Tag Archives: Newt Gingrich

EMP and you

With hurricane season upon us once again, the recent anniversary of one of the most deadly and destructive in our nation’s history – the mega-storm called Katrina – was an occasion for remembering what can happen if we are unprepared.  Unfortunately, what was arguably the most important lesson of that hurricane has still not been addressed: the truly catastrophic vulnerability of all of the infrastructures upon which our society critically depends to interruptions of the electrical grid.

Worse yet, there are both looming man-induced and far more devastating natural means of precipitating such interruptions that we have not begun to address.  Should these eventuate, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina will look like, well, a day at the beach.  It is no exaggeration to say that the effect of one or the other of these assaults on our electrical grid could be to engender what Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called "a world without America."

As Katrina demonstrated, if the electricity goes off for any protracted period of time, there is a cascading ripple-effect which takes down the means by which we communicate, get food and water, access financial resources, receive medical services, dispose of sewage and move from one location to another.  The longer the time without electricity, the more difficult it is to bring such other infrastructures back on line.  As the news reports marking the occasion of Katrina’s landfall have made clear, some of the areas that received the brunt of that storm are still not fully back to their pre-hurricane condition.

Should some of the roughly 300 transformers that are the backbone of our electrical grid be damaged or destroyed, the interruption to the electrical grid will not be brief.  Today, we have few back-ups in place.  These large and complex pieces of equipment are all produced overseas and it takes at least a year to take delivery of even one, let alone many.

Dr. William Graham, President Reagan’s Science Advisor, estimates that, if the electricity is off in large sections of America (far more than the relatively small part of the country afflicted by Katrina) for as long as a year, the effect will not simply be on the quality of life here.  He says as many as nine out of ten of our men, women and children will die from starvation, disease and/or exposure.

Dr. Graham knows whereof he speaks.  He has served for years as the chairman of a congressionally empanelled commission made up of many of the most knowledgeable scientists in the United States.  Their job has been to examine in detail a phenomenon known as electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) that could be used by our enemies like Iran to effect such devastation.

The Graham panel has come to be known as the EMP Threat Commission and it has developed a particularly worrisome scenario.  A non-descript freighter off one of our coasts could launch with no warning a relatively short-range ballistic missile.  If that  missile were armed with even a relatively small and crude nuclear weapon and that warhead were detonated in space high over the United States, it would unleash large quantities of gamma rays. 

As those rays interact with the upper atmosphere, the effect would be to create an immense burst of electromagnetic energy.  Any electrical or electronic device – including the grid’s transformers – not shielded against this pulse would be, at best, taken temporarily off-line.  More likely, they will be made permanently unusable.

It turns out, however, that other assaults on our grid might have a similar effect:

  • Radio-frequency weapons could be used to go after critical nodes of the electrical infrastructure in a more tactical way. 
  • Cyber-warfare has increasingly been waged against the computers that control the grid and other vital parts of our economy’s electronic underbelly.  The perpetrators have not been positively identified, but those responsible for protecting against such cyber attacks suspect Chinese and Russian sources.
  • Then there is the mother of all threats to the electrical grid: a naturally occurring phenomenon known as geomagnetic solar events.  These intense solar flares were observed by a British scientist named Richard Carrington back in 1859 who correlated them as the cause of spontaneous combustion of telegraph wires and offices – the relatively tiny telecommunications infrastructure then-available to be disrupted. Scientists say we are overdue for another of these sorts of super solar storms.  The destruction they could cause to the world’s unprotected grids could run to the trillions of dollars to repair and the loss of countless lives.

The good news is that there are things that can be done to make our electrical infrastructure less vulnerable to these sorts of Katrina-on-steroids assaults.  That is  especially true now, as the stimulus package enacted earlier this year this year makes billions of dollars available to effect long-overdue and much-needed upgrades in the U.S. grid.  The question is:  Will we take those steps in time, before hostile forces or further natural phenomena devastate this country?

This week a large number of Americans determined to take such preventive action now are convening in Niagara Falls, New York – a community that knows something about hydro-electric power and its importance for the country.  This meeting will be the first-of-its-kind on this subject, a large conference open to the public and aimed at educating the rest of us about these threats, and impelling the adoption of prophylactic measures. 

Presentations will be made by Newt Gingrich and several key serving legislators, as well as many of the country’s most knowledgeable scientists, security policy experts and industry leaders.  Organized by a new group, EMPAct America (www.empactamerica.net), this meeting represents the best opportunity to date to translate the warnings of the EMP Threat Commission into action.

The time has come to do just that. 

 

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy, a columnist for the Washington Times and host of Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington at 9:00 p.m. weeknights on WTNT. 

America’s Achilles’ Heel

The Wall Street Journal reports today that cyber-spies have penetrated our electrical grid and left behind “software tools” that could damage or destroy parts of it on command. That we are under incessant cyberattack is not news; as the Journal notes, the Pentagon had to spend $100 million last year fixing damage done by hackers, most of whom seem to be from China and Russia. 

What is news is that our enemies from those countries, and perhaps others, have put themselves in a position to strike our Achilles’ heel: the electrical production and distribution system and all of the other infrastructures – transportation, communications, food distribution, health care, water and sewage, banking, etc. – that critically depend upon it.  For a sense of what an “unplugged” America would look like, think New Orleans and much of the Gulf Coast region post-Hurricane Katrina.

Unfortunately, the cyber threat to “the grid” is only one means of eviscerating the soft underbelly of American society.  Another which has been getting increasing attention could be delivered via the kind of nuclear-armed ballistic missile that Iran and North Korea have been developing: a strategic electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) attack.  As Newt Gingrich and others – including a blue-ribbon commission that reported to Congress last year – have been pointing out for some time, by detonating a nuclear weapon in space high over the United States, an intense burst of electrical energy would be unleashed.

 

Continue Reading…

 

Hindsight to augment our foresight

By Jared Anderson

I cannot help but think that at least once during the past few weeks, Cuban President Raul Castro has glanced at a news headline concerning the United States and let out a subtle chuckle.  As he strategically auctions off the Gulf of Mexico to China, Venezuela, Spain, India, Vietnam, Malaysia, Canada, and Brazil (as of June 3rd, 2008), his neighbors 70 miles to the north sit back and debate further increasing restrictions on their energy usage.  Halfway around the world, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was surely amused as he read about the U.S. House of Representatives’ threatening to “socialize” the oil industry, courtesy of Maxine Waters (D-CA). As a reference point, Putin has just announced tax breaks that Russia estimates will save its oil companies $4.4 billion in 2009 alone as part of an attempt to bolster the country’s production.[1]

These nations are facing the same energy challenges as we are. In many cases, they pay even more for gas. The only difference, then, is that their lawmakers are actually taking steps to overcome these obstacles.Congress’ recent futile attempts to address the situation draw a stark contrast with the calculated maneuvers towards energy security taken by China, Russia, and a host of other countries. Our lawmakers’ answers have been, at best, confounded, at worst, entirely inept. As the result of a nationwide outcry over gas prices, the House, on May 20th, rushed to action by passing a resolution giving the Justice Department the authority to sue the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the body that controls two-thirds of the world’s proven oil reserves. Logic seems to point to the conclusion that, after politely rebuffing President Bush’s May 16th plea to increase oil production, Saudi Arabia will at no point be suddenly compelled to raise its oil output. And yes, regardless of whether or not Congress decides to sue them. Our lawmakers act as though they forget that in our current arrangement, Saudi Arabia holds the trump card, not us. They have shown no inclination to relinquish their position any time soon, either. Then, on May 21st, members of the Senate’s Judiciary Committee grilled oil executives about their earnings, seemingly unaware of the fact that commodities, especially popular ones, generally have a history of generating profits. In reality, the hearings did nothing; aside from provide the news media with enticing clips of the oil executives being portrayed as the “bad guys”. So, over the course of less than two weeks, Congress has proved one of two things: it is either completely unaware of the energy challenges our country faces, or it is aware and simply doesn’t care enough to take substantial action. Neither scenario conveys a particularly positive portrayal of our legislative branch, to say the least.

Granted, Congress must be given some credit, if only the most negligible sliver. The aforementioned actions were at least spun very effectively to portray Congress as a sympathetic body demonstrating concern for escalating oil prices, a trap some Americans surely fell into. Point blank, that pseudo-complement cannot be bestowed upon its most recent undertaking.

The Climate Security Act (S. 2191) began debate in the Senate on June 3rd, 2008, and is sponsored by Senators Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and John Warner (R-VA), respectively. The bill calls for a cap-and-trade system designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 66% by the year 2050, as has been touted by its supporters. However, numerous analyses of the bill have exposed it as incredibly detrimental to all aspects of the U.S. economy.  At a time when gas prices are constricting the flexibility of all Americans, the proposed bill would raise the national average of gas prices by as much as $1 by 2030, according to a number of analyses. A Heritage Foundation report predicts that the bill will cause a GDP loss of between $1.7 and $4.8 trillion by the year 2030, and the Energy Information Administration forecasts that the bill would result in a 9.5% drop in our manufacturing output.[2] [3] On an individual level, families are projected to pay an average of $467 extra for gas and electricity each year between 2012 and 2030.2 Finally, the Environmental Protection Agency has concluded that even in a best-case scenario, the Climate Security Act would only reduce global CO2 emissions by 1.4%. [4]

While Congress’ previous acts may be the result of naiveté, the potential of classifying a bill almost universally expected to harm the economy as a solution to our nation’s energy challenges is downright impossible. Rather, the legislation falls squarely in line with a pattern of the past three decades: the trend of Congress’ consistent hindrance of our nation’s energy production.

Today, we are the only country in the entire world that tirelessly places restriction after restriction on itself; the only country that impedes its industry from utilizing the strategic resources within its own borders. At a time when China and India are posturing aggressively to meet the needs of their booming populations, at a time when we have far more restrictions on energy exploration than anyone, Congress quarrels over a cap-and-trade system to add to our restrictions and compound the situation further. Something is truly, truly wrong with what is going on, and something desperately needs be done so that, at the very least, our actions reflect some sort of logic and both acknowledge and address the situation at hand.

However, as so often is the case, for a proven solution to this problem we need only to look to the past. Far too little attention has been given to 1980, when OPEC was just beginning to utilize its ability to control the price of oil. That year, OPEC raised oil prices to $35 per barrel as a result of the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the subsequent Iraq-Iran war, amounting to an astounding 2,500% price hike since 1970.[5] While the increase caused a shock to the world’s economy, the United States, among other nations, worked to divert power away from the cartel. Countries throughout the world underwent massive energy exploration campaigns with the overarching goal of securing sources of oil unaffiliated with OPEC. New technology allowed offshore drilling to be conducted off the coasts Britain, Norway, and the United States, in addition to the tapping of the tar sands of Alberta and Mexico. Additionally, during the 1980’s, a worldwide shift towards the research of alternative energy options occurred as scientists explored the possibilities of energy from geothermal, wind, solar, nuclear, hydro-electric, and natural gas sources.

The efforts to curb OPEC’s hegemony were undeniably successful. The use of alternate energy sources allowed oil consumption in the Global North to decline to 58% of the world’s oil usage by the mid-1980’s, down 5% from 1979.  The increased production of oil from non-OPEC nations caused the cartel’s share of the global oil market to fall drastically, from 63% in 1972 to 37% in 1989.5

In some regards, the effects of all of these measures proved to be too effective. OPEC was forced to lower its prices significantly by the late 1980’s. Major oil firms cut investments in oil exploration from $14 billion in 1983 to $5.3 billion in 1992, as it was simply more profitable to pay for OPEC’s oil.5 Research on alternative energy sources wound down in a similar fashion, and left the international community with inconclusive evidence about the viability of a number of potential options.

Today, we see virtually the same predicament arising. The only thing that has changed is that the limitations of oil loom larger now than ever on the horizon. As was the case 30 years ago, no immediate fix exists to alleviate the problem; oil is simply too interwoven into our infrastructure to facilitate a dramatic shift away from the resource. We can, however, apply the same solutions that worked then.

Clearly, we need a wide range of remedies to confront our energy dilemma. Some will help us in the short term; others must project over the long term. Fortunately for us, the most vital step has already been taken. Americans are shying away from oil-consuming activities and are considering how they use their oil, as evidenced by a May in which Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler all experienced significant declines in automobile sales. This is a basic tenet of capitalism at work: the market simply refused to sustain the oil prices that had ballooned so quickly. With more subtle responses by the consumers, prices will inevitably continue to fall.

However, this brings us back to the crux of our problem. While Americans are indeed doing a great deal, their attempts will be in vein if not supported by our legislators. They, after all, are the ones who we vest authority in to make our laws. Congress must take substantial action, must listen to the 373,500 Americans who have signed Newt Gingrich’s “Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less” campaign and begin looking for a solution immediately.

Just as in the 1980’s, the Congress’ most viable short-term option is to diversify where we get our oil from. Not solely in a political sense, but also in a more general, physical regard. We simply need more refineries in more places. As I’ve alluded to before, it is absolutely imperative that we maximize our output here in the United States. That means we must relieve the sanctions that impede our own oil companies from exploring, drilling, and producing our oil, as perfectly summarized by Shell Oil President John Hofmeister in his Congressional testimony: “I can guarantee…$5 will look like a very low price in the years to come if we are prohibited from finding new reserves, new opportunities to increase supplies.” In addition to relieving our forced binds with nations like Saudi Arabia, doing so would create jobs and boost our domestic economic prospects almost immediately, as demonstrated by a comprehensive report on the banned Arctic National Wildlife Refuge’s oil potential conducted by the EIA. [6] And for the environmentalists, drilling on roughly two thousand acres out of ANWR’s 19 million acres will have no significant effect on its wildlife. It is time to stop valuing the “inconvenience” caused to a handful of animals by forcing them to migrate over our nation’s energy production. If Congress wants to actually show that they hold our nation’s energy security in the highest regard, the first place to start is by mending its own nonsensical, repressive actions of the past.

In terms of diversifying the types of our energy sources, there are a number of viable options to turn to with varying future projections. During a time in which Japan, France, South Korea, Russia and China are all lining up to build nuclear plants, there is no explanation for the United States to continue allowing the bureaucratic process to impede our construction of an energy source that has proven to be incredibly clean and efficient.  As the possessor of the world’s largest reserves of coal, we must investigate new ways to utilize the resource efficiently using today’s technology. Potentially most importantly, oil shale must be revisited. According to a RAND Cooperation survey, the United States has an estimated 800 billion barrels of the shale within its own borders, more than three times the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.[7] While the oil shale extraction has not been cost-effective in the past, the RAND study concluded that any oil price of over $95 per barrel would render oil shale viable. Thus, without even considering the technological advancements that would be made were oil shale to be returned to, oil shale is a long-term, sensible solution literally right beneath our feet. All we have to do is get Congress out of the way.

Finally, the most critical caveat of energy security is that we keep in mind the ultimate goal that, someday, we will need to completely eliminate our reliance on oil. That possibility is much more imminent now than it was during the 1980’s, when many of the world’s oil resources had yet to be tapped. Fortunately, we have virtually unlimited sun, wind, and hydrogen resources at our disposal, and that will never change. Although oil prices will inevitably drop in the near future, we cannot make the same mistake we did three decades ago and cease researching other technologies when they do fall. Instead, energy security will require an unwavering commitment to these forms of energy. As everyone who keeps up with technology knows, almost every week new developments are being made in hydrogen technology, and sun and wind power are improving almost as rapidly. All have shown undeniable promise.

No doubt, securing America’s energy future will require incredible flexibility and commitment, as testing will prove certain avenues more viable than others. Naturally, focus will need to be directed towards the more promising options. Regardless of Congress’ recent ineptitude, though, it does seem that the first steps have been made. Americans are making their voices heard. Recent signs show that Congress may even be beginning to get the message, as reports indicate that the overwhelmingly negative projections of the Climate Security Act’s effects have caused its support to effectively splinter. Still, defeating such a bill is only the first in many, many steps along the arduous path to maximizing our own energy potential, and ultimately, completely securing our energy future.

[1] Reuters report on Russia’s tax break for oil companies: http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssEnergyNews/idUSL3125917320080531

[2]

Heritage Foundation’s report on Climate Security Act: http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/cda08-02.cfm

[3] Energy Information Administration’s report on Climate Security Act: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/s2191/index.html

[4] Environmental Protection Agency’s Report on Climate Security Act: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/downloads/s2191_EPA_Analysis.pdf

[5] Euclid A. Rose’s article from The Middle East Journal “OPEC’s dominance of the global oil market: the rise of the world’s dependency on oil.”

[6] Energy Information Administration’s report on ANWR and its oil: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/results.html

[7] RAND Cooperation’s comprehensive assessment of U.S. oil shale capabilities: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/results.html

With us, or else

Raise your hand if you are an Iranian Islamofascist and you want to thank Western oil companies for helping fund terror.

The outcome of the present, global conflict may ultimately turn on the implementation of a policy it took President Bush just seven words to declare on November 6, 2001:   "You’re either with us or against us."  

For too long, it has been possible for far too many around the world to have it both ways. This must stop.

In particular, the time has come to make it clear to those who are helping our enemies that they are not with us – and that there are real costs associated with being against us.  

Fair-Weather Friends

Every one of us can contribute to this effort by making an example of a company that is contemplating doing a lot more business with Islamofascist Iran, at the very moment that it is aggressively pursuing (with help from North Korea) nuclear arms and the ever-longer-range ballistic missiles with which to deliver them.   Presumably these are the means by which Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad intends to realize his oft-stated goals of wiping Israel "off the map" and bringing about "a world without America."

A company that is at the moment a prime candidate for such treatment is Royal Dutch Shell.   According to the Conflict Security Advisory Group (CSAG) – an independent market research firm whose Global Security Risk Monitor online database is the industry standard for assessing publicly traded companies that do business with terrorist-sponsoring regimes – this Anglo-Dutch corporation has done billions of dollars of dollars over the years with the Islamic Republic of Iran.   It even has four offices in Tehran.  

Last week, however, Shell Chief Executive Jeroen van der Veer told participants in a conference call that his firm and a Spanish oil company, Repsol, have entered into a preliminary understanding to help the Iranian regime develop part of its vast South Pars natural gas reserve.   Press reports indicate that Tehran believes the deal is worth $10 billion.

To be sure, that $10 billion will translate into profits for Shell and its partner.   It will, though, also afford the Islamofascists in Iran revenue streams that will enable them to support more terrorists, to kill more Americans and Iraqis, to destabilize the region and to prepare genocidal attacks on this country as well as our ally, Israel .

Making such a huge, further investment in Iran would, in short, be a very unfriendly act.  And Shell must understand that it will be regarded, and treated, as such.

Getting Shell’s Attention

For one thing, the Bush Administration should interpose the strongest possible objections to putatively allied governments in London and The Hague that export guarantees and insuranceunderwrite such an investment.   for this deal would seriously complicate bilateral and trilateral relations.   For another, the Treasury Department should make life miserable for any banks that might contemplate helping

The real power to punish Royal Dutch Shell for being against us in this War for the Free World, however, should lie with American investors and consumers.   The Roosevelt Anti-Terror Multi-Cap Fund (RATF) is the first mutual fund in the nation to be certified by the Conflict Securities Advisory Group as "terror-free."   It holds in portfolio neither Shell nor any other publicly traded companies doing business in Iran , Sudan , Syria or North Korea .   Nationwide Financial, E-Trade, Ameritrade and Schwab have begun offering RATF as an option on their investment  platforms.

In addition, Sarah Steelman, the Treasurer of Missouri , has taken the first public fund terror-free – and achieved a higher return in so doing.   Her state’s 529 college savings plan will shortly offer such an option as well, one which will be available to investors from all over the country.   If you don’t want to enrich those who are trying to kill us, insist that your money – be it in public pension funds, 401k plans, mutual funds, life insurance portfolios, etc. – is invested terror-free.

Whether you are an investor or not, you have another option:   Show Shell how you feel about its dealings with our Iranian enemies by filling up your car at the pumps of one of its American competitors – who, by law, are not permitted to do business with terrorist-sponsoring states.  

Interestingly, Shell’s CEO is already nervous about his company’s ties to Tehran.   As he told reporters last week:   "I would like to emphasize that we have here quite a dilemma. This is Iran . They are the Number Two in oil and gas reserves in the world. But we have all the short-term political concerns."

The Bottom Line

By making an object lesson of Shell, we can help resolve its management’s "dilemma."   If it actually starts to be painful to be "against us," we can ensure that more of those who wish to do business with America – and who typically take for granted our protection of their freedoms – line up "with us," instead of with our enemies.   Without help from our friends, maybe those enemies’ regimes will change their behavior, or even fall from power.   It is certainly worth a try.

In recent weeks, Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman, former Governor Mitt Romney, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Senator Rick Santorum and former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have embraced the idea of terror-free investing.   Let’s show Shell and other, foreign-owned companies that partner with our foes – like France’s Total, China’s Sinopec, Russia’s Gazprom and Italy’s ENI – that Americans take seriously the imperative of countering Iran ‘s nuclear ambitions and support for international terror.   They had better be with us, or else.

Critical mass for Divest Terror program

As European-led negotiations aimed at convincing Islamofascist Iran to abandon its nuclear designs continue to falter – increasing the likelihood that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will acquire the capability to follow through on his threats to "wipe Israel off the map" and bring about "a world without America" – progress on another front leaves reason for hope that Tehran’s designs may yet be defeated.

In her column in today’s Jerusalem Post, CSP Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs Caroline B. Glick reports that the international campaign to divest from companies doing business with the Mullahocracy – potentially costing the regime hundreds of billions of dollars – is gaining powerful allies.  During the Herzliya Conference held January 24-27 in Israel, former U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and Senator John McCain all went on record in support of pension fund divestment. 

Further promising news in the divestment campaign appeared earlier this week in the form of talks between former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the state treasurers of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine and Connecticut to explore the divestment of those states’ public pension funds from companies that do business with Tehran.  As Ms. Glick observes, Iran stands to lose $71 billion from these five states alone.

Thankfully, a model already exists for these states to follow in the form of the one adopted by the Missouri Investment Trust (MIT) last June, which expunged from its portfolio companies that did business with any state-sponsor of terror.  Importantly, this first-in-the-nation step to deny those regimes the vital resources, technology and cash to support their terrorist proxies has actually led to stronger returns for MIT’s investors.

While these recent events underscore the tremendous and still-growing influence of the DivestTerror.org campaign launched by the Center for Security Policy more than two years ago, much remains to be accomplished – starting with divestment by the many-billion dollar Federal Thrift Savings Plan for which all executive branch, congressional and other federal government employees are eligible.  It is now unmistakably clear:  It is no more practical than it is moral to continue to finance both sides of this War for the Free World.

Security experts urge Bolton confirmation

Caspar Weinberger, James Woolsey, George Shultz, Ed Meese and Max Kampelman Among Powerhouse Bipartisan Group Calling for Swift Approval of President’s Nominee

 It is expected that the Senate will soon vote on President Bush’s nomination of John Bolton to become the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In anticipation of this historic vote, the Center for Security Policy is releasing an updated version of a letter in support of Mr. Bolton it had circulated earlier this month to the Foreign Relations Committee, and which has now been signed by ninety-four of America’s most accomplished defense and foreign policy practitioners.

The signatories’ recommendation that Mr. Bolton be confirmed for this position is backed by the decades of experience in international affairs that they collectively have in service at the highest levels of the U.S. government, and parallels the endorsement the nominee has received from President George W. Bush, who recently explained "John’s distinguished career and service to our nation demonstrate that he is the right man at the right time for this important assignment."

The bipartisan group’s joint letter makes three main points:

  • John Bolton is well-qualified, both by background and by temperament, to represent America at the United Nations at a critical time in the organization’s history : "John Bolton[‘s]…tenure as the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations during the administration of George H.W. Bush and as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security during this presidency have honed Mr. Bolton’s indisputably impressive intellect and robust diplomatic skills in ways that will serve the nation well at the UN.
  • His representation will be in the tradition of two of America’s best ambassadors to the United Nations: Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeane Kirkpatrick : "The sort of assertive representation of U.S. interests that has been the hallmark of such appointees sometimes discomfits other diplomats. History suggests, however, that it can be indispensable to catalyzing constructive change of the kind virtually everyone agrees is needed at the UN."
  • Criticism of Secretary Bolton lately orchestrated on behalf of a group of retired diplomats is misplaced – and wrong : His views on arms control are identical to those of George W. Bush, the man elected twice by the American people to craft U.S. security policy. They are, moreover, eminently sensible in light of hard experience with countries that cheat and use treaties to wage asymmetric warfare against us.

Center President Frank J. Gaffney observed: "Serious national security practitioners from both political parties applaud President Bush’s choice of John Bolton to lead U.S. efforts to make the UN’s purpose once again what it was at its founding – to champion and protect freedom around the world. He is the right man for this tough job at a critical time. The Nation will be well served if the Senate allows him to start doing it at the earliest possible moment."

4 April 2005 (reflecting additional signatures as of 25 May 2005)

Hon. Richard G. Lugar
Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
450 Senate Dirksen Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

In the next few days, the Foreign Relations Committee will be considering the nomination of the individual that the President has chosen to represent him and serve the interests of the United States at the United Nations. We write urging early and favorable consideration of the President’s nominee, the Honorable John R. Bolton.

John Bolton has distinguished himself throughout a long and multifaceted career in public service and in the private sector. In particular, his tenure as the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations during the administration of George H.W. Bush and as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security during this presidency have honed Mr. Bolton’s indisputably impressive intellect and robust diplomatic skills in ways that will serve the nation well at the UN.

As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has observed, Mr. Bolton will bring these attributes to bear in the tradition of two of the most outstanding of America’s ambassadors at the United Nations: Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeane Kirkpatrick. To be sure, the sort of assertive representation of U.S. interests that has been the hallmark of such appointees sometimes discomfits other diplomats. History suggests, however, that it can be indispensable to catalyzing constructive change of the kind virtually everyone agrees is needed at the UN.

Some retired diplomats suggest that Secretary Bolton’s positions on various controversial arms control treaties should disqualify him from serving at the UN. Their criticism is misdirected. Mr. Bolton’s views about each of these accords are identical to those of President Bush. While the signatories are certainly free to oppose the Administration’s positions, their differences seem to be with a man twice elected by the American people to design and execute security policies, rather than with one of his most effective and articulate officials in advancing those policies.

We believe, moreover, that the Bush Administration’s stances on such treaties reflect a clear-eyed assessment of the real limits of diplomacy with nations that do not honor their commitments, that deliberately conceal their activities so as to defeat verification and that seek to use bilateral and multilateral agreements as instruments of asymmetric warfare against nations like the United States that abide by their treaty obligations. Far from being a disqualifier, this view is an eminently sensible and responsible one in light of past experience.

In short, Secretary Bolton’s formidable grasp of the issues of the day, his exemplary previous service to our country and the confidence President Bush reposes in him will make him an outstanding and highly effective representative to the United Nations.

We request that you share this assessment of Secretary Bolton with your colleagues and ensure that it is reflected in the record of the Foreign Relations Committee’s deliberations on his nomination.

Sincerely,

William P. Clark, former National Security Advisor to the President; former Deputy Secretary of State

Caspar W. Weinberger, former Secretary of Defense; former Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare; former Director of the Office of Management and Budget

George P. Shultz, former Secretary of State; former Secretary of Treasury; former Secretary of Labor; former Director, Office of Management and Budget

Edwin Meese, former Counselor to the President; former Attorney General

William J. Bennett, former Secretary of Education; former Director, National Office of Drug Control Policy

Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives

R. James Woolsey, former Director of Central Intelligence

John F. Lehman, Jr., former Secretary of the Navy; Member of 9/11 Commission

Max M. Kampelman, Counselor to the Department of State; former Ambassador and Head of Delegation to the U.S.-Soviet START and Defense and Space Negotiations

Dr. William Schneider, Jr., former Under Secretary of State; Chairman, General Advisory Committee on Arms Control & Disarmament, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

Charles M. Kupperman, former Special Assistant to the President; former Deputy Director of the Office of Administration, the White House; former Executive Director, General Advisory Committee on Arms Control and Disarmament, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

Frank Ruddy, former U.S. Ambassador to Equatorial Guinea

Christopher DeMuth, former Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (Designate); former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy

Phyllis Kaminsky, former Director, United Nations Information Center

Major General Paul E. Vallely, USA (Ret.), former Deputy Commanding General, U.S. Army, Pacific

Dr. Daniel Goure, former Director, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

Barbara J. Comstock, former Director of Public Affairs, Department of Justice

Christopher D. Lay, former Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

Dr. Kathleen C. Bailey, former Assistant Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency; former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State

Dr. Robert B. Barker, former Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Atomic Energy

Becky Norton Dunlop, former Special Assistant to the President for Cabinet Affairs; former Assistant Secretary of Interior

Lieutenant General Thomas G. McInerney USAF (Ret.), former Assistant Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force

Harvey Feldman, former Ambassador to Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands; founding Director of the American Institute in Taiwan; Alternate Representative to the United Nations

Richard Perle, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy

Jose S. Sorzano, former Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations

J. William Middendorf, former Secretary of the Navy; former Ambassador to: the Netherlands, the European Union and the Organization of American States

Jed L. Babbin, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense

Dennis Hays, former Ambassador to Suriname

Michael Skol, former Ambassador to Venezuela; former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs

Kim Flower, former Director for Latin America, National Security Council

Vice Admiral Robert R. Monroe USN (Ret.), former Director, Defense Nuclear Agency; former Director, Navy Research and Development

Roger W. Robinson, Jr., former Senior Director for International Economic Affairs, National Security Council

Otto J. Reich, former Special Envoy for Western Hemisphere Initiatives; former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs; former Ambassador to Venezuela

James T. Hackett, former Associate Director of the U.S. Information Agency; former Acting Director of the Arms Control & Disarmament Agency

Abraham D. Sofaer, former Legal Advisor, Department of State

Tidal W. McCoy, former Acting Secretary of the Air Force; former Assistant Secretary of the Air Force

Dr. Curtin Winsor, Jr., former Ambassador to Costa Rica

Dr. Dov S. Zakheim, former Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller); Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Planning and Resources; Assistant Under Secretary of Defense, Policy and Resources

Charles H. Fairbanks, Jr., former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs

M.D.B. Carlisle, former Assistant Secretary of Defense of Legislative Affairs

James B. Longley, Jr., former Member, U.S. House of Representatives

Lieutenant General Edward L. Rowny, USA (Ret.), former Chief U.S. Negotiator for the START Negotiations; Special Advisor to the President and Secretary of State; JCS Representative to the SALT II Negotiations

Michael A. Ledeen, former Special Advisor to the Secretary of State

Morris J. Amitay, Foreign Service Officer (Ret.)

Dr. Mark Albrecht, former Executive Secretary, National Space Council

Vice Admiral N. Ronald Thunman USN (Ret.), Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Submarine Warfare

Peter Robinson, Speechwriter and Special Assistant to President Reagan

Vice Admiral William D. Houser, USN (Ret.), former Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Air Warfare

Admiral Ronald J. Hays USN (Ret.), former Commander-in-Chief, Pacific; former Vice Chief of Naval Operations

Robert Pastorino, former Ambassador to the Dominican Republic; former member of the National Security Council staff

William Kristol, former Chief of Staff to the Vice President

David Frum, former Speechwriter and Special Assistant to the President

William L. Ball III, former Secretary of the Navy

Dr. Dominic J. Monetta, former Assistant Secretary of Energy (designate), Office of New Production Reactors; former Director of Science and Technology, Office of the Secretary of Defense

John C. Wobensmith, Senior Executive Service (Ret.), Department of Defense

Dr. John Lenczowski, former Director of Europe and Soviet Affairs, National Security Council

Dr. Norman A. Bailey, former Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs; former Director of International Economic Affairs, National Security Council

Andrew C. McCarthy, former Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of New York

Amoretta M. Hoeber, former Deputy Under Secretary of the Army for Research and Engineering

Richard Schifter, former Deputy Representative to the UN Security Council; former Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs

Herbert Romerstein, former Director, Office to Counter Soviet Disinformation, United States Information Agency

Edward V. Badolato, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Emergencies; former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Energy for Security Affairs

Dr. Alan L. Keyes, former Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs; former Representative to the United Nations Economic and Social Council

David J. Trachtenberg, former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy

Joseph diGenova, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia

Victoria Toensing, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division

Robert L. Livingston, former Member of Congress; former Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee

Stephen D. Bryen, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense; former Director, Defense Technology Security Administration

Dr. William R. Graham, former Chairman, General Advisory Committee on Arms Control and Disarmament, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency; former Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy; former Science Advisor to the President

Major General Larry Taylor, USMCR (Ret.), former Commanding General, 4th Marine Aircraft Wing

Dr. William R. Van Cleave, former Member, Delegation to the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks; former Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Strategic Policy and Planning

Clark S. Judge, former Special Assistant and Speechwriter to the President

Lieutenant General Charles A. May Jr., USAF (Ret.), former Assistant Vice Chief of Staff

Admiral Jerome Johnson, USN (Ret.), former Vice Chief of Naval Operations

Admiral Leon A. Edney, USN (Ret.), former Commander, U.S. Atlantic Command; Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic

Everett Briggs, former Ambassador to Honduras; former Ambassador to Panama; former Ambassador to Portugal

C. Boyden Gray, former Counsel to the President

Lieutenant General Paul G. Cerjan, USA (Ret.), former President, National Defense University

Robert Turner, former Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs (Acting)

Joshua Gilder, former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights

Douglas R. Graham, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Senate Affairs; former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategic Defense, Space and Verification Policy

Tom Boyatt, former Ambassador to Colombia; former Ambassador to Upper Volta

Richard W. Carlson, former Ambassador to the Seychelles

Gerald P. Carmen, former Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Geneva

Raymond Tanter, Personal Representative of the Secretary of Defense to Arms Control Negotiations in Madrid, Helsinki, Stockholm, and Vienna; former member of the National Security Council staff

Sonia Landau, former Assistant Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Policy

John Tkacik, Foreign Service Officer (Ret.)

Dennis Goodman, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations

Ben Gilman, former Member of Congress; former Chairman of the House International Relations Committee

General John L. Piotrowski, USAF (Ret.), former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Space Command

Carol B. Hallett, former Commissioner of Customs; former Ambassador to the Bahamas

Sid Shachnow, Major General US Army (Ret.), Commanding General John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School (Airborne), Fort Bragg North Carolina

Peter R. Rosenblatt, former Personal Representative of the President to the Negotiations on the Future Political Status of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

 

92 leading security practitioners endorse Bolton

Caspar Weinberger, James Woolsey, John Lehman, Ed Meese and Max Kampelman Among Powerhouse Bipartisan Group Calling for Swift Approval of President’s Nominee

More than three-score of America’s most accomplished defense and foreign policy practitioners, representing decades of experience in international affairs at the highest levels of the U.S. government, have joined together to urge the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to support President Bush’s nomination of John R. Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy announced today. In a joint letter to be delivered to Sen. Lugar and other legislators on Monday morning, the bipartisan group made three main points:

-John Bolton is well-qualified, both by background and by temperament, to represent America at the United Nations at a critical time in the organization’s history: "John Bolton[‘s]…tenure as the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations during the administration of George H.W. Bush and as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security during this presidency have honed Mr. Bolton’s indisputably impressive intellect and robust diplomatic skills in ways that will serve the nation well at the UN.

-His representation will be in the tradition of two of America’s best ambassadors to the United Nations: Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeane Kirkpatrick: "The sort of assertive representation of U.S. interests that has been the hallmark of such appointees sometimes discomfits other diplomats. History suggests, however, that it can be indispensable to catalyzing constructive change of the kind virtually everyone agrees is needed at the UN."

-Criticism of Secretary Bolton lately orchestrated on behalf of a group of retired diplomats is misplaced – and wrong: His views on arms control are identical to those of George W. Bush, the man elected twice by the American people to craft U.S. security policy. They are, moreover, eminently sensible in light of hard experience with countries that cheat and use treaties to wage asymmetric warfare against us.

"John Bolton is precisely the man needed to represent the United States at today’s U.N.," said Frank J. Gaffney, a former Pentagon official and President of the Center for Security Policy, which circulated the joint letter. "Secretary Bolton’s critics are as wrong about his nomination as they are about the nature of the dangerous world in which we live – and the inadvisability of subscribing to treaties that President Bush has correctly found to be defective or otherwise inconsistent with America’s vital interests."

Contact: Laura Fionda (202) 835-9077

– 30 –

4 April 2005

Hon. Richard G. Lugar

Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

450 Senate Dirksen Office Building

Washington , D.C. 20510

 

Dear Mr. Chairman:

In the next few days, the Foreign Relations Committee will be considering the nomination of the individual that the President has chosen to represent him and serve the interests of the United States at the United Nations. We write urging early and favorable consideration of the President’s nominee, the Honorable John R. Bolton.

John Bolton has distinguished himself throughout a long and multifaceted career in public service and in the private sector. In particular, his tenure as the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations during the administration of George H.W. Bush and as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security during this presidency have honed Mr. Bolton’s indisputably impressive intellect and robust diplomatic skills in ways that will serve the nation well at the UN.

As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has observed, Mr. Bolton will bring these attributes to bear in the tradition of two of the most outstanding of America’s ambassadors at the United Nations: Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeane Kirkpatrick. To be sure, the sort of assertive representation of U.S. interests that has been the hallmark of such appointees sometimes discomfits other diplomats. History suggests, however, that it can be indispensable to catalyzing constructive change of the kind virtually everyone agrees is needed at the UN.

Some retired diplomats suggest that Secretary Bolton’s positions on various controversial arms control treaties should disqualify him from serving at the UN. Their criticism is misdirected. Mr. Bolton’s views about each of these accords are identical to those of President Bush. While the signatories are certainly free to oppose the Administration’s positions, their differences seem to be with a man twice elected by the American people to design and execute security policies, rather than with one of his most effective and articulate officials in advancing those policies.

We believe, moreover, that the Bush Administration’s stances on such treaties reflect a clear-eyed assessment of the real limits of diplomacy with nations that do not honor their commitments, that deliberately conceal their activities so as to defeat verification and that seek to use bilateral and multilateral agreements as instruments of asymmetric warfare against nations like the United States that abide by their treaty obligations. Far from being a disqualifier, this view is an eminently sensible and responsible one in light of past experience.

In short, Secretary Bolton’s formidable grasp of the issues of the day, his exemplary previous service to our country and the confidence President Bush reposes in him will make him an outstanding and highly effective representative to the United Nations.

We request that you share this assessment of Secretary Bolton with your colleagues and ensure that it is reflected in the record of the Foreign Relations Committee’s deliberations on his nomination.

Sincerely,

William P. Clark, former National Security Advisor; former Deputy Secretary of State

Frank Ruddy, former U.S. Ambassador to Equatorial Guinea

Christopher DeMuth, former Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (Designate); former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy

Phyllis Kaminsky, former Director, United Nations Information Center

Major General Paul E. Vallely, USA (Ret.), former Deputy Commanding General, U.S. Army, Pacific

Dr. Daniel Goure, former Director, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

John F. Lehman, Jr., former Secretary of the Navy; Member of 9/11 Commission

Barbara J. Comstock, former Director of Public Affairs, Department of Justice

Caspar W. Weinberger, former Secretary of Defense; former Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare; former Director of the Office of Management and Budget

James B. Longley Jr., former Member of Congress

Christopher D. Lay, former Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

Dr. Kathleen C. Bailey, former Assistant Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency; former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State

Dr. Robert B. Barker, former Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Atomic Energy

Dr.William Schneider, Jr., former Under Secretary of State; Chairman, General Advisory Committee on Arms Control & Disarmament, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

Becky Norton Dunlop, former Special Assistant to the President for Cabinet Affairs; former Assistant Secretary of Interior

Lieutenant General Thomas G. McInerney USAF (Ret.), former Assistant Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force

Harvey Feldman, former Ambassador to Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands; founding Director of the American Institute in Taiwan; Alternate Representative to the United Nations

Richard Perle, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy

Edwin Meese, former Counselor to the President; former Attorney General

Jose S. Sorzano, former Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations

J. William Middendorf, former Secretary of the Navy; former Ambassador to: the Netherlands, the European Union and the Organization of American States

Jed L. Babbin, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense

Dennis Hays, former Ambassador to Suriname

Michael Skol, former Ambassador to Venezuela; former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs

Kim Flower, former Director for Latin America, National Security Council

Roger W. Robinson, Jr., former Senior Director for International Economic Affairs, National Security Council

Vice Admiral Robert R. Monroe USN (Ret.), former Director, Defense Nuclear Agency; former Director, Navy Research and Development

Otto J. Reich, Member, former National Security Council and the President’s Special Envoy for Western Hemisphere Initiatives; former Ambassador to Venezuela

James T. Hackett, former Associate Director of USIA; former Acting Director of the Arms Control & Disarmament Agency

Abraham D. Sofaer, former Legal Advisor, Department of State

Tidal W. McCoy, former Acting Secretary of the Air Force; former Assistant Secretary of the Air Force

Dr. Curtin Winsor, Jr., former Ambassador to Costa Rica

Dr. Dov S. Zakheim, former Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller); Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Planning and Resources; Assistant Under Secretary of Defense, Policy and Resources

Charles H. Fairbanks, Jr., former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs

M.D.B. Carlisle, former Assistant Secretary of Defense of Legislative Affairs

James B. Longley, Jr., former Member, U.S. House of Representatives

Lieutenant General Edward L. Rowny, USA (Ret.), former Chief U.S. Negotiator for the START Negotiations; Special Advisor to the President and Secretary of State; JCS Representative to the SALT II Negotiations

Michael A. Ledeen, former Special Advisor to the Secretary of State

Morris J. Amitay, Foreign Service Officer (Ret.)

R. James Woolsey, former Director of Central Intelligence

Dr. Mark Albrecht, former Executive Secretary, National Space Council

Vice Admiral N. Ronald Thunman USN (Ret.), Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Submarine Warfare

Peter Robinson, Speechwriter and Special Assistant to President Reagan

Vice Admiral William D. Houser, USN (Ret.), former Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Air Warfare

Admiral Ronald J. Hays USN (Ret.), former Commander-in-Chief, Pacific; former Vice Chief of Naval Operations

Robert Pastorino, former Ambassador to the Dominican Republic; former member of the National Security Council staff

William Kristol, former Chief of Staff to the Vice President

David Frum, former Speechwriter and Special Assistant to the President

William L. Ball III, former Secretary of the Navy

Dr. Dominic J. Monetta, former Assistant Secretary of Energy (designate), Office of New Production Reactors; former Director of Science and Technology, Office of the Secretary of Defense

John C. Wobensmith, Senior Executive Service (Ret.), Department of Defense

Dr. John Lenczowski, former Director of Europe and Soviet Affairs, National Security Council

Dr. Norman A. Bailey, former Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs; former Director of International Economic Affairs, National Security Council

Andrew C. McCarthy, former Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of New York

Amoretta M. Hoeber, former Deputy Under Secretary of the Army for Research and Engineering

Richard Schifter, former Deputy Representative to the UN Security Council; former Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs

Max M. Kampelman, Counselor to the Department of State; former Ambassador and Head of Delegation to the U.S.-Soviet START and Defense and Space Negotiations

Charles M. Kupperman, former Special Assistant to the President; former Deputy Director of the Office of Administration, the White House; former Executive Director, General Advisory Committee on Arms Control and Disarmament, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

Herbert Romerstein, former Director, Office to Counter Soviet Disinformation, United States Information Agency

Edward V. Badolato, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Emergencies; former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Energy for Security Affairs

Dr. Alan L. Keyes, former Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs; former Representative to the United Nations Economic and Social Council

David J. Trachtenberg, former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy

Joseph diGenova, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia

Victoria Toensing, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division

Robert L. Livingston, former Member of Congress

Stephen D. Bryen, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense; former Director, Defense Technology Security Administration

William J. Bennett, former Secretary of Education; former Director, National Office of Drug Control Policy

Dr. William R. Graham, former Chairman, General Advisory Committee on Arms Control and Disarmament, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency; former Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy; former Science Advisor to the President

Major General Larry Taylor, USMCR (Ret.), former Commanding General, 4th Marine Aircraft Wing

Dr. William R. Van Cleave, former Member, Delegation to the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks; former Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Strategic Policy and Planning

Clark S. Judge, former Special Assistant and Speechwriter to the President

Lieutenant General Charles A. May Jr., USAF (Ret.), former Assistant Vice Chief of Staff

Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives

Admiral Jerome Johnson, USN (Ret.), former Vice Chief of Naval Operations

Admiral Leon A. Edney, USN (Ret.), former Commander, U.S. Atlantic Command; Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic

George P. Shultz, former Secretary of State; former Secretary of Treasury; former Secretary of Labor; former Director, Office of Management and Budget

Everett Briggs, former Ambassador to Honduras; former Ambassador to Panama; former Ambassador to Portugal

C. Boyden Gray, former Counsel to the President

Lieutenant General Paul G. Cerjan, USA (Ret.), former President, National Defense University

Robert Turner, former Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs (Acting)

Joshua Gilder, former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights

Douglas R. Graham, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Senate Affairs; former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategic Defense, Space and Verification Policy

Tom Boyatt, former Ambassador to Colombia; former Ambassador to Upper Volta

Richard W. Carlson, former Ambassador to the Seychelles

Gerald P. Carmen, former Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Geneva

Raymond Tanter, Personal Representative of the Secretary of Defense to Arms Control Negotiations in Madrid, Helsinki, Stockholm, and Vienna; former member of the National Security Council staff

Sonia Landau, former Assistant Secretary of State

John Tkacik, Foreign Service Officer (Ret.)

Dennis Goodman, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations

Ben Gilman, former Member of Congress; former Chairman of the House International Relations Committee

General John L. Piotrowski, USAF (Ret.), former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Space Command

Carol B. Hallett, former Commissioner of Customs; former Ambassador to the Bahamas

 

 

Islamist penetration of Homeland Security?

For over two years, the Center for Security Policy has been warning that organizations and individuals sympathetic to or otherwise supportive of the radical, intolerant and jihadist subset of the Muslim faith known as "Islamists" have mounted a sophisticated political influence operation against the Bush Administration. Today’s Washington Times contains a column by Center President Frank Gaffney entitled "Dubious Company" that describes a meeting Secretary of State Colin Powell held with representatives of four such groups just last Thursday.

Unfortunately, it now seems clear that this influence operation has succeeded in getting more than meetings with senior officials. According to the on-line magazine Salon.com, a seemingly unqualified individual nonetheless secured a position as the policy director for the Department of Homeland Security’s intelligence division, thanks to his ties to a well-connected political activist named Grover Norquist.

Norquist’s activities on behalf of, and together with, Islamist sympathizers and associates has been documented by numerous publications — including a detailed analysis by Mr. Gaffney which appeared last December in FrontPageMagazine.com ("A Troubling Influence"). Norquist’s apparent role in the case of Faisal Gill is particularly interesting, however, insofar as it seems unlikely that Mr. Gill would have been considered for – let alone actually secured – his Homeland Security post but for the Norquist connection.

The nature of that connection is all the more troubling insofar as Mr. Gill was, according to Salon’s Washington correspondent, Mary Jacoby, "briefly removed from his job in March." Ms. Jacoby cites unnamed officials as saying the temporary removal occurred when "the FBI raised concerns with Homeland Security officials…after discovering that Gill had failed to list on security clearance documents his work in 2001 with the American Muslim Council." (The AMC and its operations feature prominently in a lengthy investigative article concerning Islamist activities centered in Herndon, Virginia that appeared on the front-page of yesterday’s Wall Street Journal.)

Ms. Jacoby goes on to report that:

    The advocacy group, which was controlled by [Abdurahman] Alamoudi, has been under scrutiny in an investigation of terrorism financing. [Jacoby notes elsewhere in the article: "Alamoudi was indicted last year on terrorism-related money-laundering charges and now claims to have been part of a plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Abdullah."] The lead agent in that investigation works for an arm of Homeland Security. Gill’s omission of the information on his "Standard Form 86" national security questionnaire is a potential felony violation.

While Salon states that "There is no evidence…that Gill has taken any action to compromise national security," his failure to disclose a troubling association with an indicted terrorist conspirator raises serious questions about the circumstances and appropriateness of his placement in a position with access to some of the Nation’s most sensitive secrets. These include information about vulnerabilities associated with U.S. ports, airports, transportation systems, refineries, chemical and nuclear facilities, etc.

Even though Mr. Gill has been reinstated by his superiors at Homeland Security following what is said to have been "a thorough investigation," it is not obvious how someone who withheld information about his employment history could be "cleared" – especially given how troubling that information is.

As Ms. Jacoby reports: "Gill’s placement in the sensitive intelligence job has alarmed government officials because it fits the operating theory of prosecutors and investigators that Alamoudi was part of a long-term scheme by Islamic extremists to place friendly, if perhaps unwitting, associates in key U.S. government positions."

The bottom line is that it is past time for a rigorous review of the extent and implications of the evident Islamist influence operation in official Washington and the troubling role that Grover Norquist has appeared to play in facilitating, if not actually enabling it. If the Bush Administration can or will not conduct such an examination, Congress should undertake to do so.

How Secure is the Department of Homeland Security?

By Mary Jacoby

Salon.com, 22 June 2004

The policy director for the Department of Homeland Security’s intelligence division was briefly removed from his job in March when the Federal Bureau of Investigation discovered he had failed to disclose his association with Abdurahman Alamoudi, a jailed American Muslim leader. Alamoudi was indicted last year on terrorism-related money-laundering charges and now claims to have been part of a plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Abdullah.

After a flurry of interagency meetings, however, Homeland Security decided to leave the policy director, Faisal Gill, in place, according to two government officials with knowledge of the Alamoudi investigation. A White House political appointee with close ties to Republican power broker Grover Norquist and no apparent background in intelligence, Gill has access to top-secret information on the vulnerability of America’s seaports, aviation facilities and nuclear power plants to terrorist attacks.

The FBI raised concerns with Homeland Security officials in March after discovering that Gill had failed to list on security clearance documents his work in 2001 with the American Muslim Council, the officials said. The advocacy group, which was controlled by Alamoudi, has been under scrutiny in an investigation of terrorism financing. The lead agent in that investigation works for an arm of Homeland Security. Gill’s omission of the information on his "Standard Form 86" national security questionnaire is a potential felony violation. There is no evidence, however, that Gill has taken any action to compromise national security.

A Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman would not comment on Gill or when he was hired, except to say that a "thorough investigation" by the department’s Office of Security found no basis to deny the 32-year-old lawyer a security clearance. Among Gill’s political patrons is Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform and a key ally of the White House. Gill listed Norquist as a reference on employment documents, the government officials said. Gill also worked in 2001 for a Muslim political outreach organization that Norquist co-founded with a former top aide to Alamoudi. Norquist did not respond to phone calls, a fax and an e-mail seeking comment.

The Homeland Security spokeswoman, Michelle Petrovich, declined to say what qualifications or background Gill has for his senior position in the department’s Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection division. Citing privacy concerns, Petrovich also declined to make public any of the documents Gill submitted for government employment, including his Standard Form 86, the questionnaire Gill had to fill out to receive a security clearance. "It’s standard procedure across the government not to release personal background information on employees. I did check on that," Petrovich told me.

In response, I read to her the Privacy Act statement that is printed on the front of the form, which can be downloaded from government Web sites. It says: "We may share this information … with the news media and the general public when the disclosure would be in the public interest."

Petrovich said: "OK, but I also have to tell you that that is trumped by Freedom of the Information Act. There’s a special exception. That’s a federal law."

"What is trumped?

"The Freedom of Information Act."

"Trumps what?"

"Well, I can’t see what you’re reading from, so I just really don’t know."

Through Petrovich, Gill sent word that he would speak with me "on background," meaning I could not identify him by name unless he was allowed to approve his quotes before publication. I did not agree to the conditions, and Gill declined to answer questions otherwise. The people with knowledge of the matter have been granted anonymity because they risk being fired if they are identified.

Mark Zaid, a lawyer in private practice in Washington who specializes in security clearance cases, said it would be unusual for an agency to overlook omissions on a security clearance application. "Most agencies get really upset and suspicious and act antagonistically toward applicants if they find they withheld information," he said, adding that a minor violation might be forgiven. But he said if the issue concerned failing to list employment at "a terrorist organization or one that’s being investigated, all sorts of red flags would go up."

Gill’s placement in the sensitive intelligence job has alarmed government officials because it fits the operating theory of prosecutors and investigators that Alamoudi was part of a long-term scheme by Islamic extremists to place friendly, if perhaps unwitting, associates in key U.S. government positions.

A document seized in a 1995 raid of a close Alamoudi friend and political ally, former University of South Florida professor Sami Al-Arian, outlined a plan to "infiltrate the sensitive intelligence agencies or the embassies in order to collect information and build close relationships with the people in charge of these establishments." The unsigned document, which authorities believe was authored by Al-Arian in part because it was found among his papers, added: "We are in the center which leads the conspiracy against our Islamic world … Our presence in North America gives us a unique opportunity to monitor, explore and follow up." It instructed members of the "center," thought to refer to an Islamic think tank that Al-Arian founded, to "collect information from those relatives and friends who work in sensitive positions in government."

Al-Arian is in a Florida prison awaiting trial next year on charges he was the North American leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a group that has targeted Israel with suicide bombings. He denies all the charges. But investigators believe Al-Arian and Alamoudi were part of a broader political Islamic movement in the United States that connects sympathizers of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al-Qaida.

This movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, is the umbrella under which terror groups have forged "a significant degree of cooperation and coordination within our borders," former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke told the Senate Banking Committee last year. "The common link here is the extremist Muslim Brotherhood — all of these organizations are descendants of the membership and ideology of the Muslim Brothers." Alamoudi, for example, has spoken openly of his admiration for the anti-Israeli Hamas, which evolved from a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Arian’s circle of associates, meanwhile, overlaps with members of the Brooklyn, N.Y., precursor to al-Qaida that was responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

The ties among Alamoudi, the Muslim Brotherhood and Gill help explain why officials are concerned about whether Gill was adequately vetted. These relationships are difficult to understand without immersion in the indictments, court transcripts and case exhibits; the concerned officials said they fear that busy political operatives in the administration simply do not grasp the national-security issues at stake.

"There’s an overall denial in the administration that the agenda being pushed by Norquist might be a problem," one official said. "It’s so absurd that a Grover Norquist person could even be close to something like this. That’s really what’s so insidious."

In 1999, a group of reformers ousted Alamoudi as AMC executive director amid questions about the group’s opaque finances and mysterious Middle Eastern funding sources. Alamoudi took a position at the affiliated American Muslim Foundation but remained in control of the AMC through friendly board members, the reformers said. "I had concerns about the reluctance to reveal information about the finances. They said they’re not doing well, that they needed more money, but I looked at their office [in Washington], and it was very big," said one of the would-be reformers, Ikram Khan, a surgeon in Las Vegas. Khan said he resigned from the AMC board when his friend, Nazir Khaja, a Pakistani-American physician from California who was trying to open the group’s books, told him that Alamoudi was not cooperating. "I said, ‘If this is the case, I cannot continue to serve in the group,’ and I sent in my resignation letter," Khan said.

Then, last August, a man with a Libyan accent left a suitcase with $340,000 in cash for Alamoudi outside his hotel room in London, according to the October 2003 indictment of the American Muslim leader. Alamoudi was then arrested upon his return to the United States, the indictment said. The Alamoudi mystery deepened on June 10, when the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal reported that he had told authorities he was part of an alleged plot by Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi to assassinate Crown Prince Abdullah, the Saudi leader. Now, the U.S. Justice Department is examining whether Alamoudi was conspiring with a London group the Saudi government says is linked to Osama bin Laden.

"Who is Abdurahman Alamoudi? We really don’t know," one of the concerned government officials said. "So how can we say there is not a problem with his former aide? He [Gill] has access to information about all our vulnerabilities — aviation, ports. He knows what is protected and what is not."

The Homeland Security spokeswoman, Petrovich, declined to discuss these issues. Instead, she released this statement: "Prior to Faisal Gill’s employment with the department, the [internal] Office of Security went to great lengths to investigate his background and ensure there were no potential conflicts or inappropriate activities in relation to Mr. Gill. Following a thorough investigation, we found that Mr. Gill exceeded all requirements set forth by the department’s Office of Security for access to classified information, as prescribed by the intelligence community, that allows him to conduct his day-to-day duties for the department."

Yet some officials remain concerned that Gill apparently enjoys the political protection of Norquist, the architect of the 1994 Republican election sweep that brought Georgia Republican Newt Gingrich to power as House speaker. Norquist speaks of "crushing" his political opponents and dismisses those who don’t agree with his anti-tax, anti-government agenda as "Bolsheviks." His power derives from a formidable coalition of evangelical, business and other conservative groups that he controls to push favored GOP issues, as well as from his close relationship with White House political chief Karl Rove.

In 1998, Norquist and a former deputy to Alamoudi at the AMC co-founded the nonprofit Islamic Institute as part of a drive to win Muslim voters for Bush in 2000. Alamoudi donated $35,000 to the institute, records show. Soon, the Islamic Institute, the AMC and Al-Arian were all working together on a top priority for American Muslims: an end to the use of classified intelligence to jail noncitizens as national-security threats. Al-Arian’s brother-in-law had been jailed on the basis of such secret evidence linking him to Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Al-Arian lobbied heavily on Capitol Hill to end the practice. In October 2000, through the efforts of Norquist and Rove, Bush came out against secret evidence in a debate with Al Gore, and the AMC endorsed Bush for president. Al-Arian would later claim that the Muslim votes he rounded up for Bush in Florida helped decide the election.

Gill was in the middle of these advocacy efforts. As director of government affairs at Norquist’s Islamic Institute, Gill lobbied against the use of secret evidence, according to a May 2001 release on the institute’s Web site. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Gill was quoted in news articles as a spokesman for the AMC. A Washington Post article from May 2001, meanwhile, identified Gill as a spokesman for the "fledgling" Taxpayers Alliance of Prince William County, Va., which is affiliated with Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform. According to the Post article, Norquist was slated to appear with Gill at an anti-tax rally.

Gill is one of several former Alamoudi associates who have shuffled in recent years among Norquist’s operations, the AMC, and government and politics. They include Abdulwahab Alkebsi, a former executive director of the Islamic Institute and a spokesman for the AMC who is now a program director for the National Endowment for Democracy, where he is responsible for administering millions of dollars in grant money for Iraq. What’s more, in 2003 Norquist held a fundraiser at his Capitol Hill home for Alamoudi’s former lawyer, Kamal Nawash, who was running for a Virginia state Senate seat. And Norquist’s co-founder of the Islamic Institute, former AMC deputy director Khaled Saffuri, works closely with the White House on Muslim outreach issues.

These outreach efforts have put Norquist in an unusual defensive position. Former Bush speechwriter David Frum, conservative investigative journalist Kenneth Timmerman, and Center for Security Policy president Frank Gaffney, among others, have criticized Norquist’s alliances.

Gaffney did not respond to my request for an interview. But his feud with Norquist spilled into public view in January 2003 at the Conservative Political Action Conference near Washington. According to an account in the National Review, Gaffney told the conference-goers: "I’m sorry to say there is an active and, to a considerable degree successful, [radical Muslim] political operation aimed not least at the Bush White House." Norquist responded by calling Gaffney a bigot and barring him from an influential meeting of conservatives that Norquist holds on Wednesdays in Washington.

And there are other unexplained threads connecting Muslim leaders who are under investigation to Norquist’s influence-peddling operation. In 2000 and 2001, for example, a firm with which Norquist has been registered as a lobbyist, Janus-Merritt Strategies, reported that Alamoudi had paid the company a total of $40,000 for lobbying on human rights issues and Malaysia. But in a Dec. 17, 2001, letter to the secretary of the U.S. Senate, which administers public lobbying records, a managing partner of the firm wrote that Janus-Merritt had erred in identifying Alamoudi as its client. The letter said the actual client was another Muslim leader who could be reached at 555 Grove St. in Herndon, Va.

Three months later, dozens of federal agents, with their guns drawn, burst through the doors of that office building in Herndon, seizing evidence in the United States’ ongoing investigation of international terrorist financial networks.

Mideast road trap

(Washington, D.C.): Newt Gingrich recently precipitated a firestorm of controversy when he pointed out that the Department of State was working to sabotage President Bush’s security policies. As a case in point, he cited the State Department’s machinations behind the so-called “road map” for peace between Israel and the Palestinian front in the Arab- Israeli conflict:

“The State Department invention of a Quartet for Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations defies everything the United States has learned about France, Russia, and the United Nations. After the bitter lessons of the last five months, it is unimaginable that the United States would voluntarily accept a system in which the UN, the European Union, and Russia could routinely outvote President Bush’s positions by three to one (or four to one if the State Department voted its cultural beliefs against the President’s policies).

“This is a deliberate and systematic effort to undermine the President’s policies procedurally by ensuring they will consistently be watered down and distorted by the other three members. This is worse than the UN inspections process — a clear disaster for American diplomacy.”

Speaking Truth to Powell

The former House Speaker is, of course, absolutely correct in warning that the negotiating format the State Department has conjured up over the past year amounts to a stacked deck — stacked against President Bush and the principles and preconditions for recognition of a Palestinian state that he announced last June.

Unfortunately, the problem is not simply a procedural arrangement whereby four entities profoundly hostile to Israel are in charge — so much so that they are hoping to be able to dictate terms to the Israelis. This assuredly is not the negotiating process President Bush had in mind when he offered his vision for a real Mideast peace nearly a year ago.

Given the Quartet’s composition and proclivities, however, it is hardly surprising that the content of its road-map also deviates profoundly from what Mr. Bush proposed at that time. This is evident in particular on two critical counts.

What ‘New’ Palestinian Leadership?

First, Mr. Bush made very clear last June that a new generation of leaders, “untainted by terror” would have to come to the fore in the Palestinian community via democratic means. The clear meaning of this precondition was that neither Yasser Arafat nor anybody associated with his terrorist kleptocracy could be considered a legitimate interlocutor in a new, reformed “peace process.”

Career bureaucrats — like those running the State Department who, at best, can scarcely conceal their contempt for the people elected to run the country — are fond of saying “What the President meant to say is….” In this case, State and its Quartet partners have contorted the President’s intention so as to enable one of the Palestinian caudillo’s most faithful lieutenants, Mahmoud Abbas, to be hand-picked by Arafat but nonetheless represented as a real partner for peace with the Israelis.

Arafat and Abu Mazen (Abbas’ nom de guerre — it tells you something about this man’s commitment to peace with Israel that he has a guerilla nickname) even performed a little drama designed to demonstrate for Western consumption that the lieutenant, not his boss, would now control the official security apparatus and, as a result, be able to crack down on Palestinian terrorists. This gambit was reminiscent of another of Arafat’s theatrical performances a few years back when, to demonstrate his commitment to live in peace with Israel, he was supposed to secure the elimination of dozens of provisions in the Palestinian Charter calling for the destruction of Jews and their State. Just as these provisions remain unchanged to this day, power still rests in the hands of those who espouse jihad against Israel.

Ending Terror No Precondition

Second, President Bush also indicated last June that Israel would not be expected to accept a Palestinian state unless and until terrorism ceased to be waged against the Jewish State. But the Quartet had other plans. It adopted a timetable for recognition of a State of Palestine that was geared, not to an end of the threat to Israel, but to a predetermined calendar: The boundaries of a provisional state to be fixed by as early as the end of 2003; a full-fledged and internationally recognized state not later than 2005. And while the Palestinians would be required to “undertake visible efforts…to arrest, disrupt and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis” (“visible,” being the operative term, not “successful”), the Israelis would be obliged from the get-go to make tangible and possibly irreversible steps. For example, they must pull out of forward defensive positions in Palestinian areas, stop further growth of settlements, etc.

The Bottom Line

In short, the “road map” for Mideast peace offered up by the Quartet appears more likely to prove a “road trap” for one of the parties, Israel — and for a President who, more than any other in history, has committed himself to the survival and security of the Jewish State. Such a prospect is all the more absurd given the unprecedented opportunities a post-Saddam Middle East could present for a genuine, just and durable peace between Israel and new, non-radical Arab regimes in the region.

In his inspiring address on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln last week, President Bush warned that “Any person, organization, or government that supports, protects, or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent, and equally guilty of terrorist crimes.” It can only be hoped that the State Department, the rest of the Quartet and the Palestinian sponsors of terrorism on whom they hope to confer a state understood what the President surely meant to say — both now and last June: He will not be party to surrendering Israeli security, any more than our own, to those determined to destroy freedom-loving peoples and societies.

Shooting the messenger

(Washington, D.C.): Official Washington is notorious for its tendency to respond to unwelcome performance assessments by “shooting the messenger.” The reaction to Newt Gingrich’s recent, scathing critique of the State Department’s conduct of diplomacy in recent months, however, seems closer to the gruesome punishment of “drawing and quartering” — in which the victim’s arms and legs were chained to, and then pulled apart by, four horses.

Look Who’s Shooting

After the former House Speaker charged last week that the State Department has been responsible for “six months of diplomatic failure” and is engaging in “a deliberate and systematic effort to undermine the President’s policies,” the most decorous of public repudiations came from the White House and departmental press spokesmen, who insisted that the folks in Foggy Bottom are faithfully following the President’s direction.

Two of Mr. Gingrich’s former colleagues, former Representatives Jack Kemp and Vin Webber, also rolled in, with Mr. Kemp charging that “Although he aimed at the State Department and Powell’s trip to Syria, [Gingrich] did enormous collateral damage to President George W. Bush both diplomatically and politically. Ugh!” Presidential political advisor Karl Rove is said to have privately chewed Newt out and the Speaker has, regrettably, declined further public comment ever since.

The most outrageous responses, though, have come from officials appointed by President Bush to top positions in the Department of State. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage declared that the erstwhile Speaker of the House of Representatives was “off his meds and out of therapy.” Not to be outdone, Amb. Elizabeth Jones, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian affairs told a Portuguese newspaper that what Gingrich said is “garbage….What Gingrich says does not interest me. He is an idiot and you can publish that.”

Newt’s On Target

Clearly, Mr. Gingrich has struck a nerve. The vitriol being heaped on him suggests more is in play than mere concern his critique reflects badly on Secretary of State Colin Powell and even President Bush — not just career diplomats like Ms. Jones and her colleagues in the notoriously Arabist Near East and South Asian Affairs bureau.

The truly offensive ad hominem attacks being mounted on the record by Bush appointees in the State Department calls to mind the combat aviators’ expression that “If you are not taking anti-aircraft fire, you are not over the target.”

In fact, Newt Gingrich is right on target. It is the worst kept secret in this town — or, for that matter, around the world — that Colin Powell’s State Department profoundly disagrees with President Bush and the rest of his national security team on most important policy matters. For many, both in foreign capitals, among the media elite and in Bush-hostile political circles, this is widely regarded as a very good thing.

The depth of this anti-Bush sentiment was captured in a letter to the editor published in Monday’s Washington Post: “Secretary of State Colin L. Powell is one of the few voices of reason in this administration, one of the nation’s most respected civil servants, a man of impeccable morals and judgment, someone who brings legitimacy to the White House, who has saved that same White House from political disaster on numerous occasions and without whom this administration would be in even more trouble diplomatically than it already is. Thank God the State Department does not agree with the White House and its controversial foreign policy….Thank God for the checks and balances built into our democratic system.”

The idea that a President’s policies would be stymied not by opponents in the legislative branch or by due process in an independent judiciary but by career bureaucrats nominally working for him in the executive branch was surely not what the Framers had in mind. Yet this notion animates many in the Foreign Service whose almost caste-like view of their profession encourages their contempt for political masters with whom they disagree and, not infrequently, their rank insubordination.

Yet Another Case in Point: North Korea

An example where such behavior can have potentially serious repercussions was reported last Friday by the Reuters news service: On March 31st, two unnamed State Department officials were told by North Korean counterparts in a meeting at the UN that Pyongyang had begun to reprocess spent fuel rods, a step that would provide materials for a number of nuclear weapons. Reuters’ revelation was news to others involved in highly contentious Bush Administration decision-making about U.S. policy toward the North. According to Sunday’s Washington Post, “Some elements of the State Department purposely did not report the claim to senior officials in the Defense Department and the National Security Council in order to avoid rupturing the Beijing talks before they began.”

Now, the folks in Foggy Bottom know that President Bush deeply, and properly, distrusts the North Korean regime. He has, as a result, been leery of State Department-promoted efforts to engage in yet another fraudulent “peace process” that would legitimate the despotic Kim Jong-Il and likely allow him to become still more dangerous.

The Bottom Line

As with other misconduct noted by Speaker Gingrich, Mr. Bush may be embarrassed to discover that what is nominally his Department of State has been playing fast and loose with the facts so as to embroil him in precisely the sort of diplomacy that has not worked in the past vis-a-vis the North Koreans — and that Newt has correctly pointed out is being no better managed by State on the East River or in the Middle East. The President and those truly loyal to him must recognize, however, that the political costs of recognizing the validity of the messenger’s message today are sure to be far less than those that will come of ignoring it.