Into The Real Quagmire

Whenever the United States projects its military or diplomatic power overseas, the still-active New Left loves to invoke the specter of Vietnam. And their favorite warning is, "Here we go again. We are going to get bogged down in 'another quagmire.'

This was exactly what the New Left anti-war crew shouted in 1991 when we began the Gulf War. Guess what? No quagmire - no bogging down. We won - and were out of there in a few weeks.

Then, post 9-11, these same voices of the Left again warned of the coming Bush retaliation in Afghanistan. Guess what? We won that one, too, with very little 'bogging down' - and it has not turned out to be the quagmire that the Soviets found it to be 15 years ago.

Strangely, however, the New Left is not warning about a very obvious quagmire into which President G.W. Bush and Secretary of State Powell are now entering: the century-long death feud between the Jews and the Arabs.

If ever there was a war which is a 'bog' this is it. And it is safe to say the the American Government - despite its sole superpower status - cannot 'win' or 'solve' this conflict. Indeed, all we can do is to erode our prestige, weaken our influence and squander our moral authority.

Let's look at some facts: since 9-11 we have been in a world-wide War on Terror. The main focus of that war is in Afghanistan where we are still trying to kill the remnants of the Taliban Government and the Al Qaeda terrorist organization. Other than the radical Muslem segment of the population, virtually the entire world supports our efforts. Even one third of the Axis of Evil - Iran - has publicly asked to help us in this War on Terror. (Even though we have subsequently learned that they are double-dealing us by trying to destabilize Hamid Karzai's government.)

The Israeli Palestinian mess has some striking resemblances to our eradication policy in Afghanistan. In both cases, fundamentalist Muslims brainwash young students and re-program them into 'martyrs-to-be' who actually are happy to blow themselves up as long as they take some 'infidels' with them.

Last September in New York and Washington DC the 'infidels' were Americans. In the Mid-East, they are Jews.

Yassir Arafit is a cunning manipulator of the media and of public opinion. He is also clever enough to know that the more Jews he kills by suicide bomb, the more the Arabs rally to his cause. And G.W. Bush - so consumed with the plan to avenge his father's honor for the failure to dispose of Saddam 11 years ago - has to assuage these same Arabs.

Thus, Bush conducts a War on Terror himself and, at the same time, lectures Ariel Sharon about "an immediate pullback" of the Israeli War on Terror.

Sharon ignores Bush - or, perhaps, Bush winked and nodded when he scolded Sharon. Either way, the Israelis are - correctly - cleaning out the terrorist nests on the West Bank before more suicide bombers can kill more innocent Jews.

The Arabs - seeing this - are enflamed and talking 'war' more seriously than any time since 1983, when, ironically, Ariel Sharon then ordered the killing of Palestinian terrorists in refugee camps in southern Lebanon. At that time the American Government - under the direction of White House National Security Adviser Robert MacFarlane - used the US Marines to safely evacuate Yassir Arafat from Beirut.

Here we are 20 years later again bedeviled by the same problem -and the same people!

Is that not the definition of "getting bogged down in a quagmire"?

The best the Bush/Powell Team can hope for is a slight 'cooling off' of this ongoing problem. They hope to ratchet down the news coverage and attention on this problem so they can again try to focus the world on Saddam Hussein.

And what of the Butcher of Baghdad?

He now sees that he can deflect attention away from his own tenuous position by merely subsidizing a few new suicide bombers down in Israel. That is certain to stir up Israel's duty to protects itself - and the whole cycle begins anew.

It is a mess - a real quagmire.

And President Bush and Secretary Powell run the risk of getting the US bogged down there. - - to the detriment of our own War on Terror.

MSNBC MOVES LEFT

The announcement that sagging cable network MSNBC is hiring the has-been talk show host - and ultra-radical leftist - Phil Donahue to go up against Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly each evening at 8:00 PM shows why MSNBC "doesn't get it."

In a massive re-tooling, the cable network co-owned by NBC and Microsoft is set to unveil an entirely new prime-time schedule. Besides Donahue at 8:00PM, MSNBC is moving Brian Williams' evening news show to 7:00PM and pushing back their created 'star', Ashleigh Banfield, to 10:00PM and Alan Keyes to 11:00PM.

They have yet to settle on their 9:00PM show.

Phil Donahue, a very nice guy in person, is 'yesterday.'

He is an unrepentant liberal who once said his dream was "to run Mario Cuomo's presidential campaign." He also led the change in behalf of Ralph Nader in 2000. And he opposed US military intervention in Afghanistan after the 9-11 attacks.

MSNBC is wrong to hire Donahue because they are mis-judging the cable news audience. Those who watch all-news cable stations - about 2 million people - overlap with those who listen to talk radio. And that audience is overwhelmingly conservative.

The Fox News Channel figured this out early on - and targeted their audience wisely. Plus, they had Rush Limbaugh constantly talking about Fox on his radio show. Soon FNC began its meteoric rise up the charts - and CNN began its decline.

The presidency of Bill Clinton was actually very bad for CNN because Clinton insider - and former ABC News chief, Rick Kaplan - took over CNN. He was a Lincoln Bedroom sleepover guest and when Monicagate took hold, he used CNN to defend the embattled president.

The result? "What does CNN stand for? "The Clinton News Network!"

And, with Fox now available as an alternative, viewers had a new place to get their news. They flocked to Fox - and one-time leader CNN has now been reduced to a shell of its former self.

Meanwhile, MSNBC isn't even in the game. A constant distant third in the ratings they have now decided to scrap the neutrality and the documentaries and join the prime time 'talking head' fray. The problem is they are mis-reading the audience.

The smart move for either MSNBC or CNN would be to move to the right and take away some of Fox's audience.

Instead, they are both moving left and dividing between themselves a minority of the audience and leaving all the conservative viewers to watch Fox. No wonder Fox's ratings are up 116% in one year!

MSNBC is kidding themselves if they think a Phil Donahue is going to work in the 24-hour cable news world. Yes, he was a TV giant from 1970-1996 with his afternoon talk show. But that was a different audience and a different time slot. Prime time on cable is a more select viewership.

Prediction: Donahue's rating will be abysmal.

While we're at it, Fox's experiment with hiring libs isn't too successful either. Gerlado's ratings are "in the tank" at Fox and many insiders there speculate that long-time Rivera pal and Fox Chairman, Roger Ailes, is looking for ways to get rid of the ultra-egotistical leftist.

Similarly, Greta van Susteren - after an initial ratings spike due to curiosity over her facelift - has seen her ratings crash and burn, too. Ailes had claimed when he canned Paula Zahn that he could get better ratings at 10:00PM with a "dead racoon." Greta replaced Zahn after Ailes fired her for talking to CNN about moving there. Ailes also sued Zahn's agents claiming they violated the terms of her contract.

Two weeks ago a federal judge threw Ailes' suit out with a stern comment that Zahn's agents had done absolutely nothing wrong.

With Geraldo bombing and Greta sinking, perhaps Ailes sees the error of his ways. The rule at Harvard Business School is "do what you do best."

In Fox's case, that is to capture and hold the conservative-to-middle share of the audience and let CNN and MSNBC slug it out for the remaining minority slice of the cable news viewership.

In retrospect, Ailes may have been correct: dumping Geraldo and Greta and replacing them with a "dead racoon" would get better ratings.

WHAT THE US SHOULD DO - AND NOT DO



The Israeli-Palestinian War escalates by the minute - and many Americans ask, "What should our country do?"

The answer is simple. Nothing.

That's right. We should stay out of this fight. Our continued involvement only gives Arafat hope that he can negotiate his way out of a mess he created - and only erodes out moral and political capital in the region.

Here is what we are doing wrong: by sending General Anthony Zinni over to the region to negotiate a cease fire, we, in fact, said to Arafat, "We'll deal with you no matter what." The more Arafat dispatched suicide bombers - and Zinni stayed - the more it said to Arafat, "We are not going to penalize you for your acts of terror and war."

Then Vice President Cheney went over there and almost met with Arafat. In fact, he almost went back just to meet Arafat last week.

Then came the Passover Massacre and all hell broke loose. Guess what? Zinni is still there!

And the USA sponsored a UN Resolution calling on Israel to withdraw its military forces within hours of their original dispatch.

Such mixes messages are certain to embolden Arafat and thus to allow him to send even more suicide bombers.

What we should do is very simple: treat Arafat and Osama bin Laden as two peas in a pod. They are both lifelong terrorist thugs who used brainwashed fanatical youths to carry out their own dirty work while they hide like the cowardly little rodents they truly are.

Yet we accord Arafat all the amentities of a world leader while we try to hunt down and kill bin Laden.

Such inconsistencies make American policy a joke and confuse everyone.

We should let Israel and the Palestinians work this out between themselves. And we should condemn - in the strongest words and actions - the purposeful targeting of innocents.

Unfortunately, we have conflicting agendas. The Bush Team (father and son especially) so want to go after Saddam that we are desperate to cultivate Arab support. Thus we weigh in too much to work with Arafat - when we should let him pay the price for what he has done to innocent people. In effect, we have 'saved' Arafat from the punishment he deserves.

The ultimate war against Iraq is now on the back, back burner. There is no support for it in the region.

What the Bush Administration ought to do is get back to speaking with one voice - not trotting out the President each day with a different message, while his staff has yet another (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/01/international/middleeast/01ASSE.html).

Meanwhile, where is Osama? Where is Mullah Omar? Is it possible that the greatest superpower the world has ever known cannot find these two most wanted terrorists?

Is it possible to think we could really remove Saddam and put in place a democratically elected government - if we still are having troubles on the ground in Afghanistan? And what of the Iranians? Wouldn't they love to seize control of Iraq once we did their dirty work for them?

Or does all of this just teach us all over again a very valuable lesson: the United States cannot meddle in the internal affairs of each and every country - and especially not all at the same time.

Leave Israel and the Palestinians alone until they work out their problems. Instead, let's find Osama and his henchmen.

Bring Speicher Home

Reuters News Service is now reporting that Baghdad has yet again asked the US Government to send an official delegation to discuss the ongoing case of Lt. Commander Michael Scott Speicher - the F-18 Navy pilot shot down in 1991 on the first day of the Gulf War.

While new reports are being 'leaked' in Washington and London of recent sightings of Speicher, the US Government is resisting the call to send an official delegation - accompanied by US press - to Baghdad.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld says, "I don't believe very much what the regime of Saddam Hussein puts out. They're masters of propaganda." White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, at his daily briefing, said that the administration didn't have enough information to evaluate the Iraqi statement.

The Bush Administration clearly does not want to negotiate with Baghdad - about Speicher - or anything else. They are afraid of getting caught up in haggling over details as the Clinton Administration did over the UN Arms Inspectors. Baghdad looks like they are cooperating as long as they are holding talks; Washington wants the world to see that Baghdad is not cooperating.

The problem is simple: Scott Speicher is most likely alive in captivity in Baghdad.

The mistake the first Bush Administration - then-Defense Secretary Cheney in particular - made in 1991 was declaring him dead the very day he was shot down. How could they possibly have known he was dead - before a search and rescue team had even gone to the crash site?

And when, years later, a careful search was made of the site, what did they find? A secret 'E&E' code - a specific and unique Escape and Evade signal given individually to each pilot. Such a signal could only mean one thing: Speicher had indeed survived his shootdown in good enough shape to scratch the E&E code into the surrounding terrain.

Thus, all subsequent live-sightings of "an American pilot" must be given credence. And there have been many beginning with an Iraqi defector who claimed to have driven an American pilot to Baghdad. Later, when shown 'mug shots' he was able to pick Speicher's photo out of a collection of similar looking men.

Then came credible intelligence reports from foreign governments of Scott Speicher being held in an underground detention facility - either directly under Iraqi Intelligence Headquarters - or in the area of Salman Park where all sorts of military and covert training have been observed.

Then, just before the Clinton Administration went out of office in January 2001, they received new evidence that Speicher was alive. Clinton even said so publicly. And they then changed his status from Killed-in-Action (KIA) to Missing-in-Action(MIA).

Now the Pentagon admits they are considering yet another status change to Prisoner-of-War (POW).

Yet, despite this flurry of activity and amid indications that Speicher is alive, the Bush Administration chooses to play word games with the Iraqi Government. Secretary Rumsfeld claims the offer to send a team to Baghdad was not an "official" request. So then Baghdad issues yet another invitation and our government again tries to ignore or dismiss it.

The fate of now-Commander Scott Speicher is of the utmost importance. The Bush Administration should do everything - including going to Baghdad - to bring that hero pilot home.

If the Bush Team is worried about eroding their argument for a war against Saddam, they shouldn't worry too much. The American people are overwhelmingly in favor of such a war. That will not change; the American people have felt that way since Bush I failed to finish the job in 1991.

Right now with the Mid-East in total turmoil and our Arab so-called allies not in favor of a war against Saddam anyway, our government should go over there and solve - once and for all - the case of Scott Speicher.

America is not America as long as we leave one of our people behind.

THE REAL AXIS OF EVIL

Both Israeli and American intelligence are reporting that at a Summit meeting last year in Moscow - while PLO Chairman Yassir Arafat met with Russian President Vladimir Putin - there was a secret meeting between Iranian agents and PLO representatives.

That secret meeting resulted in a new alliance between the PLO and Iran in which the oil-rich Iranians would covertly fund PLO groups with millions of dollars and supply them with weapons.

Tehran vehemently denies any such meeting occurred - or that any such alliance exists.

Of course, Tehran also denied any participation in a shipload of Iranian weapons to the PLO which was intercepted several months ago by the US Navy.

You may recall that President Bush then lumped Iran into his Axis of Evil speech along with Iraq and North Korea. At that time Iran protested the label - and argued that the Iranian government has taken a 'moderate' turn.

Now, let us analyze this report:

If both Israeli and American intelligence are leaking that such a 'secret' meeting indeed took place in Moscow, then a key question is: Did the Russians know about it?

It is difficult to believe that such a 'secret' meeting could take place in Moscow and the Russian intelligence agencies not know of it. After all, that is a regime that in the past basically bugged every hotel room in Moscow just to listen in to all foreigners' conversations.

A former Congressman once told me of a time he visited Moscow and, upon checking into his room, he said aloud to the chandelier hanging in his sitting room, "Gee, I don't have any towels in my bathroom."

Not five minutes later there was a knock on his door and a maid appeared with a fresh supply of towels!

If his room was bugged, it is inconceivable that Iranian and PLO agents could meet in Moscow and the Russians not know of it.

Thus, we all must ask: how complicit in this PLO-Iranian alliance is Putin? And, if Putin knew of this meeting - or perhaps even arranged it - why isn't Russia included in Bush's Axis of Evil?

Moscow and Tehran have long had a close relationship. Moscow has recently been assisting Iran in the construction of a nuclear power plant. Russia cultivates nations like Iran which have hard currency (from oil sales) and want to buy Russian military hardware.

A year ago a new President Bush said he looked into Vladimir Putin's eyes and determined that "he is a good man with a soul."

Such a naive and sophomoric assesment may very well be proven to be tragically false - especially if Russia is brokering an agreement which will result in a war against Israel.

Russia - and Red China - have not changed their stripes. It's just that our Big Business wants to make money there.

It is time we faced facts: the Axis of Evil contains more governments than just Baghdad, Tehran and Pyongyang. Perhaps Moscow and Beijing should also be included.

POLITICAL NEWCOMERS


2002 is an election year and we must remember than what happens in these mid-term congressional races could be a precursor to the 2004 presidential race. With that in mind, let us examine a few late developments:

1) Possible Veep Candidate? Last week’s Texas Democrat gubernatorial primary supplied us with a potential new national political star: Tony Sanchez.

Mr. Sanchez handily won his primary – using more than $20 million of his own money which he earned as well-respected oil and banking figure in Texas. He now faces Governor Rick Perry, a relatively weak and bland figure who took over when George W. Bush left for the White House.

Mr. Sanchez is well liked and well respected in the Texas business community. He is also a good candidate. Should he somehow defeat Governor Perry – and he might be able to even though Texas has become the most Republican state in the country – then he immediately becomes a hot national figure for the Democrats.

Sanchez would then be talked about as a Vice Presidential running mate for whoever emerges in the 2004 presidential primaries.

As a Hispanic governor from the President’s home state – who defeated the President’s own Lt. Governor – Sanchez could also help with Hispanics in other key states including California, Florida and New Jersey.

Keep you eye on the Texas governor’s race this November.


2) California Dreamin’: Almost two weeks since the GOP primary saw a shocking victory of businessman Bill Simon, Jr. and polls show the race to be dead-even. In fact, one poll has Simon ahead 48%-41% over Governor Gray Davis.

Davis is in Big Trouble.

He has $28 million in the bank while Simon spent his wad on the primary. Davis should already be on TV ‘defining’ Simon in an unfavorable light before Simon can define himself. That is what Hillary Clinton did to Rick Lazio last year when Rudy Giuliani suddenly dropped out of the race.

The longer Simon can keep it close, the better chance he has of winning this race. There is just ‘something’ about Davis that isn’t wearing well. His approval ratings are awful. His strategy is simply to demonize Simon as the “lesser of two evils.”

That approach has failed before – specifically in New York when Mario Cuomo ran for his fourth term against George Pataki. So unpopular was Cuomo by then that all he could do was attack Pataki; Cuomo could not even brag about anything good he had done.

When things get that negative, you know the incumbent is in big trouble.

If Simon can win this race then he – like Sanchez – is an automatic ‘mention’ as a potential Veep candidate should Dick Cheney not run.


3) Liddy Dole’s poor performance: all of Washington is abuzz with talk about what a lousy political candidate Elizabeth Dole is turning out to be down in her native North Carolina. Two years ago – as a presidential candidate – she proved to have a political tin ear. Campaigning up in New Hampshire she called for gun control! In a GOP primary!

Scripted, programmed, tense and tight – she does not ‘connect’ with audiences.

While still favored to win Jesse Helms’ seat, her likely opponent, former Clinton Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, is not to be underestimated. The recent unfavorable press coverage of Dole’s campaign will only help Bowles’ fundraising.

As one DC insider put it, “How can someone (Liddy Dole) who went to Duke and Harvard Law School (when few women could get in there) be so dumb politically?”

The answer is simple: political smarts can’t be taught in a fancy Ivy League School.

This November we’ll see if Sanchez, Simon and Bowles have those smarts or not.

CHENEY'S TRIP BOMBS


Vice President Dick Cheney left for the Middle East ten days ago with one agenda: prepare those Arab states, plus Turkey, for the coming war to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.

Now that the trip is over, it is clear that the War Against Saddam is on the back burner – perhaps for a long time.

To put it bluntly, those Arab states – with the exception of Bahrain – told the Bush/Cheney Administration to stuff it. Their concern: the rapidly deteriorating Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “Until that situation is improved, forget Saddam” was the message repeatedly delivered to Cheney.

For those of us who want a “regime change” in Baghdad, the Cheney trip was a fiasco. The momentum toward removing Saddam and his Ba’th Party has been lost – and the situation on the ground in Israel is growing more dire by the minute.

What went wrong:

1) The CIA – with the tacit assent of the Bush White House – fingered only Osama bin Laden for September 11 – despite good evidence to the contrary. The now-infamous Prague meeting between lead hijacker Mohammed Atta and Iraqi agent Ahmed al-Ani last April was ‘debunked’ and pooh-poohed by CIA immediately after 9-11. Why?

2) A careful reading of Laurie Mylroie’s book about the 1993 World Trade bombing indeed proves that it was Saddam who masterminded that revenge attack in payback for the Gulf War.

3) Patience and vindictiveness are the watchwords of ‘Evil-Doers’ like Saddam and Osama. When the 1993 WTC bombing failed to bring about the intended result – the two towers falling upon each other like trees in a forest - they went back to the drawing board. It took eight years of recruiting, training, planning, flight schools, visas, structural engineers designing a plan, but they accomplished their goal.

4) It is naïve of us to believe 9-11 was the result of AL Qaeda by itself. State sponsorship had to be involved.

5) But CIA’s debunking of Iraq’s role in 9-11 has now made it all but impossible to pin 9-11 on Saddam. CIA Director George Tenet, an incompetent boob who never should have been kept on by G.W. Bush, yesterday kept open the ‘possibility’ that Iraq was involved in 9-11. A little late, no? It looks like we are ‘concocting’ a new rationale for attacking him.

6) Israel now becomes the unwitting victim of CIA’s stupidity. In order to re-enlist the Arab states in a new Coalition to oust Saddam, we have to come down hard on Israel to stop the viiolence there. But it is not their fault! It is entirely the fault of Arafat and Hamas – supported by the very Arab states we are wooing!


Cheney and Team Bush are fooling themselves if they think they can bring about a meaningful settlement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That is a quagmire no one ever emerges successfully from.

Ironically, Prime Minister Sharon has shown remarkable patience and restraint – and yet the Bush Administration – trying in vain to curry favor with the Arabs – comes down hard on Sharon for being too tough.

Team Bush will regret their decision to placate the Arabs because if Sharon fails – and his government falls – it will be replaced by Bibi Netanhayu. And his government will show no restraint whatsoever.

Bottom line?

CIA and the White House should have told the ‘whole’ truth on September 11 and the days immediately following. They should have shown the Baghdad connections to both WTC attacks.

That way the entire world would have been ready, willing and able to remove Saddam from power.