Category: National

Even for the oft-reversed 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the notorious pledge-of-allegiance ruling was an abomination. “Under God” does not mean the same as “under Jesus” or “under Allah” or “under Madalyn Murray O’Hair.” It’s an acknowledgment of an Almighty, however referenced.

It means under a higher power. Imagine that being under fire? How’s that for a sectarian reach?

How, by all that passes for jurisprudence in the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit, can “under God” be construed as a violation of the First Amendment prohibition against the establishment of a state religion?

This travesty of a ruling likely won’t stand, and even the reviled Judge Alfred Goodwin is backing off. But the fact that it happened at all is disturbing and disgraceful. That it happened with this nation under attack by those who decree us “infidels” is obscenely ironic. It’s never been more important for Americans to look inward to inventory and revisit our values and beliefs.

Regrettably, “One nation, under litigation” would be all too appropriate. Tragically, one nation, undermined, could result.

Ever notice the number of people who seemingly can’t concede that the real world can’t be lived in the abstract? Take (the case of) Abdullah al-Mujahir. Please.

Civil libertarians are up in metaphorical arms over the erstwhile Jose Padilla’s treatment: being held in a brig, formally uncharged, as an “unlawful combatant.” This ex street-gang punk from Chicago, however, is hardly the poster lad for victims of fashionable fascism.

The protest typically takes the form of: “If they (the grandstanding, goose-stepping, jack-booted John Ashcroft, et al) can do this to one fellow citizen, they can do it to you too.”

Well, yes. In fact, any other radically Islamic American who had moved to Pakistan via unknown patrons and met more than once with key al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah to allegedly pitch ideas about nuclear weapons should receive identical treatment. To do less would be more than inadvisable; it would be a dereliction of duty.

Is this treatment — suspension of habeas corpus and no ESPN — such a civil libertarian nightmare in a country under attack from those pursuing America’s demise? We are, lest we forget, in the throes of a non-traditional war where preemption of terrorist plans is the first line of defense.

Because al-Jose is an American citizen, say the chattering class of libertarians, he deserves off-the-shelf, constitutionally protected treatment. That he does, of course, if you discount whom he’s met up with and where — and that America is under siege by those who make up the rules as they go along. In legally uncharted waters, the Bush Administration is citing the case of the World War II German saboteurs, including an American citizen, who were tried as unlawful combatants before a military tribunal. That’s as problematic as it is prudent. As it is necessary. Keep in mind, the ultimate civil right is the right to continue to live.

One other point. When we parse principles — however hallowed — beyond reason, we do so at our own peril. Exhibit A: America’s defense against terrorism. Exhibit B: “one nation, under God.”

To anyone who has even given a cursory look at contemporary Israeli-Palestinian history, it’s obvious there’s plenty of blame to go around. Before there were Hamas, Islamic Jihad and suicide bombers, there were the Stern Gang and the Irgun. Before there was Arafat, there was Begin. After a while, the point is moot and counterproductive as to who did what first and who is just retaliating, albeit an eye for a tooth.

However, the recent “Local Voice” piece in the Tampa Tribune penned by Saleh A. Mubarak underscores the most fundamental problem in coming to grips with this seemingly intractable conflict and resultant carnage.

When asked by a friend if he would condemn suicide bombing, Mubarak couldn’t do it. Instead, he answered the question — which should, by the norms of civilized society, have only one answer — with a question. He said, “The real question should be: ‘How can these bombings be stopped?'” No argument with that priority, to be sure, but an amoral rhetorical response is not the right answer to the question posed.

And neither is “You cannot make cessation of violence a precondition for negotiation.” Thanks for nothing.

If you can’t bring yourself to condemn murderers who target kids in pizzerias, your moral high ground is a bloody ditch. If you can’t condemn those who recruit, subsidize and eulogize those who target wedding reception celebrants, your views on valid subjects — such as Jewish settlements — are compromised beyond credibility.

So, was that your final non-answer, Mr. Mubarak?

As if he needed it, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush scored big recently with the re-election backing of Rudy Giuliani. The former New York City mayor and Bush appeared together at the Florida Professional Firefighters convention in Altamonte Springs and later at a $1,000-per-person GOP fundraiser in Orlando.

At the convention Bush basked in the reflected superstar status of Giuliani and picked up the endorsement of the Florida Professional Firefighters union. He also landed a boffo future TV spot; the Bush campaign had a camera crew in tow for the twosome.

But for all those either savoring or cringing over the joined-hands Bush-Giuliani wirephoto, here’s more to reflect upon. Jeb obviously isn’t the only Bush to have Giuliani’s blessing.

Superimpose George W. for Jeb and you may have the presidential ticket for 2004. Not only does the GOP obviously want to pull out all stops for the re-election of President Bush, but it wants to be positioned in 2008 to hold on to the White House.

Vice President Dick Cheney has a pacemaker and no charisma. He’s also from Wyoming, a state sans electoral clout. He won’t be the GOP standard-bearer in ’08 under any scenario. So why not a Bush-Giuliani ticket in ’04?

What President Bush knew about 9/11, and when Tom Daschle, Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton and Cynthia McKinney think he knew about it will remain forever problematic. The best any committee will come up with is that the F.B.I. would have been better off with Efrem Zimbalist Jr. in charge.

But if you are looking to find fault fairly with a president during time of war, look no further than Bush’s two most recent foreign policy sorties. The one to Moscow, the former capital of communism, and the one to Miami, the current centerpiece of Cold War nostalgia.

Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin recently co-signed a ballyhooed agreement to cut respective nuclear arsenals by two-thirds — or reducing the warheads on each side to between 1,700 and 2,200 by 2012. “This treaty will liquidate the legacy of the Cold War,” declared Bush.

As if. This is the Potemkin Village of nuclear treaties.

What it will do is take most of these warheads out of service — but not destroy them. And the Administration pushed for this provision. Many U.S. warheads will be put in storage like so many recalled Firestones stacked behind the showroom. Others will be kept to cannibalize or to test for reliability.

U.S. security, as we now know too well, is far from failsafe. This is unsettling.

But Russian security, even with U.S. help, is rife with scary scenarios. Erstwhile Soviet Union republics have already proven problematic when it comes to accounting for their old nukes.

As a result of this treaty, the world’s most pressing nuclear issue — stored nukes targeted by terrorists — goes unaddressed. This isn’t disarming. This is disturbing.

As to the president’s panderfest to Miami’s exile community, it gave political expedience a bad name. What’s really a concern in Latin America are Colombian anarchy and drugs, Venezuelan oil and Hugo Chavez and Caribbean islands and tax havens — not Cold War relics.

Bush made disingenuous demands for Castro to hold free elections, permit independent trade unions and the like and held out the julienne carrot of some humanitarian aid, scholarships and direct mail delivery. The mean-spirited, counterproductive economic embargo, as everyone knows, will live as long as Castro does.

While the President directed his Miami sound-bite machine at the rabidly anti-Castro crowd, he also spoke, in effect, to a broader audience. Here’s what most others heard:

“I care very much about the small, shrill group of self-appointed, Cuban-policy spokespersons in South Florida. So does Jeb. I encourage them to continue to use their veto power over U.S. foreign policy on all matters Cuban. Otto Reich and I are standing by. And we know they appreciated our efforts to sandbag Jimmy Carter.

“I obviously care so much less about what other Americans — former presidents to farmers — feel on the subject. Ditto for the rest of the world, including average Cubans. Incidentally, I obviously have no problems with the fact that — embargo notwithstanding — some of them receive subsidies from South Florida relatives totaling more than $800 million a year. Good; they need it.

“One other thing. Ironically, I hope Castro doesn’t take me up on the free elections goading. He’s the only leader most Cubans have ever known, and he would run against opposition easily characterized as traitorous, American stooges. He would also, of course, run against the U.S. — ‘Uncle Scapegoat.’ And Jimmy Carter’s return to validate the vote would be more than I could stomach.

“Viva La Habana Pequena.”

Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill and activist pop-rocker Bono may be the oddest couple since Oscar and Felix — or maybe Jon and Malcolm. But there they were in Accra, Ghana the other day visiting a high-tech center and watching young Ghanaians input data for a U.S. multinational. The operation, observed O’Neill, was “equal to anything you can find in the world.”

More surprising than that observation — which is at odds with every African stereotype — is that this Republican-rocker pairing might actually do some good. They are a high-visibility, pragmatic duo with more than conscience-salving on their agendas.

Frankly, let’s hear it for Secretary O’Neill, who (eventually) was open-minded enough to hear out Bono on the plight and potential of Africa. And let’s hear it for Bono, nee Paul Hewson, who’s no celebrity lightweight out of the Ed Asner, Richard Gere, Barbra Streisand, Alec Baldwin, Rosie O’Donnell mold.

The U2 singer did his homework on the dire problems of Africa. He also gives more than lip service to how things work in the real world — and why they don’t. He understands, for example, that those calling for debt relief from the G-8 countries need to call on recipients for a meaningful quid pro quo.

Throwing money at chronic, complex problems in the name of good works for poor people is more na

President Bush came to the sovereign state of Miami last Monday and led, as only U.S. presidents can lead, a panderfest to the Cuban exile community. His speech, predictably enough, was an exercise in condescension, disingenuousness and political expedience.

It’s arrogant to say, in effect, to Fidel Castro’s Cuba: “You must satisfy these conditions of ours. Never forget that we are not only the world’s lone super power but the world’s only perfect democracy where all citizens cast well-informed, accurately counted votes for competent, well-intentioned public-servants-to-be. We lecture; you listen.”

It’s duplicitous to say, in effect: “We know this is insulting and what your answer must surely be, but these are the pro forma pre-requisites. Meet them — from allowing outside observers to monitor your 2003 National Assembly elections to permitting independent trade unions — and we can do business. Direct mail, some humanitarian aid, some scholarships. That sort of thing.”

And it’s brazenly myopic to think Americans, Cubans and the rest of the world don’t see through the transparent political pandering to those who continue to misrepresent this country’s best interests vis a vis Cuba.

In his Miami harangue, the president even stooped to waxing Reaganesque with rhetoric reminiscent of a certain Berlin Wall ultimatum. “Mr. Castro, once, just once,” bellowed Bush, “show that you’re unafraid of a real election.”

Mr. Bush: tear down this fa

George Bush travels to Russia this week where he and President Vladimir Putin will co-sign a ballyhooed agreement to cut their countries’ respective nuclear arsenals by two-thirds. Putin, eager to ingratiate and integrate with the West, will cite the treaty as progress with a partner. Bush, eager to give as little as possible, will issue a similar citation. For good measure, he’s even declared that “This treaty will liquidate the legacy of the Cold War.”

Hardly.

In reality, the world is no safer for this agreement. It’s the Potemkim Village of nuclear treaties. It’s a numbers game only a legerdemain artist could admire.

By U.S. count, each side currently has between 5,000 and 6,000 warheads. Both arsenals would be cut to 1,700 to 2,200 by the end of 2012. This should be good news.

It’s not, because most warheads taken out of service will not be destroyed. Repeat, not destroyed. Many U.S. warheads will be put in storage — like so many recalled Firestones sitting behind the showroom. Others will be kept to cannibalize or to test for reliability.

We are all too aware that U.S. security is too far from failsafe. This is unsettling.

But it’s downright scary when you consider stored nukes in Russia. Erstwhile Soviet Union republics have already proven problematic when it comes to accounting for their Cold War nukes. A meaningful treaty, one worthy of the “liquidate-the-legacy” rhetoric, would have relegated the old nukes to the literal ash heap of history.

Instead, the world’s most pressing nuclear issue — stored warheads targeted by terrorists — goes unaddressed. This isn’t disarming. This is disturbing.

But it will be a great photo op for Bush and Putin. The Potemkin prop is already in place.

Finally. A mere seven and a half months after Sept. 11, there is an official acknowledgement from Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge of who we should REALLY be on the lookout for at our airports. And it’s not members of Congress, a former vice president or grandmothers from Peoria. It’s certain foreign nationals.

Thanks, HS Director Ridge. And no thanks to those who have never seen a profile they couldn’t get their skivvies in a civil libertarian knot over. The latter would, in effect, keep compromising security by refusing to distinguish levels of risk, while adding unnecessarily to the logistical costs of American air travel.

In the wake of Sept. 11, U.S. foreign policy toward Cuba finally made some sense. It’s nostalgia for the way the world was.

Back when Godless totalitarians roamed too far but played by the old ruthless rules of engagement. Some spying, some overthrowing, some proxy fighting, The occasional Korea and Vietnam. Back when being the enemy meant you were a hegemonous capitalist — not a satanic infidel.

Anyone want to trade Al Qaeda zealots pursuing paradise for the Warsaw Pact armies staking out geopolitical high ground? Fatwa fanatics and jihad junkies for fellow travelers? Those pushing payback for the Crusades or paving the way for a proletarian playground? Those rallying around “God is great” and “infidels die” or “workers of the world unite”?

How else to explain this atavistic approach to Cuba that more resembles an exhumed cold war time capsule than a relevant 21st century foreign policy?

Recall that détente was not incompatible with the old Soviet Union and we did business with the mass murderer who was Mao. We’ve normalized relations with Vietnam, with whom we went to war — and lost 58,000 G.I.’s. The Bush administration keeps reiterating that it is willing to meet with North Korea, an official “axis of evil” charter member, any time, any place.

Anyhow, Cuba is different. Too close, geographically and personally, and too politically sensitive. And no U.S. president, Democrat or Republican, wants to be remembered — even if it’s only by the sovereign state of Miami — as the one who “gave in” in to Fidel Castro, the personification of Cuban revolution and expropriation. Ironically, such a president would be yielding instead to humanitarianism, common sense, international credibility and enlightened self-interest — most demonstrably that of the American business community.

While visiting Cuba in 2000, I heard first hand — from a spokesperson at the U.S. Interests Section in Havana as well as befriended Cubans — what it would take to meaningfully change the U.S.-Cuba dynamic and end the four-decade-old embargo. It would take what everyone knows it would take: the 75-year-old Castro’s demise, referred to euphemistically as the “biological solution.” That would give pragmatism a chance, whether the U.S. President is George Bush or the Cuban leader is Raul Castro.

But until then don’t look for dramatic, even reasonable change. Just incremental erosion of the embargo while Castro defiantly lives on. So, don’t be fooled by Congressional rumblings that grow ever louder over the embargo and the un-American travel ban on U.S. citizens. And don’t be misled by the recently approved visit to Cuba this spring by former President Jimmy Carter, an outspoken critic of the embargo.

Look no further than how the Bush Administration overreacted last week to the issuance of visas to Cuban officials coming to the U.S. to oversee food purchases (allowed under the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000). The White House trumped its own State Department and pulled the visas, thus endangering a $25-million deal for pork, turkey, beef, wheat and eggs.

The ham-handed act spoke volumes. It said Florida could also decide the 2004 presidential election, and no one in the Administration wants to send the wrong signal to hardline exiles in South Florida. Whatever it signals to the rest of the country, especially America’s farmers, obviously matters much less.