September 23, 2004 by s.z.

They Don't Make Spy Rings Like They Used To Espionage Charges Dropped in Gitmo Case The government dropped espionage charges yesterday against a Syrian-born translator at the Guantanamo Bay military prison, the third time in recent months that investigators have withdrawn security-related charges against a serviceman at the detention facility for suspected al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. In an agreement with military prosecutors, Senior Airman Ahmad Halabi, who once faced 30 charges of spying and aiding the enemy that potentially carried the death penalty, pleaded guilty to four less serious charges. Halabi is the second Muslim serviceman at the base -- and the third person overall -- to be cleared of serious accusations in cases that once led authorities to suspect a widespread espionage ring at the prison on a U.S. Navy base in Cuba Since it's so much fun, let's revisit what our Townhall friends said last year about that Muslim "fifth column" at Guantanamo: John Leo The military prison at Guantanamo Bay is the most secure facility the United States has ever built. At least it’s supposed to be. But it’s beginning to look as though Muslim terrorists or their sympathizers may have already figured out how to penetrate it. Mona Charen This ought to shut up our European detractors who've been screaming that we are torturing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Not only do we provide the inmates there with medical care, surgery, dentistry, reading matter, familiar and religiously permitted foods, copies of the Koran and religious services -- we've also provided spies. Two, at least -- and counting -- to judge from news reports. [...] Does this mean that there are no loyal American Muslims? Obviously not. But it does suggest that simple common sense should dictate caution on the part of our government.   Michelle Malkin Islamist Fifth Columnists are benefiting from the very guarantees of religious freedom being denied to devout Christian soldiers such as Daniel Moody who are risking their lives for the War on Terror overseas.  This dangerous deference to radical Islam -- rooted in a cowardly fear of offending -- is not only a threat to our soldiers' constitutionally protected rights, but to our national security. Frank Gaffney, Jr.   Almost exactly six months ago, at the start of the liberation of Iraq, this column warned that a “fragging” incident at the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom “could be the precursor for a far larger and more dangerous problem, both for the military and for American society more generally.  Call it the ‘Fifth Column syndrome.’”  [...] Muslims in uniform have a potentially important contribution to make to the national security, just as their civilian counterparts can contribute greatly to the commonweal.  We cannot, however, allow Islamists among them to use our guarantees of religious freedom – or, for that matter, other civil liberties – to destroy the U.S. military and governmental institutions established over two centuries ago to promote and safeguard those liberties, and the millions of Americans of all faiths who hold them dear. As I said back in December, I think you can expect apologies to be forthcoming from Leo, Mona, Michelle, and Frank for having rushed to judgement (and for having been too quick to look for an Islamic conspiracy behind the Gitmo incidents).   And I'm sure that Congressman John Kyl (R-Arizona), as well as the Washington Times and the Pentagon, will add their own regrets for having overreacted and sensationalized things too.  Just don't hold your breath. 7:23:54 AM

Hey, Women Can Vote! Today's big political story (as featured in the Wash Post, Christian Science Monitor, NY Times, Boston Herald, Guardian etc.) is that some polls show Kerry losing the registered female voters, and it could cost him the election -- unless the single women come through for him! Everyone points out that women traditionally have voted for the issues which the Democrats stress, such as health care, education, and Social Security.  But recently, women say they are voting for Bush -- mostly because of how Bush has made them believe that he can keep them safe from terrorists. From the CSM: Particularly over the past month, the president gets credit for making the war in Iraq part of the war on terror in many women's minds. While women used to give Senator Kerry an advantage on the Iraq war, they now give Bush a 10-point advantage, Ms. Lake says. And, she adds, "even though they give Kerry a 16-point advantage on the economy, they're not focused on it." Apparently the fact that Bush keeps saying that he's tough on terror, plus the terrorist incident at the school in Beslan, have convinced some women that Bush is all that stands between them and murderous Arabs. Per Susan Carroll, senior scholar at the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University: "It's the combination of the Republican convention and Bush hammering at that message, plus recent events in Russia," says Ms. Carroll, referring to the terrorist takeover and massive death toll at a school in southern Russia. That tragedy, which took place in a remote location, reminded Americans that an attack could come anywhere. Some voters give Bush credit for the lack of terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11. Yes, and Homer credited that magic rock with keeping away the tigers. The NY Times points out how Bush is wooing women: Just as Mr. Kerry is trying to win back women, Mr. Bush is seeking to do what Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser, has vowed to do this year: challenge the Democrats on their own turf; in this case, make a pitch directly to women. Mr. Bush frequently tells audiences about the newfound freedoms for Afghan women who were liberated when the United States toppled the Taliban. His campaign rallies often feature signs saying "W stands for Women.'' On Tuesday Mr. Bush, who has presented himself as the nation's defender in chief, spoke directly of the attack this month in Russia, where extremists killed more than 300 people, half of them children, at a school. In a speech at the United Nations, he mentioned a grieving mother whose son was safe but who had lost her nephew in the shooting. "The Russian children did nothing to deserve such awful suffering and fright and death,'' Mr. Bush said. John Kerry, on the other hand, thinks that little children (including YOUR little children) deserve suffering, fright, and death.  Vote Bush: he opposes the deaths of children -- except for the ones who deserve it. And it seems that women, sadly, are stupid, and worry about their children being killed by Islamic terrorists at the Podunk Elementary School --  when, of course, the kids are much more likely to drown in the bathtub, or commit suicide with that gun kept in the nightstand for security. "You've seen women much, much more concerned than men that an attack could happen in their hometown,'' said Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster who specializes in female voters.  [...] Ed Goeas, a Republican pollster, said that when voters are asked, "Are you worried about being a target of a terrorist attack?'' generally men in big cities said they were but men elsewhere were not, while "women everywhere felt that was true.'' So, Bush seems to have convinced women that they are a hell of lot less safe since we invaded Iraq, and we need to reelect him or our children get it! The Wash Post presents a typical Security Mom: Still, the dominating issue is national security. "I do worry about safety," said Jeanne McAleer, 42, a mother of three in the Dayton, Ohio, area. "I feel like Bush would make the decisions necessary and spend the money to keep us safe. A possible terrorist attack scares the heck out of me. I'd rather do without and have this taken care of." So Bush, who tried to do the Iraq war on the cheap, is the man who would spend the money to keep us safe -- but unfortunately, that money will go to Halliburton, which will waste billions of it, and enrich the coffers of Dick Cheney with some of the rest.  However, I will say one thing for Bush: he did mortgage our children's future so that we can have a tax cut.  Plus, he's so macho! And, since women are idiots, both candidates are trying to prove to them how macho they are.  Here's more on that from the CSM: Bush and Kerry have also done much image-shaping this campaign season, some of it with a gender-oriented slant. In one turn, they are both flexing their macho muscles - Kerry being the gun-toting, motorcycle-riding, expletive-using he-man while Bush clears brush at his ranch and makes jokes about his Texas swagger. To some women, all that may be a turnoff - but in this post-9/11 world, analysts say, just as many of the "security moms" want a little macho in the White House (or a lot). Those women probably think that Rambo would make a great President, because he would single-handedly invade the Middle East and kill all the evildoers, thus saving little Billy and Sally from certain death. And Bush, who keeps saying that he's steadfast and resolute, has convinced some women that he's strong, pigheaded, and inflexible -- and apparently women like that.  But what they reportedly don't like is candidates who don't punch out those who defame them.  Per a "Democratic strategist" quoted in the NY Times piece, Kerry's failure to fight back against the SwiftVets gave married women the idea that "he would not fight for them and their children."   But I don't think I buy that, because I don't see many women thinking that Zell Miller is the kind of guy you'd want in charge in a crisis because he challenges TV news personalities to duels for dissing him. The Boston Herald has more about the Democratic efforts to woo women: John Kerry spent his week wonking foreign policy at NYU, pleading with Florida voters and even doing the Top 10 list on Letterman. But five words from a former soap star may have done more than anything to get the candidate out of his current sticky campaign spot. "You are very, very handsome,'' gushed ABC's Kelly Ripa. The comment offered Kerry an easy in with the women who love Ripa and flock to the show. The Kelly Ripa Soap Moms: a highly coveted demographic. And the Guardian has more about Bush's studliness, with quotes from manliness experts Peggy Noonan and G Gordon Liddy. When President George Bush landed on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln last May in full battle regalia, under the banner Mission Accomplished, the election looked like a done deal and commentators moved on to the aesthetics. This display of hypermasculinity in the midst of wartime, some concluded, would have a particular appeal for women voters. Republican speechwriter Peggy Noonan said that she half expected Bush to "tear open his shirt and reveal the big S on his chest". One Wall Street Journal columnist pronounced him "a hottie". Rightwing talkshow host G Gordon Liddy proclaimed that the president "has just won every woman's vote in the United States of America". But I want to know which WSJ columnist has the hots for George -- I bet it's Taranto. The Guardian, of all of the papers writing about the Gender Gap today, is one of the few which explores the Wedding Ring Gap: Paradoxically, it seems that the women he appealed to most are those who are already hitched. The women most likely to be on the lookout for a "hottie", namely single women, are increasingly devoted to his Democratic rival John Kerry. With six weeks to go before the presidential election, one of the best ways to find out how a woman is likely to vote is to check her ring finger. A recent poll shows Bush ahead of Kerry among married women by 13%, while Kerry has a 25% lead among unmarried women. Indeed, the difference in voting intentions between single and married women - 38% - is far greater than that between men and women, which stands at 5%. What has been described as the "marriage gap" could prove crucial, particularly for the Democrats. Women settle on their presidential choice later than men, and so comprise most of the small number of coveted undecided voters that remain. In a race this close, the party that can identify the women who are most likely to identify with the party could make the difference between victory and defeat - so much so that pundits have invented a new political construct just for the occasion. After "angry white men" (1994), "soccer moms" (1996), the post 9/11 "security moms" (2002), and the drag-racing-fanatic "NASCAR dads" (2003), there is now the "Sex and the City voter". The Sex and the City voters!  I guess that's who Jenna was going after when she told that joke about Grandma.   But S&tC voters can not be swayed by callow 22-year-olds, party girls though they may be.  No, the candidate who promises a man in every bed and two pairs of Manolo Blahniks in every closet, will win this group. The paper gives several reasons why single women vote differently from married ones: (a) they have a lower average household income than married women do, and the wealthy usually vote Republican; (b) they don't have to vote the way their husband does in order to keep the peace; (c) they have to take care of themselves, and so are more concerned about things that effect them immediately, like health care and the economy,than they are about terrorists killing them; and (d) they have no children for George Bush to rescue from that Beslan elementary school. The experience of having children further deepens the divide. Married women with children are even more heavily Republican than those without, while childless single women are even more sympathetic to the Democrats than unmarried mothers. Of the 10 states with the highest birthrates, all but one voted for Bush in 2000. "Conservative, religious-minded Americans are putting far more of their genes into the future than their liberal and secular counterparts," wrote Phillip Longman, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, in a recent article for the Washington Post. "If Metros don't start having more children, America's future is Retro." So, apparently the only way to keep the Republicans from controlling the future is to get your genetic material out there, people!  But for now, maybe you could work on encouraging your single, female friends to vote -- because they'll probably vote for John Kerry. The Guardian agrees that the Republican outreach to women (featuring George giving tax breaks to married couples with children, and rescuing your children from those nasty foreigners; and Laura telling you how important it is to be a wife and mother, and how good George is at rescuing children from foreigners) doesn't necessarily appeal to single females. But the Republican approach also repels many singles. "Republicans have this programme of trickle-down dignity," says Bella DePaulo, who studies singles' behaviour at the University of California at Santa Barbara and is currently writing a book called Singled Out. "They portray a woman's life as in a family with mum, dad and the kids and have shut the door on anyone who doesn't fit into that." The paper also identifies why single females don't influence elections the way they could: they don't vote. For while single women are currently much more likely to vote Democrat, they are much less likely to vote at all. In 2000, Gore won the single women's vote by 31%, while Bush had just a 1% lead over married women. The trouble is, that while 62% of married women voted, only 43% of singles did. "If unmarried women in Florida had turned out in the same percentage as married women, Al Gore would have won the state easily," Democrat pollster Celinda Lake said earlier this year. Indeed, if they had turned out at just the statewide average, then Gore would have won by a relatively comfortable 63,000. So why didn't they? Because nobody asks, says DePaulo. "Just listen to the rhetoric of the politicians," she says. "It's so much family values - it's as though single people don't exist." So, I suggest that the Kerry campaign continue to emphasize the issues that appeal to single females: social security, health care, the economy, and basic competence in dealing with terrorism.  And then it should get some hot, young male (and female) volunteers to reach out to single women and invite them to register to vote.  It could win you the election! 5:54:16 AM