Thompson Takes Bites Out of Giuliani, Romney

Thompson Takes Bites Out of Giuliani, Romney

The latest USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted Friday through Sunday, on the presidential race is out, and it’s a humdinger. It’s hard to say what the headline even is. Here are a few tries, though:

* Romney’s support drops to within the margin of error of not existing (that’s 3% support in a poll where the margin of error is 3%).

* Giuliani’s support drops 13 percentage points since the last USA Today/Gallup poll, March 2-4 (that’s gotta hurt).

* Fred Thompson (not running, by the way) is now the No. 3 in the GOP field, at 12%.

Ultimately, however, I’ll go with the headline I’ve chosen above: “Thompson Takes Bites Out of Giuliani, Romney.” While the usual caveats apply about the ridiculous earliness of all of these polls — and, now, the fact that voters know precisely zero about Fred Thompson past what they know of him from “Law & Order” — this is a clear data point on the question of just who is hurt by a Thompson candidacy.

And that is, as I predicted, Mitt Romney (who dropped from 8% to 3% when Thompson was added to the poll), and as I did not in any way predict, Rudy Giuliani, who, again, lost 13 percentage points.

So, why the hit to Mr. Romney? Well, his candidacy has been foundering anyway, and now Mr. Thompson could present an acceptable social-conservative alternative (as I wrote in this column). That all but negates the entire rationale of a Romney candidacy (i.e. “I’m the real conservative!” [– a paraphrase])

Why the hit to Mr. Giuliani? Off the top of my head, I’d say conservative voters who primarily want a winner and someone who will be tough on national security might see Mr. Thompson as being as good as the former mayor, but without a lot of the baggage (social-issue positions and ex wives).

Now, some more caveats. There are other, state-by-state polls that tell a slightly different story. In New Hampshire, an ARG polls shows Mr. Giuliani dipping, possibly because of Mr. Thompson. But an ARG poll of likely Iowa caucus-goers shows Newt Gingrich as the biggest loser (with his poll numbers cut more than in half), and not a big change for Mr. Giuliani. In Ohio, a Quinnipiac poll also showed Mr. Gingrich as the biggest loser.

What does it all mean? Partly, that polls this early swing wildly based on name recognition. But also that — and this may end up being quite important as the race wears on — John McCain’s numbers do not seem to be as susceptible to wild fluctuations as those of some of the other candidates. Conservatives, and Republicans generally, don’t like him. But they basically know who he is, they know what they thought of him yesterday, and they know what they’ll think of him tomorrow.

Posted by Ryan Sager  |  Mon, 26 Mar 2007 at 4:44 PM

From New York Sun Politics Blog | Original entry available at:

Terrorists Buying School Buses

The Protect John Doe Act

The New York Times: Shilling for the Islamists?

Our view on post-9/11 travel: Clerics’ lawsuit threatens security of all passengers

The Imam Scam continues

The Imam Scam continues

Marc Sheppard
CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) was handed a victory of sorts on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal call-in show this morning.  The subject was the “civil rights” lawsuit CAIR attorneys have filed on behalf of the flying imams, whose highly suspicious actions last November led to their ejection from a US Airways plane prior to takeoff.

Open for discussion was this morning’s USA Today opinion piece which bared the “chilling effects” of CAIR’s effort to obtain the names of passengers who reported the imams’ threatening behavior.  These on-the-ball citizens, along with many airline employees, have actually been named as “John Doe” defendants in CAIR’s bogus suit.
Now, the action against the airline was entirely expected (and, for my money – likely orchestrated). But extending the complaint to include those who dutifully heeded the now familiar “see something, say something” plea is nothing short of diabolical.
As USA Today put it:

“This legal tactic seems designed to intimidate passengers willing to do exactly what authorities have requested – say something about suspicious activity.”

And, of course, it does.  Meanwhile, an “opposing view,” penned by Arsalan Iftikhar, national legal director for CAIR, and appearing on the same opinion page claimed that:

“[The lawsuit] is not against any passengers who reported “suspicious” activity in good faith.”

And, of course, it is. And trying to sell it as a paranoid response to those “flying while Muslim” changes nothing.
At least, so one would think.  Unfortunately, this morning’s calls to C-SPAN told an entirely different and extremely unnerving story.
Notwithstanding the moderator’s televised reading from the Op-Ed, including those portions which clearly outlined the imams’ startling behavior that triggered their removal, most of the callers stated that they were firmly behind the suit, blaming:

  • The ignorance of White America
  • Blatant Religious and Racial Profiling
  • Americans’ lack of knowledge about other cultures
  • Denial of Freedom of Religion
  • And, of course, President Bush

So, screaming anti-American slogans and words similar to the final cries of suicide bombers while changing assigned seats without authorization and brandishing potential restraints and weapons in a post-9/11 airplane cabin is within anybody’s cultural or religious rights?  Houston … we’ve got a problem, a huge problem.
Adding fuel to this spreading fire is the fact that Washington Journal is as fair a call-in show as you’re likely to find anywhere, with calls selected sequentially from Republican, Democratic and Independent lines.  Yet the vast majority of callers appeared to have fallen hook, line, and sinker for CAIR’s tactical rhetoric that the imams were innocent victims of discrimination. CAIR wouldn’t stoop to lining-up callers with speed dialers to flood the lines, would it?

Al Qaeda’s Pakistan Sanctuary

Al Qaeda’s Pakistan Sanctuary
By Bill Roggio
The Weekly Standard | March 27, 2007

The security situation in Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province continues to deteriorate. Once again, Western pressure on the government of President Pervez Musharraf has failed to prevent Pakistan from handing over territory to the Taliban, this time to a group called the Movement for the Enforcement of Islamic Laws. On March 17, a Pakistani “peace” committee struck a verbal agreement with the Mohmand tribe, under which the government promised to cease military activity in Bajaur in exchange for the tribe’s promise not to shelter “foreigners” or allow cross-border attacks into Afghanistan.

A look at the players shows this agreement to be another pact with the devil. The tribal militants are led by Faqir Muhammad, government sources told Dawn, an English-language Pakistani newspaper, the day the agreement was made. Faqir Muhammad is a senior leader of the Movement for the Enforcement of Islamic Laws, which provided the ideological inspiration to the Afghan Taliban in the 1990s. Faqir’s group sent over 10,000 fighters into Afghanistan to fight U.S. forces during Operation Enduring Freedom in October 2001. His two sons and two cousins were arrested by Pakistani authorities after returning from Afghanistan.

The Jamestown Foundation refers to Faqir Muhammad as “al-Zawahiri’s Pakistani ally.” His home in the village of Damadola was targeted by a joint U.S.-Pakistani airstrike in January 2006 after al Qaeda senior leader Ayman al-Zawahiri was believed to have been there. Zawahiri and Faqir escaped death, but Abu Khabab al-Masri, the chief of al Qaeda’s WMD program, and several other senior al Qaeda leaders were killed in the attack.

In October 2006, Faqir called Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar “heroes of the Muslim world” and vowed joint efforts to fight the “enemies of peace” in Bajaur. Days later, the Chingai madrassa, which doubled as an al Qaeda and Taliban training camp, was hit by a U.S. airstrike, killing 84 Taliban, including Faqir’s deputy, Liaquat Hussain. Faqir responded by attacking the Dargai military base with a suicide bomber.

Under the leadership of Faqir Muhammad, whom the Pakistani government refuses to arrest, Bajaur has become an al Qaeda command and control center for launching operations into eastern Afghanistan. Kunar, the adjacent Afghan province, is one of the most violent in the country.

None of this will come as a surprise to anyone tracking the situation in northwestern Pakistan. Since the signing of the Waziristan Accord on September 5, 2006, essentially ceding North Waziristan to the Taliban and al Qaeda, attacks in both Pakistan and Afghanistan have skyrocketed. Afghanistan has seen an increase in attacks of more than 300 percent, and battalion-sized groups of Taliban fighters have been hit while crossing the border from Pakistan. Cross-border raids are up more than 200 percent, and NATO forces have repeatedly engaged in hot pursuit across the Pakistani frontier. U.S. artillery has begun to strike at large Taliban formations in Pakistani territory. Suicide bombings in Afghanistan increased fivefold from 2005 to 2006. This year, there have already been more suicide attacks in Afghanistan than in all of 2006.

The situation has gotten so bad that in February, Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry, outgoing U.S. commander in Afghanistan, called “a steady, direct attack against the command and control in sanctuary areas in Pakistan” essential to preempt the expected Taliban spring offensive. Senator Carl Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, voiced similar concerns last month, saying, “Long-term prospects for eliminating the Taliban threat appear dim so long as the sanctuary remains in Pakistan, and there are no encouraging signs that Pakistan is eliminating it.”The rise of North and South Waziristan as hubs for Taliban and al Qaeda activity has not only damaged Afghan security and reconstruction. Unwilling to confine its activities to the border areas, the Pakistani Taliban also has designs on the settled regions of the North-West Frontier Province, an area the size of Florida. This was clear as long ago as March 2006, when Aftab Khan Sherpao, the Pakistani interior minister, sounded the alarm. “The Taliban’s sphere of influence has expanded to Dera Ismail Khan, Tank, and the Khyber Agency, where clerics of the area have started to join them,” Sherpao said. “There has been a sharp increase in attacks on heavily defended military targets in these areas as well.”

Asfandyar Wali, leader of the secular, democratic Awami National party, has also been trying to arouse concern about the Taliban’s growing power in the North-West Frontier Province. Wali recently went on Pakistani television and reported that the district of Kohat is now under Taliban control.

And in the last six months, the Taliban has conducted a concerted roadside and suicide bombing campaign in the settled regions of Pakistan. Suicide bombings have occurred in Islamabad, Peshawar, Quetta, Mir Ali, Dera Ismail Khan, and Dera Adamkhel. Pakistani security forces were attacked by the Taliban with roadside bombs and ambushes in Tank, Dera Ismail Khan, Bajaur, and North and South Waziristan. A Pakistani military base in Dargai was hit by a suicide attack, which killed over 45 recruits exercising outside the base. Faqir Muhammad was responsible.

Throughout the North-West Frontier Province, schools, nongovernmental organizations, foreign banks, barber shops, and music and video stores have received notices ordering them to shut down or face attacks–a standard Taliban modus operandi. Some shut down, others were destroyed by bombs.

All the while, the Taliban is working to consolidate its power by removing anyone who remotely opposes its radical agenda. Tribesmen are routinely found murdered, often with their throats cut, stabbed multiple times, or beheaded. They always have a note pinned to their body identifying them as a “U.S. spy.” More than 250 “spies” have been murdered in the past year. The network of pro-Western tribal leaders in the region has essentially been dismantled, according to an American military intelligence official.

The mastermind of this terror and bombing campaign is Baitullah Mehsud, the most powerful Taliban leader in South Waziristan. He is estimated to have an army of over 30,000 trained fighters. The Pakistani government negotiated yet another of its “peace” deals with Baitullah back in 2005, in which he agreed to cease attacking Pakistani security forces and sheltering “foreign fighters.” Baitullah never lived up to the agreement.

In January, one of Baitullah’s training camps in the small town of Zamazola was hit by an airstrike, purportedly by Pakistani security forces. It is widely accepted, however, that U.S. Special Operations Forces conducted the attack. Baitullah then embarked on the recent suicide campaign, killing scores nationwide. “They launch airstrikes on us and we respond with suicide attacks,” Baitullah told a crowd after the strike on Zamazola. He also promised to continue the fight in Afghanistan, saying, “The holy warriors will give a tougher fight this year than last year.” Pakistani police traced the string of suicide strikes directly to Baitullah–yet the Pakistani government sent negotiators to meet with him, and they accepted his protestations of innocence. Baitullah is untouchable.

To illustrate just how badly the Waziristan Accord has failed, last week a powerful Taliban commander fought with an al Qaeda-linked Uzbek group in South Waziristan. More than 160 Uzbeks and Taliban are reported killed. The Pakistani government was quick to represent this fight as proof that the accord was working: In the government’s version of events, pro-government tribes had battled foreign jihadists to enforce the agreement. But nothing could be further from the truth. The fighting began after Uzbeks killed an Arab al Qaeda fighter supported by the Taliban. To settle the conflict, the Taliban sent in senior commanders, including Baitullah Mehsud and Mullah Dadullah Akhund, military leader of the Afghan Taliban, to negotiate a truce between the factions.

Now, the Taliban and al Qaeda openly rule in the tribal lands. Terror training camps are up and running, secure from harassment by Pakistani security forces. Al Qaeda leaders are thought to be sheltered in the region, as Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, confirmed in February.

The Bajaur agreement signals once again that the Pakistani government is unwilling to police its own borders, and is prepared to hand over even more territory to the Taliban and al Qaeda. Behind the agreement is the hidden hand of General Hamid Gul, the former chief of Pakistan’s shadowy intelligence service, the ISI.

Gul, an Islamist, is credited with laying the groundwork for the establishment of the Taliban and is said to be friends with Mullah Omar. The 9/11 Commission believed he had warned Osama bin Laden prior to the 1998 missile strike launched by President Clinton, allowing bin Laden to escape. Last year, Gul sought an injunction from the Pakistani supreme court to prevent Pakistani military action in Bajaur. President Musharraf’s dismissal of the chief justice on March 9 is rumored to be related to this case.

The United States smashed al Qaeda’s base of operations in Afghanistan in 2001, only to see it transferred to northwestern Pakistan. The refusal of the Musharraf regime to deal with this situation, and the active participation of elements of the Pakistani military, intelligence, and political elites in supporting our enemies, are worrisome for our efforts in the war on terror–and threaten the very existence of a non-jihadist Pakistani state.

Click Here to support

The Reason America Hasn’t Won in Iraq

The Reason America Hasn’t Won in Iraq
By Dennis Prager | March 27, 2007

I never thought we could see a new form of evil. After the gas chambers of the Holocaust, the tens of millions murdered in the Gulag, the forced starvation in the Ukraine, the hideous medical experiments on people by the Germans and the Japanese in World War II, the torture chambers in all police states, I had actually believed that no new forms of evil existed.

I was wrong.

Of course, for sheer cruelty, one cannot outdo the Nazis; no depiction of hell ever matched the reality of Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen. But while Islamists and Baathists in Iraq have not devised new forms of torture — there probably are no new ways left — they have devised a new form of evil: murdering, maiming and torturing as many innocents among their own people as possible.

I do not know of an analogous form of evil. When the Allies conquered Nazi Germany, disaffected Nazis did not go around murdering and cutting off the heads of fellow Germans in order to make the Allies leave. Nor did disaffected Japanese blow up Japanese students so as to make the American occupation of Japan untenable.

Here is the latest example of this new form of evil as reported by the Associated Press: “Maj. Gen. Michael Barbero, deputy director for regional operations on the Joint Staff, said . . . the vehicle used in the attack [on Iraqi civilians] was waved through a U.S. military checkpoint because two children were visible in the back seat. He said this was the first reported use of children in a car bombing in Baghdad. ‘Children in the back seat lowered suspicion, (so) we let it move through, they parked the vehicle, the adults run out and detonate it with the children in the back,’ Barbero told reporters in Washington.”

These same “insurgents” routinely blow up children who line up to receive candy from U.S. troops. Likewise, college students are targeted for death, as are men lining up to apply for civilian jobs, men and women attending mosques, physicians in hospitals, and so on. The more innocent the Iraqi, the more likely he or she is to be targeted for murder.

I submit that there was no way to anticipate this. And no one did. This includes all those who predicted a civil war in Iraq between Shiites and Sunnis. I include myself among those who predicted savagery in Iraq. On a number of occasions prior to our invasion of Iraq, I recounted to my radio listeners this chilling story:

As a young man, in 1974, I was riding on a bus traveling from Beirut to Damascus. The man I sat next to was an English-speaking Iraqi whom I asked at one point in our conversation, “Can you describe your nation in a sentence?” “No problem,” he immediately answered. “We Iraqis are the most barbaric people in the world.”

I obviously never forgot that man’s words, and therefore anticipated great cruelties in Iraq. But neither I nor anyone who predicted a civil war had so much as a premonition of this unprecedented mass murder of the men, women and children among one’s own people as a military tactic to defeat an external enemy.

It is, therefore, unfair to blame the Bush administration for not anticipating such a determined “insurgency.” Without the mass murder of fellow Iraqis, there would hardly be any “insurgency.” The combination of suicide terrorists and a theology of death has created an unprecedented form of “resistance” to an occupier: “We will murder as many men, women and children as we can until you leave.” Nor is this a matter of Sunnis murdering Shiites and vice versa: college students, women shopping at a Baghdad market and hospital workers all belong to both groups. Truck bombs cannot distinguish among tribes or religious affiliations.

If America had to fight an insurgency directed solely against us and coalition forces — even including suicide bombers — we would surely have succeeded. No one, right, left or center, could imagine a group of people so evil, so devoid of the most elementary and universal concepts of morality, that they would target their own people, especially the most vulnerable, for murder.

That is why we have not yet prevailed in Iraq. Even without all the mistakes made by the Bush administration — and what political or military leadership has not made many errors in prosecuting a war? — it could not have foreseen this new form of evil we are witnessing in Iraq.

That is why we have not won.

There are respectable arguments to be made against America’s initially going into Iraq. But intellectually honest opponents of the war have to acknowledge that no one could anticipate an “insurgency” that included people leaving children in a car and then blowing them up.

How We Fund Hamas University

How We Fund Hamas University
By Joel Mowbray | March 27, 2007

How could the
U.S. government be funding Hamas’s university in
Gaza?  It’s the question that has been asked often since my front-page story in the Washington Times earlier this month, from Capitol Hill to the State Department’s daily press briefing.

No good answer was provided—but in fairness, no good answer exists for supporting a college controlled by Hamas.  The alternatives, though, aren’t much better.  The sad reality of Palestinian society is that almost any university the
U.S. might choose to support at a minimum has student chapters of terrorist organizations on campus. 


Whereas Americans have College Republicans and College Democrats, Palestinians have College Hamas and College Islamic Jihad.


Even Al Quds University—embraced as the bastion of moderation by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)—engaged in a weeklong celebration this January of the terrorist credited with developing the first suicide belts more than a decade ago.


Given how much leverage the
U.S. has—just through money alone—officials could have demanded that at least some of the support or glorification of terrorism be put to an end.  There’s no indication, though, that any such pressure was applied. 


Rather, it appears that USAID, most likely with guidance from State, decided to fund Palestinian universities with troubling terrorism ties—including the Hamas-controlled Islamic University—and simply hope that no one would catch on.  That might have been the case—if not for the Palestinian Media Watch (PMW), which keeps a watchful eye on everything from school textbooks to television shows and newspaper articles.


PMW has documented, mostly through local and school newspaper articles, that student chapters of terrorist organizations are the most potent political forces on the vast majority of Palestinian campuses.  And it was PMW Director Itamar Marcus who tipped off this journalist that USAID’s support of Islamic University needed to be investigated.  Marcus provided a 2006 article from Hamas’s newspaper al-Risala proclaiming that 16 Islamic University teachers had just been elected as Hamas members of the Palestinian legislature.


It took several weeks to compile overwhelming evidence of Hamas control of Islamic University, but it was all attainable trough open sources—and it is precisely the kind of information that should have been uncovered in the “careful vetting process” State insists occurred before the school received assistance.


Thus it was all the more vexing that the official line, established by State Department spokesman Sean McCormack the day the article ran, is that

University is “independent.”  No proof was offered to support this contention, nor was any argument advanced challenging the evidence in the article pointing to Hamas’s firm control of Islamic University:


  • Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin founded the school in 1978.
  • Sheikh Yassin, former Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi, and current Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh have all used the school as a base.
  • Haniyeh sits on the school’s board of trustees.
  • The school’s 16 parliamentarians account for more than one-fifth of all Hamas legislators.
  • Hamas used the campus to host a two-day conference in 2005 on the “martyrdom” of Sheikh Yassin.
  • Students gave 78% of their student council votes in 2005 to the Hamas-affiliated party.

Congress didn’t buy State’s spin.  House Foreign Affairs chairman Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) unleashed a blistering attack to open his committee’s USAID hearing, held three days after the article ran.  Making sure his words would not be misinterpreted, Lantos told USAID Director Ambassador Randall Tobias, “Providing U.S. assistance to a terrorist-controlled university in
Gaza was out of the question and, in fact, violates
U.S. law.”  He added, “This outrageous support for terrorism must and will end.”


This isn’t the first time Congress has told State and USAID that funding in the
West Bank and
Gaza needed serious reform.  Following publication of a Palestinian Media Watch report in June 2004 about USAID funding entities engaged in the support, advocacy, or glorification of terrorism, Congress moved to restrict aid to institutions or individuals “involved in or advocating terrorist activity.”


Within months of the law being changed, USAID issued its next batch of assistance to the Hamas-controlled Islamic University—exactly as it had before Congress acted.  It’s not clear, in fact, that USAID did anything of substance to be in compliance with the clear intent of Congress.


When asked by this journalist about its funding decisions in the
West Bank and
Gaza, USAID pointed to $2.3 million in assistance provided to Al Quds University.  Undermining USAID’s argument that funding the school is wise policy, however, was the weeklong celebration this January of Yahya Ayyash, the Hamas leader known as “the shahid [martyr] engineer.”  He is credited with creating the first suicide belts in the mid-1990s and training the next generation of suicide bomb makers.


The school’s celebration of a leading terrorist actually seems to be in line with the beliefs of its leader.  The president of Al-Quds University President, Sari Nusseibeh, is widely considered a leading Palestinian moderate—USAID praised him as “one such prominent and respected figure”—yet he, too, celebrates the glories of terrorists.


In an appearance on Al-Jazeera in 2002 with Hamas political bureau chief Khalid Mashaal and the mother of a suicide bomber, Nusseibeh had this to say of the woman who proudly raised a terrorist: “When I hear the words of Umm Nidal, I recall the [Koranic] verse stating that ‘Paradise lies under the feet of mothers.’  All respect is due to this mother; it is due to every Palestinian mother and every female Palestinian who is a Jihad fighter on this land.”  (Transcript provided by PMW.)


As Palestinian colleges go,

University might well be quite moderate—but that’s the problem.  If terrorists are hailed as heroes at the moderate schools, imagine what happens at the more radical ones. 


If Congress successfully closes all loopholes this time around, maybe we won’t have to.