WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS OPERATION: TAKE NOTE

By: Pejman Yousefzadeh

When a non-Bush partisan like David Adesnik comes away at least somewhat impressed with the President's efforts at defending his Iraq policy, it may very well be an indication that the country at large is willing to listen to such a defense and be persuaded by it if it is given with passion, with reason, loudly and often.

I have said before and will say again that I am utterly puzzled by the White House's inability and/or unwillingness to take the issue of defending its Iraq policy and make it into a full time job. I have said before and will say again that I am utterly puzzled that no one in the White House appears to have decided that the President should give this kind of stump speech until the ears of his audience bleed from the repeated telling of it. That is how to ensure the successful transmission of a political message, after all. Instead, the White House seems content to wait until all and sundry is nearly rendered out of control regarding the political system before it gets the ball rolling on the issue of defending its policies.

From a purely political standpoint, this will not do. It is a failure of political savvy and as far as those who want to see a successful reconstruction effort in Iraq are concerned, it is a failure of leadership. If people on the White House staff are not properly doing their jobs and realizing that they need to make the delivery of such full-throated and passionate defenses a full time job, then they need to be replaced. And if the President of the United States has not yet come to the conclusion that he needs to give the kinds of speeches that at least partially impress David Adesnik more often, then someone needs to give him a stern talking-to about the political tin ear he suddenly seems to have developed.

SUPPORT DENMARK BUY LEGO

THE UNITED NATIONS SMEARS LEGO

By Michelle Malkin

Today is The International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights is celebrating the day with this vile poster portraying Denmark's most famous company as racist:

Your tax dollars at work.

Support Denmark. Buy LEGO.

***

Some readers seem to be missing the context of this ad campaign and want to give the U.N. the benefit of the doubt. Writes E.:

You might be reaching a little to suppose that the UN meant to criticize Denmark in that poster on racism. I think it's a clever way a making a very good point about bigotry, that it's not always what we think it is. Let's not be hypersensitive and constantly seeking out imagined insults in our culture like the PC crowd does.

Please don't be naive.

***

Question: What has the U.N. said or done about the Abdul Rahman case?

Answer: Nothing.

SADDAM PERSONALLY ORDERED CHEMICAL ATTACK ON KURDS

The Scotsman reports on a key piece of evidence that ties Saddam Hussein directly to the disgusting genocide of Kurds in Halabja almost twenty years ago. Memos from his personal secretary to military leaders make clear that Saddam wanted to use chemical weapons on Kurdish positions in 1987:

SADDAM Hussein ordered plans to be drawn up for a chemical weapons attack on Kurdish guerrilla bases in northern Iraq in 1987, according to a letter signed by his personal secretary. ...

The planned attack appears to have been part of the 1987-88 campaign that left more than 180,000 Kurds dead and demolished hundreds of Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. In the most notorious incident, the town of Halabja was bombed with mustard and nerve gas in 1988, killing 5,000 residents.

In the papers released by the US, a report from Iraq's military intelligence details the bases of Kurdish rebels, led by Ibrahim Barzani, and Iranian troops.

Saddam's secretary replies, saying, "The leader Mr President has ordered that your department study with experts a surprise attack with special ammunition in the areas of Barzani's gangs and the [former Iranian leader Ayatollah] Khomeini Guards."

"Special ammunition" is the phrase used throughout Saddam's regime for chemical weapons. Later documents mention specifically the nerve agent sarin and mustard gas.

One wonders how Saddam would respond to this. Regarding Dujail, he has claimed that the processes used to massacre the residents of the small town as a reprisal for an assassination attempt were legal under Iraqi law, a claim that has done little to slow his prosecution. For Halabja, observers widely predicted that his defense would claim ignorance of the attack until after it had already taken place -- a sort of reverse Nazi defense of "I didn't give the orders". This new evidence clearly shows that he gave those orders before, and probably on many other occasions, against the Iranians during their eight-year war as well as against his own people.

It's fashionable these days to claim that the Iraqis were better off under Saddam than after his liberation, given the civilian death toll from the fight against the insurgents. Some claim that over 100,000 Iraqis have died since the invasion, although the methodology for those calculations has been highly suspect. In two years, Saddam killed over 180,000 Kurds just for being Kurds, and destroyed their homes, forcing them to live in the hills to survive -- and that doesn't count the hundreds of thousands of Marsh Arabs, Shi'a, and even Sunnis who died either in droves in reprisals for suspected disloyalty or individually as Saddam and his henchmen desired. This letter reminds us that Iraqis and the world have all benefitted from the removal of this sick, twisted dictator.

A CHRISTIAN ON TRIAL

By Michelle Malkin

This story deserves much more attention than it's getting. Via VOA News (hat tip: Doug at Below the Beltway):

An Afghan man who recently admitted he converted to Christianity faces the death penalty under the country's strict Islamic legal system. The trial is a critical test of Afghanistan's new constitution and democratic government.

The case is attracting widespread attention in Afghanistan, where local media are closely monitoring the landmark proceedings.

Abdul Rahman, 40, was arrested last month, accused of converting to Christianity. Under Afghanistan's new constitution, minority religious rights are protected but Muslims are still subject to strict Islamic laws. And so, officially, Muslim-born Rahman is charged with rejecting Islam and not for practicing Christianity.

Appearing in court earlier this week Rahman insisted he should not be considered an infidel, but admitted he is a Christian. He says he still believes in the almighty Allah, but cannot say for sure who God really is. "I am," he says, "a Christian and I believe in Jesus Christ."

Rahman reportedly converted more than 16 years ago after spending time working in Germany. Officials say his family, who remain observant Muslims, turned him over to the authorities. On Thursday the prosecution told the court Rahman has rejected numerous offers to embrace Islam. Prosecuting attorney Abdul Wasi told the judge that the punishment should fit the crime.

He says Rahman is a traitor to Islam and is like a cancer inside Afghanistan. Under Islamic law and under the Afghan constitution, he says, the defendant should be executed. The court has ordered a delay in the proceedings to give Rahman time to hire an attorney. Under Afghan law, once a verdict is given, the case can be appealed twice to higher courts.

This is the first case in which the defendant has admitted to converting and is refusing to back down, even while facing the death penalty.

Here, via the Middle East Times, is the "evidence" against Rahman that may lead to his execution:

Supreme court judge Mawlavizada on March 19 holds a Bible that belongs to Abdul Rahman, who converted from Islam to Christianity. (REUTERS)

What do Afghan President Hamid Karzai and President Bush have to say about the monstrous possibility that Rahman may be executed for professing faith in Jesus Christ and possessing a Bible?

So far, nothing.

SADDAM AND AL-QAEDA

To this day, liberals like to tell us that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, and thus no reason for the Bush administration to invade Iraq. But as time goes on, there is more evidence to the contrary. More proof came yesterday of a relationship between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.

The Pentagon posted a document [pdf] online that was a letter from somebody at Saddam's intelligence agency indicating not only Al-Qaeda was cozy with Saddam, but also the Taliban. But it gets better.

The letter says Osama Bin Laden was in contact with Baghdad, and even mentions he may have visited. The documents also make mention and show a picture of our good buddy Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leading Al-Qaeda terrorist in Baghdad.

So what does all of this prove? What some have said all along: there was an active link between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Oh, and Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, too. Of course, Osama Bin Laden could be captured in Iraq and Democrats still would never concede Bush was right to invade.

REPUBLICAN STRATEGY FOR 2006

Change the Subject The Republican strategy for 2006. by Fred Barnes 03/27/2006, Volume 011, Issue 26 POLITICS IS PRETTY SIMPLE. If the debate in an upcoming election puts your party at a disadvantage, it makes sense to try to change the debate. At the moment, the 2006 midterm election is framed as a referendum on the Bush administration and congressional Republicans, putting Republican candidates on the defensive. Party strategists, led by chairman Ken Mehlman, want to rejigger the debate so it's about a choice between candidates, putting Democratic candidates on the defensive as well. In short, they want it to be a choice election, not a referendum election. This is not a new idea. Republicans brought about a choice election in 2004. Democrats believed they were a cinch to win a referendum on President Bush's first term, and Republicans worried they were right. But Republicans were able to make Democrat John Kerry at least as much of an issue as Bush was, especially on national security. For 2006, the Republican National Committee, the White House, and most Senate and House Republicans are on board with the choice strategy. In fact, some members of Congress are already repeating a phrase first used by Bush in meetings with congressional allies. It's an assertion that Democrats would "raise your taxes and raise the white flag" in Iraq. There's another part of the 2006 Republican strategy. This spring and summer, Republican leaders in the Senate and House plan to bring up a series of issues that are popular with the Republican base of voters. The aim is to stir conservative voters and spur turnout in the November election. Just last week, House Majority Leader John Boehner and Whip Roy Blunt met with leaders of conservative groups to talk about these issues. House Republicans, for their part, intend to seek votes on measures such as the Bush-backed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, a bill allowing more public expression of religion, another requiring parental consent for women under 18 to get an abortion, legislation to bar all federal courts except the Supreme Court from ruling on the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, a bill to outlaw human cloning, and another that would require doctors to consider fetal pain before performing an abortion. Two pollsters consulted by Mehlman on the choice strategy said it would be counterproductive for Republican candidates to concentrate on highlighting their differences with Bush or congressional Republicans. Of course this is not exactly disinterested advice. Mehlman and company all want to help the president, who stands to lose most from Republicans' adopting an "I'm not like Bush" strategy. Dave Sackett of the Tarrance Group said, in a memo to Mehlman, that distancing oneself from the president is a "flawed strategy" and would not protect a Republican candidate "from the generic backlash against the administration or the congressional leadership." Rather, it would turn the campaign into "a national referendum on President Bush and the policies of the administration and the congressional leadership"--just what Republicans fear in 2006. Jan van Lohuizen of Voter/Consumer Research said a campaign that becomes a referendum on Bush could also chill Republican voter turnout. "Anything we do to depress turnout, by not running as a unified party, for instance, could very well lead to serious consequences in November." Republicans have done little to hide their strategy. At the Southern Republican Leadership conference in Memphis recently, Mehlman spoke repeatedly about "choice" in the 2006 election. Voters, he said, "can see the difference between leaders committed to winning this war [on terror] and politicians who will say anything to win the next election. The war on terror is not the only area where we face an urgent choice in 2006." Mehlman asked, rhetorically, if voters "want the chairman of the tax-writing committee in the House to be someone who said that tax increases would spur the economy. Do you want the speaker of the House to be someone who said, less than a year after 9/11, 'I don't really consider ourselves at war.'" That, Mehlman said, "is the choice we will make in 242 days." Mehlman is convinced the emphasis on choice will work. "The ultimate referendum election is a presidential reelection," he says. "If you can make that into a choice election, you can make a midterm election into a choice election." Some Republicans insist it doesn't matter whether Democrats finally offer a party agenda. "The question is not what they promise," Mehlman told me. "It's what they are going to do" that is important. Blunt, however, wants to force Democrats to present an agenda. Contrasted with Democratic plans, "our ideas always look better," he says. "Their best day will be the day before they release their agenda. Suddenly [Republican] policies will look like the policies that would work best in the future." A White House official says the choice strategy "is the means to go on offense," instead of merely defending the controversial or unpopular actions of the Bush administration. There are numerous "luscious targets" offered by Democrats, including the fact that two-thirds of House Democrats voted against the reauthorization of the Patriot Act and three-fourths of congressional Democrats opposed the president's tax cuts. One issue that needs to be developed is the economy, according to Blunt. "People take a strong economy for granted. We have to show that this didn't just happen," but is the result of Republican policies like tax cuts. Republican candidates will argue that if Democratic policies had been followed, a strong economic recovery would not have occurred. And job creation--243,000 in February--would have been weaker. Mehlman's confidence notwithstanding, will Republican efforts to keep the election debate from focusing on Bush really work? The media undoubtedly won't play along. Some Republicans are bound to trash Bush, figuring that it will give them the best chance of winning. Worse, if Bush falters badly, a referendum on him may be unavoidable. Still, is there a better strategy for Republicans in what looks like an unfriendly year for them? If there is, I haven't heard of it. Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard and author of Rebel-in-Chief (Crown Forum).