perfidy

Steve Waite over at Commonsense and Wonder links to a Weekly Standard article by Stephen Hayes that lays out some evidence for a significant connection between Saddam's regime and bin Laden going back to the nineties.

OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies.

According to the memo--which lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered points--Iraq-al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered passages contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting, which some cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source. This reporting is often followed by commentary and analysis.

Not that I needed additional justification, but this would be one more reason to feel good about what we've done. I think that over the next several months, we might begin to see increasingly rapid progress in the war on terror.

In the Belmont Club post I linked a while back, Viva Los Pepes, Wretchard talks about "tearing down the mountain" - a deliberate process of slowly destroying a network from the bottom up to get at the (presently) invulnerable bad guy at the top. We used this technique against the drug cartels in Columbia to get Pablo Escobar, and it looks as if it worked with Saddam, may pay off any moment with Zawahiri, and perhaps soon with bin Laden himself.

And one reason that we are able to do this is the intelligence information we are gaining from captured Iraqis.

[wik] From Kathy Kinsley at On the Third Hand (I got the blog name right this time! I'm not such a complete idiot as to get my blog hostess' blog wrong twice in one day.) we get a link to another story about Iraq-Al Qaida links, this one from the Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough at the Washington Times.

We have obtained a document discovered in Iraq from the files of the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS). The report provides new evidence of links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

The 1993 document, in Arabic, bears the logo of the Iraqi intelligence agency and is labeled "top secret" on each of its 20 pages. The report is a list of IIS agents who are described as "collaborators."

On page 14, the report states that among the collaborators is "the Saudi Osama bin Laden." The document states that bin Laden is a "Saudi businessman and is in charge of the Saudi opposition in Afghanistan. And he is in good relationship with our section in Syria," the document states, under the signature "Jabar."

The document was obtained by the Iraqi National Congress and first disclosed on the CBS program "60 Minutes" by INC leader Ahmed Chalabi.

A U.S. official said the document appears authentic.

A while back, I posted a list of my top five, all-time favorite science fiction novels. A recent conversation made me realize that this needs revisiting. This list originated when my mom asked for a list of the best science fiction, so that she would not need to go through the oftimes perilous process of winnowing the wheat from the chaff.

As Ted Sturgeon pointed out, 95% of everything is crap. Here is the original list:

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, by Robert Heinlein
Starship Troopers, by Robert Heinlein
Player of Games, by Iain Banks
The Stars My Destination, by Alfred Bester
Mote in God's Eye, by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle
The Dosadi Experiment, by Frank Herbert
Dune, by Frank Herbert
A Fire Upon the Deep, by Vernor Vinge
A Deepness in the Sky, by Vernor Vinge
Ender's Game, by Orson Scott Card
Diamond Age, by Neil Stephenson
Cryptonomicon, by Neil Stephenson
Sundiver, by David Brin
Startide Rising, by David Brin
Lest Darkness Fall, by L. Sprague de Camp
American Gods, by Neil Gaiman
Good Omens, by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett
Mother of Storms, by John Barnes
Killing Star, by Charles Pellegrino and George Zebroski
Doorways in the Sand, by Roger Zelazny
The Greks Bring Gifts, by Murray Leinster
Pebble in the Sky, by Isaac Asimov
The City and the Stars, by Arthur C. Clark

I have never been able to narrow this list down I can only add to it. My top five list, it is large, it contains multitudes.

On further reflection, and by recommendation from Johno, I added these:

Canticle for Liebowitz, by Walter Miller
Hyperion, by Dan Simmons
The Earth Abides, by George R. Stuart
Shockwave Rider, by John Brunner
Voice of the Whirlwind, by Walter Jon Williams
Pattern Recognition, by William Gibson
The Man In The High Castle, by Philip K. Dick
Schismatrix, by Bruce Sterling
Snow Crash, by Neal Stephenson

Here are some new ones:

Norstrilia, by Cordwainer Smith
Bring the Jubilee, by Ward Moore
The Lensman Series, by E.E. "Doc" Smith
Cities in Flight, by James Blish
Tactics of Mistake, by Gordon R. Dickson

And as an added bonus, and actual list of five, for fantasy:

Lord of the Rings, by some guy, think his name begins with "D"
Freedom and Necessity, by Emma Bull and Steven Brust
American Gods, by Neil Gaiman
Age of Unreason series, by J. Gregory Keyes
The Earthsea Trilogy, by Ursula K. Le Guin (and I do mean trilogy)

[wik] Here's a link to another page with a good top 100 list.

[alsø wik] Ted points out that Orson Scott Card's Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus is a damn fine novel, and I agree that it is an oversight. He also gave me a couple new titles to hunt down. If anyone has any suggestions for the list, please leave them in the comments, and I will make additions to the list as needed.

In a blow to those who think slippery slopes don't exist-- and in a spine-crushing suplex to decency, common sense, and responsible government-- the city of Port Orange, FL has outlawed outdoor smoking on public property when kids are present.

That's right. If you're in the park, and even one scabby-kneed diaper-wearing drool factory is around-- even if said drool factory is thirteen and ho'ed up like Britney Spears-- you're in trouble. You get three warnings. Then you get up to 60 days of jail.

I'm of two minds about smoking bans. My libertarian side opposes them unequivocally, but my opportunistic side absolutely loves that I can go out to a bar without reeking like an ashtray for twelve hours afterwards. I mean, loves it. I love it. Love it.

Love. It.

Here's a question-- in towns that ban smoking in bars and restaurants, why can't the town government regulate smoking like they do booze? If city hall issues, say, 300 liquor licenses, why can't they draw up and issue 100 smoking licenses too? That way we would ensure that the spirit of the law-- that patrons and workers not be automatically exposed to dense clouds of toxins-- is observed, while at the same time giving those people who do enjoy cancer the opportunity to do so.

He handed over the book. It was more than I could have ever dreamed. A 3-ring binder, reeking of cigarettes, bursting with over 500 pages of sweet, sweet schizo goodness.

The front page reads, in giant letters:

THIS IS ONLY 1/4 OF THE WRITTEN MATERIAL I HAVE BEEN SENDING YOU AND OTHER LAW AGENCIES

...and from there, it descends into madness.

Michelle Leder has a good story at Slate about the new revolution in corporate reporting. Many companies have (wisely) jettisoned the content-free and expensively glossy annual report, instead choosing to just mail their 10-Ks to investors (10-Ks are a warts-and-all report filed with the SEC). At the same time, many companies are throwing everything into the 10-K-- every dubious consulting contract, every golden parachute, every ludicrous perk-- in an effort to show how transparently forthright and upstanding they are, our good corporate citizens of America.

Leder points out the benefit for us investors-- for those of us with strong eyes and time to kill, the footnotes to these new beefy 10-Ks make for fascinating reading.

After all, corporate crime is often a matter of degree, not transgression. At what point does strategically socking funds away in a Cayman subsidiary to ensure liquidity in a currency crisis become strategically socking specific funds away in a Cayman subsidiary for limited periods to duck out on paying US taxes? It's all in the footnotes, kids. All in the footnotes.

[wik] Speak of the devil! Also in Slate, Daniel Gross tells us why private company jets are gateways to corporate, um, perfidy. There's a whiff of anti-privelige sentiment in the piece, but why shouldn't there be, given the premise?

Policy wonks and political geeks worldwide are celebrating the 25th Anniversary of C-Span's first broadcast on March 19, 1979. That day, the inaugural broadcast was a speech by Al Gore, described in this article as "characteristically wooden."

C-SPAN, happy birthday. You have brought joy to my life, and sleep when I needed it.

From The Times:

"I believe these actions by Bush administration officials to block Mr. Foster from providing Congress the true costs of the prescription drug bill clearly break federal law," said Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey and the lead author of the letter. Mr. Lautenberg added, "The questions that need to be answered are: how many administration officials knew about it, and who in the administration gave the order to conceal the information?" Mr. Scully has denied threatening to fire Mr. Foster, but has confirmed telling him to withhold some information from Congress. Republicans accuse Democrats of exploiting the controversy for political gain. "My view is, it's much ado about nothing," said Representative Jim McCrery, Republican of Louisiana.

How much more friggin' plain does it have to be, McCrery? Scully has confirmed that he told the actuary to withhold from Congress critical information about the costs of a program. Let it be said, here and now, that McCrery is a dishonest, partisan asshole. I feel so much better knowing guys like him are in the GOP.

Just a note to all the desperate people who keep emailing me - I am not this buckethead:

I will however autograph pictures if you enclose a stamped, self-addressed envelope.

I've run across two interesting comments on the US Congress, neither of which are very flattering. The first is from John Derbyshire of the National Review:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

(My italics.) So in a Case not "affecting Ambassadors" etc. — let's say, oh, a case in which some citizens have chosen to dispute the ancient and customary definition of marriage — the Supreme Court has jurisdiction only if the Congress has not declared that particular Case an Exception under the aforementioned Article, and if Congress has made explicit Regulations declaring that the Court does indeed have such jurisdiction. Hmmm. So this issue I have been reading so much about, of renegade federal judges legislating from the bench, is really not an issue at all, since Congress could just forbid them to take the relevant Cases! Does anyone in Congress know this? Why don't they act on it?

The second is from Marginal Revolution, where Tyler excerpts from this Washington Post article:

In fundamental ways that have gone largely unrecognized, Congress has become less vigilant, less proud and protective of its own prerogatives, and less important to the conduct of American government than at any time in decades. "Congress has abdicated much of its responsibility," Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel said in a recent conversation. "It could become an adjunct to the executive branch."

...Though it occasionally resists an executive-branch proposal, Congress today rarely initiates its own policies. Few members speak up for the institutional interests of Congress. "The idea that they have an independent institutional responsibility, that the institution itself is bigger than the individuals or the parties, doesn't occur to the bulk of [members] for a nanosecond," said an exasperated Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, a longtime student of Congress.

It occurs to Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee. He said that the House has given up the meaningful exercise of its powers by largely forfeiting its oversight role and abandoning all discipline on the federal budget.

These two comments take the same problem from different sides. The Post article points out, correctly, that the relative strength of the three branches of government have waxed and waned over the last two centuries. The Supreme Court was almost non-existent until Marshall became Chief Justice. Congress was far more important than the President at the beginning and end of the 19th Century. But over the last quarter century and more, Congress has been on the wane and not so much due to encroachment from the other two branches, but because Congress has willingly surrendered its constitutionally granted powers.

Both liberals and conservatives have pilloried the Supreme Court for its intrusions into politics. Judicial activism and federalism have been rallying cries for the right, and the left has advanced many of its goals through court rulings. That the courts are able to do this, though, is only because the Congress allows it. A pernicious trend over the last half-century is Congress’ increasing unwillingness to consider the constitutionality of its own legislation. Rather than think difficult thoughts like, “Does the Constitution allow us to pass this law?” the Congress passes anything that passes through its airy head, confident that the Supreme Court will sort it all out. Over a long enough stretch of time, this becomes habit – and the SC comes to believe that these sorts of rulings are its primary focus.

And as Derbyshire pointed out, the Congress has important and wide-ranging powers to regulate the courts, and to decide what matters are for political consideration by the elected legislature, and which are appropriate for judicial review. Most of the recent conflicts on the big issues have been between the executive and the judicial branch, with Congress playing dead in the middle, hoping that no one will notice that they are doing nothing to help solve the problem.

By passing whatever laws they see fit, and leaving all considerations of constitutionality to the courts (the best recent example is campaign finance reform) Congress has departed significantly from the letter and intent of the constitution. Aside from the departments of defense, state, and the treasury; how many of the activities of the executive branch are authorized by the constitution, beyond vague handwaving at the commerce clause?

Which brings us to an even greater abdication of responsibility. Congress is granted the exclusive power by the constitution to pass laws, levy taxes, declare war, and so on. However, most of the laws that affect our day-to-day lives are not actual laws passed by Congress, but rather federal regulations written by bureaucrats in the executive agencies and departments. Congress has ceded a large part of its lawmaking power to the executive branch, and it has done so consciously.

Similarly, the War Powers Act in large part cedes the constitutional responsibility to declare war to the executive. While the President has traditionally (and rightfully) had a fair degree of leeway in this regard, explicitly giving up the right to in effect declare war is troublesome.

Congress no longer performs the kind of oversight that is their primary responsibility. The President and the executive branch exist in large part to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” The most notably, the Congress has failed to exert proper oversight in budgetary matters. But this laxity spreads over pretty much every area that the Constitution puts in their care. And as the Post article notes, rarely do we see any initiative arising from Congress – almost every major issue comes from the President or the courts.

If we have an imperial presidency, it is in large part because we have a weak and vacillating Congress. If we have overreaching activist courts, it is a natural result of Congressional abdication of power. And this state of affairs seems unlikely to change in the near future.

Check this out! If you're a Federal employee who just happens to like a little buggery on the side (in the time-honored prep school tradition), that's cool. In fact, if you're a Federal employee who attends Gay Pride parades, goes to the bathhouses, looks for dates at Dupont Circle, and goes out clubbing until 3AM in a mesh shirt and a banana-hammock, that's cool too. You just better not be, you know, gay.

Gay and lesbians in the entire federal workforce have had their job protections officially removed by the office of Special Counsel. The new Special Counsel, Scott Bloch, says his interpretation of a 1978 law intended to protect employees and job applicants from adverse personnel actions is that gay and lesbian workers are not covered.

Bloch said that the while a gay employee would have no recourse for being fired or demoted for being gay, that same worker could not be fired for attending a gay Pride event.

In his interpretation, Bloch is making a distinction between one's conduct as a gay or lesbian and one's status as a gay or lesbian.

"People confuse conduct and sexual orientation as the same thing, and I don't think they are," Bloch said in an interview with Federal Times, a publication for government employees.

Bloch said gays, lesbians and bisexuals cannot be covered as a protected class because they are not protected under the nation's civil rights laws. 

"When you're interpreting a statute, you have to be very careful to interpret strictly according to how it's written and not get into loose interpretations," Bloch said. "Someone may have jumped to the conclusion that conduct equals sexual orientation, but they are essentially very different. One is a class . . . and one is behavior."

My head hurts.