned about the lack of accountability and “control”. OK, defensible positions, however the key to the underlying motivation for the resistance is not the role of the courts or accountability. The telling aspect of the resistance is in the rhetoric. Mr. Nadler during his extensive interview with CSPAN yesterday repeatedly, in reference to President Bush, uses words such as Dictator and Monarch. He refers to “Congressional Power” but rarely to national security.

It’s not about the bill and spurious law suits for Mr. Nadler it is a continuation of the Congressional food fight with the White House. It’s about who takes the fall should something happen as a result of diminished intelligence capabilities. Speaker Pelosi says it’s the President because he won’t back off the retroactive liability protection and that it is all about protecting telecom companies. Speaker Pelosi and her 20% approval rating says that the President is more concerned with the telecom companies than national security.

Rubbish! It’s about not putting those companies in a position of caving in to lawsuits because the government will, eventually, refuse to expose intelligence information in support of actual surveillance. It’s about prior good faith cooperation that was and is critical to our ability to identify and preempt threats.

Wait a minute. It’s also the fault of the Senate, which passed out a bill this week. House leaders are upset that the Senate went about their own way of passing out a bill and that there is no time to reconcile the two versions. Nevertheless, facts can be a difficult thing to overcome. The bill passed out of The Senate this week is nearly identical to the committee mark up that has been in place and available to The House for six months! The House has long known what was going to come out of the Senate and could have gone to a conference committee long ago.          

The fact that congress has been fooling around with the extension of the PAA for six months, despite uniform support from the IC and two years of testimony is exceptionally difficult to comprehend. In fact, two years of testimony was insufficient as Mr. McConnell was called before the Senate Intelligence Committee again yesterday to, essentially, repeat prior testimony.  

The NTA addresses the growing use of the internet by Radical terror groups. To render our ability to survey them useless is incomprehensible. The NTA further focuses on the current risks related to Cyber-Security. One can surmise that the ability to install protective systems at the point of interconnect is an unstated goal and will require not only the cooperation of private companies but also their ability to innovate. The NTA specifically identifies that “Over the past year cyber exploitation activity has grown more sophisticated, more targeted, and more serious. The IC expects these trends to continue in the coming year”.  The report goes on “We must take proactive measures to detect and prevent intrusions from whatever source, as they happen, and before they can do significant damage.” This statement alludes to the potential for the ability to do so. So in that context, we should leave critical telecom companies dangling on the long end of the legal rope?

Two specifically highlighted threats should demand our attention. The first is the growth in homegrown, Islamist orientated terror cells. The NTA states that the sophistication of these groups is, currently, weak. However, the report also highlights the growing number of Islamists web sites being generated in English, and the growing ability of terrorist planners to transmit information and direction to surrogates anywhere in the world. We have seen the impact of homegrown terrorism in London and Madrid, should we actually facilitate it here by eliminating our ability to identify the threats? 

The fact is, that by not approving the liability provisions of the PAA we emasculate our ability to generate real time intelligence related to the use of the internet and phone lines that are not generated in the U.S. but have to connect through the U.S. The fact that our technology and telecom companies have positioned us as an indispensable feature of the global communications system is an exceptionally valuable position to hold. To render this capability mute is an egregious example of politics being a more significant concern than security and one more step down the road of “democracy as a mutual suicide pact”.  

In the context of Mitt Romney’s suspension of his campaign John McCain addressed CPAC today in exactly the manner he had to do it.  Those who have made the vocal arguments about McCain being unacceptable will remain unmoved, to expect otherwise is naïve and ignores the colossal egos at play. 

However, McCain was not speaking to them!  McCain was speaking to the vast population of self identified mainstream conservatives and moderates.  McCain addressed them with a decidedly effective combination of humility, good humor and a relaxed but aggressive defense of his record as a whole.  McCain addressed them as a leader; this was a leadership speech and a good one.  

Since 1980, according to surveys by Harris Interactive, the combination of self identified Conservatives and Moderates has hovered between 75% and 80% of the respondents.  To ignore this consistent trend of self-identification is to insure electoral defeat.  To promote mainstream conservative ideas on the large stage offered by the Presidency demands that one is actually elevated to the Presidency. It’s an immovable fact.  The idea that losing is good and that after four years of Democratic failures Conservatives will rise again is a dangerous game that depends of such a vast array of assumptions and intangibles as to be questionable on the face of it.

McCain’s address to CPAC may not have been a Home Run but there is no doubt it went for extra bases.  His points were the ones he needed to make: I share the vast majority of your values and positions, I will continue to do so, I know we’ve disagreed but I’ll take your counsel and where we may continue to have a disagreement I hope you’ll offer me the respect of honest conviction that I will offer you.  He also made the point that he has been as aggressive on issues were they agreed as he was, on occasion, when they disagreed.

McCain asked for their acknowledgment or, and respect for the fact that in the early primaries he argued against regional priorities based on principals: farm subsidiaries in Iowa, government entitled health care in New Hampshire and national catastrophic insurance in Florida.

McCain effectively drew the distinctions and consequences of a Republican defeat in November: Government intrusions, the War, terrorism, entitlements, health care, the Supreme Court, 2^nd amendment, abortion and tax policy.  McCain drew attention to the fact that the upcoming election would not be an election fought over small differences.

Perhaps most importantly he offered his mea culpa for misjudgments of the past.  He referred to himself as an “imperfect servant” who has made mistakes.

There will be much commentary on issues he did not address, that is fair and to be expected.  For Conservatives to “sit it out” with John McCain as the nominee ignores the most important aspect of the man.  Proven courage under circumstances most of us can only imagine vaguely. 

I wrote a rather critical posting here, and an opinion letter published in the Washington Times in December based on the last NIE (National Intelligence Estimate). That report essentially downplayed the Iranian nuclear threat.  My posting focused on an analysis of the illogic of the NIE, contrary opinions and the political motivations that the document appeared to represent.  

I, and many others with significantly more expertise, were aghast at the counter intuitive conclusions contained in the NIE. In the days following the issuance of the NIE many voices joined the chorus of criticism aimed at the NIE and it’s opinions of Iranian intentions and capabilities including: The IAEA, The Israeli Defense Minister, Ambassador Bolton, Yossi Klein Halevi, Gerald Steinberg, Michael Leeden, Youssef Ibrahim, Michael Rubin, Tim Shipman of the London Telegraph, The Mossad, Senator Kit Bond, Kenneth Timmerman, Alan Dershowitz, Daniel Pipes, Rafael Bardaj and many others.  

We now have the National Threat Assessment, which restates the conclusions of the reasonably well discredited NIE.  Let’s revisit some of the conclusions from the December NIE and look at just what has been reported this week. 

Some of the conclusions:  (Cut from the Original NIE word for word)

“We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons Program.”

“We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were

working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.”

“We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years.”

“We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007.

“Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005.”

“By “nuclear weapons program” we mean Iran’s nuclear weapon design

and weaponization work and covert uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment-related work.”

Now some of this weeks reporting, just this week:

Ø      Mr. McConnell in an effort to clarify the NIE during his testimony this week identified the enrichment stage of the three-stage process involved in developing a nuclear weapon as “the most difficult”.

Ø      The Associated Press reports that Iran has developed faster centrifuges called the IR2. This development would be, potentially, an improvement on A.Q. Kahn’s P2 centrifuge provided to Iran through his black market network.  AP reports that testing of the new device is in its early stages.  This development, assuming technical challenges are overcome, will vastly accelerate the ability to produce fissile material.

Ø      The Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) reports that Iran resumed work on the IR2 in early 2006.

Ø      Similar reports were filed by Reuters and the Vienna Press Agency.

Ø      French press sources report that Iran has increased production of UF6, aka Uranium Hexafluoride to 300 tons. UF6 is a precursor gas required for uranium enrichment.

Ø      Israel’s Mossad estimates that Iran will develop a nuclear weapon within three years.  The NIE estimated 2015.  The Mossad further contends that Iran may have generated a temporary halt in its nuclear program five years ago but it has since pressed ahead with uranium enrichment.  Israel has long warned U.S. intelligence that a covert, parallel enrichment program has been underway for some time.

Ø      Iran announced the launch of a new rocket it claimed was for putting a satellite into space.

Ø      Russia questioned the value of the rocket test and stated that it might be motivated to reassess its relationship with Iran relative to nuclear development.

Ø      France reported that the tested rocket is incapable of navigating in space and that the test “added to concerns that the technology is aimed at making weapons.”  A rocket that is incapable of navigating in space is really only useful for one purpose, weapons delivery.

Ø      A variety of reports indicates that the tested rocket is capable of reaching North Africa and Europe.

Ø      Meir Dagan, Mossad Director further stated that Iran’s allies, Syria and the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah are also involved in development of rocket improvements. “Syria is improving its surface-to-surface missile system and today the quantity of missiles and rockets is twice as large as two years ago.”

The recent “re-justification” of the NIE conclusions aside, the symptomatic evidence continues to argue that Iran is aggressively pursuing enrichment activities and developing the capabilities to deliver the eventual fruits of those processes, a nuclear weapon.

If indeed, as Iran has argued, their nuclear program is peaceful, it is difficult to understand the need for a “dumb” rocket capable of reaching European capitals, but not capable of putting a satellite into orbit!  It is also difficult to explain the need for the new centrifuge considering the investment of time, money and expertise required to upgrade from the P2.  The existing P2 centrifuges are easily capable of producing fuel appropriate to a peaceful use power plant.  The existence of enhanced capability can only mean that a rush to highly enriched uranium is well underway.

On Thursday, the heads of all the key intelligence agencies testified before the House Intelligence committee concurrent with the release of The National Threat Assessment.

If you needed an additional reminder of the stark differences between Republican and Democratic focus, the initial questions from the ranking members provided them.

Mr. Reyes, The Chairman’s first question of the assembled brain trust upon the completion Mike McConnell’s opening statement was about diversity and languages in the various agencies. Mr. Reyes’s follow up statement to the, predictably politically correct, responses made it clear that he had been engaged with the diversity issue as a significant priority for the intelligence community since becoming the Chairman of the committee.  The brain trust was clearly expecting the question.

Mr. Hoekstra’s first question focused on the radical Islamist threat to America and the global nature of it.

Given the failures of the intelligence community in the past, the challenges related to inter-departmental coordination, the nature of FISA, the refusal of Congress to extend the Protect America Act and the significant lack of focus that was the case in the two decades preceding 9/11, it’s hard to imagine that diversity is our most significant point of focus for the intelligence community. However, that is the issue that The Chairman chose to focus on as his first priority as the committee met to evaluate The National Threat Assessment.

Will diversity contribute to a more balanced intelligence community, yes it likely will.  However, a case can also be made that high skill levels, a significant training commitment, employee retention, existent language skills, exceptional educational achievement, focused motivation and a commitment to serve the nation would also serve the intelligence community well.

The stark differences in the initial focus of their questions between Mr. Reyes and Mr. Hoekstra tells us all we need to know about the differences that will exist in the Oval Office come January.           

 Dear Rush, Sean, and Ann,

Please let me know who I talk to so that I can resign from my conservative points of view.  I’ve applied your “purity test”, and well…..I failed. 

I don’t hate Joe Lieberman, in fact I respect him greatly.  We differ on a lot, Joe and I, but I respect his courage of conviction and he’s been right on the war and on radical Islam.  He also beat back a far left candidate supported by the Democratic establishment.  But, I understand he’s not acceptable and standing next to McCain has driven you up the Conservative wall. .

I have liberal friends that I value and that I would go to the mat for, just like the relationship that John and Joe apparently have.  That is apparently unacceptable as well.  I did not realize that a Conservative point of view mandates that political purity trumps all other considerations.  Again, I fail the test.

Ann, I know you’re said you're prepared to vote for Hillary based on the lack of purity associated with the current Republican candidates.  Is it just a case of playing by your rules or you’re going to take your ball and go home?   Would it not make more sense to hang in there and try to impact the agenda.  Again, I have apparently failed to apply the proper standards of analysis and consideration.

You all have also “educated” me that unintended consequences are only bad if their not conservative unintended consequences. 
 

I had a serious problem with McCain on immigration.  He changed his position and claims to have “gotten the message” we all sent.  I gather that both the original position and the revised position are unacceptable even though the revised position is what we wanted from him.  He did not get it right and he admitted it.  If you’re all as committed to Christian values as you purport, where is forgiveness and resurrection?  Opps, by way of the “purity” standard I fail again. 

Oh and by the way, I’m still conflicted about right to life issues.  I could not engage in abortion personally but I’m still not to the point where I’m prepared to inflict that opinion on everyone, everywhere.  I fail again!

I've also voted against, far right evangelical candidates.  They were just too scary for me no matter the consequence.  I sat in the living rooms of some of those folks and just could not swallow it.  Another apparent failure on my part!
 

I think I’m OK on Foreign Policy and Economics but it is now clear to me that it’s not good enough to pass through the “purity” gauntlet.

So, get back to me on that resignation thing!

PS: As I’ve listened to the “purity” argument about being “Conservative enough” it feels a lot like radical Islamists who destroy people for not being “Muslim enough”!!!  Think about it!

In the context of eight more long months till the election, a wish list. 

I wish that, first and foremost, the media would come to worry less about creating news and more about reporting it in context.  Joann, the headline wish is for you!

I wish that the media would come up with more creative questioning.  The same questions occur with such a frequency as to motivate the potential for “head explosions”.   All questions delivered with a self-absorbed confidence that if we’re just sincere enough it will somehow sound new.  The news cycle may be only 24 hours but the questions cycle goes on for days, in some cases weeks.

I wish that MSNBC would not present Keith Olberman as a news anchor.  Truth in media would demand that he be referred to as the “Chief angry, one dimensional, Move-On.org research is my life, if only Rose O’Donnell were still around to make me sound rational, Guy”.  Speaking of head explosions, Keith had trouble bearing up under the pressure of sports reporting; now he’s anchoring national political coverage?  It could just be a matter of time until that next explosion for Keith and yet another short trip in the white wagon with the special “seatbelts”!

I wish that the media would stop utilizing the “Harry Reid Strategy”.  The Harry Reid Strategy is to make a point repeatedly, regardless of the truth.  Repetition, until the sheer weight of it leads people to assume it must be true.

I wish that Joe Scarborough would stop referring to himself as a conservative.  Token conservative might work but not conservative, not on MSNBC, and that Mika Brezinski would learn two things: not to interrupt and history.

I wish for some manner of self-imposed limit on the number of partisan politicos flogging their candidate’s talking points.  Combining the candidates media face time with the parroting politicos just improves the odds of simultaneous universal head explosions.

I wish that Jack Cafferty would go ahead, retire to Florida and join all of the other angry old people that attempt to kill me with their cars for no apparent reason.  Jack, trust me, you’ll fit right in.  You could get yourself elected to a Condo Board and actually focus that hostility, again trust me, you’ll fit right in.  I’ll even donate those cool sunglasses that wrap around the side of your head.

I wish for a 30-day moratorium on discussions of Health Care.  Sure, it’s an issue but I am in serious personal jeopardy of that head explosion thing when the minutia of the plans takes center stage and no one seriously questions the financial jeopardy of it all.

I wish the Republicans would get over it regarding John McCain.  In the context of the fact that a vast majority of Republicans abandoned Conservative principals between 2000 and 2006 it’s sounding more than a little hypocritical and shallow.

End volume I

As I watched the Democratic debate last night I was, yet again, reminded of what drove me from a Liberal to a Conservative point of view.

The change grew out of the realization that government was not very good at “solving problems”, at least not without the specter of unintended consequences somewhere down the road.  It grew out of a career in business, dealing with taxes, regulations, reporting, government programs and bureaucrats.  It grew out of a slow awakening that what governments attempt to do should be limited. It grew out of an evolving opinion that government should focus on creating the conditions by which people could improve, progress and lift themselves up by virtue of their hard work, character and creativity, not a government trying to do it for them or removing the motivation to do so.    

The realization also grew out of personal experience with the Liberal ideas that created the welfare state as it existed in the 1970’s that, with all good intentions, (I think) tended to create the worst kind of racism, a permanent, subservient underclass with just enough to survive but not enough to improve.

This journey also encompassed a personal study of historical political systems and the foundations they provided for present systems, of what worked and what did not.

As Hillary began her initial remarks she told us all that government must “solve our problems”.  She told us that Universal Health Care was a “right”.  I’m reasonably familiar with the bill or rights, you could interpret the Happiness portion of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness to include Health Care but that was not in the minds of the founders.  Health care is not only a right but a moral imperative.   I admit my bias, as it’s hard for me to accept moral imperatives from Ms. Clinton in light of the number of issues that should have carried moral imperatives for her and did not.

I stop short of accusing Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama of being Socialists but there is no denying that income redistribution, a foundation of Socialist thinking, is clearly in their hearts and minds.  They will pay for massive new entitlements with higher taxes on the “rich”. Mr. Obama went so far to say and I quote “ we must control the profits of drug companies”.  This would represent a whole new threshold for government regulation, not only would we regulate a wide variety of issues that effect the ability of a company to be profitable, we would control the extent to which profits could be generated.  It made me wonder if my company might be next?  The candidates were and have been clear that the health care and oil industries are also on the list of federal “profit management” targets.  

Mr. Obama went further, again I quote “I’m not bashful about this, the wealthy must pay more”!  Last time I checked 80% of the actual taxes paid were coming from the “wealthy”.  A source of concern for all should be what “wealthy” means.  I recall in 2006 a democratic strategist defining “wealthy” as a household income in excess of $80,000! When I listen to Mr. O’s opinion that our problems are “rooted in economic imbalance”, I hear, income redistribution and the call to action for class warfare.  When I hear Hillary address the issue of 37 million below the poverty line, I do the math and get 88% of the population above the poverty line and wonder what percentage will be “raised up” and at what cost?

Immigration was discussed in some detail but there was a clear absence of emphasis on actualized boarder security.  We can “solve” all of the other immigration related problems but without boarder security we “solve” nothing.  It’s all an exercise in policy wonking, it defies the realities of the situation.  Again, quoting “we must help our friends to the south create jobs”.  In light of the attempts by the Mexican government to have their way with our domestic immigration policy where is the evidence that “our friends to the South” can get out of their own way when it comes to creating jobs, no matter the amount of help.  NAFTA was not enough help?  Why create jobs with an open boarder and billions in U.S. dollar cash infusions coming across the boarder?  Again, a reminder from Mr. O and Ms. C of why I abandoned Liberal thinking to begin with.

Code words: according to Mr. O the health care program will have to bear some undefined “up front costs” before we generate the benefit of the savings he anticipates from his program. “Up front costs”, for how long, how much, what’s the return.  What happens if the projected savings are no more than that, projections? How much more entitlement spending can the economy bear, with the existing entitlements in serious jeopardy?  These are the types of unanswered, poorly considered issues that drove me away from Liberal thinking.

On Iraq, I could not disagree more with Mr. O and Ms. C.  Taking Mr. O’s comments he calls for no permanent bases, but at the same time calls for the presence of a strike force.  I assume they’ll be staying at the local Motel 6. 

For Democrats it’s all about sending a signal to Iraq that our support for them is coming to an end.  How about sending a signal that everything we said about democratic evolution in Iraq is not a function of party and election politics.  How about sending the signal that America’s history includes sacrifice so that others can enjoy what we most value for ourselves, freedom.  How about sending a signal that we see the entire context of the Jihadist threat and we need to defeat it in Iraq or we will defeat it nowhere.  How about sending the signal that the exceptional work of General Petraeus will continue neighborhood by neighborhood, tribe by tribe. 

How about sending the signal that we don’t quit anymore!  All of the opinions, passions and recriminations aside, we broke it we own it.  Abandoning Iraq will have more impact on our often discussed “credibility in the world” than any amount of diplomatic chit chat you could imagine.  If we quit, we’ll be trusted even less than we are now.  We’ll be done with all of the critical countries that face Jihadism and would consider looking to us for leadership.     

Ms. C. rightly addressed the American civilians and Iraqi supporters as being in significant jeopardy if we leave.  But the identification of the issue carries no plan in the context of her intent to withdraw 1 to 2 Brigades a month.  The concern was put in the back seat to the goal of getting out. 

Just one more smell test item. Mrs. C. called for legislation to limit Presidential power.  I’m accepting betting odds on whether a President Hillary will, in fact, sign legislation to limit Presidential power!  3:1 no questions asked.