Today Is Iraq's National Sovereignty Day

Today, Iraq will celebrate their government decreed National Sovereignty Day. Good on You. This day of freedom and democracy brought to you by the sacrifice of a lot of American blood and guts and taxpayer treasure. Maliki the Ingrate, ungrateful remarks "that Iraqis have won a "great victory" over the "foreign presence in Iraq." not with standing: You're welcome. I hope this day will stick in the craw of all the orc-head supporters in the area, such our good friends the money bags Saudi's, that will hurt until the ending of the world or until such time as all Arab people, Sunni or Shia or whatever, are free to vote for their own damn government and not one mandated by self appointed mullahs such as in Iran. The bottom line, you all know what this means now, this means that now you and your IA's and IP's will have to do ALL the killing of orcs in your own neighborhoods. Nothing says Freedom and Liberty and Democracy like killing brain sucking vampire orcs your own self. Congratulations, Iraq! Lets hope the sons of perdition you elected grow a decent set of balls to keep your country orc free and not let another "strongman" like Saddam carry them for you. If they don't:THROW THE BUMS OUT!

Of course, shoot it could be worse, cause, you know, having your own Whiskey and Democracy means never having to say you're sorry for having elected a left wing gutless weenie for POTUS who is a stout believer in Weenie Roast Diplomacy with Iranian Tyrant Mullahs and for sticking up with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega for the rights of deposed dictator Honduran President Mel Zelayaya.

Now, you all don't fret none, the force of 132,000 Army, Navy, Air Force and, of course, first and foremost ,U S Marines will be with you, just in case,just out of sight, just a bit beyond the Baghdad city limits. We'll keep the light on for you.

Eight Cap and Tax RINOs Who Voted W/Dems To Pass Waxman-Markey “cap and trade” bill

Bono Mack (CA) (202) 225-5330
Castle (DE) (202) 225-4165
Kirk (IL) (202) 225-4385
Lance (NJ) (202) 225-5361
LoBiondo (NJ) (202) 225-6572
McHugh (NY) (202) 225-4611
Reichert (WA) (202) 225-7761
Smith (NJ) (202) 225-3765

(Phone numbers h/t commenter rightwingmom at Michelle Malkin)

These are the eight House Republicans who voted with the Democrats to send the Waxman-Markey bill to the Senate (left to right top) John MacHugh NY, Mary Bono Mack, CA., Leonard Lance NJ.,Chris Smith, NJ., Michael Castle, Del., Mark Kirk, Ill., Frank LoBiondo, NJ., Dave Reichert, WA. The bill passed 219-212 margin. Their votes were critical as 44 Democrats voted against the regulatory scam.

In the Dept of Money Talks, Rep. Mark Kirk of Illinois, was in the top 20 for PAC donations from the tree hugger in 2008 according to OpenSecrets.org. League of Conservation Voters $1000.00, Ocean Champions $4,000.00, Republicans for Environmental Voters $4,000.00.

Republicans for Environmental Protection also coughed up $4000.00 for Rep. Dave Reichert of Washington.

New Jersey Representatives also received donations from the League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club. Rep. LoBiondo received $1, o20.00 the LCV and $2,010.00 from the Sierra Club in "06.
Rep.Leonard Lance NJ. received $250.00 from the League of Conservation Voters for his 2010 election.
Rep. Chris Smith NJ.,also received $250.00 from the League of Conservation Voters during the 2008 election cycle.

Columnist Clive Crook FT.com:

"The cap-and-trade bill is a travesty. Its net effect on short- to medium-term carbon emissions will be small to none. This is by design: a law that really made a difference would make energy dearer, hurt consumers and force an economic restructuring that would be painful for many industries and their workers. Congress cannot contemplate those effects. So the Waxman-Markey bill, while going through the complex motions of creating a carbon abatement regime, takes care to neutralise itself.

It proposes safety valves that will ease the cap if it threatens to have a noticeable effect on energy prices. It relies heavily on offsets – theoretical carbon reductions bought from other countries or other industries – so that big US emitters will not need to try so hard. It gives emission permits away, and tells utilities to rebate the windfall to consumers, so their electricity bills do not go up. It creates a vastly complicated apparatus, a playground for special interests and rent-seekers, a minefield of unintended consequences – and the bottom line for all that is business as usual."

A Review of why Medal of Honor Awards are so scarce

Bout time:
"Rep. Duncan D. Hunter, R-Calif., a Marine combat veteran elected to Congress in November, the armed services committee has asked for a review of trends in awarding the Medal of Honor to determine if the low number of awards in the current wars is the result of “inadvertent subjective bias amongst commanders.”

The committee also wants the Defense Department to survey officers and noncommissioned officers in leadership positions to look at attitudes about acts of valor. Hunter is looking for the reasons behind not just fewer nominations, but also a trend since the Vietnam War in which the only Medal of Honor awards have been for people who died during an act of valor."

Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin visiting AK troops in Kosovo

by Sgt. 1st Class Paul Wade
Soldiers from the 'Land of the Midnight Sun' got a huge morale boost when Alaska's governor, Sarah Palin, and the state's adjutant general, Maj. Gen. Craig Campbell, trekked the approximately 5,000 miles to see their National Guard troops from the 49th state and to show their support for the service members of the Multi-National Task Force-East KFOR 11 mission.

"Our Soldiers are America's heroes and I want to do whatever I can do to show them support and take the time to do so, to travel and to see them," said Palin, who became Alaska's 11th governor in November 2006 and the first female to be elected.

The 130 troops, assigned to 1st Battalion, 207th Aviation Regiment, who wear the patch depicting the stars of the Big Dipper and the North Star, form the bulk of Task Force Arctic Eagle, who's main contribution to keeping the peace in the Kosovo region is commanding the skies with their UH-60 Black Hawks.

"I truly appreciate you from the bottom of my heart. I have such a sincere, great appreciation for all that you are doing to serve your state and your country," said Palin.

Camp Bondsteel Soldiers welcomed with smiles, flash bulbs and a whirlwind tour. That evening she met with senior leadership hosted by the commanding general of MNTF-E, Brig. Gen. Keith Jones, and was briefed on the current situation in the eastern sector. The next morning Palin was treated to a unique breakfast of pancakes and smoked salmon by her fellow Alaskans and to hear what the rank and file had on their minds.

"[The governor] is real down-to-earth and as a mother of a teenager, she is someone I can relate to," said 1st Lt. Sarah Payeur, Task Force Arctic Eagle, aviation liaison officer, 1-207th Avn. Regt. "With her son in the Army, serving in Iraq, she completely understands what we are going through and to me that is important when it comes to knowing what family support is all about," said the Eagle River, Alaska native.

Following a meet-and-greet opportunity, interested service members at the CBS theater, Gov. Palin and the Alaskan delegation were whisked away to visit a Task Force Artic Eagle adopt-a-school program in the nearby town of Ferizaj/Urosevac.

"I think it is great what our troops are doing in helping these students learn English," said Palin, who took a sidewalk tour of the town with one of the students, Albana Mani, who explained what the program is all about. The teenagers learned more about her during an exercise that involved reading and answering questions about her biography.

"We are very proud of our program and to show it off to the governor was an honor. It was important to let her see how we interact with the local community, to let her know the impact we are having with these students," said Spc. Robert Sapp, a chaplain's assistant with the 1-207th Avn. Regt., from Anchorage.

The tour of her short visit wound down when she returned to the flight line of CBS and took part in the pinning of newly promoted Soldiers and awarding achievements.

"The characteristics that you all embody; your self-determination and self-sufficiency, combined with teamwork that is needed in order to get the job done. You embody that. You have that discipline and tenacity and that patriotism that I pray our younger generation will adopt. Our country will be better off if we have more of you out there serving something greater than self," concluded Palin.

"It was an honor to host Gov. Palin for her visit to Camp Bondsteel. The Soldiers were elated to see her and appreciated that she made the long trip from Alaska to show her appreciation for their service," said Maj. Matthew Schell, the 1-207th's acting battalion commander.

Dancing in the Middle Ground with the Islamist Terrorists

To my limited reading, no one else has expressed the dilemma of fighting this war better than Ralph Peters. We have, he writes, an "increasingly effete (AKA effeminate, marked by self-indulgence, triviality, or decadence) view of warfare" vs. the Islamist Terrorist who is ready to"pay any price and bear any burden", ( once upon a time, the proud words of JFK,) to make sure America eats Moose Turd Humble Pie. Our POTUS disdains gunboat diplomacy preferring weenie roast diplomacy with tyrants during our July 4th celebration of freedom from tyranny: "They pray to their god for help in cutting our throats, and we want to chat." writes Peters and chillingly adds the reminder that we also have to watch out for our unarmed enemies: the mainstream media "journalists".

Ralph Peters on Wishful Thinking and Indecisive Wars
The most troubling aspect of international security for the United States is not the killing power of our immediate enemies, which remains modest in historical terms, but our increasingly effete view of warfare. The greatest advantage our opponents enjoy is an uncompromising strength of will, their readiness to “pay any price and bear any burden” to hurt and humble us. As our enemies’ view of what is permissible in war expands apocalyptically, our self-limiting definitions of allowable targets and acceptable casualties—hostile, civilian and our own—continue to narrow fatefully. Our enemies cannot defeat us in direct confrontations, but we appear determined to defeat ourselves.

Much has been made over the past two decades of the emergence of “asymmetric warfare,” in which the ill-equipped confront the superbly armed by changing the rules of the battlefield. Yet, such irregular warfare is not new—it is warfare’s oldest form, the stone against the bronze-tipped spear—and the crucial asymmetry does not lie in weaponry, but in moral courage. While our most resolute current enemies—Islamist extremists—may violate our conceptions of morality and ethics, they also are willing to sacrifice more, suffer more and kill more (even among their own kind) than we are. We become mired in the details of minor missteps, while fanatical holy warriors consecrate their lives to their ultimate vision. They live their cause, but we do not live ours. We have forgotten what warfare means and what it takes to win.

There are multiple reasons for this American amnesia about the cost of victory. First, we, the people, have lived in unprecedented safety for so long (despite the now-faded shock of September 11, 2001) that we simply do not feel endangered; rather, we sense that what nastiness there may be in the world will always occur elsewhere and need not disturb our lifestyles. We like the frisson of feeling a little guilt, but resent all calls to action that require sacrifice.

Second, collective memory has effectively erased the European-sponsored horrors of the last century; yesteryear’s “unthinkable” events have become, well, unthinkable. As someone born only seven years after the ovens of Auschwitz stopped smoking, I am stunned by the common notion, which prevails despite ample evidence to the contrary, that such horrors are impossible today.

Third, ending the draft resulted in a superb military, but an unknowing, detached population. The higher you go in our social caste system, the less grasp you find of the military’s complexity and the greater the expectation that, when employed, our armed forces should be able to fix things promptly and politely.

Fourth, an unholy alliance between the defense industry and academic theorists seduced decisionmakers with a false-messiah catechism of bloodless war. In pursuit of billions in profits, defense contractors made promises impossible to fulfill, while think tank scholars sought acclaim by designing warfare models that excited political leaders anxious to get off cheaply, but which left out factors such as the enemy, human psychology, and 5,000 years of precedents.

Fifth, we have become largely a white-collar, suburban society in which a child’s bloody nose is no longer a routine part of growing up, but grounds for a lawsuit; the privileged among us have lost the sense of grit in daily life. We grow up believing that safety from harm is a right that others are bound to respect as we do. Our rising generation of political leaders assumes that, if anyone wishes to do us harm, it must be the result of a misunderstanding that can be resolved by that lethal narcotic of the chattering classes, dialogue.

Last, but not least, history is no longer taught as a serious subject in America’s schools. As a result, politicians lack perspective; journalists lack meaningful touchstones; and the average person’s sense of warfare has been redefined by media entertainments in which misery, if introduced, is brief.

By 1965, we had already forgotten what it took to defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and the degeneration of our historical sense has continued to accelerate since then. More Americans died in one afternoon at Cold Harbor during our Civil War than died in six years in Iraq. Three times as many American troops fell during the morning of June 6, 1944, as have been lost in combat in over seven years in Afghanistan. Nonetheless, prize-hunting reporters insist that our losses in Iraq have been catastrophic, while those in Afghanistan are unreasonably high.

We have cheapened the idea of war. We have had wars on poverty, wars on drugs, wars on crime, economic warfare, ratings wars, campaign war chests, bride wars, and price wars in the retail sector. The problem, of course, is that none of these “wars” has anything to do with warfare as soldiers know it. Careless of language and anxious to dramatize our lives and careers, we have elevated policy initiatives, commercial spats and social rivalries to the level of humanity’s most complex, decisive and vital endeavor.

One of the many disheartening results of our willful ignorance has been well-intentioned, inane claims to the effect that “war doesn’t change anything” and that “war isn’t the answer,” that we all need to “give peace a chance.” Who among us would not love to live in such a splendid world? Unfortunately, the world in which we do live remains one in which war is the primary means of resolving humanity’s grandest disagreements, as well as supplying the answer to plenty of questions. As for giving peace a chance, the sentiment is nice, but it does not work when your self-appointed enemy wants to kill you. Gandhi’s campaign of non-violence (often quite violent in its reality) only worked because his opponent was willing to play along. Gandhi would not have survived very long in Nazi Germany, Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s (or today’s) China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, or Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Effective non-violence is contractual. Where the contract does not exist, Gandhi dies.

Furthermore, our expectations of war’s results have become absurd. Even the best wars do not yield perfect aftermaths. World War II changed the planet for the better, yet left the eastern half of Europe under Stalin’s yoke and opened the door for the Maoist takeover in China. Should we then declare it a failure and not worth fighting? Our Civil War preserved the Union and abolished slavery—worthy results, surely. Still, it took over a century for equality of opportunity for minorities to gain a firm footing. Should Lincoln have let the Confederacy go with slavery untouched, rather than choosing to fight? Expecting Iraq, Afghanistan or the conflict of tomorrow to end quickly, cleanly and neatly belongs to the realm of childhood fantasy, not human reality. Even the most successful war yields imperfect results. An insistence on prompt, ideal outcomes as the measure of victory guarantees the perception of defeat.

Consider the current bemoaning of a perceived “lack of progress” and “setbacks” in Afghanistan. A largely pre-medieval, ferociously xenophobic country that never enjoyed good government or a central power able to control all of its territory had become the hostage of a monstrous regime and a haven for terrorists. Today, Afghanistan has an elected government, feeble though it may be; for the first time in the region’s history, some of the local people welcome, and most tolerate, the presence of foreign troops; women are no longer stoned to death in sports stadiums for the edification of the masses; and the most inventive terrorists of our time have been driven into remote compounds and caves. We agonize (at least in the media) over the persistence of the Taliban, unwilling to recognize that the Taliban or a similar organization will always find a constituency in remote tribal valleys and among fanatics. If we set ourselves the goal of wiping out the Taliban, we will fail. Given a realistic mission of thrusting the Islamists to the extreme margins of society over decades, however, we can effect meaningful change (much as the Ku Klux Klan, whose following once numbered in the millions across our nation, has been reduced to a tiny club of grumps). Even now, we have already won in terms of the crucial question: Is Afghanistan a better place today for most Afghans, for the world and for us than it was on September 10, 2001? Why must we talk ourselves into defeat?

We have the power to win any war. Victory remains possible in every conflict we face today or that looms on the horizon. But, for now, we are unwilling to accept that war not only is, but must be, hell. Sadly, our enemies do not share our scruples.

The present foe

The willful ignorance within the American intelligentsia and in Washington, D.C., does not stop with the mechanics and costs of warfare, but extends to a denial of the essential qualities of our most-determined enemies. While narco-guerrillas, tribal rebels or pirates may vex us, Islamist terrorists are opponents of a far more frightening quality. These fanatics do not yet pose an existential threat to the United States, but we must recognize the profound difference between secular groups fighting for power or wealth and men whose galvanizing dream is to destroy the West. When forced to assess the latter, we take the easy way out and focus on their current capabilities, although the key to understanding them is to study their ultimate goals—no matter how absurd and unrealistic their ambitions may seem to us.

The problem is religion. Our Islamist enemies are inspired by it, while we are terrified even to talk about it. We are in the unique position of denying that our enemies know what they themselves are up to. They insist, publicly, that their goal is our destruction (or, in their mildest moods, our conversion) in their god’s name. We contort ourselves to insist that their religious rhetoric is all a sham, that they are merely cynics exploiting the superstitions of the masses. Setting aside the point that a devout believer can behave cynically in his mundane actions, our phony, one-dimensional analysis of al-Qaeda and its ilk has precious little to do with the nature of our enemies—which we are desperate to deny—and everything to do with us.

We have so oversold ourselves on the notion of respect for all religions (except, of course, Christianity and Judaism) that we insist that faith cannot be a cause of atrocious violence. The notion of killing to please a deity and further his perceived agenda is so unpleasant to us that we simply pretend it away. U.S. intelligence agencies and government departments go to absurd lengths, even in classified analyses, to avoid such basic terms as “Islamist terrorist.” Well, if your enemy is a terrorist and he professes to be an Islamist, it may be wise to take him at his word.

A paralyzing problem “inside the Beltway” is that our ruling class has been educated out of religious fervor. Even officials and bureaucrats who attend a church or synagogue each week no longer comprehend the life-shaking power of revelation, the transformative ecstasy of glimpsing the divine, or the exonerating communalism of living faith. Emotional displays of belief make the functional agnostic or social atheist nervous; he or she reacts with elitist disdain. Thus we insist, for our own comfort, that our enemies do not really mean what they profess, that they are as devoid of a transcendental sense of the universe as we are.

History parades no end of killers-for-god in front of us. The procession has lasted at least five thousand years. At various times, each major faith—especially our inherently violent monotheist faiths—has engaged in religious warfare and religious terrorism. When a struggling faith finds itself under the assault of a more powerful foreign belief system, it fights: Jews against Romans, Christians against Muslims, Muslims against Christians and Jews. When faiths feel threatened, externally or internally, they fight as long as they retain critical mass. Today the Judeo-Christian/post-belief world occupies the dominant strategic position, as it has, increasingly, for the last five centuries, its rise coinciding with Islam’s long descent into cultural darkness and civilizational impotence. Behind all its entertaining bravado, Islam is fighting for its life, for validation.

Islam, in other words, is on the ropes, despite no end of nonsense heralding “Eurabia” or other Muslim demographic conquests. If demography were all there was to it, China and India long since would have divided the world between them. Islam today is composed of over a billion essentially powerless human beings, many of them humiliated and furiously jealous. So Islam fights and will fight, within its meager-but-pesky capabilities. Operationally, it matters little that the failures of the Middle Eastern Islamic world are self-wrought, the disastrous results of the deterioration of a once-triumphant faith into a web of static cultures obsessed with behavior at the expense of achievement. The core world of Islam, stretching from Casablanca to the Hindu Kush, is not competitive in a single significant sphere of human endeavor (not even terrorism since, at present, we are terrorizing the terrorists). We are confronted with a historical anomaly, the public collapse of a once-great, still-proud civilization that, in the age of super-computers, cannot build a reliable automobile: enormous wealth has been squandered; human capital goes wasted; economies are dysfunctional; and the quality of life is barbaric. Those who once cowered at Islam’s greatness now rule the world. The roughly one-fifth of humanity that makes up the Muslim world lacks a single world-class university of its own. The resultant rage is immeasurable; jealousy may be the greatest unacknowledged strategic factor in the world today.

Embattled cultures dependably experience religious revivals: What does not work in this life will work in the next. All the deity in question asks is submission, sacrifice—and action to validate faith. Unlike the terrorists of yesteryear, who sought to change the world and hoped to live to see it changed, today’s terrorists focus on god’s kingdom and regard death as a promotion. We struggle to explain suicide bombers in sociological terms, deciding that they are malleable and unhappy young people, psychologically vulnerable. But plenty of individuals in our own society are malleable, unhappy and unstable. Where are the Western atheist suicide bombers?

To make enduring progress against Islamist terrorists, we must begin by accepting that the terrorists are Islamists. And the use of the term “Islamist,” rather than “Islamic,” is vital—not for reasons of political correctness, but because it connotes a severe deviation from what remains, for now, mainstream Islam. We face enemies who celebrate death and who revel in bloodshed. Islamist terrorists have a closer kinship with the blood cults of the pre-Islamic Middle East—or even with the Aztecs—than they do with the ghazis who exploded out of the Arabian desert, ablaze with a new faith. At a time when we should be asking painful questions about why the belief persists that gods want human blood, we insist on downplaying religion’s power and insisting that our new enemies are much the same as the old ones. It is as if we sought to analyze Hitler’s Germany without mentioning Nazis.

We will not even accept that the struggle between Islam and the West never ceased. Even after Islam’s superpower status collapsed, the European imperial era was bloodied by countless Muslim insurrections, and even the Cold War was punctuated with Islamist revivals and calls for jihad. The difference down the centuries was that, until recently, the West understood that this was a survival struggle and did what had to be done (the myth that insurgents of any kind usually win has no historical basis). Unfortunately for our delicate sensibilities, the age-old lesson of religion-fueled rebellions is that they must be put down with unsparing bloodshed—the fanatic’s god is not interested in compromise solutions. The leading rebels or terrorists must be killed. We, on the contrary, want to make them our friends.

The paradox is that our humane approach to warfare results in unnecessary bloodshed. Had we been ruthless in the use of our overwhelming power in the early days of conflict in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the ultimate human toll—on all sides—would have been far lower. In warfare of every kind, there is an immutable law: If you are unwilling to pay the butcher’s bill up front, you will pay it with compound interest in the end. Iraq was not hard; we made it so. Likewise, had we not tried to do Afghanistan on the cheap, Osama bin Laden would be dead and al-Qaeda even weaker than it is today.

When the United States is forced to go to war—or decides to go to war—it must intend to win. That means that rather than setting civilian apparatchiks to calculate minimum force levels, we need to bring every possible resource to bear from the outset—an approach that saves blood and treasure in the long run. And we must stop obsessing about our minor sins. Warfare will never be clean, soldiers will always make mistakes, and rounds will always go astray, despite our conscientious safeguards and best intentions. Instead of agonizing over a fatal mistake made by a young Marine at a roadblock, we must return to the fundamental recognition that the greatest “war crime” the United States can commit is to lose.

Other threats, new dimensions

Within the defense community, another danger looms: the risk of preparing to re-fight the last war, or, in other words, assuming that our present struggles are the prototypes of our future ones. As someone who spent much of the 1990s arguing that the U.S. armed forces needed to prepare for irregular warfare and urban combat, I now find myself required to remind my former peers in the military that we must remain reasonably prepared for traditional threats from states.

Yet another counter-historical assumption is that states have matured beyond fighting wars with each other, that everyone would have too much to lose, that the inter-connected nature of trade makes full-scale conventional wars impossible. That is precisely the view that educated Europeans held in the first decade of the twentieth century. Even the youngish Winston Churchill, a veteran of multiple colonial conflicts, believed that general war between civilized states had become unthinkable. It had not.

Bearing in mind that, while neither party desires war, we could find ourselves tumbling, à la 1914, into a conflict with China, we need to remember that the apparent threat of the moment is not necessarily the deadly menace of tomorrow. It may not be China that challenges us, after all, but the unexpected rise of a dormant power. The precedent is there: in 1929, Germany had a playground military limited to 100,000 men. Ten years later, a re-armed Germany had embarked on the most destructive campaign of aggression in history, its killing power and savagery exceeding that of the Mongols. Without militarizing our economy (or indulging our unscrupulous defense industry), we must carry out rational modernization efforts within our conventional forces—even as we march through a series of special-operations-intensive fights for which there is no end in sight. We do not need to bankrupt ourselves to do so, but must accept an era of hard choices, asking ourselves not which weapons we would like to have, but which are truly necessary.

Still, even should we make perfect acquisition decisions (an unlikely prospect, given the power of lobbyists and public relations firms serving the defense industry), that would not guarantee us victory or even a solid initial performance in a future conventional war. As with the struggle to drive terrorists into remote corners, we are limited less by our military capabilities than by our determination to pretend that war can be made innocently.

Whether faced with conventional or unconventional threats, the same deadly impulse is at work in our government and among the think tank astrologers who serve as its courtiers: An insistence on constantly narrowing the parameters of what is permissible in warfare. We are attempting to impose ever sterner restrictions on the conduct of war even as our enemies, immediate and potential, are exploring every possible means of expanding their conduct of conflicts into new realms of total war.

What is stunning about the United States is the fragility of our system. To strategically immobilize our military, you have only to successfully attack one link in the chain, our satellites. Our homeland’s complex infrastructure offers ever-increasing opportunities for disruption to enemies well aware that they cannot defeat our military head-on, but who hope to wage total war asymmetrically, leapfrogging over our ships and armored divisions to make daily life so miserable for Americans that we would quit the fight. No matter that even the gravest attacks upon our homeland might, instead, re-arouse the killer spirit among Americans—our enemies view the home front as our weak flank.

From what we know of emerging Chinese and Russian warfighting doctrine, both from their writings and their actions against third parties, their concept of the future battlefield is all-inclusive, even as we, for our part, long to isolate combatants in a post-modern version of a medieval joust. As just a few minor examples, consider Russia’s and China’s use of cyber-attacks to punish and even paralyze other states. We are afraid to post dummy websites for information-warfare purposes, since we have talked ourselves into warfare-by-lawyers. Meanwhile, the Chinese routinely seek to infiltrate or attack Pentagon computer networks, while Russia paralyzed Estonia through a massive cyber-blitzkrieg just a couple of years ago. Our potential enemies believe that anything that might lead to victory is permissible. We are afraid that we might get sued.

Yet, even the Chinese and Russians do not have an apocalyptic vision of warfare. They want to survive and they would be willing to let us survive, if only on their terms. But religion-driven terrorists care not for this world and its glories. If the right Islamist terrorists acquired a usable nuclear weapon, they would not hesitate to employ it (the most bewildering security analysts are those who minimize the danger should Iran acquire nuclear weapons). The most impassioned extremists among our enemies not only have no qualms about the mass extermination of unbelievers, but would be delighted to offer their god rivers of the blood of less-devout Muslims. Our fiercest enemies are in love with death.

For our part, we truly think that our enemies are kidding, that we can negotiate with them, after all, if only we could figure out which toys they really want. They pray to their god for help in cutting our throats, and we want to chat.

The killers without guns

While the essence of warfare never changes—it will always be about killing the enemy until he acquiesces in our desires or is exterminated—its topical manifestations evolve and its dimensions expand. Today, the United States and its allies will never face a lone enemy on the battlefield. There will always be a hostile third party in the fight, but one which we not only refrain from attacking but are hesitant to annoy: the media.

While this brief essay cannot undertake to analyze the psychological dysfunctions that lead many among the most privileged Westerners to attack their own civilization and those who defend it, we can acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that, to most media practitioners, our troops are always guilty (even if proven innocent), while our barbaric enemies are innocent (even if proven guilty). The phenomenon of Western and world journalists championing the “rights” and causes of blood-drenched butchers who, given the opportunity, would torture and slaughter them, disproves the notion—were any additional proof required—that human beings are rational creatures. Indeed, the passionate belief of so much of the intelligentsia that our civilization is evil and only the savage is noble looks rather like an anemic version of the self-delusions of the terrorists themselves. And, of course, there is a penalty for the intellectual’s dismissal of religion: humans need to believe in something greater than themselves, even if they have a degree from Harvard. Rejecting the god of their fathers, the neo-pagans who dominate the media serve as lackeys at the terrorists’ bloody altar.

Of course, the media have shaped the outcome of conflicts for centuries, from the European wars of religion through Vietnam. More recently, though, the media have determined the outcomes of conflicts. While journalists and editors ultimately failed to defeat the U.S. government in Iraq, video cameras and biased reporting guaranteed that Hezbollah would survive the 2006 war with Israel and, as of this writing, they appear to have saved Hamas from destruction in Gaza.

Pretending to be impartial, the self-segregating personalities drawn to media careers overwhelmingly take a side, and that side is rarely ours. Although it seems unthinkable now, future wars may require censorship, news blackouts and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media. Perceiving themselves as superior beings, journalists have positioned themselves as protected-species combatants. But freedom of the press stops when its abuse kills our soldiers and strengthens our enemies. Such a view arouses disdain today, but a media establishment that has forgotten any sense of sober patriotism may find that it has become tomorrow’s conventional wisdom.

The point of all this is simple: Win. In warfare, nothing else matters. If you cannot win clean, win dirty. But win. Our victories are ultimately in humanity’s interests, while our failures nourish monsters.

In closing, we must dispose of one last mantra that has been too broadly and uncritically accepted: the nonsense that, if we win by fighting as fiercely as our enemies, we will “become just like them.” To convince Imperial Japan of its defeat, we not only had to fire-bomb Japanese cities, but drop two atomic bombs. Did we then become like the Japanese of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere? Did we subsequently invade other lands with the goal of permanent conquest, enslaving their populations? Did our destruction of German cities—also necessary for victory—turn us into Nazis? Of course, you can find a few campus leftists who think so, but they have yet to reveal the location of our death camps.

We may wish reality to be otherwise, but we must deal with it as we find it. And the reality of warfare is that it is the organized endeavor at which human beings excel. Only our ability to develop and maintain cities approaches warfare in its complexity. There is simply nothing that human collectives do better (or with more enthusiasm) than fight each other. Whether we seek explanations for human bloodlust in Darwin, in our religious texts (do start with the Book of Joshua), or among the sociologists who have done irreparable damage to the poor, we finally must accept empirical reality: at least a small minority of humanity longs to harm others. The violent, like the poor, will always be with us, and we must be willing to kill those who would kill others. At present, the American view of warfare has degenerated from science to a superstition in which we try to propitiate the gods with chants and dances. We need to regain a sense of the world’s reality.

Of all the enemies we face today and may face tomorrow, the most dangerous is our own wishful thinking.

America-Home of the Gangster State and Gangster Economics brought to you by Goldman Sachs

Thanks to Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge, I have spent the previous hour getting a super headache reading Matt Taibbi's latest in Rolling Stone magazine:The Great American Bubble Machine AKA how Goldman Sachs has continually screwed America for a profit since 1929. Unbelievable! If you have ever asked yourself the puzzling question "why are gas prices going UP when gas demand is going down?" you really need to read this article. If you owned a house during the housing bubble and, like moi, were coming home to a chock full answering machine to "please call asap, you don't want to miss this opportunity to refinance" and you asked yourself WTF is going on. Why are they bugging me? Brother, the answer is in this article. I once told the Divine Mrs. Burton that the reason the mortgage companies were after me was due to a Great Scam going on and she, paused for a moment, gave me one of those looks and reminded me that in college, I once thought Immanuel Velikovsky was a great scientist. Ouch. Never stay married to the girl you dated in college ....they have an endless supply of ammo. Read the article. You won't regret it. It's full of OMG info. How rampant greed trumps passive democracy. I swear, if you thought Putin's Russia was a gangster state you don't know anything yet.


Taibbi-Goldman-Sachs

In Remembrance: Lance Corporal Gregory Edward MacDonald 6/25/2003 Bravo Co. 4thLAR

From a 2003 News Release by Belmont University:

"Lance Cpl. Gregory E. MacDonald, a 1995 graduate of Belmont University, was killed in Iraq. The Lowell Sun newspaper in Lowell, Mass., has complete - and moving - coverage.

MacDonald earned a degree in philosophy and social policy in 1995 from Belmont and a graduate degree from American University in Washington, D.C., in 2001.

From the Lowell Sun:

BURLINGTON - "That I have died means that I have failed to achieve the one thing in life I truly longed to give the world, PEACE," reads the last statement of Lance Cpl. Gregory E. MacDonald.

More than 200 friends and family mourned MacDonald at a military burial yesterday in Pine Haven Cemetery in Burlington, after services at St. Margaret's Church.

A 21-gun salute was fired in honor of the U.S. Marine whose life's work was to help achieve peace in the Middle East. MacDonald died June 25 in Hilla, Iraq, when his light armored vehicle turned over on his way to rescue ambushed American soldiers. He was 29.

The Washington Post reports MacDonald, who lived in the Washington D.C. area, joined the Marines after earning his master's degree at American University because he saw military service as a way to gain credibility and experience in his intended career in Middle Eastern affairs:

"He wanted to do foreign policy work," [friend Jeni] Spevak said, "and he wanted to do it for the Middle East, and he wanted to create peace in the Middle East."

The Post says MacDonald was "a cerebral man with red hair and blue eyes who loved books and classical guitar and studied philosophy as an undergraduate (and) did not fit the classic profile of an enlisted Marine."
************************************************************************************
Robert Seo grew up in Potomac, Maryland and attended the University of Maryland.
In 2000, after his freshman year of college, he enlisted in the Marine Corps. After
completing basic training in Parris Island, South Carolina, he served with Bravo Company,4th Light Armored Reconnaissance (LAR) Battalion as a reservist:

Gregory MacDonald and I served together in Bravo Company, 4th Light Armored Reconnaissance (LAR) Battalion prior to and during Operation Iraqi Freedom. I considered Greg as part of my family because he was a fellow Marine
and especially because he was a member of Bravo Company. I talked to him on numerous occasions, mostly in passing, with the longest occurring just a couple days before his death. It was my shift to watch the vehicles outside on the ramp and I remember that the desert sun was especially hot that afternoon. I was surprised to see
Greg in his vehicle cleaning his 240E machine gun not only because the weapon itself was hot enough to burn his hand, but also because weapons maintenance was hardly on any other Marine's list of priorities at that time of day. I struck up a conversation with him and learned that he was actually older than he looked, had a Master's Degree
and had the desire to leverage his experience from the war to make a difference in the Middle East when he came back home. I don't remember how long the conversation lasted, but I came away from it thinking that in addition to being a stellar Marine, he was an intelligent, well-spoken and compassionate person. Like many others, I will never forget the day I heard the news of the accident. It was a Wednesday evening and the sun was on its way down. I had just gotten to the chow hall for dinner and a Marine rushed in and announced that Bravo Company was to report for formation immediately. We all forgot about trivial matters such as how hungry we were because at that
moment, we all knew without a doubt that bad news awaited us. We ran into formation, mostly quiet and somber and bracing for the news that was about to hit us. While 1st platoon was on its way to respond to an ambush, the dirt canal road
gave way and a Light Armored Vehicle (LAV) had Fipped over. Several Marines were injured, and Greg MacDonald was killed. In the meantime, the sun had gone down and in the dark, we digested the worst news possible. Bravo Company was not
going home together as we had come. There are certain things that will always stand out in my mind from his ceremony in Iraq. Not a day goes by that I
don't recall the sinking feeling I got when Greg's rifle, bayonet fixed, was abruptly stabbed into the ground. My first instinct as a Marine was to cringe because a rifle should always be treated with respect and thus should never touch the ground, especially with its muzzle down. Then I felt even more uneasy. The full extent of the loss of Greg started to sink in at that moment because of the fact that he was not near his rifle. The entire time we were deployed, we kept our rifles within at least a few feet of our bodies and a weapon that was unaccompanied by its Marine was somewhat incomprehensible. When his weapon was surrounded by his empty boots, dog tags and
helmet, the reality had fully sunken in. I would never care to see so many grown men cry again.
Greg had so much potential and so many dreams that would never come to fruition. I had frequently heard throughout my life that I had so much potential, but that it was disappointing how I never put in the effort to fulfill it. I concluded that if I were to continue in the trajectory I was headed in and waste my talents away, I would be
letting Mac down, something I could not ever let happen.
Since his death, Greg has inspired me to live my life to my fullest potential
by relentlessly pursuing my goals. I was inspired to change my
major from something I had no interest in to one that I was passionate
about and in one that I excelled in. I was inspired to obtain a challenging
position in finance upon graduation from college. And most recently,
along with the training I received in the Marine Corps, I was
inspired to be prepared to persevere through mental and physical hardships
while training for and running the Ironman Triathlon in a foreign
country. I am honored to have served with Greg and all the others who
have dutifully served our country. Helping other veterans by raising
funds for Jericho in Greg's name is my way of saying thank you.

Signs of a Fail Revolution.

Twittering class is isolated. Revolution has not spread to other classes.

"Amid the breathless reporting on the demonstrations, reporters failed to notice that the uprising was not spreading to other classes and to other areas. In constantly interviewing English-speaking demonstrators, they failed to note just how many of the demonstrators spoke English and had smartphones. The media thus did not recognize these as the signs of a failing revolution. Later, when Ayatollah Ali Khamenei spoke Friday and called out the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, they failed to understand that the troops — definitely not drawn from what we might call the “Twittering classes,” would remain loyal to the regime for ideological and social reasons." Stratfor

And adding insult to injury- this post from Five Thirty Eight:

Nevertheless, it does seem to underscore the point that so many other commentators have been making: the protests are being facilitated to a large degree by the Internet. We've heard very little about protests outside of Tehran, even though there are some other fairly large cities -- Tabriz, Zahedan, Ardabil, Yazd -- where Ahmadinejad (ostensibly) received 50 percent or less of the vote. But we're seeing hardly any visitors from those other cities, except for Yazd from which we've gotten quite a few. If our traffic is even a loose proxy for the Internet situation in Iran in general, these people aren't Tweeting, and they certainly aren't reading the New York Times or the BBC. And they also, apparently, aren't protesting in great numbers.

Compare and Contrast Obama vs Reagan Response to Freedom Hating Orcs

The Death of Neda Agha Soltan

Neda- 27 years old and a philosophy student.

Are those protesting true believers in democracy? We do not know, because they have never been given the chance. What we do know is that they reject the dishonesty of a repressive theocracy. For that reason alone, we should stand with them.Michael Totten

Let us weep for Iran. Let us cheer the Iranians.

Repost from Neo-Resistance:Naj translation of Mir Hossein Mousavi Statement

In Washington, on this particular day, when the ocrs in Tehran are killing women and children for the wearing of the green, POTUSS Barack Hussein Obama the II left the White House for ice cream. He also had some tepid words of,what might be misconstrued as, support for the Iranian people, who, at present, are under assault at every corner, in their enduring quest for truth, justice and freedom. In Tehran, surrounded by the dead, the dying and the wounded Iranian people,at once, readily visible on YouTube, Mir Hossein Mousavi also made a statement:

In the name of God, the kind and the merciful

Indeed god demands you to safe keep what people entrust in you, and to rule them with justice. [this a verse of Koran]

Respectable and intelligent people of Iran,

These nights and days, a pivotal moment in our history is taking place. People ask each other: “what should we do?, which way should we go?”. It is my duty to share with you what I believe, and to learn from you, may we never forget our historical task and not give up on the duty we are given by the destiny of times and generations.

30 years ago, in this country a revolution became victorious in the name of Islam, a revolution for freedom, a revolution for reviving the dignity of men, a revolution for truth and justice. In those times, especially when our enlightened Imam [Khomeini] was alive, large amount of lives and matters were invested to legitimize this foundation and many valuable achievements were attained. An unprecedented enlightenment captured our society, and our people reached a new life where they endured the hardest of hardships with a sweet taste. What this people gained was dignity and freedom and a gift of the life of the pure ones [i.e. 12 Imams of Shiites]. I am certain that those who have seen those days will not be satisfied with anything less.

Had we as a people lost certain talents that we were unable to experience that early spirituality? I had come to say that that was not the case. It is not late yet, we are not far from that enlightened space yet. I had come to show that it was possible to live spiritually while living in a modern world. I had come to repeat Imam’s warnings about fundamentalism. I had come to say that evading the law leads to dictatorship; and to remind that paying attention to people’s dignity does not diminish the foundations of the regime, but strengthens it. I had come to say that people wish honesty and integrity from their servants, and that many of our perils have arisen from lies. I had come to say that poverty and backwardness, corruption and injustice were not our destiny. I had come to re-invite to the Islamic revolution, as it had to be, and Islamic republic as it has to be.

In this invitation, I was not charismatic [articulate], but the core message of revolution was so appealing that it surpassed my articulation and excited the young generation who had not seen those days to recreate scenes which we had not seen since the days of revolution[1979] and the sacred defense. The people’s movement chose green as its symbol. I confess that in this, I followed them. And a generation that was accused of being removed from religion, has now reached “God is Great”, “Victory’s of God and victory’s near”, “Ya hossein” in their chants to prove that when this tree fruits, they all resemble. No one taught hem these slogans, they reached them by the teachings of instinct. How unfair are those whose petty advantages make them call this a “velvet revolution” staged by foreigners! [refering to state TV and Khameneni, perhaps!]

But as you know, all of us were faced with deception and cheatings when we claimed to revitalize our nation and realize dreams that root in the hearts of young and old. And that which we had predicted will stem from evading law [dictatorship], realized soon in the worst manifestation.

The large voter turnout in recent election was the result of hard work to create hope and confidence in people, to create a deserving response to those whose broad dissatisfaction with the existing management crisis could have targeted the foundations of the regime. If this good will and trust of the poeple is not addressed via protecting their votes, or if they cannot react in a civil manner to claim their rights, the responsibility of the dangerous routs ahead will be on the shoulders of those who do not tolerate civil protests.

If the large volume of cheating and vote rigging, which has set fire to the hays of people’s anger, is expressed as the evidence of fairness, the republican nature of the state will be killed and in practice, the ideology that Islam and Republicanism are incompatible will be proven.

This outcome will make two groups happy: One, those who since the beginning of revolution stood against Imam and called the Islamic state a dictatorship of the elite who want to take people to heaven by force; and the other, those who in defending the human rights, consider religion and Islam against republicanism. Imam’s fantastic art was to neutralize these dichotomies. I had come to focus on Imam’s approach to neutralize the burgeoning magic of these. Now, by confirming the results of election, by limiting the extent of investigation in a manner that the outcome will not be changed, even though in more than 170 branches the number of cast votes was more than 100% of eligible voters of the riding, the heads of the state have accepted the responsibility of what has happened during the election.

In these conditions, we are asked to follow our complaints via the Guardian council, while this council has proven its bias, not only before and during, but also after the election. The first principle of judgment is to be impartial.

I, continue to strongly believe that the request for annulling the vote and repeating the election is a definite right that has to be considered by impartial and nationally trusted delegation. Not to dismiss the results of this investigation a priori, or to prevent people from demonstration by threatening them to bloodshed. Nor to unleash the Intelligence ministry’s plain clothes forces on people’s lives to disperse crowds by intimidation and inflammation, instead of responding to people’s legitimate questions, and then blaming the bloodshed on others.

As I am looking at the scene, I see it set for advancing a new political agenda that spreads beyond the objective of installing an unwanted government. As a companion who has seen the beauties of your green wave, I will never allow any one’s life endangered because of my actions. At the same time, I remain undeterred on my demand for annulling the election and demanding people’s rights. Despite my limited abilities, I believe that your motivation and creativity can pursue your legitimate demands in new civil manners. Be sure that I will always stand with you. What this brother of yours recommends, especially to the dear youth, in terms of finding new solutions is to not allow liars and cheater steal your flag of defense of Islamic state, and foreigners rip the treasures of the Islamic republic which are your inheritance of the blood of your decent fathers. By trust in God, and hope for the future, and leaning on the strength of social movements, claim your rights in the frameworks of the existing constitution, based on principle of non-violence.

In this, we are not confronting the Basij. Basiji is our brother. In this we are not confronting the revolutionary guard. The guard is the keeper of our revolution. We are not confronting the army, the army is the keeper of our borders. These organs are the keepers of our independence, freedom and our Islamic republic. We are confronting deception and lies, we want to reform them, a reform by return to the pure principles of revolution.

We advise the authorities, to calm down the streets. Based on article 27 of the constitution, not only provide space for peaceful protest, but also encourage such gatherings. The state TV should stop badmouthing and taking sides. Before voices turn into shouting, let them be heard in reasonable debates. Let the press criticize, and write the news as they happen. In one word, create a free space for people to express their agreements and disagreements. Let those who want, say “takbeer” and don’t consider it opposition. It is clear that in this case, there won’t be a need for security forces on the streets, and we won’t have to face pictures and hear news that break the heart of anyone who loves the country and the revolution.

Your brother and companion

Mir Hossein Mousavi

Just Because....

"And where is our (current) president? Afraid of “meddling.” Charles Krauthammer in Hope and Change-Not for Iran
trying to have his cake and eat it too- even at the expense of Iranians

Photos of Wed. Hafte Tir Square Teheran Protest are Up

Photos of yesterday's hugemongous protest by Hamed Saber are up at Picasa

Oh Chitlins! Letterman is in for it now..He's P'ed Oh'ed Cynthia Yockey

Looks like Letterman's days of cheap shots at Palin are over as he has incurred the wrath of Cynthia Yockey who has simple "objectives" and they are all about a millionaire clown who jokes about raping girls whose mother is the Governor of Alaska:

"Letterman has a five-year-old son with a long-time partner he married in March. He is 62 and has had a quintuple heart bypass. If it occurs to him that he needs to spend time with his family and focus on his health, and retires IMMEDIATELY, say, by Friday, June 19, 2009 — I’m a great believer in being specific about objectives — well, everybody’s a winner."

Cynthia Yockey site

Fire David Letterman web site

I think Letterman is about to catch a swarm of earth quakes, followed by a shower of poison arrows from the sky. Time to walk the plank, big guy, spend more quality time with your family.

They are on the Summit

AKGovSarahPalin"Just spoke w/Marc Hoffmeister & Operation Denali climbing team – they called from the mountain’s summit! So proud of their courage & spirit!11 minutes ago from web" Army Lt. Col. Marc Hoffmeister, top left; Army Spc. Dave Shebib, top right; retired Marine Capt. Jon Kuniholm, bottom left; and retired Army Sgt. 1st Class Matthew Nyman -- all wounded veterans -- on the summit of North America's highest peak, Courtesy photo

POTUS Barack Hussein Obama II inaugural address MSG...unless its inconvenient

President Obama "To all other peoples and governments who are watching today . . . know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more."

He added: "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."

Who is CAIR? Unindicted coconspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Court Case

Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va),on the floor of the House last Friday, asked a very simple question: who is CAIR?
[Congressional Record: June 12, 2009 (House)]
[Page H6669-H6676]




COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS--CAIR

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, as ranking member on the Commerce, Justice,
Science Appropriation Subcommittee, which last week considered the
fiscal year 2010 appropriations bill, I have a keen interest in and
oversight responsibility for a host of counterterrorism and related
initiatives.
The bill which is expected to come before the full House next week
includes $7.7 billion to support the work of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the FBI, whose top priorities include protecting and
defending the United States against terrorism and foreign intelligence
threats.

{time} 1315

The FBI was intimately involved in a 15-year investigation, which
culminated last fall in the Holy Land Foundation and five of its former
organizers being found guilty of illegally funneling more than $12
million to the terrorist group Hamas.
A Department of Justice press release issued May 27, 2009, reported,
``U.S. District Judge Jorge A. Solis sentenced the Holy Land Foundation
for Relief and Development and five of its leaders following their
convictions by a Federal jury in November 2008 on charges of providing
material support to Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist
organization.'' The sentences range from 15 years to 65 years in
prison.
According to the Department of Justice, ``From its inception, the
Holy Land Foundation existed to support Hamas. The government's case
included testimony that, in the early 1990s, Hamas' parent
organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, planned to establish a network of
organizations in the U.S. to spread a militant Islamist message and
raise money for Hamas. The defendants sent Holy Land Foundation-raised
funds to Hamas-controlled zakat committees and charitable societies
West Bank and Gaza.''
Among the unindicted conspirators in the case is an organization
which, over the last several years, has been granted access to the
highest levels of the U.S. Government--an organization which is
routinely elevated in the press as a voice of mainstream Muslim
Americans. This organization is the Council on American-Islamic
Relations, or CAIR.
Tawfik Hamid, according to his bio, is an ``Islamist thinker and
reformer and onetime Islamist extremist from Egypt. He was a member of
a terrorist Islamic organization, Jemaah Islamiyah, with Dr. Ayman al-
Zawahiri, who became later the second in command of al Qaeda.
On May 25 of 2007, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Hamid wrote the
following, ``In America, perhaps the most conspicuous organization to
persistently accuse opponents of Islamophobia is the Council of [sic]
American Islamic Relations.'' The observations of Mr. Tawfik, himself a
Muslim, are particularly relevant in light of recent news reports.
On January 30, 2009, Fox News reported that the FBI was ``severing
its once close ties with the Nation's largest Muslim advocacy group,
the Council on American-Islamic Relations, amid mounting evidence that
it has links to a support network for Hamas.''
Given that Hamas is on the current list of U.S.-designated foreign
terrorist organizations, this was obviously a serious claim and one
which, if true, would rightly inform a shift in FBI policy. However,
the Fox News piece left me with some unanswered questions, questions
which, given the seriousness of the report, necessitated further
inquiry. Such questions of the executive branch are a common
congressional practice and, in fact, are the responsibility of the
legislative branch of government and are the intended purpose of our
system of checks and balances.
For 6 years, from 2001-2006, I served as chairman of the
appropriations subcommittee which has oversight of the FBI. This year,
I resumed a leadership role as the lead Republican on the subcommittee.
According to the Congressional Research Service, ``Congressional
oversight refers to the review, monitoring and supervision of Federal
agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. It is an
integral part of the American system of checks and balances.''

[[Page H6670]]

A young Woodrow Wilson, before becoming President, put it this way.
He said, ``Quite as important as legislation is vigilant oversight of
administration.''
Needless to say, I take very seriously the responsibility of
congressional oversight, especially in matters with potential national
security implications. In this spirit of oversight, I wrote to the FBI
on February 2, seeking additional information and clarification
regarding the Bureau's decision about its relationship with CAIR.
For the Record, I submit a copy of the letter.
Congress of the United States,


House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, February 2, 2009.
Mr. Michael J. Heimbach,
Assistant Director, Counter Terrorism Division, Federal
Bureau of Investigation, Washington DC.
Dear Mr. Heimbach: I write regarding the bureau's position
on meeting with the Council on American Islamic Relations
(CAIR). Over the weekend I saw a FOX News report (enclosed)
that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has cut off
ties with CAIR ``amid mounting evidence that it has links to
a support network for Hamas.'' Given that Hamas is on the
current list of U.S. designated foreign terrorist
organizations, this is obviously a serious claim, one which
would rightly inform a shift in FBI policy.
In response to this report, I request answers to the
following questions:
Has the FBI severed ties with CAIR? If so, how is the FBI
planning to formally notify Members of Congress and other
government officials of this decision?
If FBI policy has changed with regard to CAIR, is there any
indication that this decision is being revisited by the new
administration? If so, what new evidence would justify a
change in course?
Is CAIR's national office still in contact with the FBI?
The report quotes Assistant Director John Miller from the
FBI Office of Public Affairs as saying: ``The FBI has had to
limit its formal contact with CAIR field offices until
certain issues are addressed by CAIR's national
headquarters.'' What specifically are the ``certain issues''
which you have raised with CAIR? Is there still informal
contact with any field offices? If so, what is the
distinction between formal and informal and why is there a
distinction between field offices?
To your knowledge, does CAIR receive financial
contributions from foreign sources? If so, which ones and how
much?
I look forward to your timely response, and to working with
you in the days ahead in my new role as ranking member of the
House Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations subcommittee.
Best wishes.
Sincerely,
Frank R. Wolf,
Member of Congress.

The Fox News piece, which prompted my initial interest, quoted the
assistant director of the Office of Public Affairs at the Bureau as
saying, ``The FBI has had to limit its formal contact with CAIR field
offices until certain issues are addressed by CAIR's national
headquarters.''
I found this statement to be vague. While perhaps sufficient from a
public affairs vantage, I believed it to be an insufficient explanation
for Members of Congress, none of whom, to my knowledge, had been
informed of this policy shift, and it was just that--a policy shift.
The FOX piece noted later that the FBI has ``long been close to CAIR.
The agency has previously invited CAIR to give training sessions for
agents and used it as a liaison with the American Muslim community.''
I was one of several Members of Congress, both Democrat and
Republican, who wrote the Bureau in the days following this report.
Some, such as Republican Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona and Democratic
Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, voiced their support for the
Bureau's decision, which was a step further than my initial letter; but
they, too, desired to ``understand the situation more fully'' as
Senators Kyl and Schumer wrote.
When I received a response from the FBI on March 9, only 1 of the 10
questions I posed was answered, which prompted me to send a second
letter restating the original questions and pressing the FBI for a
timely and detailed response.
I submit a copy of that letter for the Record.
Congress of the United States,


House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, March 9, 2009.
Mr. Michael J. Heimbach,
Assistant Director, Counter Terrorism Division, Federal
Bureau of Investigation, Pennsylvania Ave., NW,
Washington DC.
Dear Mr. Heimbach: I was deeply disappointed with the FBI's
response--hand-delivered to my office last Friday--to my
letter of February 2 inquiring about the Bureau's position on
meeting with the Council on American Islamic Relations
(CAIR). It took the Bureau more than a month to respond, and
the letter I received provides only a partial answer to one
of the 10 questions I posed.
In 1998 I authored the legislation that created the
National Commission on Terrorism. Regrettably its
recommendations were not implemented until after the attacks
on 9/11. I take seriously the responsibility of congressional
oversight, especially in matters with potential national
security implications. For six years I served as chairman of
the appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the
FBI and count myself among the Bureau's strongest supporters.
Having resumed a leadership role this year as ranking member
on the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations subcommittee,
it is important to me that the FBI provide timely and
detailed responses. And so again, I request answers to the
following straight-forward questions:
Has the FBI severed ties with CAIR? If so, how is the FBI
planning to formally notify Members of Congress and other
government officials of this decision?
If FBI policy has changed with regard to CAIR, is there any
indication that this decision is being revisited by the new
administration? If so, what new evidence would justify a
change in course?
Is CAIR's national office still in contact with the FBI?
The FOX News report I referenced in my original letter
quotes Assistant Director John Miller from the FBI Office of
Public Affairs as saying: ``The FBI has had to limit its
formal contact with CAIR field offices until certain issues
are addressed by CAIR's national headquarters.'' What
specifically are the ``certain issues'' which you have raised
with CAIR? Is there still informal contact with any field
offices? If so, what is the distinction between formal and
informal and why is there a distinction between field
offices?
To your knowledge, does CAIR receive financial
contributions from foreign sources? If so, which ones and how
much?
I would like these questions fully answered by this Friday,
March 13, and by someone who works on counter-terrorism,
rather than a public affairs officer. Other members of
Congress, both House and Senate, have expressed interest in
and additional information about the Bureau's position as it
relates to CAIR. I would think the Bureau would be
embarrassed to send the insufficient response I received.
Best wishes.
Sincerely,
Frank R. Wolf,
Member of Congress.
Days after my second letter, CAIR launched a public attack against
me, claiming in a March 12 press release that I ``abused'' my
``office'' by ``seeking to pressure the FBI to produce negative
information'' about the organization.
Those assertions are patently untrue and would not even warrant a
response were they not symptomatic of what I believe to be a larger
pattern of intimidation undertaken by CAIR--intimidation which is of
great consequence given the national security matters at stake.
As my letters to the FBI indicate, I was seeking to better understand
the Bureau's position and access information about what led to this
decision. It is a conclusion which--and I agree with my Senate
colleagues--is absolutely appropriate based on reports I have read for
years but which, again, marks a change in course for the Bureau and, as
such, deserved further explanation.
It is noteworthy that, on April 28, following my initial
unsatisfactory reply from the Bureau, Senator Kyl received a more
substantive response from the FBI to his letter. In the letter to
Senator Kyl, the Bureau was more detailed in explaining and in
validating the original news report regarding its relationship with
CAIR.
The letter reads, ``As you know, CAIR was named as an unindicted
coconspirator of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development in
the United States v. Holy Land Foundation, et al.
``During that trial, evidence was introduced that demonstrated a
relationship among CAIR, individual CAIR founders, including its
current president emeritus and its executive director, and the
Palestinian committee. Evidence was also introduced that demonstrated a
relationship between the Palestinian committee and Hamas, which was
designated a terrorist organization in 1995. In light of that evidence,
the FBI suspended all formal contacts between CAIR and the FBI.
``The FBI's decision to suspend formal contacts was not intended to
reflect a wholesale judgment of the organization and its entire
membership. Nevertheless, until we can resolve

[[Page H6671]]

whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its
executives and Hamas, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate
liaison partner.''
I submit a copy of the Bureau's response to Senator Kyl for the
Record.
U.S. Department of Justice,


Federal Bureau of Investigation,

Washington, DC, April 28, 2009.
Hon. Jon Kyl,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kyl: This responds to your letter to Director
Mueller dated February 24, 2009, regarding your interest in
reports that the FBI has severed its liaison relationship
with the Council on Islamic Relations (CAIR). I apologize for
the delay in responding to your inquiry. For your information
an identical letter has been sent to Senator Schumer and to
Senator Coburn, M.D.
As you know, CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator
of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development in
United States v. Holy Land Foundation et al. (Cr. No. 3:04-
240-P (N.D.TX.). During that trial, evidence was introduced
that demonstrated a relationship among CAIR, individual CAIR
founders (including its current President Emeritus and its
Executive Director) and the Palestine Committee. Evidence was
also introduced that demonstrated a relationship between the
Palestine Committee and HAMAS, which was designated as a
terrorist organization in 1995. In light of that evidence,
the FBI suspended all formal contacts between CAIR and the
FBI.
The FBI's decision to suspend formal contacts was not
intended to reflect a wholesale judgment of the organization
and its entire membership. Nevertheless, until we can resolve
whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or
its executives and HAMAS, the FBI does not view CAIR as an
appropriate liaison partner. It is important to note,
however, that although the FBI has suspended all formal
outreach activities with CAIR at this time, CAIR, its
officers, and members have been encouraged to report any hate
crime, violation of federal civil rights or suspicious
activity to the FBI.
The FBI made its own decision vis-a-vis outreach activities
with this particular group. Any questions regarding broader
executive branch outreach activities would be better answered
by the Administration.
Please do not hesitate to contact my office if we may be of
additional assistance.
Sincerely yours,

Richard C. Powers,

Assistant Director, Office of
Congressional Affairs.
____

R 221435Z MAY 06
FM AMEMBASSY ABU DHABI
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 5272
INFO AMCONSUL DUBAI

UNCLAS ABU DHABI 002127
SENSITIVE
FOR NEA/ARP, NEA/PPD; INFO NEA/FO, R

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: KISL, SOCI, PHUM, PGOV, KDEM, AE
SUBJECT: VISIT BY COUNCIL ON AMERICAN ISLAMIC RELATIONS
(CAIR) TO UAE
1.(U) On May 21, the Council on American Islamic Relations
(CAIR) paid a courtesy call on the Ambassador to discuss the
organization's issues, outreach strategies, and its visit to
the CAE. The UAE press has reported that Sheikh Hamdan bin
Rashid al-Maktoum, Deputy Ruler of Dubai and UAE Minister of
Finance and Industry, ``has endorsed a proposal to build a
property in the U.S. to serve as an endowment for CAIR.''
DCM, PAO and MEPI Regional Director also participated in the
meeting.
2.(U) The group expressed ideas about countering negative
stereotypes about Muslims in the U.S. (``Islamophobia'') and
addressing anti-Americanism in the Middle East. They
mentioned previous meetings with State Department officials,
U/S Karen Hughes and A/S David Welch, their attendance at the
Secretary's Iftar, and spoke of a possible meeting with
President Bush in the future.
3.(U) Mr. Don Myers, representing Washington, D.C. public
relations firm Hill & Knowlton, provided a short
demonstration of a PR campaign designed to support CAIR's
overall organizational objectives defined as: 1) political
empowerment of Muslims, 2) grassroots effort by CAIR to
improve community relations with non-Muslims, 3) launching of
an effective, long-term (5 year) advertising/outreach
campaign to counter negative stereotypes about Muslims.
4.(U) Members of the CAIR delegation included: Hon. Larry
Shaw, Senator (North Carolina General Assembly); Hon. Paul
Findley, Former U.S. Representative; Don Myers, Washington,
D.C. public relations firm Hill & Knowlton; Nihad Awad, CAIR
Executive Director and Co-Founder; Cary (Ibrahim) Hooper,
CAIR Communication Director and Co-Founder; Dr. Parvez Ahmed,
CAIR Board Chairman; and Dr. Nabil Sadoun, CAIR Board Member.
5.(U) CAIR delegation also paid a call earlier in the day
on Sheikh Sultan bin Muhammad al-Qassimi, Ruler of Sharjah,
which was covered in the press.
6.(U) Sheikh Ali al-Hashemi, UAE Presidential Adviser on
Islamic affairs, is hosting a reception at his house this
evening, May 22, in honor of the CAIR group; Ambassador and
PolOff to attend. Al-Hashemi also thanked the Ambassador for
receiving the CAIR delegation.
7.(SBU) Comment: CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad told us
that while they were pleased with the results of the meeting
with Sheikh Hamdan bin Rashid, they had no concrete
information on the size of the endowment or when it might be
forthcoming. Awad also mentioned that the Bin Hamoodah Group,
a $500 million/year trading company, founded by three Emirati
brothers and representing Halliburton, IBM, FMC Corporation
and General Motors, is CAIR's main benefactor in the UAE. One
newly-rich stock trader, Talal Khoori (UAE national of
Iranian origin), is believed to have donated one million
dollars to CAIR.
Sison.
P 281502Z JUN 06
FM AMEMBASSY RIYADH
TO SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 9065
INFO GULF COOPERATION COUNCIL COLLECTIVE
AMCONSUL JEDDAH

UNCLAS RIYADH 005172
SENSITIVE

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: SCUL, KDEM, KISL, PGOV, PHUM, SOCI, SA
SUBJECT: VISIT BY COUNCIL ON AMERICAN ISLAMIC RELATIONS
(CAIR) TO SAUDI ARABIA
REF: ABU DHABI 2127

1.(U) Following up on a similar visit to the UAE in May
(reftel), a delegation from the U.S.-based Council on
American Islamic Relations (CAIR) visited the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia (KSA) in June. On June 22 the group paid a
courtesy call on the Embassy to discuss the organization's
issues and outreach strategies. In the Ambassador's absence,
DCM received the group, along with the PA Counselor and
Poloff (notetaker).
2.(SBU) Prior to coming to Riyadh, the CAIR group visited
Mecca and Jeddah. Although they apparently were not received
at the highest levels of the SAG, the group assured the
Embassy that ``King Abdullah knows CAIR very well'' and
receives regular updates on the group's projects. After
recalling the success of their visit to the UAE in May, the
group predicted that they would be back in the region by fall
to visit Kuwait and Qatar. The group also mentioned that they
had been well-received in Washington by senior State
Department officials, including Secretary Rice and
Undersecretary Hughes.
3.(U) The core delegation consisted of CAIR Board Chairman
Dr. Parvez Ahmed, Executive Director Nihad Awad, and
Communications Director Cary (Ibrahim) Hooper. Accompanying
them were former U.S. Representative Paul Findley and Don
Myers, a former DoD official now with Hill and Knowlton
public relations.
4.(U) During their hour-long meeting in the Embassy, the
group presented various projects that CAIR is working on to
counter negative stereotypes about Muslims in the U.S.
(``Islamophobia''), linking their work to concern over
growing anti-Americanism in the Middle East. One of the
current CAIR projects they discussed was the presentation of
``accurate books about Islam'' to schools and libraries in
the U.S.
5.(SBU) Mr. Don Myers, representing Hill and Knowlton, gave
a short demonstration of a CAIR-funded media campaign to
support CAIR's overall information outreach effort. According
to Myers, this private campaign will emphasize both
grassroots outreach to improve American non-Muslim
understanding of Muslims and the encouragement of political
engagement by American Muslims. The multi-year broadcast and
print campaign is to be entitled ``Let the Conversation
Begin'' and is aimed at countering negative stereotypes about
Muslims within the broad American public.
6.(SBU) One admitted reason for the group's current visit
to the KSA was to solicit $50 million in governmental and
non-governmental contributions. PA Counselor noted that
private outreach activities can provide valuable support to
USG efforts to build mutual understanding overseas but
cautioned that USG Public Diplomacy (PD) funds cannot be used
or associated with efforts to target American audiences. The
delegation was interested to hear of the Embassy's PD
exchange and activities within the KSA and offered to help
support them in any appropriate way. The group did not share,
however, any details of their success or lack thereof in
fundraising within the KSA.
Oberwetter.
____


American Muslims Commend FBI for Rejection of CAIR

Thirty years have passed since the Iranian revolution and
29 years since the first Islamist murder in the U.S.--that of
`Ali Akbar Tabataba'i in a Washington, D.C., suburb. More
than seven years ago, America received a wake-up call, on
September 11, 2001, about radical Islam. However
straightforwardly evil these events, they left U.S.
authorities mostly baffled by extremism among American
Muslims.
One disturbing example of this confusion has involved the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Council on American-
Islamic Relations (CAIR).
Almost from CAIR'S founding in 1994, the FBI has worked
with the organization, which successfully presented itself as
the ``Muslim NAACP,'' letting CAIR train bureau personnel and
serve as a liaison to the American Muslim community. CAIR
concentrated on terror-related law enforcement such as
sensitivity in investigating extremist suspects and
allegations of profiling.

[[Page H6672]]

Now, at last, the FBI-CAIR relationship has changed.
In a letter dated March 9, 2009, FBI Assistant Director
John Miller wrote to U.S. Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va)
confirming that the bureau has ``suspended any formal
engagement with Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
field offices around the country.'' He explained that this
adjustment ``comes in part as a result of evidence gathered
through FBI investigation and presented in connection with
the Holy Land Foundation trial. CAIR was listed as an
unindicted co-conspirator in that case.''
Miller referred to the Holy Land Foundation, or HLF, having
been convicted of terror financing in November 2008.
CAIR and its allies in the ``Wahhabi lobby'' reacted
aggressively to the FBI's decision to distance itself from
CAIR. Ten extremist Muslim groups announced on March 17,
2009, that they are ``considering suspending outreach
relations with the FBI'' based on vague claims that
``American mosques and Muslim groups have been targeted.''
CAIR's supporters included American Muslims for Palestine,
the Islamic Circle of North America, and the Muslim Students
Association, as well as the leading pro-Iranian Muslim
element in America, the Islamic Educational Center of Orange
County, Ca.
We, the undersigned American Muslims, have long known the
true character of CAIR and its allies. Therefore:
We observe that they denounce ``terrorism'' in general
terms but not the specific actions of Islamist groups like
Hamas or Hezbollah. They denounce violence but not the
ideologies behind it.
We observe their commitment to radical aims, their attempts
to chill free speech by calling critics of radical Islam
``Islamophobes,'' and their false, ugly accusations against
moderate American Muslims who disagree with their agenda.
We reject any claim that CAIR and its supporters are
legitimate civil liberties advocates or appropriate partners
between the U.S. government and American Muslims.
We congratulate the FBI for adopting a firmer attitude
toward CAIR, as a defense of Americans of all faiths from the
menace of radical Islam, including Muslims of all
backgrounds--Sunni, Shia, Sufi, secular, etc.
We call on the U.S. Department of Justice to affirm and
continue this decision.
We call on the entire United States government to follow
suit in rejecting relations with the Council on American-
Islamic Relations.
Dr. Kemal Silay, President, Center for Islamic Pluralism,
www.islamicpluralism.org;
Supna Zaidi, Assistant Director, Islamist Watch,
www.islamist-watch.org;
M. Zuhdi Jasser, American Islamic Forum for Democracy,
www.aifdemocracy.org;
Imaad Malik, Fellow, Center for Islamic Pluralism;
Dr. Ahmed Subhy Mansour, International Quranic Center,
www.ahl-alquran.com;
Khalim Massoud, reformislam@gmail.com;
Nawab Agha Mousvi, American Muslim Congress and Center for
Islamic Pluralism;
Kiran Sayyed, Council for Democracy and Tolerance, http://
cfdnt.com/;
Stephen Suleyman Schwartz, Executive Director, Center for
Islamic Pluralism;
Shia.Protest@yahoo.com;
Dr. Jalal Zuberi, Southern U.S. Director, Center for
Islamic Pluralism.

I plan to take the remainder of my time to explore many of these same
concerns and talk about why everything I've read, studied and observed
has led me to believe that the Bureau's decision is not only defensible
but advisable and that it ought to, in fact, inform the actions of
other public officials, policymakers and the press, many of whom
consistently--and I would argue mistakenly--look to CAIR to speak for
mainstream Muslim Americans.
Zhudi Jasser, himself a Muslim and president of the Islamic Forum for
Democracy, makes a critical distinction between ``Islam'' and
``Islamism.'' ``Islam'' is, of course, a faith which has an estimated
worldwide following of over 1 billion people. ``Islamism,'' however,
according to Mr. Jasser, is ``a coercive governmental and political
construct that seeks to impose shar'ia--Islam jurisprudence--upon
society.''
In 2007, in the publication Family Security Matters, Jasser wrote
that CAIR uses ``the protection of religion when the facts are not on
their side. They use the discourse of politics when they want to push
forth their Islamist agenda with the presumption of speaking for all
Muslims. They will delve into the political only on their own terms in
both foreign and domestic policy, but when they are on the receiving
end of political criticism, they run for cover under the guise of
victimization.'' A dispassionate look at CAIR's public posture shows
that Mr. Jasser's observations ring true.
In 1998, I authored the legislation that created the National
Commission on Terrorism. That same year, in CAIR's own words from a
press release, it ``asked Muslims to contact leaders of a House-Senate
conference committee and urge them to amend or eliminate new
legislation that would create a National Commission on Terrorism.''
This was a misguided lobbying effort at best. Fortunately, it was
unsuccessful, and the bipartisan commission was authorized to conduct
its work.
A Congressional Research Service report described the main finding of
the commission this way: ``It calls on the U.S. Government to prepare
more actively to prevent and deal with a future mass casualty,
catastrophic terrorist attack.'' Regrettably, the commission's
recommendations, sent to Congress in June 2000, were generally ignored
until after the attacks of September 11, 2001, when 3,000 people were
killed, including 30 from my congressional district.
Following the commission's public report, CAIR's executive director,
Nihad Awad, said in a June 4 press release, ``The fight against
terrorism is one that should be undertaken, but that struggle should
not be based on stereotypes, false assumptions or the political agendas
of foreign governments. If the past is any indication, all or most of
these new provisions will be used to target Muslims in this country and
worldwide. It is American Muslim groups whose fund-raising will be
restricted. It is Muslim students who will be monitored.''
Indeed, the FBI has restricted the fund-raising of some Muslim
groups, but only when those organizations have been found to be a cover
for terrorist financing, as was true most notably with the Holy Land
Foundation.
When the Holy Land Foundation was shuttered 3 months after 9/11, CAIR
warned in a December 4, 2001, press release that this was an ``unjust
and counterproductive move that can only damage America's credibility
with Muslims in this country and around the world and could create the
impression that there has been a shift from a war on terrorism to an
attack on Islam.'' This purported ``attack on Islam'' proved to be
baseless in the face of the Holy Land Foundation verdicts.
A November 25, 2008, Department of Justice press release following
the initial verdicts in the foundation case quotes Patrick Rowan,
Assistant Attorney General for National Security. He says, ``For many
years, the Holy Land Foundation used the guise of charity to raise and
funnel millions of dollars to the infrastructure of the Hamas terrorist
organization. This prosecution demonstrates our resolve to ensure that
humanitarian relief efforts are not used as a mechanism to disguise and
enable support for terrorist groups.''
As I noted earlier, CAIR was named as an unindicted coconspirator in
the Holy Land Foundation case, which makes its cautionary word about
the ``injustice'' of closing the ``charity'' suspect.
In a Federal court filing from December 2007, Federal prosecutors
described CAIR as ``having conspired with other affiliates of the
Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists.'' The government also stated
``proof that the conspirators used deception to conceal from the
American public their connections to terrorists was introduced'' in the
Holy Land Foundation trial.

{time} 1330

In a footnote, government prosecutors pointed out: ``From its
founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other
affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists.''
Further, according to Senate testimony, CAIR received a $5,000
donation for the Holy Land Foundation. Initially, in written testimony
submitted September 10, 2003, to the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Technology and Homeland Security, CAIR denied that this was the case.
Specifically, Mr. Awad said claims to the contrary were ``an outright
lie. Our organization did not receive any seed money from the'' Holy
Land Foundation. But when confronted with the IRS form on which the
Holy Land Foundation disclosed the contribution, Mr. Awad changed his
position in supplemental testimony submitted to the subcommittee saying
that the amount in question was a donation like any other.
CAIR ultimately filed an amicus brief seeking removal from the list
of unindicted coconspirators in the Holy Land Foundation case. In
September of 2007, prosecutors made several arguments in favor of
maintaining CAIR

[[Page H6673]]

status, saying: ``CAIR has been identified by the government at trial
as a participant in an ongoing and ultimately unlawful conspiracy to
support a designated terrorist organization, a conspiracy from which
CAIR never withdrew.''
The Holy Land Foundation trial revealed more about CAIR than simply
its ties to that particular entity. Rather, the trial brought to light,
in the public square, the genesis of the organization. According to an
October 14, 2008, Dallas Morning News story: ``Testimony has suggested
that CAIR's founder Omar Ahmad and it's current executive director,
Nihad Awad, participated in a 1993 meeting of purported Hamas
sympathizers. Some Holy Land defendants attended the Philadelphia
meeting, bugged by the FBI.''
A day later, the Dallas Morning News reported that FBI special agent
Lara Burns testified during the Holy Land Foundation case that CAIR
``was formed in the aftermath of a 1993 meeting by Palestinian
activists in America who brainstormed ways to spread pro-Hamas messages
here without attracting too much attention.''
A Department of Justice press release issued on November 24, 2008,
when the Holy Land Foundation verdicts came down: ``The government case
included testimony that in the early 1990s, Hamas' parent organization,
the Muslim Brotherhood, planned to establish a network of organizations
in the U.S. to spread a militant Islamist message and to raise money
for Hamas. . . . HLF became the chief fundraising arm for the Palestine
Committee in the U.S. created by the Muslim Brotherhood to support
Hamas. According to a wiretap of a 1993 Palestine Committee meeting in
Philadelphia, former Holy Land Foundation President and CEO Shukri Abu
Baker spoke about playing down Hamas' ties in order to keep raising
money in the U.S. Another wiretapped phone call included Abdulrahman
Odeh, Holy Land Foundation's New Jersey representative, referring to a
suicide bombing as `a beautiful operation.' ''
According to a National Review article in the pre-CAIR days, both
Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmad were top officers in the Islamic Association
for Palestine. Former FBI counterterrorism chief Oliver ``Buck'' Revell
called Awad's former employer, the Islamic Association for Palestine,
``a front organization for Hamas that engages in propaganda for Islamic
militants.''
A September 24, 2001, L.A. Times story described the connection
between the Islamic Association of Palestine and the Holy Land
Foundation this way: ``The IAP and the Holy Land were founded and
funded by Mousa abu Marzook. . . . He's also the political leader of
the terrorist group Hamas.''
Andrew McCarthy, a formal Federal prosecutor who led the 1995
prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the ``blind sheik'' who
was found guilty of planning the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, in a
National Review article notes that there are ``several persons
connected to CAIR who have been convicted of Federal felonies including
terrorism.''
McCarthy includes in the group Ghassan Elashi, one of the founding
members of CAIR's Dallas-area chapter, and also co-founder and former
chairman of the Holy Land Foundation. According to July 9, 2007, Dallas
Morning News report, Elashi was sentenced to ``nearly 7 years in prison
for doing business with a terrorist and violating export laws.'' In a
1994 forum discussion videotaped at Barry University, CAIR's Mr. Awad
said, ``I'm in support of the Hamas movement.'' CAIR has subsequently
sought to discredit his video on his Web site by saying this quote was
in response to a specific question and that Hamas was only designated a
``foreign terrorist organization,'' in January 1995 and did not commit
its first wave of suicide bombings until late 1994 after Mr. Awad made
the comment. It is noteworthy that Hamas' 1988 covenant describes
itself as ``one of the wings in the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine''
and says that ``the day of judgment will not come about until Muslims
fight Jews and kill them.''
CAIR's defense and Mr. Awad's quote based simply on chronology is
wanting in light of Hamas' founding principles which clearly embrace
violence. As the Washington Post's Richard Cohen wrote in April of
2009: ``Read the Hamas charter. It is not some uplifting cry of a
downtrodden people seeking its freedom but a repellant anti-Semitic
screed.''
CAIR's mission statement focuses on protecting the civil rights of
Muslims in America and on improving Islam's image. But CAIR's action
under the umbrella of civil rights raises troubling questions.
In November 2006, US Airways removed six imams from a flight
following passenger reports of unusual behavior. An Investor's Business
Daily piece described the imams' action this way: ``At the gate before
boarding, they angrily cursed the U.S. Then they bowed to Mecca and
prayed `very loud' shouting `Allah Allah, Allah' according to the gate
agent and another witness. On the plane, they didn't take their
assigned seats and instead fanned out to the front, the middle, and the
rear of the plane. . . . Some ran back and forth speaking to each other
in Arabic. Adding to suspicions, most of them asked for seatbelt
extensions even though they didn't need them--or even use them.
``Following the incident, the imams and CAIR filed a lawsuit against
US Airways, the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission
and `John Doe' passengers,'' meaning the passengers on the plane.
Omar Mohammedi, the New York attorney who represented the imams, was
a former president for the board of directors for CAIR, New York. The
suit charged that the John Doe passengers ``may have made false reports
against plaintiffs solely with the intent to discriminate against them
on the basis of their race, religion, ethnicity and national origin.''
CAIR subsequently called on the Department of Justice to investigate
violations of civil liberties for the six religious leaders taken off
the plane.
The then-president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a
Washington, DC public interest-based law firm protecting the free
expression of all religious traditions, wrote the following letter to
CAIR regarding suit against the John Doe passengers:
``This is a first for us. We have never opposed someone else's claim
for religious discrimination but this tactic of threatening suit
against ordinary citizens is so far beyond the traditions of civil
rights litigation in the United States that we must oppose it to defend
the good name of religious liberty itself.''

It is noteworthy that the Becket Fund has successfully argued cases
for Muslims including securing a place for Muslim public school
students in Texas to pray. In March of 2007, the Arizona Republic
called the suit against ordinary citizens ``intimidation by lawsuit.''
On April 9, 2007, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that CAIR's
Ibrahim Hooper had a notably different take: ``It is wrongheaded for
observers to be suspicious of innocent behavior. Praying or asking for
a seatbelt extension--simply because a Muslim `That Muslim is wearing a
tie,' Hooper scoffed. `He can take it off and strangle someone.' ''
The U.S. Department of Transportation conducted an investigation
following the passenger complaints and found that US Airways did not
discriminate against the six imams when it removed them. In a letter to
CAIR's acting legal director, the assistant general counsel for
Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings wrote the following: ``We find the
decision to remove the imams from the aircraft was based on information
available to the captain at the time and was reasonable . . . it
appears that the captain decided to remove the imams because of
security concerns as a result of the sum of the imams' actual and
perceived behavior, not their race or ethnicity. The fact that the
captain's concerns were not borne out in hindsight does not make the
action that he took discriminatory.''
CAIR's approach in this case was not simply an inconvenience. Rather,
it had potential security implications as well. Airports nationwide
implore travelers to report suspicious activities. Signs on major
highways, bridges and tunnels throughout America do the same. New York
Metropolitan Transit Authority introduced an ad campaign which has been
adopted by municipalities around the country as part of their own anti-
terrorism campaign. The ad features the following admonition: if you
see something, say something.

[[Page H6674]]

But CAIR would have had Americans thinking, If you see something,
think twice before you say something, lest you get mired in a lawsuit.
USA Today editorialized in the days following the imams' suit and said:
``This legal tactic seems designed to intimidate passengers willing to
do exactly what authorities have requested--say something about
suspicious activity.'' The paper went on to report that ``the imams
want to know the names of an elderly couple who turned around to watch
and then made cell phone calls presumably to authorities.''
In a response to the incident at the Minneapolis Airport, Congressman
Peter King, the ranking member on the House Homeland Security
Committee, and Congressman Steve Pearce first moved to provide immunity
to those on public transportation who report suspicious activity
through a recommittal motion to the Rail and Public Transportation
Security Act of 2007, which the House overwhelmingly passed in March
2007 by a vote of 304-121.
Later in the 110th Congress, despite CAIR's public lobbying effort,
Mr. King and Senator Joe Lieberman were successful in adding a section
to the 9/11 Commission Implementation Act, Public Law 11053, which
provides legal immunity to individuals who report terrorists or
suspicious activity which they see on trains or planes to law
enforcement.
In what has become a familiar refrain, Nihad Awad, on FOX News, March
31, 2007, said that Peter King's legislative efforts were encouraging
Islamophobia. In fact, the bill language had the potential to encourage
other John Does who encounter suspicious activity to report it to
authorities.
CAIR's funding is also a source of interest. Apart from the financial
link with Holy Land Foundation, there is much that is unclear as to
whether and to what degree CAIR is receiving contributions from foreign
governments. In a March 2007 interview with the Chicago Tribune, Ahmed
Rehab, CAIR-Chicago's executive director, said, ``Neither CAIR chapters
nor the national office solicits or accepts money from any foreign
government.''
A January 2007 open letter on CAIR's Web site says they are ``proud
to receive support of every individual, whether Muslim, Christian,
Jewish, or of another faith background, who supports the mission of
promoting justice and mutual understanding as long as they are not an
official of any foreign government and there are no strings attached to
the request.''
Yet in a sensitive, but unclassified, May 2006 State Department cable
which was brought to my attention, U.S. embassy staff in Abu Dhabi
cabled that the UAE press was reporting that ``Sheikh Hamdan bin Rashid
al-Maktoum, deputy ruler of Dubai and UAE Minister of Finance and
Industry has `endorsed a proposal to build a property in the U.S. to
serve as an endowment for CAIR.'''

{time} 1345

In another sensitive, but unclassified, June 2006 State Department
cable, U.S. Embassy staff in Saudi Arabia reported the following after
meeting with a CAIR delegation. The cable said, ``One admitted reason
for the group's current visit to the KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) was
to solicit $50 million in governmental and nongovernmental
contributions.'' I submit both cables for the Record.
According to the June 2006 cable, ``The core delegation consisted of
CAIR Board Chairman Dr. Parez Ahmed, Executive Director Nihad Awad, and
Communications Director Cary (Ibrahim) Hooper.'' On an MSNBC talk show
with Tucker Carlson in September 2006, just 3 months after the trip,
Ibrahim Hooper claimed, ``To my knowledge, we don't take money from the
Government of Saudi Arabia.''
I want to make it clear that it is important to understand that
American Muslims, like all Americans, are entitled to organize,
advocate, and engage in the political process; such are the makings of
a vibrant democracy. They have taken advantage of the opportunity
America provides for every background. They are teachers, doctors,
policemen, they are mothers and fathers and neighbors.
I am reminded of a young Pakistani American who is Muslim that I had
the privilege of meeting during one of my visits to Walter Reed
Hospital. I met him when he was in the midst of his physical therapy,
therapy that was necessary because he had lost both legs while in
combat in Iraq. Despite his tremendous sacrifice, he was committed to
the hard work of rehabilitation, in part because he hoped to go back to
Iraq. He was a patriot of the sort that ought to give us pause and
ought to make us proud.
I want to be absolutely clear that concerns I have with CAIR are
specific to the organization and not to the Muslim faith. Even a
passing glance at my record in Congress should put any thought to the
contrary to rest.
In Sudan, Chechnya, China, Bosnia, and Kosovo, I have spoken out in
defense of people of the Muslim faith. I have been to Sudan five times,
including leading the first congressional delegation to Darfur, where
nearly all the victims of the genocide are Muslim.
I was the only Member of Congress to visit Chechnya during the
fighting in 1995. When I returned, I condemned the violence against the
Chechen people, most of whom were Muslim, and called for a cease-fire.
I was one of the only Members to visit Muslim men in a Serb-run
prisoner of war camp in Bosnia, where I saw evidence of a modern-day
Holocaust taking place. And very early on, I began speaking out against
the ethnic cleansing and the culture of genocide against the Bosnian
people. I spoke out in favor of lifting the arms embargo against Bosnia
so that the Muslim Bosnian Government could defend itself. I have
visited Kosovo five times, and I voted and spoke out on the floor to
approve the bombing campaign to stop the Serbian atrocities against
Muslims in Kosovo.
I was one of the first Members to raise concerns about the
persecution of Muslims in China, and continue to speak out when few
others do.
Further, I was the author of the International Religious Freedom Act
which created the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom as
well as the International Religious Freedom Office at the State
Department. Central to the act was the assertion that ``freedom of
religious beliefs and practices is a universal human right and
fundamental freedom.'' The legislation, and ultimately the offices it
created, strengthens the United States' advocacy on behalf of
individuals persecuted in foreign countries on account of religion,
which, of course, includes persecuted Muslims.
America is an imperfect Nation, but a great Nation, a ``shining city
on a hill'' as described by our Founders, a beacon of hope for
persecuted and oppressed people. For centuries, the ``huddled masses''
depicted in the iconic poem at the base of the Statue of Liberty have
arrived on these shores seeking a better life for themselves and their
families.
My grandparents immigrated to America from Germany. My father served
in World War II. Part of the reason he did so was that he felt a need
to show that his loyalty was to America. Even though my grandparents
were both native German speakers, when World War I broke out, my
grandmother decided from that day forward only English would be spoken
in their home.
I share this bit of personal history to illustrate that I am
sensitive to the challenges facing new immigrants, especially during
times of war. There have been instances in our Nation's history,
especially when our country has been under attack, where the civil
liberties of certain groups of people have been violated because other
people were afraid. This is inexcusable. But this is the exception, not
the rule.
Our experiment in self-governance has been marked by an unwavering
commitment to basic freedoms for all people, among them the right to
worship according to the dictates of your conscience. Many American
Muslims left countries where such freedom is unimaginable; however, in
a pluralistic society like ours, these principles are paramount. To
silence or otherwise repress people of faith is inimical to the
American way. In a public discourse, to accuse someone of religious
bigotry or intolerance is a sure way to stifle debate.
On October 4, 2008, the editorial page editor of The Columbus
Dispatch spoke to CAIR's bent toward accusation as a means of muzzling
debate. They said, ``For many years, CAIR has waged a campaign to
intimidate and silence

[[Page H6675]]

anyone who raises alarms about the dangers of Islamic extremism. CAIR's
rationale is that discussions of Islamic extremism lead to animosity
not just toward those who twist Islam into a justification for
terrorism, but toward all who practice Islam.
``CAIR's concern is understandable, but its response is
unreasonable.'' They went on to say, ``The group acts properly when it
hammers home the point that only a small number of Muslims support
religiously motivated violence, and that targeting law-abiding Muslims
is wrong. Where CAIR errs is in labeling anyone who discusses Islamic
terrorism a bigot and hatemonger, an Islamophobe, to use CAIR's
favorite slur.'' Ironically, some of CAIR's most pointed attacks have
in fact been aimed at other Muslims who dare to have differing views.
In a 2006 Philadelphia Inquirer piece, CAIR's Hooper is quoted as
saying Zuhdi Jasser, President of the American Islamic Forum for
Democracy, who has been critical of CAIR, was ``providing others with
an opportunity to advance an agenda that is hostile to the American
Muslim community.''
Given CAIR's genesis, its associations with known terrorist entities
and individuals, and its tactics--namely, attempting to discredit
anyone who dares to speak out against its organization--their cries of
victimization and accusations of religious bigotry appear disingenuous.
And given the dangerous world in which we live today, any attempt to
literally silence honest discourse about the nature of the threats
facing our country is intolerable and must be addressed.
I stand today with other elected officials who have raised questions
about CAIR. Senator Schumer describes CAIR as an organization ``which
we know has ties to terrorism.'' Democratic Senator Dick Durbin has
said that CAIR is ``unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its association
with groups that are suspect.''
Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer withdrew an award she gave to an
official at a local CAIR chapter because she ``had concerns about
statements by some CAIR officials and about claims of financial links
to terrorism.'' And other Senators, including Republicans Jon Kyl and
Tom Coburn, have voiced support for the FBI's actions in severing ties
with CAIR.
I stand today with counterterrorism experts, including Steven
Pomerantz, the FBI's former chief of counterterrorism, who has stated,
``CAIR, its leaders, and its activities effectively give aid to
international terrorist groups.''
And perhaps most importantly, I stand with thousands of American
Muslims for whom CAIR does not speak. In June, 2007, the Washington
Times published a report which analyzed CAIR's tax documents and found
that CAIR's membership has declined by 90 percent since 9/11. Zuhdi
Jasser of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy was quoted in the
article as saying, ``This is the untold story in the myth that CAIR
represents the American Muslim population. They only represent their
membership and donors.''
In 1999, the Islamic Supreme Council of America, ISCA, issued an open
letter to all Muslims after Shaykh Kabbani, Chairman of the ISCA, spoke
at a State Department open forum on Islamic extremism and subsequently
came under public attack by several organizations, including CAIR. In
the open letter, ISCA says the organizations attacking Kabbani, among
them CAIR, ``have not quoted a single statement of Shaykh Kabbani in
full or in context. Moreover, the statements were augmented with
emotionally charged words like `promoted and generalized an
allegation,' `outrageous statements,' and `Islamophobic,' thereby
thwarting his original intention and message.'' The letter goes on to
say, ``In their action alerts, CAIR has a chronic tendency to
negatively juxtapose Islam and Americans.''
Consider, too, the words of Dr. Hedieh Mirahmadi, then general
secretary of the Islamic Supreme Council of America, quoted in a 1999
ISCA press release following this same incident. She remarked, ``The
carefully orchestrated and calculated plot to intimidate Shaykh Kabbani
into retracting his statements only goes to prove the unwillingness to
tolerate differences of opinion and belief, as well as the extent to
which they would go to silence the voice of opposition.''
Or consider the testimony of Zeyno Baran, a prominent Turkish
American scholar who is presently a senior fellow at the Hudson
Institute. In July of 2008, speaking before the Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, she stated that she
believed CAIR ``was created by the Muslim Brotherhood to influence the
U.S. Government, Congress, and NGOs, along with academic and media
groups'' and lamented that, ``despite being founded by leading
Islamists, CAIR has successfully portrayed itself as a mainstream
Muslim organization over the past 15 years and has been treated as such
by many U.S. Government officials.''
Or most recently, an April 2009 advertisement in Weekly Standard
authored by ``American Muslims,'' applauded the FBI for rejecting CAIR.
The signatories included representatives of six different
organizations, and I submit a copy of the ad for the Record. The
signatories wrote, ``We observe that they (CAIR) denounce `terrorism'
in general terms, but not the specific actions of Islamic groups like
Hamas or Hezbollah. They denounce violence, but not the ideologies
behind it.'' Further, the group acknowledged CAIR's ``attempts to chill
free speech by calling critics of radical Islam `Islamophobes.' ''
Finally, I would like to close my speech by recognizing the men and
women of the FBI and the hard work they do every day to keep this
country safe, and to restate the FBI's own words, ``Until we can
resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its
executives and Hamas, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate
liaison partner.''
I completely agree.
R 221435Z MAY 06
FM AMEMBASSY ABU DHABI
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 5272
INFO AMCONSUL DUBAI

UNCLAS ABU DHABI 002127
SENSITIVE
FOR NEA/ARP, NEA/PPD; INFO NEA/FO, R

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: KISL, SOCI, PHUM, PGOV, KDEM, AE
SUBJECT: VISIT BY COUNCIL ON AMERICAN ISLAMIC RELATIONS
(CAIR) TO UAE
1.(U) On May 21, the Council on American Islamic Relations
(CAIR) paid a courtesy call on the Ambassador to discuss the
organization's issues, outreach strategies, and its visit to
the UAE. The UAE press has reported that Sheikh Hamdan bin
Rashid al-Maktoum, Deputy Ruler of Dubai and UAE Minister of
Finance and Industry, ``has endorsed a proposal to build a
property in the U.S. to serve as an endowment for CAIR.''
DCM, PAO and MEPI Regional Director also participated in the
meeting.
2.(U) The group expressed ideas about countering negative
stereotypes about Muslims in the U.S. (``Islamophobia'') and
addressing anti-Americanism in the Middle East. They
mentioned previous meetings with State Department officials,
U/S Karen Hughes and A/S David Welch, their attendance at the
Secretary's Iftar, and spoke of a possible meeting with
President Bush in the future.
3.(U) Mr. Don Myers, representing Washington, D.C. public
relations firm Hill & Knowlton, provided a short
demonstration of a PR campaign designed to support CAIR's
overall organizational objectives defined as: 1) political
empowerment of Muslims, 2) grassroots effort by CAIR to
improve community relations with non-Muslims, 3) launching of
an effective, long-term (5 year) advertising/outreach
campaign to counter negative stereotypes about Muslims.
4.(U) Members of the CAIR delegation included: Hon. Larry
Shaw, Senator (North Carolina General Assembly); Hon. Paul
Findley, Former U.S. Representative; Don Myers, Washington,
D.C. public relations firm Hill & Knowlton; Nihad Awad, CAIR
Executive Director and Co-Founder; Cary (Ibrahim) Hooper,
CAIR Communication Director and Co-Founder; Dr. Parvez Ahmed,
CAIR Board Chairman; and Dr. Nabil Sadoun, CAIR Board Member.
5.(U) CAIR delegation also paid a call earlier in the day
on Sheikh Sultan bin Muhammad al-Qassimi, Ruler of Sharjah,
which was covered in the press.
6.(U) Sheikh Ali al-Hashemi, UAE Presidential Adviser on
Islamic affairs, is hosting a reception at his house this
evening, May 22, in honor of the CAIR group; Ambassador and
PolOff to attend. Al-Hashemi also thanked the Ambassador for
receiving the CAIR delegation.
7.(SBU) Comment: CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad told us
that while they were pleased with the results of the meeting
with Sheikh Hamdan bin Rashid, they had no concrete
information on the size of the endowment or when it might be
forthcoming. Awad also mentioned that the Bin Hamoodah Group,
a $500 million/year trading company, founded by three Emirati
brothers and representing Haliburton, IBM, FMC Corporation

[[Page H6676]]

and General Motors, is CAIR's main benefactor in the UAE. One
newly-rich stock trader, Talal Khoori (UAE national of
Iranian origin), is believed to have donated one million
dollars to CAIR.
Sison.
P 281502Z JUN 06
FM AMEMBASSY RIYADH
TO SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 9065
INFO GULF COOPERATION COUNCIL COLLECTIVE
AMCONSUL JEDDAH

UNCLAS RIYADH 005172
SENSITIVE

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: SCUL, KDEM, KISL, PGOV, PHUM, SOCI, SA
SUBJECT: VISIT BY COUNCIL ON AMERICAN ISLAMIC RELATIONS
(CAIR) TO SAUDI ARABIA

REF: ABU DHABI 2127

1.(U) Following up on a similar visit to the UAE in May
(reftel), a delegation from the U.S.-based Council on
American Islamic Relations (CAIR) visited the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia (KSA) in June. On June 22 the group paid a
courtesy call on the Embassy to discuss the organization's
issues and outreach strategies. In the Ambassador's absence,
DCM received the group, along with the PA Counselor and
Poloff (notetaker).
2.(SBU) Prior to coming to Riyadh, the CAIR group visited
Mecca and Jeddah. Although they apparently were not received
at the highest levels of the SAG, the group assured the
Embassy that ``King Abdullah knows CAIR very well'' and
receives regular updates on the group's projects. After
recalling the success of their visit to the UAE in May, the
group predicted that they would be back in the region by fall
to visit Kuwait and Qatar. The group also mentioned that they
had been well-received in Washington by senior State
Department officials, including Secretary Rice and
Undersecretary Hughes.
3.(U) The core delegation consisted of CAIR Board Chairman
Dr. Parvez Ahmed, Executive Director Nihad Awad, and
Communications Director Cary (Ibrahim) Hooper. Accompanying
them were former U.S. Representative Paul Findley and Don
Myers, a former DoD official now with Hill and Knowlton
public relations.
4.(U) During their hour-long meeting in the Embassy, the
group presented various projects that CAIR is working on to
counter negative stereotypes about Muslims in the U.S.
(``Islamophobia''), linking their work to concern over
growing anti-Americanism in the Middle East. One of the
current CAIR projects they discussed was the presentation of
``accurate books about Islam'' to schools and libraries in
the U.S.
5.(SBU) Mr. Don Myers, representing Hill and Knowlton, gave
a short demonstration of a CAIR-funded media campaign to
support CAIR's overall information outreach effort. According
to Myers, this private campaign will emphasize both
grassroots outreach to improve American non-Muslim
understanding of Muslims and the encouragement of political
engagement by American Muslims. The multi-year broadcast and
print campaign is to be entitled ``Let the Conversation
Begin'' and is aimed at countering negative stereotypes about
Muslims within the broad American public.
6.(SBU) One admitted reason for the group's current visit
to the KSA was to solicit $50 million in governmental and
non-governmental contributions. PA Counselor noted that
private outreach activities can provide valuable support to
USG efforts to build mutual understanding overseas but
cautioned that USG Public Diplomacy (PD) funds cannot be used
or associated with efforts to target American audiences. The
delegation was interested to hear of the Embassy's PD
exchange and activities within the KSA and offered to help
support them in any appropriate way. The group did not share,
however, any details of their success or lack thereof in
fundraising within the KSA.
Oberwetter.



____________________