Sooner or later, we're going to have to admit that Russia isn't half the ally they pretend to be, or should have been. For a while after the fall of the USSR, it seemed that the long fight was over, but it's beginning to look as though that was just wishful thinking. Oh, the happy-go-lucky nineties, when we thought we had no enemies.

Russia has been moving backwards from democracy towards a more totalitarian government for years, a process that has accelerated under former KGB officer Vladimir Putin. Russia has tightened its grip on the former provinces of the USSR, reduced and nearly eliminated opposition parties and local elections, fought and lost a war to reconquer Chechnya, interfered with democratic elections in the Ukraine and spent aid money given for economic reconstruction on the military instead. Between 1992 and 1999, the Russian economy contracted by 25%. Admittedly, it's difficult to change from a doomed collectivist economy to free market capitalism. It's more difficult when the same corruption rampant under the old system remains entwined in the new. It's especially hard when almost no one alive remembers anything but the centralised authority and crushing bureaucracy of Communist rule.

Part of the problem was that most Western nations refused to call the Soviet Union's defeat what it was. An entire nation vanished, and everyone pretended not to notice. Russia was even allowed to retain the Soviet Union's permanent seat on the UN Security Council and the USSR's veto power in NATO, although the USSR no longer exists. This politically-correct policy of walking on eggshells so as not to offend had to be at least partially responsible for Russia's attempts to rebuild its past instead of building a better future, as Germany and Japan did after WWII.

Perhaps only after admitting total defeat can an aggressive dictatorship truly break with its past. Germany was defeated in the First World War, but not broken. As a result, the German government worked to retain whatever military capability it could, training troops in the Soviet Union and simply building more of the smaller warships which were all Germany was allowed. Eventually, their "embarrassment" turned to shame, then outrage, then war. North Korea was beaten to a standstill, but not broken, and now poses a nuclear threat to the world. We saw the same problem in Iraq after the Gulf War. Saddam was beaten, but not utterly defeated. He spent the next twelve years circumventing sanctions to retain his illegal weapons capabilities, buying UN votes and making alliances with terrorist groups.

The Iraq conflict saw the re-emergence of Russia as a serious opponent, and the sooner we admit it the more likely it is that we can deal with the threat diplomatically. Russia had long ago sold its UN Security Council vote to Saddam Hussein in exchange for oil exploitation rights in the West Qurna, Tuba, Saddam, Kirkuk, and Bai Hassan fields under various state-owned companies. In 2002, Russia and Iraq signed a new $40 billion deal for 67 new projects. None of the work was allowed to commence until the UN sanctions were lifted, and the deals would certainly collapse with the removal of Saddam. It was in Russia's best interest to keep Saddam in power and work to lift the sanctions. France and China, of course, made similar deals. All three nations had veto power in the Security Council, which Saddam thought would prevent any action against him.

In 1995, UNSCOM inspectors uncovered evidence that Russia agreed to sell Iraq biological weapons fermentation equipment. The previous year, General Anatoly Kuntsevich was discovered attempting to sell five tons of VX nerve gas components to Syrian agents acting on behalf of Iraq. Kuntsevich allegedly sold another 1,760 pounds of chemical weapons precursors to "unnamed buyers" from the Middle East, none of which was recovered. Russia was also Iraq's number one supplier of conventional military equipment, including missiles that were prohibited by the UN sanctions. When war between the Coalition and Iraq looked inevitable, Russia moved to erase the tracks of its involvement with Iraq. Russian spetsnaz (special forces) troops cleaned out Russian weapons stored at the al-Qaqaa facility, including whatever chemical or biological weapons may have been stored there. In August 2003, former Soviet spy Ion Mihai Pacepa wrote, "The Soviet bloc not only sold Saddam its WMDs, but it showed [him] how to make them 'disappear.'"

Russia continued to train Iraqi spies, in defiance of the UN, until the fall of 2002. Even as Coalition forces moved into Iraq, Russian companies were helping the Iraqi military deploy global-positioning system jammers around Baghdad. The jammers would cause missiles to go astray, hitting random targets. Russia also sold Saddam anti-tank missiles, surface-to-surface missiles, navigation equipment for fighters and night-vision goggles in violation of UN sanctions, possibly hidden in shipments of humanitarian aid. We now know, thanks to documents recently released to the public, that Russian intelligence passed information on American troop levels, deployment and battle plans to Saddam. Clearly, Russia has not been our ally, nor remained neutral.

What does this mean for the future? Russia has formed a close military alliance with China, whose overcrowded masses are doubtless eyeing the almost unpopulated, resource-rich Siberian landscape. The two countries have conducted joint military exercises, and Russia is resuming the Soviet-era alliance with North Korea. All three countries are working on a railway system connecting Asia and Europe. As a possible confrontation with Iran approaches, we must keep in mind that Russia needs the money it receives for helping that country build its nuclear plants, and has similar oil deals with Iran as with Iraq. China needs the price of oil to remain low, or its economy (largely fueled by slave labor manufacturing goods cheaply for US markets) would face a recession. No reasonable person can expect the UN Security Council to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons; Russia and China will not allow it. The question is, just how far will Russia and China go to protect Iran and their economic interests?

Hopefully, the Russian situation is not yet beyond correcting. Careful diplomatic maneuvering could wean Russia from its Chinese alliance, and urge the country back onto the democratic path. It'll be a long time, however, before we can forget Ronald Reagan's admonition to "trust, but verify."

If you judge Iraq by the media reports and Democrat speeches over the last three years, then you'll "know" it's been nothing but a series of major disasters of Biblical proportions. The negative, anti-war spin began as the first Coalition soldier crossed the border, with cries of "quagmire" during the first sandstorm, amid predictions of tens of thousands of American deaths and millions of Iraqi refugees. Even when it's necessary to report positive events, they're couched in negative terms and surrounded by warnings of failure... and, of course, the daily death count. The latest panic is an anticipated civil war... but at least the use of the term means the media has accepted Iraq's government as legitimate. There's always a silver lining.

The faulty disaster predictions always seem to be forgotten after a few days, and the news agencies go on to report the next approaching disaster with credibility undamaged. According to nearly every reporter, left-wing pundit and Democratic politician, Iraq has been teetering on the edge of disaster since we interfered with Saddam, under whose rule Iraq was apparently pleasant and peaceful (if you don't mind secret police, torture chambers, rape rooms and mass graves). Civil war, ruined economy, hateful people, demoralised troops, Vietnam, Vietnam, Vietnam. Members of the mainstream media have worked hard to fix that image in your mind.

Only... other, more hopeful points of view keep leaking out: from the troops, from a few journalists, from the Iraqis themselves. For every problem upon which the media hounds choose to dwell, there are dozens of positive events that fall by the wayside. To some, merely mentioning anything positive in connection with Iraq means ignoring the problems. Those problems, as everyone who's spent time in Iraq (outside the Green Zone hotels) has said, are simply not the entire story. In fact, things in Iraq are going fairly well, on the whole. But perspective has never been the Liberal strong suit.

In the three years since Saddam was removed from power, the Iraqis have held two democratic elections with turnout greater than most American elections. They've elected a government that represents all segments of the population. They've written and ratified a constitution that lays out the mechanism for representative government, emphasises the rule of law, and guarantees protection for women and minorities. Men and women keep lining up to join the Iraqi police and military. Coalition forces and Iraqis have built or rebuilt schools, hospitals, roads, power plants and sewage lines. The marshlands nearly destroyed by Saddam are coming back. The Iraqi economy is growing, as evidenced by the burden newly-purchased consumer goods have placed on the electric grid. They can't generate power fast enough to meet the new demand. Few people expected Iraq to have come as far as it has, with as little loss of life, in so short a time. You're probably so conditioned by the media to expect bad news that at this point, you're automatically saying, "But what about...?"

The media -- the self-appointed gatekeepers of information -- decided that good news isn't really worth reporting. They belabor the negative to boost ratings and bolster their sense of having "done something." Those who call themselves "progressives" are the least interested in discussing real-world progress, almost preferring that the Middle East remains a cesspool and Iraq had remained under the brutal rule of Saddam Hussein.

The mainstream media's constant focus on the difficulties in Iraq drives the answers to the left-weighted polls they run. Some Democratic politicians cynically present everything in a way that will damage President Bush and increase calls to leave Iraq. Others, worried by those poll results, shift their positions accordingly, or move to sieze what they see as a chance to regain power. The terrorists are using our own media to drive our politics in their favor.

Of course there are serious problems, which the media are always eager to report. There's never been a problem-free war. Explosions and tragedy make good copy -- "if it bleeds, it leads." Terrorists and leftover Saddam adherents stage spectacular attacks almost daily, mostly aimed at innocent Iraqis. They set out roadside bombs for trucks and military vehicles. Make no mistake: things are tough in Iraq. So, when the going gets tough, the tough run home, right? Well... maybe not.

As much as the nihilists on the Left want to surrender Iraq to the thugs and killers that grab the headlines with violent acts, that would be the worst mistake we could ever make. The US would forever lose credibility among allies and embolden our enemies. The only chance of getting us to pull out of Iraq too soon is to demoralise the American people and make us want to give up. So they lie about the reasons for removing Saddam, ignore any good news, exaggerate the problems, and mutter darkly about how Iraq is just like Vietnam. Perhaps it is... but for the terrorists, who continue to pour men and money into a country where most of the people reject what they offer, and even their allies are beginning to turn on them.

The only credible Vietnam parallel is this: the greatest danger of losing comes from our own loss of nerve. The terrorists and Ba'athist leftovers are becoming more desperate as they see the Iraqis rejecting them in favor of hope. The Sunni who hid them and helped them are giving up and joining the political process. The grand attempts to start a civil war between Shi'a and Sunni aren't working so far, despite the hysterical media speculation. The Iraqi military has retained its cohesion and religious leaders on both sides have called for peace. It's ironic that the attacks meant to drive Iraq into violence may be pushing the country towards unity.

Iraq remains a dangerous place, but there is much to be proud of. The Iraqis are beginning to recover from three decades of tyranny, and that's long, hard work. However, things will likely continue to improve in Iraq unless we turn our backs on it.

You're going to hear a lot about the new movie "V for Vendetta" in the coming weeks. You're going to hear "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" ad nauseum, if you're not already sick to death of moral relativism. You're going to hear a lot about the "obvious" similarities between the totalitarian state the movie portrays and the Bush government. That may be the focus of the Liberal paranoid fantasy world in which the movie is set. But it's not quite the same as the graphic novel Alan Moore and David Lloyd created a quarter-century ago. The movie version of "V for Vendetta" is just M for More Of the Same Leftist Propaganda.

The lair of the main character -- a mysterious figure in a Guy Fawkes mask, known only as "V" -- is stocked with books, art and music banned by the fascist regime. In the original, that included Shakespeare, Dante, Billie Holiday and anything Motown. In the movie version, we are shown a banner showing a Nazi swastika superimposed over British and American flags, along with the label, "Coalition of the Willing." There is also a Qur'an in the collection, a banned book praised for its "beautiful imagery." The emblem of the evil fascist government is a double-barred "Lorraine" cross. In case you've dodged the sledgehammer subtlety so far, "V for Vendetta" is less about the future than the present, less about the politics of Alan Moore than Michael Moore.

The main piece of disinformation reviewers are already sowing is that the original "V for Vendetta" was about Alan Moore's fear of Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government. No one who says such a thing could possibly have read the story. In fact, the history of Moore's tale started with a predicted Conservative loss to the Socialist-leaning Labour party in the early 1980s. Luckily, the Conservatives won in real life, and Anglo-American cooperation against the Soviets continued.

When Moore and Lloyd began writing "V" in 1981, the Labour Party's new leader was Michael Foot. Foot was a militant socialist whose policies included unilateral nuclear disarmament, nationalisation of industry, strong union power, and heavy progressive taxation. In Moore's story, the Labour Party took control of the British government, which deepened the recession and led to the withdrawal of American missiles from Europe. The Soviet Union continued its attempt to take over the world, staging a military invasion of Poland. The American "President Kennedy" tried to bluff the USSR into backing down with the threat of nukes, as in the Cuban Missile Crisis, but this time nuclear war actually erupted. The war devastated the environment and left an isolated Great Britain to fend for itself.

The government fell apart, and an obviously Nazi regime called "Norsefire" took over by force. Moore and Lloyd made the all-too-common mistake of calling the Nazis "right-wingers," when the Nazis were actually Socialists. Like all Socialist dictatorships, the Nazi/Norsefire group banned all weapons, seized control of the means of production and distribution, made dissent a crime, began the systematic killing of "undesirables," reduced the population to poverty and created a secret police. That's the government that created V through Nazi-like medical experimentation, and that's the government against which V fought.

It's a mark of the Hollywood Left that they needed to change the government of Moore's nightmare, a twisted blend of 1984, North Korea and Nazi Germany, into extremist Conservative Christians when making the film. To Liberals, a Socialist totalitarian dictatorship doesn't seem very scary. Look at Hollywood's constant love song for Fidel Castro. Islamofascist terrorists just need to be understood. Christians, on the other hand...

The conflict and complexity of Moore's world was reflected in V's tortured psyche. The movie throws all of that aside to make the same boring Left-wing political statements as every other Hollywood film these days. When he saw yet another of his great stories get the "Hollywood treatment," Moore publicly disassociated himself from the film and cut off all ties to DC Comics.

Moore's V saw fascism (total government control) and anarchy (no government) as polar opposites with no middle ground, and chose anarchy. The movie V sees democracy as the natural opposite of fascism, and plots to restore democracy by overthrowing the government. The movie turned V into a hero he was never meant to be, and it falls flat. Deep down, Moore's V had no illusions about what he was: a psychotic killer who committed monstrous acts in order to destroy the government that created him. To him, there was no higher cause. In the movie, however, V never seems to doubt his own heroism.

The movie deliberately tries to blur the line between freedom fighters and terrorists. Hollywood recreated V as a democratic revolutionary hero who commits crimes in a noble cause, instead of simply carrying out his personal, well, vendetta. In reality, terrorists fight to destroy democracy and enslave others through fear. No amount of Leftist equivocation can eliminate our capacity to judge between the two.

UPDATE: "It's been turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country. In my original story there had been a limited nuclear war, which had isolated Britain, caused a lot of chaos and a collapse of government, and a fascist totalitarian dictatorship had sprung up. Now, in the film, you've got a sinister group of right-wing figures -- not fascists, but you know that they're bad guys -- and what they have done is manufactured a bio-terror weapon in secret, so that they can fake a massive terrorist incident to get everybody on their side, so that they can pursue their right-wing agenda. It's a thwarted and frustrated and perhaps largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values [standing up] against a state run by neo-conservatives -- which is not what 'V for Vendetta' was about. It was about fascism, it was about anarchy, it was about [England]. The intent of the film is nothing like the intent of the book as I wrote it."
- Alan Moore on the movie "V for Vendetta," 15 March 06

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