Killing the Dubai Ports World port deal has sent a variety of messages to the world, none of them good. It has weakened our credibility with other countries, a dangerous thing to do during a war. Forcing DPW to pull out of the deal because of poll numbers generated by media disinformation says that America is, indeed, a "fair-weather" friend. We have sent the Middle East a clear (though hopefully incorrect) signal that America will never trust Arabs and Muslims, even friendly ones who help us.

As hard as I tried, I could not find a single reasonable objection to the port deal that would hold water. Terrorists and their money have moved through the UAE, but it's the transportation and banking center of the Middle East -- everything that moves, moves through the UAE. DPW would not, in fact, have been buying ports, controlling ports, gaining access to port security or learning shipping schedules other than their own. P&O, the British firm that was bought by the Dubai company, merely leased terminals in the six ports in question. A sizeable portion of our incoming port traffic already passes through the hands of DPW, as DPW manages ports all over the world. As, in fact, do foreign firms in most American ports -- including state-owned firms based in Singapore, Norway, China and Saudi Arabia.

Some objected to DPW because the UAE boycotts Israel... but the chairman of Israel's largest shipping firm strongly endorsed the deal. "During our long association with DP World, we have not experienced a single security issue in these ports or in any of the terminals operated by DP World," Zim Integrated Shipping Services CEO Idon Ofer said in a letter to Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) written February 22. "We are proud to be associated with DP World and look forward to working with them into the future." It's a pity Hillary never saw fit to make this letter public before it was too late to save face all around.

The consequences to our outburst of fear-based protectionism have already begun. The UAE has postponed trade talks with the US that were set to take place before the DPW deal was killed. As AFP reported, "Last year US companies exported goods worth 8.5 billion dollars to the UAE, making the small country of 2.5 million people a bigger export market for the United States than India or Spain." Robert Springborg, director of the London Middle East Institute of the School of Oriental and African Studies, said, "It doesn't matter whether it is a private investor or a public investor. This will affect investment." The Chicago Tribune reports the reaction in progress. "People are making decisions to invest elsewhere than in the U.S.," said Rachel Bronson, a Mideast expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. "Gulf money is being invested in Europe and Asia. This furthers that trend."

We don't yet know how our slap in Dubai's face will affect our relationship with the UAE as regards the War on Terror, but the odds are the reaction won't be positive. Until now, they've been a fairly good ally. Dubai hosts US military troops, planes and ships -- in fact, more US ships are serviced in Dubai than in any port outside the US. The UAE has trained Iraqi troops, given us valuable intelligence, and turned over captured terrorists to us. Will we be able to count on their aid after telling them in such a public way that we just don't trust them? Will other countries decide that the satisfaction of helping the US isn't worth the public humiliation of being treated with distrust? An essential part of the War on Terror is forming relationships with moderate Middle Eastern countries such as Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE, using our influence in a positive way. Public repudiation is no way to do that.  

All of this, for votes. Most Democrats misrepresented the issue from the start, trying to portray themselves as tougher on national security than Republicans. Most media outlets distorted the facts, ramped up paranoia based on lies, then published the results of polls based on the manipulated "public opinion." A majority of Republicans, nervous about coming up short on national security in an election year, joined the Democrats.

Now, foreign investors are considering whether to pull capital out of America before they get thrown out. Potential investors are considering whether China or the European Union might make a better trading partner than the fickle, xenophobic-seeming United States. Middle Eastern countries that have helped or might have helped us in the War on Terror are wondering whether being treated like they're our enemies would be worth the risk of angering the real enemies.

Fearmongering Democrats and weak-kneed Republicans in Congress have handed bin Laden a huge propaganda victory, while dealing the US a double blow, both in the economy and in the War on Terror. Congratulations all around.

There is, as usual, at least one positive aspect. We finally have the Democrats on record expressing a firm belief in the danger of terrorism and the need for national security. Any Democrat who backs away from that stance now is in for a rough ride in the polls by which politicians live and die.

When it comes to preaching multiculturalism and politically correct social engineering in public schools, the Left are certainly the most vocal of free speech purists. On the other hand, the same people react with horror to the mere mention of religion or Conservative views in the same schools. Are there limits to free speech in schools, or not -- and who gets to set those limits? Can teachers use public schools as soapboxes from which to preach their personal philosophy, whatever it may be? Should any religious or political views be banned from public schools -- or only Christian and Conservative perspectives? Taxpayers have little or no control over the schools they pay for -- and that's the root of the problem.

The Jay Bennish case is being fought as a free speech issue. A radical Left-wing teacher was caught on tape railing against President Bush, the liberation of Iraq, capitalism, democracy and America while supposedly teaching a geography class. Is it right for teachers to use high school classrooms to instill hatred for America? According to Bennish's defenders, he was merely exercising his First Amendment rights, and not pushing a particular point of view. Were the students learning anything about geography? The Left pompously declare that free speech may not be interfered with, especially not in the classroom. However... other teachers, who have different views, have had their free speech rights denied, as have students.

Whenever a teacher seems to espouse a right-of-center viewpoint, the Left are quick to remind us that students see teachers as the voice of authority -- although left-wing diatribes aren't seen as exerting undue influence. In 2004, a teacher put up a wall display with pictures of the American Presidents and a poster of the Declaration of Independence. She was reprimanded because the display included a picture of the current President, George W. Bush. Since there was no picture of Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry, the display was seen as "endorsing" Bush as a candidate in the 2004 election. In a middle school. Where the students range in age from 10 to 14. 

A student was scolded, lectured, insulted and threatened for putting up signs supporting the liberation of Iraq in a New Jersey school. "Thought Police" squads roamed the hallways of Maine, Massachusetts and West Virginia schools, watching for evidence of racial or sexual "intolerance" like having a Bible. Teachers in a California high school were ordered to hang posters promoting "gay tolerance" -- complete with pink triangles and rainbows -- in their classrooms, even though some teachers objected due to their religious beliefs. There has been no move to hang "religious tolerance" posters. How about promoting plain "tolerance" without focusing it through a Liberal lens?

Many Americans have become worried about the anti-Christian stance of most public schools. Under cover of "separation of church and state" -- a phrase which exists nowhere in the Constitution -- public schools have, in many cases, banned all forms of Judeo-Christian religious expression. Despite the fact that (according to a 2005 Newsweek/Beliefnet poll) 85% of Americans belong to one Christian denomination or another, teachers and students are not allowed to wear Christian religious symbols, speak about their religion, or form Christian clubs.

Children have been suspended for praying in their free time, or even carrying a Bible. In one Texas middle school, teachers threw students' Bibles in the trash and removed book covers that had Christian themes. Why isn't it considered the same abuse of their authority when a teacher tells students, "This is garbage" as it would be if the teacher said, "This is good?" Would they dare do the same to a Qur'an? All across America, Christmas has been replaced with "winter holiday" and Easter with "spring break." Christmas carols have been excised or altered. What happened to the First Amendment's injunction against "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion? If the First Amendment gives some teachers complete freedom of speech in the classroom, it must do so for all. If there are limits and guidelines, they should be set by the people whose children will learn by them.

As much as Christianity offends them, however, most schools devote at least some class time to teaching students about Islam -- without, it seems, mentioning the institutionalised abuse of women under shari'a law. In Eklund v. Byron Unified School District, parents sued a California district over their teaching practices. Students were encouraged to adopt Muslim names, pray to Allah in Arabic, and wear Muslim robes for extra credit. The Ninth District court favored the schools, ruling that such activities weren't "overtly religious." Imagine the outcry if a teacher encouraged students to adopt Biblical names, pray to God in English or Hebrew, and wear Christian or Jewish symbols for extra credit. The teacher would be not only fired, but crucified -- figuratively speaking, I hope. Schools have room in the curriculum for the Five Pillars of Islam, but not the Ten Commandments.

Is it any wonder that parents are so uninvolved in the lives of their kids these days? Parents only have influence over their children until they send them off to school. After that, parents and children might only interact for an hour or so a day, if they're lucky. Faceless government entities decree what students will learn and how. Instead of teaching facts, many public schools spend most of their time on touchy-feely, gold-star-just-for-attending, there-are-no-wrong-answers Liberal methods of making kids feel good about being ignorant.

School vouchers would go a long way toward alleviating the situation. Vouchers would bring market forces to bear, increasing competition among schools while giving parents both reason and opportunity to appraise the quality of education their children receive. Parents would have the ability to choose between competing schools without having to pay the exorbitant cost of private education. Schools would have to defend their curriculum choices, and parents would generally become more involved in their children's lives.

If schools were more responsive to the wishes of parents, kids might learn geography in geography classes again. Those who preach where they should teach would face critical questions from those who pay their salaries. That's something the Left just cannot allow.

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin for the audio and transcript of Jay Bennish's diatribe.

With circulation trending ever downward, the competition for attention-grabbing newspaper headlines is tougher than ever. One would think that fresh news would usually be better than old news, but the media disagrees. It seems that while President Bush is visiting Afghanistan, India and Pakistan, the press has nothing better to do than resurrect discredited scandals in their ongoing attempt to control his poll numbers. The current favorite among "retread scandals" is blaming Bush for Hurricane Katrina. Again.

The "mainstream" media utterly savaged former FEMA director Michael Brown over the destruction wreaked by Hurricane Katrina. Brown was portrayed as history's most incompetent boob, unqualified to head FEMA, more concerned with his wardrobe and meals than the monster hurricane bearing down on the Gulf Coast. Brown became, in the media's view, the perfect access point through which to attack President Bush. The worse they could make him look, the worse the President could be made to look for appointing him, then supporting him. Eventually, the Left settled on their own version of history, and the word "Katrina" became another meme for Liberals to throw out in the standard "shotgun" method of Left-wing debate. (Toss out as many talking points as you can, so your opponent gets bogged down trying to explain each one.)

Suddenly, the mainstream media once again began buzzing with fresh blame for Bush over Katrina. A newly released video from before the hurricane featured Michael Brown expressing concern for the levees and other aspects of the disaster. Another video showed one of the briefings President Bush received just a day before the hurricane hit land. "Bush, Chertoff Warned Before Katrina," the headline blared.

Immediately, the Democrats (and even some Republicans) attacked. Senator David Vitter (R-LA) said the video "makes it perfectly clear once again that this disaster was not out of the blue or unforeseeable. It was not only predictable, it was actually predicted. That's what made the failures in response -- at the local, state and federal level -- all the more outrageous." At least Vitter held all levels of government accountable. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) said that Bush administration officials have "systematically misled the American people," but that's Reid's knee-jerk response to everything. Representative Bennie Thompson (D-MS) said that "the truth about what the President knew and when he knew it has come to light."

The Associated Press began their major "news" story thus: "In dramatic and sometimes agonizing terms, federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees, risk lives in New Orleans' Superdome and overwhelm rescuers, according to confidential video footage of the briefings." The story recounts how the media was shown in "excruciating detail" how Federal government officials were "fatally slow" to realise that they hadn't put enough resources in close proximity to New Orleans. How they were supposed to predict the exact path of a hurricane days in advance, or move supplies to thousands through the its aftermath, AP writers Margaret Ebrahim and John Solomon did not say.

Was Bush warned about how devastating Hurricane Katrina could possibly be to New Orleans? Of course he was. The coming devastation was all the media could talk about for days before the storm made landfall. I was warned. You were warned. Everyone in the Gulf Coast was warned. People living in survival shacks in the Montana badlands were warned. Every rational person is still wondering why Mayor Ray Nagin left fleets of schoolbuses to flood, instead of using them to take the people eventually stuck in the Superdome to safety. And why, afterwards, Governor Kathleen Blanco ordered the LA National Guard to keep the Red Cross out of the city.

The writers went on to ridicule Bush's "bravado," contrasting it with the "dire warnings" heard in what was obviously a worst-case scenario briefing. The pièce de résistance was a reference to Bush's statement five days post-Katrina that he didn't "think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." The story ends, "But the transcripts and video show there was plenty of talk about that possibility -- and Bush was worried too." Problem is, that wasn't the warning President Bush and Michael Chertoff received. The briefing spoke about the danger of the levees overflowing -- not breaching. An overflow could have been easily pumped right back into Lake Ponchartrain, as long as there was power for the pumps.

As soon as it started, the furor began to die again as a third video made its appearance. The new video was dated the day after the hurricane struck. In it, Governor Blanco was heard reassuring Bush administration officials that the levees had not been breached, after all. "In the hectic, confused hours after Hurricane Katrina lashed the Gulf Coast, Louisiana's governor hesitantly but mistakenly assured the Bush administration that New Orleans' protective levees were intact," a second AP story began. No amount of spin can disguise the fact that the levees were believed to have held the day after Katrina made landfall, and that the Governor herself made that assertion.

Oh, well. Nothing for the mainstream media to do but return to printing negative stories about Iraq, breathlessly anticipating imminent civil war as they have for three years.

4 Mar 06 UPDATE: On Friday night, not an hour after this post was published, the AP issued a "correction" to their smear story:

Fri Mar 03 2006 19:48:29 ET
Clarification: Katrina-Video story
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) _ In a March 1 story, The Associated Press reported that federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing among U.S. officials.

The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking.

The day before the storm hit, Bush was told there were grave concerns that the levees could be overrun. It wasn't until the next morning, as the storm was hitting, that Michael Brown, then head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Bush had inquired about reports of breaches. Bush did not participate in that briefing.

It is hard to imagine how a story deliberately written to "expose" President Bush receiving advance warning that the storm was likely to breach the levees could have "made clear" that he was not, in fact, warned of any such possibility. This quiet, unheralded "correction" will do nothing to prevent Liberals from spreading the original story's false premise, however.

It would be easy to believe that everyone from the Middle East is the enemy. The 9/11 terrorists were all Middle Eastern Muslims; therefore, all Middle Eastern Muslims are likely to be terrorists, or so the theory goes. Unfortunately, it's a little more complicated and a lot more difficult than that. Suggesting that all Muslims are terrorists is akin to suggesting that all Southerners are in the KKK, all Italians are mobsters, or that all Christians follow Fred Phelps. (Phelps is the "reverend" whose followers noisily proclaim their hatred of gays, even protesting at military funerals.) It makes for a funny caricature on Saturday Night Live, but that's about it.

Not all terrorists are from the Middle East. We have friends in the Middle East and enemies both at home and throughout the world. We've had Eric Rudolph (the Atlanta Olympics bomber), Terry Nichols, Timothy McVeigh (the Oklahoma City bombers) and homegrown terror groups like the Earth Liberation Front. There are Irish, Colombian, Spanish, Japanese and even Filipino terror groups. Sorting friend from foe is rarely easy to do with just a visual check. It's especially hard when you're fighting an enemy that doesn't wear a uniform, and makes an effort to hide among non-combatants. Sometimes those who look like the enemy turn out to be allies, and those who appear to be allies turn out to be in bed with the enemy.

Democrats, the media and Republicans worried about the 2006 election are ramping up paranoia over a port management deal with Dubai Ports World, based in one of the United Arab Emirates. It's alright for European companies to do the administrative work for US ports, but no Arabs need apply. After all, the argument goes, Dubai may have funded terrorism before becoming our ally in the War on Terror. The fact that a state-owned Saudi Arabian company already manages American ports seems to slip right past those expressing horror at the Dubai deal. 

Meanwhile, Europeans -- some of whom are funding terrorism and "insurgency" in Iraq right now -- are apparently given the green light. According to USA Today, "far-left groups in western Europe are carrying on a campaign dubbed Ten Euros for the Resistance, offering aid and comfort to the car bombers, kidnappers, and snipers trying to destabilize the fledgling Iraq government. In the words of one Italian website, Iraq Libero (Free Iraq), the funds are meant for those fighting the occupanti imperialisti." That's us, in case you don't speak fluent Italian Socialist.

No one seems to mention the elephant standing in the middle of the room: China, whose state-owned companies already manage eleven US ports. Chinese companies manage terminals in Los Angeles and Long Beach, California, for instance. In 1998, Congress passed legislation to prevent China from acquiring a Naval base in Long Beach, but the city pulled a switch, moving existing port tenants into the base and leasing the newly-vacant property to the Chinese. PSA (Port of Singapore Authority) may buy out Stevedoring Services of America, which manages ports all along the West Coast, as well as Houston and New Orleans. Meanwhile, the Chinese have nuclear missiles pointed at our country. At least two high-ranking generals have publicly threatened to use them if we interfere with their annexation of Taiwan, which we will almost certainly do. 

What's to prevent terror-supporting Europeans or Asians from taking management jobs at critical points of US infrastructure? Perhaps it's a good thing for us that DPW bought P&O, the British company that holds the contract to manage the ports -- security procedures and background checks may actually be tightened as a result. Some suggest that no foreign companies should be allowed to manage American ports. That's a fine idea... except that no American companies are able to do the job. Not one American company bid on P&O. Do those who want to kill the DPW deal suggest nationalising our ports just to keep Arabs from setting unloading schedules?

The War on Terror has many facets, beyond the actual "war" part. Some of our efforts have to be aimed at changing the Islamofascist governments whose oppressed populations become easy prey for radical preachers, having no hope for their own future. Winning "hearts and minds" in the Middle East means finding and cooperating with moderate Muslims. Moreover, we desperately need to rid ourselves of the "Great Satan" image with which we've been painted by decades of radical Islamic hate. I may be going out on a limb here, but I don't think the way to do that is insulting countries that have assisted and are trying to build an economic relationship with us. If we treat our friends as enemies, that's exactly what we will make of them.

Dubai is among the most moderate of Middle-Eastern countries, and has been a great help to us in the War on Terror by all accounts. If al-Qaeda was taking over the place, they'd be more likely to kill its leaders for cooperating with us than hatch an elaborate plan to buy British companies and use them to sneak into America... especially since all they need to do is walk across the borders from Canada or Mexico. And there isn't much to the argument that they'd have an easier time shipping WMDs into America than they do now, no matter what company is in charge of scheduling. The US Coast Guard, Homeland Security and Customs will still be in charge of security. Besides, they'd have an easier time attacking us with planes belonging to state-owned Emirates USA Airlines, which runs daily flights to Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, New York and more. Unlike shipe, planes aren't inspected before entering US territory. Yet no one seems very worried about that, do they?

In the end, attempts to divine ally and enemy based on ethnicity alone are bound to fail. Our enemies are terrorists and the governments that support them, not businessmen embracing capitalism and free trade.

Hat tip to Sweetness and Light for the info on the National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia.
Hat tip to Skye for info on Ten Euros for the Resistance.

The news that a company based in the United Arab Emirates will be operating several seaports in the US has ignited a political firestorm. Democrats, sensing an issue they could turn to their advantage, raced to denounce President Bush even faster (and louder) than usual. However, there's no substance to their attacks. What surprises me is how many Republicans allowed themselves to be stampeded into a sort of knee-jerk, xenophobic isolationism, just to prevent Democrats from getting to the "right" of them on a national security issue in an election year.

Dubai Ports World bought the British company that held a contract to manage six US ports. Many US ports are managed by companies based in foreign countries. DPW doesn't exactly appear to be a front organisation for terrorists, having many Americans among its top leadership. More important, the UAE has been a solid ally in the War on Terror. They have provided vital information to the United States, and allowed us to base ships, troops and planes in their country. The government has worked hard to crack down on terrorist movements and financing.
 
Dubai is one of the few progressive states in the Middle East, having worked to build a real economic infrastructure not based entirely on oil. It was the first Middle Eastern country to sign up with the Container Security Initiative, which places American customs agents in foreign ports to screen cargo bound for the US. This hasn't made the UAE government very popular with its neighbors, or even with some segments of its own population. The UAE has risked much to be allied with the United States.

Yet the demands to block the sale are deafening, and are entirely based on the fact that they are -- gasp! -- Arabs. Is treating allies with fear and suspicion based on race the best way to win friends and influence people in that part of the world? Will that attitude help us win the War on Terror?

The most common misperception seems to be that Dubai Ports World would handle port security. The catchphrase du jour is, "this is like letting the fox guard the henhouse." In fact, no foreign company handles security in any US port, and nothing would change in that regard. Not that port security is anything to crow about now, of course... only between about 2% and 5% of incoming shipping containers are currently physically examined after reaching our shores. (The key is to examine them before they get here.) If we actually put known terrorists in direct charge of security, the situation could hardly get worse. Those who bluster about the impact on security should direct their efforts towards building some security to be worried about.

Some argue that terrorists could learn how our ports operate by getting jobs there. Any reasonable person would instantly realise that there is nothing preventing terrorists from getting jobs in those ports now. US regulations require US citizenship or resident alien status, as well as a background check, for jobs with any kind of security access. That, too, will not change. Others fear that terrorists would use the Dubai-managed ports to sneak into the country. Why do that, when they can simply walk across the border from Canada or Mexico, which millions do without hindrance every year?

There is no evidence to indicate that DPW has any ties to terror groups, aside from being based in the Middle East. Critics point to the fact that one of the 9/11 hijackers was born in the UAE. The fact is that you can hardly point to a country that has zero ties to terrorism. For instance, a British company is currently managing the ports in question. Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber," was born in London. The terrorists who blew up several trains and a bus on 7 July 2005 were natural-born British citizens. Yet there has been no outcry against British companies managing American transportation assets.

And that's what it comes down to -- a knee-jerk reaction to an Arab company. Funny how the Left is suddenly all in favor of racial profiling, isn't it? Should every company in the Middle East be banned from doing business in the US? Should companies run or owned by Arabs be excluded from the US, or all companies based in Muslim countries? When did we start basing business decisions on racial and religious discrimination? That's not how Americans operate. And that's not the message we need to send the world. Kicking the UAE in the face would damage US credibility at a time and in a place we need it the most.

It would be different if all foreign companies were equally excluded from managing US infrastructure. That would at least be fair to everyone. Maybe we should exclude all government-owned companies... but that would cut out many European and all Chinese companies as well. Economic isolationism will not work, nor is it in our best interests. 

Perhaps the best answer would be to invest more than words in transportation and border security, rather than sacrificing needed allies on the altar of paranoia.

24 Feb 06 UPDATE: Larry Kudlow says, "Call It What It Is: Islamophobia."

7 Mar 06 UPDATE: As I said, virtually no port security to worry about. According to an ABCNews story:

The two ports handle millions of tons of cargo, with scores of cruise ships passing through each year. Truckers who transport much of the cargo are issued ID cards, which give them access to all areas of the port.

ABC News has learned that the cards, given to thousands of truckers by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, were issued with virtually no background checks. The Department of Homeland Security recently investigated the New York and New Jersey ports, and found stunning gaps in security.

The new DHS report, obtained by ABC News, shows that of the 9,000 truckers checked, nearly half had evidence of criminal records. More than 500 held bogus driver's licenses, leaving officials unsure of their real identities.

It's become a Liberal "article of faith" that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and no intention to build them, despite all the evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed and used them many times. When the CIA didn't immediately uncover huge stockpiles of illegal weapons, critics of Iraqi liberation were able to push the false meme that Saddam never had WMDs in the first place, or secretly disposed of them long ago, or that he was "contained" by UN sanctions. With the US invasion of Iraq telegraphed for well over a year in advance, it boggles the mind that Liberals still refuse to even consider the possibility that Saddam moved or hid whatever WMD materials he had to prevent them from being discovered.

The idea that every inch of Iraq has been examined and pronounced clean is ludicrous. Reports are still coming in of storage sites that were completely ignored by the Iraq Survey Group, which concentrated heavily on previously known WMD storage sites. Simple common sense would tell anyone that a place marked on every inspector's map "WMD Storage Facility" might not be the best place to hide your WMDs. Instead, something like buried and locked concrete bunkers not marked on any map might be a more likely location. Lo and behold, several such sites were reported to the ISG... and totally ignored.

David Gaubatz, a former member of the Air Force's Office of Special Investigations, was assigned to intelligence research. He was shown four sealed underground concrete bunkers in southern Iraq with the tunnels leading to them deliberately flooded. His sources told him that the facilities had contained stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons. He filed reports with photographs, grid coordinates, and testimony from multiple sources. But the ISG never unsealed the bunkers. "We agents begged and begged for weeks and months to get ISG to respond to the sites with the proper equipment," Gaubatz told the NY Sun. Yet the ISG felt comfortable filing a final report, in effect closing the case.

Several sources have previously indicated that Saddam sent some WMDs and equipment related to chemical and biological weapons production to Syria and Lebanon in the months preceding the US invasion. In May 2003, DEBKAfile reported that "the relocation of Iraq's WMD systems took place between January 10 and March 10 and was completed just 10 days before the US-led offensive was launched against Iraq." CIA satellite imagery showed "convoys of Iraqi trucks that poured into Syria in February and March 2003."

David Kay, original head of the Iraq Survey group, reported that "we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD program." Among the things left behind, Kay reported finding a "clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses," and "a prison laboratory complex... that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN." The ISG's investigation revealed "new research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin." Charles Duelfer, who replaced David Kay as head of the ISG, wrote in his final report that, "ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved... these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation." Senator Pat Roberts, (R-KS), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, even acknowledged that "there is some concern that shipments of WMD went to Syria."

John Shaw, former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for International Technology Security, has charged that Saddam's WMD stockpiles were moved by Russian special forces into Syria and Lebanon. According to Shaw, former Russian intelligence head Yevgeny Primakov supervised the removal operations. GRU military intelligence and Russian "spetsnaz" (special forces) troops moved Saddam's WMDs to Syria by truck beginning in December 2002.

Former Iraqi Air Force General Georges Sada has come forward to corroborate and supplement these reports. Sada stated that hundreds of tons of chemicals were smuggled into Syria as early as June 2002, under cover of humanitarian aid to flood victims. Two commercial jets, a 747 and 727, were used to move the WMDs and banned material. "They used to do two sorties a day," said Sada. "Fifty-six sorties were done between Baghdad and Damascus."

Twelve hours of unclassified tapes were recently released to the public by the Intelligence Summit, a non-profit group headed by former Federal prosecutor John Loftus. The contents of the tapes make it clear that Saddam Hussein was determined to retain as much of his WMD capability as could be hidden from the UN weapons inspectors. The job of the inspectors, however, was not to discover what was hidden, but to verify what Iraq claimed to have destroyed. In 1991, Iraq was given three months to surrender or destroy everything related to weapons of mass destruction.

According to the tapes, Iraq did seem to have an active nuclear program as late as the year 2000. Iraqi scientists were working on enriching uranium using the plasma separation method. On one tape, Dr. Thamir Ma'aman Mawdud reported to Saddam on "the production we achieved in the advanced stages at the end of the Nineties." Mawdud went on to say that "activity hasn't died in plasma because it is allowed in some of the tests which we use. Then, sir, according to what we have done in the Iraqi National Laboratory in building plasma activity, we have a very large industrial base... We have built a factory to produce plasma systems... the truth is the applied activity is present and found in the industrial sector, and not only in the Military Industrial Commission, but in the Atomic Energy Agency, under Dr. Amer [Rashid al-Ubaydi]."

So much evidence and testimony relating to Iraq's illegal weapons has come to light since the fall of Saddam, and has been ignored. More will surely surface, as the millions of documents and tapes captured during the liberation of Iraq are finally translated, and more Iraqis feel secure enough to come forward with their stories. The full story will become known in time... but will the closed minds on the Left accept any of it, or will they continue to ignore everything that contradicts their predetermined conclusion?

Since before the commencement of the war in Iraq, the two main reasons to remove Saddam from power have been under daily assault by the Left, using the media to push their agenda. The Stop Accusing Poor Saddam people (or SAPS) have ignored every piece of evidence indicating that Saddam Hussein ever had weapons of mass destruction and ties to terrorist groups. The problem is that the SAPS drew their conclusions before most of the evidence was even discovered. In most cases, they decided Saddam was innocent for political reasons, and no evidence will serve to shake their conviction. Yet the evidence keeps piling up, as the SAPS shut their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears.

Twelve hours of tapes from a meeting in April or May 1995 are about to be released to the public by the International Intelligence Summit, a non-government, non-profit group that collects intelligence reports from around the world. Saddam recorded hundreds of hours of meetings with his subordinates, who probably did not know they were being taped. Documents and tapes were turned over to the FBI for translation, and tens of thousands of boxes full of evidence remain untranslated to this day. On this particular tape, Saddam can be heard discussing both WMDs and terrorism.

Bill Tierney, a former United Nations weapons inspector, translated the tapes for the FBI. He turned them over to ABC, which used a few choice excerpts from them in a Nightline special. The SAPS will be hard at work making sure the following quotes are interpreted in the way most favorable to Saddam. That only works if you listen to them in a vaccuum, completely forgetting everything else that's known about Saddam Hussein's regime. Keep in mind, too, that Saddam knew his words were being recorded.

HUSSEIN: Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans a long time before August 2 and told the British as well, I think Hamed was there keeping the meeting minutes with one of them, that in the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What prevents this technology from developing and people from smuggling it? All of this, before the stories of smuggling, before that, in 1989. I told them, "In the future, what would prevent that we see a booby-trapped car causing a nuclear explosion in Washington or a germ or a chemical one?"

The SAPS would have us believe that Saddam was lamenting that his warning about terror attacks went unheeded. Knowing Saddam's history, keeping in mind that he rose to power as a thug and enforcer in the street gangs of Tikrit, and given the fact that he was training terrorists at Salman Pak at the time of this conference, this sounds more like he had delivered a threat than a friendly warning.

HUSSEIN: This is coming, this story is coming but not from Iraq.

Of course not from Iraq, the SAPS will say. Saddam would never plot a terrorist attack (since, they say, he had no ties to terrorists) using biological or chemical weapons (that they believe he never had). Saddam knew "the story" would not come from Iraq... because the use of terrorist groups affords a rogue nation a certain "plausible deniability." Keep this in mind as you read the next statement:

AZIZ: Sir, the biological is very easy to make. It's so simple that any biologist can make a germ bottle and drop it into a septic tank and kill 100,000. This is not done by a state, no need to accuse a state, an individual can do it. Even an American in a house, close to the White House, I mean, they don't have a logical argument.

According to the SAPS, this would indicate that Tariq Aziz was worried someone might accuse Iraq, should some unknown third party use biological or chemical weapons in a terrorist attack. When one considers that Iraq's biological weapons program was still in secret operation at this time, Aziz was most likely reassuring Saddam that a biological terrorist attack could not be traced back to Iraq.

Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law, spoke of Iraq's WMD programs. Keep in mind that since 1991, Iraq had been ordered several times to turn over all of its WMDs, including related materials and equipment, to the UN for verified destruction. Holding anything back was a violation of all resolutions back to UNSC#687, and a valid reason to terminate the cease-fire that ended the Gulf War.

HUSSEIN KAMEL: We did not reveal all that we have... Not the type of the weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct. They don't know any of this. We did not say we used them on Iran. We did not reveal the volume of the chemical weapons that we had produced. We did not reveal the type of the chemical weapons. We did not reveal the truth about the volume of the imported materials. Therefore sir, if they want to create problems, I see that our argument now is that biological is everything. No, sir, I disagree and I have to be candid in front of your Excellency. I substantially disagree on this issue. They want it item by item. For the time being, they are not raising all of them with us and we did not declare. I will come back, sir, to the question of whether is it better for us to declare or to stay? In the nuclear, sir, in the biological, we also disagree with them. Not the 17 tons, no. We have a disagreement which is essential and known. We know it ourselves.

Kamel may have been referring to the 17 tons of anthrax growth media that UNSCOM still listed as unaccounted for after Kamel himself revealed the bioweapons program upon his defection later that year. The SAPS will, of course, say that it was the UN's duty to ferret illegal weapons out, and that it was Saddam's "right" to hide and dissemble. In fact, Iraq was originally given three months to disclose and surrender everything relating to biological, chemical and nuclear programs. Four years later, Saddam's henchmen were still playing hide-and-seek. Saddam never had any intention of complying with his responsibilities, as this short exchange clearly shows.

Eight years after that, following a tragically successful terrorist attack on US soil, it became clear that we couldn't keep waiting upon the whims of dictators. Don't let the SAPS bleat about the "rush to war" and repeat that "Bush lied" about WMDs and ties to terrorists. Saddam Hussein could have easily stopped the slow crawl towards war at any time, had he been willing to come clean. Instead, he appears to have wasted the time of his "final opportunity" to hide and smuggle his illegal weapons out of the country.

What information remains hidden in the tons of documentation that haven't yet been translated? As more information comes to light, the removal of Saddam from power looks more than ever like the right thing to do.

18 Feb 06 UPDATE: It seems Bill Tierney has some complaints to make about ABC's handling of the tapes. ABC discarded Tierney's translation in favor of a "less threatening" version of Saddam's word. "He was discussing his intent to use chemical weapons against the United States and use proxies so it could not be traced back to Iraq," Tierney told FNC and ABC show host Sean Hannity. ABC also decided not to air a segment in which Saddam says, "In the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What if we consider this technique, with smuggling?"

The essential premise of terrorism is this: fear of organised, purposeful violence can drastically change the way people act. If people fear an attack, they will change the way they shop, travel, dress, vote or even speak. Actual violence may not even be necessary, once the habit of appeasement becomes ingrained. Eventually, people will automatically modify their own behavior so as not to "cause trouble." Terrorism is schoolyard bullying on the grandest scale. And as we can see from the response to the sudden wave of violence over cartoons published in a Danish newspaper, terrorism works.

The European Union and the United Nations are fighting to lead the surrender, it seems. As a result of the violence, the European Union is considering whether to create a "code of conduct" that will encourage the media to show "prudence" when covering religion. EU Justice and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini told the Daily Telegraph, "The press will give the Muslim world the message: We are aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression... We can and we are ready to self-regulate that right." UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said, "Honestly, I do not understand why any newspaper will publish the cartoons today. It is insensitive. It is offensive. It is provocative and you see what has happened around the world." Keep your heads down, in other words. Don't do anything to make them mad. See what happens when you do things they don't like?

Individual European countries are also rushing to appease the angry Islamists. French President Jacques Chirac condemned the publication of the cartoons as "overt provocation," and said that any subject matter that could hurt other people's convictions should be avoided. (Don't hold your breath waiting for French -- or any -- newspapers to stop printing anti-American editorials and cartoons.) The Swedish government went so far as to shut down the web site of a newspaper that published cartoons depicting Mohammed. Don't make waves. Don't attract their attention. Just do as they say.

Here in America, supposedly the home of free speech, our own government condemned the cartoons, missing a priceless opportunity to stand up for basic freedoms. "We find them offensive, and we certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive," said Sean McCormack of the State Department. Doesn't any government have the backbone to defend freedom of speech and freedom of the press? 

The common view is that all Muslims are offended by images of the Prophet. Amir Taheri, an Iranian-born journalist and author, easily refuted that position in a Wall Street Journal editorial. His article reminds us that no such historical prohibition on images of Mohammed or on religious humor exists in Islam -- and that the protests are sponsored by governments (like Syria and Iran) and extremist groups who take themselves too seriously. "Muhammad himself pardoned a famous Meccan poet who had lampooned him for more than a decade," Taheri pointed out. Many depictions of Mohammed exist in Islamic art.

The New York Times and CNN both refused to show the "offensive" Danish cartoons