Free Republic

Democratic partisans, notably Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, are howling about the timing of the revelation that Clinton National Security Advisor Samuel “Sandy” Berger is under criminal investigation.  They contend the sensational allegation that he was observed by National Archives personnel stuffing highly classified documents into his clothing, and then "accidentally disposing” of some of them, is coming out now for a cynical political reason: In order to divert attention from the criticisms of the Bush Administration expected in the 9/11 Commission report due to be released today.   In fact, far from distracting the public from the factors that contributed to...

The Washington Timeswww.washingtontimes.com Republicans astrayBy Frank J. Gaffney Jr.Published July 7, 2004 The American people seem likely to decide who will be their next president on the basis of whose policies will best provide for their security. Unfortunately for George W. Bush, four senior congressional Republicans are taking steps that will make it harder for him to differentiate the GOP's defense agenda from that of his challenger. Presumably, none of the four wish to be known as "Kerry Republicans," but unless they change course, the effect of their actions could be not only to weaken U.S. security but to undermine...

The 9/11 Commission’s conclusion that “We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States” does not augur well for the rest of the panel’s inquiry.  If the members of the commission could not connect dots that are all too obvious – or recognize their staff’s inability to do so – it seems likely that their work will fall short in other important areas as well.The commission has allowed itself to be used as a political instrument by critics of President Bush and his liberation of Iraq.  This is the ineluctable result of the shortcomings...

<p>Last Thursday, Secretary of State Colin Powell engaged in the Bush administration's latest outreach to members of the Arab-American and Muslim-American communities. Unfortunately, as with virtually every one of the administration's previous efforts of this kind, those embraced by Mr. Powell are part of the problem -- not the solution -- in the war of ideas that is at the heart of the war on terror.</p>

(Washington, D.C.): Last Thursday, Secretary of State Colin Powell engaged in the Bush Administration’s latest outreach to members of the Arab-American and Muslim-American communities. Unfortunately, as with virtually every one of the Administration’s previous efforts of this kind, those embraced by Mr. Powell are part of the problem - not the solution - in the war of ideas that is at the heart of the war on terror. According to a press release issued last week by one of the four organizations asked to participate, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Secretary of State used the meeting to "discuss...

The announcement that CIA Director George Tenet had decided to spend more time with his family was received with mixed emotions in Washington.  For some, it simply evoked the cynicism that usually greets such claims, feeding rumors that he was actually fired and arousing intense speculation about which of the myriad intelligence acts of omission or commission on his watch prompted this step.For others, the departure is seen as a transparent - if welcome - effort to designate Tenet as the chosen scapegoat for various recent intelligence failures. Within this group, there will be those who hope it is the...

It is hard to believe that a country reeling from reports of prison abuse at the hands of American military personnel would be a willing party to threatening and demeaning ill-treatment of a prominent Iraqi politician. The fact that the individual in question — the Iraqi National Congress's Ahmed Chalabi — has arguably done more than any other Iraqi to effect his country's liberation and, subsequently, to support the consolidation of democracy there makes this case of "politician abuse" positively bizarre. To be sure, the Coalition Provisional Authority contends that the warrantless and destructive search of Chalabi's home and two...

One could be forgiven for thinking that the detonation of two "improvised explosive devices" equipped with toxic chemical agents would be seen as confirmation that there are still Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. These events might even be seen as rebuttals to those who have derided the Bush administration for its prior inability to substantiate pre-war claims that such weapons in Saddam’s hands constituted an intolerable threat to the United States.Unfortunately, such thinking fails to appreciate a stand-by of Washington Beltway politics: "moving the goalposts." Whenever the opposing team comes close to proving its point, one simply relocates...

<p>Among Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's many contributions to the conduct and character of American security policy was his introduction last year of the term "New Europe."</p> <p>With just two words, he deftly parried those who inveighed against U.S. action in Iraq absent Franco-German approval by observing the French and Germans (together with their poodles, the Belgians and Luxembourgers) do not speak for all Europeans — and most especially not for those Central and East European newcomers to freedom, who remembered all too well the Saddamlike totalitarianism of the Soviet Empire.</p>

<p>The televised hearings convened last week by the September 11 Commission proved to be one of the most interesting and valuable civics lessons of all time. In particular, they made a point Americans cannot hear too often: The world is generally a dangerous place for the United States, its people and its interests — whether we think so or not, and most especially when we don't. After all, at such times, we frequently squander opportunities to bring to bear the leadership and popular attention, military might and other national resources that could nip in the bud problems that will prove very costly to address later.</p>

In the wake of international terrorism's most-successful strategic attack since September 11, 2001, the differences between Sen. John Kerry and President Bush about how the war on terror should be waged have become as clear as, well, the differences between the outgoing Spanish premier and his successor. To be sure, even before last Thursday's murderous explosions in Madrid, Senator Kerry and his surrogates were denouncing the war in Iraq on the grounds that President Bush failed to get the U.N.'s permission for it — and then was unable to turn the governance of the country post-Saddam over to the so-called...

<p>For months, Democratic partisans have made one thing perfectly clear: While they hoped to run for, and win, the White House based on domestic issues, to defeat George W. Bush they must diminish public confidence in the president's wartime leadership. Nothing would appear better suited to advance this agenda than the highly publicized defection this weekend of one of Mr. Bush's former senior national security staffers, Richard Clarke.</p>

In the wake of international terrorism's most-successful strategic attack since September 11, 2001, the differences between Sen. John Kerry and President Bush about how the war on terror should be waged have become as clear as, well, the differences between the outgoing Spanish premier and his successor. To be sure, even before last Thursday's murderous explosions in Madrid, Senator Kerry and his surrogates were denouncing the war in Iraq on the grounds that President Bush failed to get the U.N.'s permission for it — and then was unable to turn the governance of the country post-Saddam over to the so-called...

<p>When voters are asked to evaluate their choices for president next November, they will have to weigh carefully the temperament, judgment and instincts of the candidate. Nowhere will these qualities be of greater consequence than in the execution of his duties as commander in chief.</p>

John Kerry wants a world in which the United Nations calls the shots and U.S. freedom of action, in the absence of the U.N.'s permission, is sharply circumscribed. Most Americans recognize that this would be a formula for disaster — a world in which the lowest-common-multilateral-denominator would routinely trump, and often jeopardize, our security interests. President George W. Bush's supporters believe that he rejects this Kerry-Clinton worldview. They look forward to a national election in which voters get to choose between his Reaganesque philosophy of peace through American strength and Kerry's U.N. uber alles. So why would the Bush administration...

<p>By Frank J. Gaffney Jr.</p> <p>The United States and four other nations will soon sit down in Beijing with representatives of Kim Jong-il's Stalinist North Korea. They will thus resume the so-called six-party negotiations that currently pass for a U.S. strategy for contending with the yawning danger of a North Korean regime armed with -- and prepared to sell -- nuclear weapons.</p>

<p>The 2004 presidential election is shaping up to be one of those extraordinary moments in the life of a democracy: Voters will actually have a real choice, not only between candidates but between two sharply divergent philosophies about how to protect America, her people and vital interests.</p>

<p>President Bush has reportedly decided, wisely, to accept the inevitable and endorse the creation of yet another blue ribbon bipartisan commission. Consequently, we will soon have a new group of worthies examining highly classified information about what we thought we knew about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and, if we were wrong, why.</p>

David Kay has returned from Iraq, having failed to locate the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) he was sent there to find. President George W. Bush's would-be successors and other critics have seized upon his conclusion that — notwithstanding U.S. and foreign-intelligence assessments to the contrary — they ceased to exist in large quantity after 1991 to justify charges of presidential malfeasance. President Bush could be forgiven for feeling annoyed with Dr. Kay. A heated reelection campaign is not exactly the moment any candidate would chose have new turmoil engendered over one of his most controversial decisions. The president should,...

<p>Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, we are told endlessly, is running on his record. Never mind that he has no record to speak of on most domestic policy matters. What is really troubling is that, when it comes to his putative area of expertise — national security, Mr. Clark seems perfectly prepared to run away from his record, or at least to dissemble about it.</p>