More Nuance and Flipflops

More Nuance and Flipflops
David Limbaugh
December 3, 2004

The Democratic Party keeps agonizing over why it lost the election and how to recover. Let me suggest this: Quit undermining the electoral process in the name of protecting it.

And quit exploiting African-American voters by stirring fear in their hearts over fraudulent claims that Republicans want to disenfranchise them.

It's hard to estimate how much damage occurred to our democratic process with the spate of litigation and unsubstantiated allegations of GOP voter fraud in Florida in 2000.

Neither the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights nor the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division found any credible evidence that the GOP harassed or tried to suppress black voters in Florida in 2000. But these findings did not deter disgruntled, race-baiting Democrats from repeating those charges for the next four years.

They did not stop John Edwards from telling "a largely African-American crowd" at a rally in Miami Gardens, "Whatever it is, we know they're going to be up to their old tricks, right, trying to keep people from voting." They did not keep John Kerry from telling African-American church congregations in Florida and Ohio, "Never again will a million African Americans be denied the right to exercise their vote in the United States of America."

On election night, Kerry apparently saw Ohio 2004 as a potential Florida 2000 -- a state whose electoral votes could reverse his defeat -- and so delayed conceding the election until the next day when a challenge seemed farfetched. Nevertheless, his decision to spare America the uncertainty of another protracted series of contests was wise and decent.

When the Green and Libertarian candidates sought a recount, Kerry continued in that posture, saying he wouldn't get involved. But this week, he appears to have changed his mind -- by trying to intervene in their suit to include Delaware County in the recount -- yet says he hasn't. Kerry campaign attorney Daniel Hoffheimer denied Kerry was trying to overturn the Ohio outcome, but said Kerry just wanted the recount to proceed in all counties to ensure that all votes were counted. Is that a vintage Kerry flipflop or merely sophisticated Kerry nuance that is beyond the ability of ordinary mortals to fully understand?

Just for the record, all the votes have been counted. Hoffheimer must mean he wants all the votes recounted. That seems to be the new standard for Republicans these days: They have to win twice.

Hoffheimer admitted that no evidence has been found proving fraud, but turned right around and said, "We know there were a lot of problems in this election. We want people to feel the election was fair."

Do we see a pattern here? Just as in Florida, there is no evidence of fraud, but they're going to insist on an expensive, unwarranted recount anyway, just to make people feel better?

Which people are they talking about? Surely not the Left's black helicopter crowd, who wouldn't be convinced of a legitimate Bush victory if they personally counted all the votes themselves -- the people whose loony "proof" of election fraud is the skewed exit polling results.

Their demagogic mantra, "Every vote must count," is getting old. No, only legal votes should count. And they don't always have to be counted twice.

The Democrats started a very dangerous precedent in Florida, and they're playing with fire again in Ohio. While they profess to be motivated by a desire to restore public confidence in the process, they are going to degrade our system to that of a glorified banana republic if they don't stop these reckless assaults.

It seems, as usual, that Kerry wants it both ways: to promote the recount behind the skirts of the other parties while denying his interest in it. Admittedly, I have no way of knowing for sure whether Kerry is trying to overturn the Bush victory. What I do know is that even if he isn't, his participation in this charade is destructive and he must put an end to it.

Kerry certainly cannot control the Green and Libertarian windmill chasers, but he can take charge of his own campaign. And if he refuses to exhibit the statesmanship to opt out of this disgraceful nonsense, then adults at the helm of his party, if there are any left, should take him to the woodshed and persuade him to cease and desist.

The Democratic Party is at a crossroads. It needs to decide whether it wants to continue to marginalize itself as the party of Michael Moore, or be a constructive force in the future of American politics and governance.

'The Turning Point'

'The Turning Point'
Oliver North
December 3, 2004

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- This week, Americans commemorate the 63rd anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, which killed 2,403 Americans. It was the worst attack on American territory until the terrorist strike on Sept. 11, 2001.

Both surprise attacks signaled the beginning of a bitterly fought war for survival against a brutal, fanatical foe. And both the Pacific War and the present Global War on Terror pitted the United States, virtually alone, against adversaries on a "holy mission" to drive Westerners from "their" territory. The parallels don't stop there.

To the extent that today's schoolchildren are taught anything about the origins of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the unprovoked assault is explained away as the consequence of "Japanese expansionism," or worse yet, the result of America denying Japan "essential raw materials and oil."

Such historical contortions from the Blame America First crowd ignore the ideological conviction of Tokyo's leadership, from Emperor Hirohito on down, that the Japanese had a "divine duty" to cleanse Asia of Westerners and "inferior Western influences and institutions."

In short, the Imperial Army, Navy and Air Force became the instruments of a race war, waged with religious zeal. Today's radical Jihadists have precisely the same goal -- evicting the infidels, meaning "Westerners" -- and all their institutional influence from "Islamic lands."

The Japanese military never contemplated "invading" the continental United States. Nor do the extremist Imams, Sheikhs and Mullahs inciting today's jihad envision seizing U.S. territory. But then and now, our adversaries were -- and are -- willing to employ any tactic, violate any rule of "civilized war" and commit any atrocity to accomplish the "holy goal" of driving "Westerners" from "their region" of the world.

Thus the horrific images found in Fallujah's slaughterhouses -- even the broadcast TV facility uncovered this week -- have an eerie precedent in the films and photographs of Japanese soldiers proudly holding the severed heads of brutally murdered American, British, Dutch and Australian prisoners of war. Then, as now, those images were shown widely to the "home audience" as proof of oriental superiority over Western interlopers.

But in this kind of "holy struggle," being a "local" won't guarantee safety. During the Pacific War, Japanese troops were merciless with indigenous populations that failed to appreciate their "liberation." Filipinos, Koreans, Chinese, Indonesians, Indo-Chinese and Pacific Islanders who were believed to have cooperated with the hated Westerners were raped, tortured and violently murdered.

Today, Iraqis, Afghanis and other Muslims who help coalition forces, or even benign Western aid organizations, face the same horrors. Thus, Iraqi government workers, policemen and supporters of democratic elections -- institutions peculiar to Western civil order -- are as vulnerable to Jihadist's retribution as Christian missionaries were on New Guinea in 1942.

There is yet another parallel between the Global War on Terror and the Pacific War: martyrdom. Though most histories record the sinking of the USS St. Lo on Oct. 25, 1944 as the first organized Kamikaze attack of the war, there had in fact been hundreds of prior "killer-suicides." Japanese Banzai charges on Guadalcanal -- starting in August 1942 -- were ground-based versions of the same tactic: convincing a young fighter that he will be granted eternal rewards and promising his family material benefits for dying the right way while killing a "Westerner." Substitute "Christian," or "Jew," or "infidel" for the word "Westerner," and the description fits today's "Islamic martyr" in Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan – or on Sept. 11, 2001.

During the Pacific War, an estimated 40,000 Japanese soldiers died in suicidal Banzai charges, and another 2,100 perished in Kamikaze aircraft. On Saipan, more than 800 Japanese women and children committed suicide rather than surrender to American troops. And hundreds of incidents were recorded throughout the Pacific where wounded Japanese soldiers pleaded for help -- only to blow themselves up with hand grenades or explosives in an effort to kill the American medic, corpsman, soldier or Marine who tried to treat their wounded adversary. To the practitioners of Japanese Bushido, compassion was a weakness. So it is with today's "Islamic martyrs."

In August 1945, President Harry Truman stopped the bloodletting and forced the Japanese to surrender unconditionally by dropping the only two nuclear bombs ever used in war. Since the use of such weapons is out of the question in the Global War on Terror, how do we convince the perpetrators of today's jihad to stop killing? Those who think that withdrawing from Iraq will solve our problem aren't paying attention to what's happened in Fallujah.

The opponents of democracy in Iraq aren't just remnants of Saddam's regime. Among those captured and killed in Fallujah and Ramadi are Jihadists -- not insurgents -- from at least 12 different countries including Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, Sudan, Morocco and Algeria. They came to Iraq to stop the January election. They -- and those who enticed them to the "Jihad" -- know that women's suffrage, private property rights and respect for other religions, all part of the Iraqi election, will have the equivalent effect of a nuclear bomb.

And while it's not obvious from all the hand-wringing in the so-called mainstream media, we are faring far better in this campaign than we did during World War II. It wasn't until the Battle of Midway in June 1942 that the "turning point" was reached in that war. By then, tens of thousands of American soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Guardsmen were dead, prisoners of war or missing in action. Reinforcements were sent. Intelligence was improved. And the tide of war shifted in our favor.

That's what's happening today. The smartest and best educated, trained and equipped military force in history has suffered fewer than 2,000 killed in action and one missing in action in three years of fighting the Global War on Terror. Thanks to their heroism, perseverance and selfless sacrifice, Afghanistan has its first democratically elected government. In Iraq, the terrorists are on the run.

Reinforcements are on the way. And if we are steadfast, years from now, historians will look back and note that the turning point in the Global War on Terror began with the Battle of Fallujah and ended with the Iraqi elections on Jan. 30, 2005.

China Tests Ballistic Missile Submarine

China Tests Ballistic Missile Submarine
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
03 December 2004

China's military has launched the first of a new class of ballistic missile submarines in what defense officials view as a major step forward in Beijing's strategic weapons program.

The new 094-class submarine was launched in late July and when fully operational in the next year or two will be the first submarine to carry the underwater-launched version of China's new DF-31 missile, according to defense officials.

"When fully operational, it will represent a more modern, more capable missile platform," said one official familiar with reports of the new submarine.

A second intelligence official said building submarines is a top priority of the Chinese, and the Type 094 will be "China's first truly intercontinental strategic nuclear delivery system."

The new Type 094 was spotted by U.S. intelligence agencies at the Huludao shipyard, located on the coast of Bohai Bay, some 250 miles northwest of Beijing.

The submarine is in the early stages of being outfitted and is not yet equipped with new JL-2 submarine-launched nuclear missiles.

The submarine is believed to be based largely on Russian nuclear submarine technology, the officials said.

A CIA report made public last week stated that Russia was a major supplier of technology to China's naval nuclear propulsion programs.

The launching of the new missile submarine appears ahead of schedule. A Pentagon report on Chinese military power made public in May stated that the new Chinese missile submarine would not be deployed until around 2010.

A Defense Intelligence Agency report produced in 1999 and labeled "secret" stated that the new submarine is part of a program by China of "modernizing and expanding its missile force."

"Mobile, solid-fuel missiles and a new ballistic missile submarine will improve the force's ability to survive a first strike," the report said, "while more launchers, on-board penetration aids, and possibly multiple warheads will improve its ability to penetrate missile defenses."

The DIA report stated that China is expected to field one new ballistic missile submarine by 2020.

A Chinese Embassy spokesman had no immediate comment.

In a related development, U.S. intelligence officials said the Chinese suffered a setback in their JL-2 missile program when a test flight of the JL-2 missile failed over the summer.

The JL-2 missile program was delayed by the test failure but is continuing to be developed, the officials said. China conducted tests of the JL-2 in 2002 and last year.

Richard Fisher, vice president of the Washington-based International Assessment and Strategy Center, said the launch of the new missile submarine is "an astounding development."

"The 094 has followed 093 development far more rapidly than the assessments in the annual Pentagon reports on the PLA," Mr. Fisher said, referring to the China's People's Liberation Army.

China also recently launched a new attack submarine known as the Type 093. Additionally, U.S. intelligence agencies were surprised by China's disclosure in July of a third new type of submarine known as the Yuan-class, a diesel-electric attack submarine.

"In the very near future, China will have a secure, second-strike nuclear attack capability that it will use to bolster its nuclear strategy of seeking to deter the United States from aiding Taiwan after a PLA attack," Mr. Fisher said.

Mr. Fisher said the JL-2 likely will have multiple warheads.

The new submarine will make it more difficult for the U.S. military to take part in a defense of Taiwan because of the threat of nuclear retaliation, he said.

The Pentagon has deployed a new missile defense system, but a spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency has said the current interceptor system is designed to stop a long-range North Korean missile, but not an attack from Chinese or Russian missiles.

A 1999 report by the House Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China stated that the new missile submarine will likely benefit from stolen U.S. nuclear warhead designs.

The report stated that the JL-2 is expected to have a longer range than the DF-31 and that 16 JL-2s will be deployed on the new submarine.

The range of the JL-2 is estimated to be about 7,500 miles, enough "to strike targets throughout the United States," the report said.

"Instead of venturing into the open ocean to attack the United States, the Type 094-class submarines could remain near [Chinese] waters, protected by the [People's Liberation Army,] Navy and Air Force," the report said.

The new submarine will be a major improvement over China's current ballistic missile submarine known as the Xia, which is equipped with medium-range missiles.

The current Xia submarine is considered so noisy to underwater detection gear that its chances of surviving attack submarine strikes in ocean waters are limited.