White House Stands Behind Rove Comments

White House Stands Behind Rove Comments

By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer
Fri Jun 24, 7:55 AM ET

WASHINGTON - A White House official said Friday the administration finds it "somewhat puzzling" that Democrats are demanding presidential adviser Karl Rove's apology or resignation for implying that liberals are soft on terrorism.

"I think Karl was very specific, very accurate, in who he was pointing out," communications director Dan Bartlett said. "It's touched a chord with these Democrats. I'm not sure why."

Congressional Republicans earlier joined the White House in standing solidly behind Rove, saying he shouldn't apologize and that he was outlining a philosophical divide between a president who sought to win the war on terrorism by taking the fight to the enemy and Democrats who questioned that approach.

The controversy, fought out in hearings, floor speeches and news conferences Thursday on Capitol Hill, was the latest of several highly contentious battles that have soured the already highly partisan atmosphere.

Earlier this week Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., apologized after being hit with a chorus of attacks from Republicans about comments in which he compared detainee treatment at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the actions of Nazis and other repressive regimes.

Rove, the architect behind President Bush's election victories, on Wednesday night told a gathering of the New York Conservative Party that "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Conservatives, he said, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

He added that groups linked to the Democratic Party made the mistake of calling for "moderation and restraint" after the terrorist attacks.

Bartlett, appearing on morning news shows Friday, said that Rove was referring in his talk to Moveon.org, a liberal group that has been identified with movie producer Michael Moore.

"It's somewhat puzzling why all these Democrats ... who responded forcefully after 9-11, who voted to support President Bush's pursuit of the war on terror, are now rallying to the defense of Moveon.org, this liberal organization who put out a petition in the days after 9-11 and said that we ought not use military force in responding to 9-11," Bartlett said on NBC's "Today" show. "That is who Karl Rove cited in that speech ... There is no need to apologize."

Appearing on CBS's "The Early Show," Bartlett said that Rove was "just pointing out that MoveOn.org is a liberal organization that didn't defend or accept the way that we prosecuted the war in the days after" the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks on New York and Washington.

Bartlett told interviewers that he didn't understand why Democrats "are throwing up such a huff."

Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record) of New York, in a letter to Rove co-signed by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Democratic senators from Connecticut and New Jersey, called the presidential adviser's speech "a slap in the face to the unity that America achieved after Sept. 11, 2001."

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Thursday there was no reason for Rove to apologize because he was "simply pointing out the different philosophies when it comes to winning the war on terrorism."

"Of course not," McClellan said when asked by reporters whether Bush would ask Rove to apologize.

Democrats said Rove, and his Republican allies, were now trying to change the subject when Democrats, and many Americans, are becoming increasingly critical of the course of the war in Iraq.

For Rove "to try to exploit 9/11 for political purposes once again just shows you how desperate they are," said House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California, who in recent days has been the target of Republican attacks for saying that the Iraq war was a "grotesque mistake."

___

On the Net:

White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov

Public Broadcasting Names New President

Public Broadcasting Names New President

by JENNIFER C. KERR, Associated Press Writer
Thu Jun 23, 1:41 PM ET

WASHINGTON - The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, already embroiled in controversy over allegations of a liberal-leaning bias in PBS programming, chose a former Republican Party co-chairman Thursday as its president and chief executive.

Patricia S. Harrison, the assistant secretary of state for educational and cultural affairs, was selected following three days of closed-door meetings by the corporation's board of directors.

Democratic lawmakers last week urged the CPB to put off choosing a new president, citing concerns about political interference by the corporation's chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson. A Republican, Tomlinson, has been critical of public affairs programming at PBS, alleging that it's too liberal.

In a letter to Tomlinson, Sens. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and others expressed dismay at the expected appointment of Harrison.

"We find it astonishing that Ms. Harrison, given her former prominence as a partisan political figure, would even be considered as a candidate for a job that demands that the occupant be non-political," the senators said in their letter.

The corporation, which was set up by Congress in 1967 to shield public broadcasting from political influence, funnels federal dollars to PBS, National Public Radio and hundreds of public radio and television stations.

In a statement, PBS said it looked forward to working with Harrison. It added: "We have every expectation that she will execute her responsibilities with nonpartisan integrity."

___

On the Net:

Public Broadcasting Service: http://www.pbs.org

Corporation for Public Broadcasting: http://www.cpb.org

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill's Comment: Wouldn't it be ironic that this entity turned a profit, or to a point that they would be one less piglet milking the government tit? Now, if we could do the same with Amtrak and other transportation authorities that always ask for more money, no questions asked.

Existing Home Sales 2nd Highest in History

Bill's Pre-Comment: More good news for The President

Existing Home Sales 2nd Highest in History

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer
Thu Jun 23, 6:24 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Sales of existing homes slowed slightly in May but still came in at the second-highest level on record, with home prices hitting an all-time high.

Sales of previously owned homes and condominiums edged down 0.7 percent last month, the National Association of Realtors reported Thursday. The small decline left sales at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 7.13 million units, down only slightly from the 7.18 million sales pace in April, which had been an all-time high.

Even with the small drop in sales, home prices moved higher, to an all-time record of $207,000 for the median price, the point where half the homes sold for more and half for less.

The new report was likely to do little to lessen concerns that the housing market in some parts of the country is caught in the grip of a speculative fever similar to the stock market bubble of the late 1990s before prices came crashing back to earth.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, while discounting the possibility of a national housing bubble, has talked of "froth" in local markets that have seen sizable run-ups in prices over the past year. He has also expressed concerns that home buyers are using types of mortgages that let them purchase more expensive homes with less of a downpayment, leaving them vulnerable if prices do fall sharply.

David Lereah, chief economist of the Realtors group, said he too was concerned about the reliance on interest-only mortgages and other types of mortgages offered with low down payments.

"I worry about a high level of questionable loans in those bubble areas. That could make those markets more fragile," Lereah said.

In other economic news, the number of Americans filing new applications for unemployment benefits fell sharply last week, signaling that job growth should remain strong in the months ahead.

The Labor Department reported that new claims for unemployment benefits fell by 20,000 last week to total 314,000, the lowest level in two months.

The good news on home sales and jobless claims was ignored on Wall Street, where investors focused instead on a poor earnings report from FedEx Corp. and on surging oil prices, which briefly moved past the psychologically important $60 per barrel mark for the first time.

The Dow Jones industrial average lost 166.49 points to close at 10,421.44.

The housing market is on track to post another record year in sales of both existing and new homes. Analysts had predicted a slight decline in activity this year after sales of new and existing homes set records for four straight years.

For May, sales of single-family homes declined 1.1 percent to an annual rate of 6.21 million units. Sales of condominiums rose 2.2 percent to an annual rate of 922,000 units.

Sales have confounded experts because mortgage rates have stayed near rock-bottom levels.

Normally mortgage rates and other long-term rates would be rising, reflecting the yearlong effort by the Federal Reserve to boost short-term interest rates to control inflation.

Instead, mortgage rates have fallen for most of this year and financial markets have kept long-term rates low, a development that Greenspan has labeled a "conundrum."

Freddie Mac reported in its weekly survey that the average rate on a 30-year fixed rate mortgage declined to 5.57 percent this week, the 10th drop in the past 12 weeks.

"This market is red hot," Lereah said. He predicted sales would remain strong through the summer as mortgage rates rise only gradually from near historic lows.

By region of the country, sales were down 3 percent in the Midwest and fell 0.7 percent in the South. Sales were flat in the Northeast and rose by 1.9 percent in the West.

Greenspan told Congress two weeks ago that he believed the economy was on a "reasonably firm footing," with inflation remaining under control and economic growth expected to remain strong in coming months.

Those comments were seen as further evidence that the Federal Reserve, which has raised interest rates eight times over the past year, will boost rates again when policy-makers meet next week — and will keep raising rates at a gradual pace through the summer and perhaps well into the fall.

___

On the Net:

Federal Reserve: http://www.federalreserve.gov

National Association of Realtors: http://www.realtor.org/

Labor Department: http://www.dol.gov

Movie retreads have hit the skids

Bill's Pre-Comment: What took them so long to figure this out?

Movie retreads have hit the skids

By Scott Bowles, USA TODAY
Wed Jun 22, 8:44 AM ET

A VW Bug and a mischievous witch are about to test moviegoers' taste for the past.

Herbie: Fully Loaded opens today, followed by Bewitched on Friday, the latest of at least seven movies and TV shows remade for the big screen this summer.

Although moviegoers may have fond memories of Ralph Kramden or Vincent Price, they aren't flocking to the new renditions of their work. Of the three remakes already out this season, only The Longest Yard has been a hit; it has taken in $132 million. The Honeymooners and House of Wax, meanwhile, have been flops.

Movie remakes are nothing new. But of late, the reception at moviehouses has been tepid for retreads of TV or movie favorites.

And if this summer's do-overs don't lure audiences, Robert Bucksbaum of industry tracker Reelsource says, the genre may be on the way out. "We're at the tail end of the bell curve, unless something really catches fire."

That won't stop Hollywood from trying. After Herbie and Bewitched, War of the Worlds returns June 29, this time with Tom Cruise. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, a redo of the 1971 Willy Wonka tale, oozes on screens July 15. The Bad News Bears arrives July 22, followed by The Dukes of Hazzard Aug. 5.

Hollywood's frenzy for familiarity may seem obvious: What's more sure-fire than a beloved character or story line given a modern-day makeover?

But remakes have proved treacherous ground. Last year's high-profile redos The Manchurian Candidate and The Stepford Wives took in less in domestic ticket sales than they cost to make.

"The studios get some comfort from properties they know," says Paul Dergarabedian of box office tracker Exhibitor Relations. "But the movies are being marketed to audiences who don't even recognize the titles."

So why keep making them?

"Because some of them work," film historian Leonard Maltin says. "If you get two or three that do mediocre business and one that's a hit, the studios will keep trying for that hit."

But a film's title is less important than casting, Maltin says. "I'll bet most kids didn't know The LongestYard was even a remake. But they knew Adam Sandler and Chris Rock were in it."

Bewitched director Nora Ephron says the key to remakes is capturing the spirit of the original.

"Bewitched had a chemistry that was unexplainable," she says. "When you can recapture that chemistry, audiences are going to respond in the same sort of way they did years ago."

Dean Answers Cheney's Barb About Mother

Dean Answers Cheney's Barb About Mother

Tue Jun 21, 5:31 PM ET

BOSTON - Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean, responding to criticism from the vice president, said he doesn't "care if Dick Cheney likes my mother or not."

The vice president said in a recent interview that Dean was not the type of person to lead a political party and mentioned the chairman's mother.

"I've never been able to understand his appeal. Maybe his mother loved him, but I've never met anybody who does. He's never won anything, as best I can tell," Cheney said in an interview on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes."

Dean was elected governor of Vermont five times between 1992 and 2000. He ran for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination but closed down his campaign after stumbling in the early primaries.

Dean has recently described the GOP as "pretty much a white, Christian party" and said many Republicans have "never made an honest living." Republican leaders have called on him to apologize, and even some Democrats have distanced themselves from his remarks.

Dean, in Boston on Monday for a fundraiser, told fellow Democrats that Republicans want a smaller government, but "their government is just big enough to fit inside Terri Schiavo's bed in the nursing home. We can do better than that."

Earlier this year, Dean, a physician, accused congressional Republicans of grandstanding in trying to keep the brain-damaged woman alive and said Democrats will use that against them in coming elections.

The party chairman also said on Monday that Democrats can win in traditionally Republican states.

"But we gotta be there and fight in order to do it. And believe me, we are going to fight back. I don't care if Dick Cheney likes my mother or not. We are going to fight back," Dean said to cheers and applause. "I think it's great that Dick Cheney went after me, to be honest. At least they notice there's a Democratic Party that's not going to put up with this stuff any more. So there's a lot we're gonna do."

Bill's Comment: What the VP said was, if I remember, that even Howard Dean's mother
doesnt like Howard Dean (or the like).

Old Spice Sweatiest Cities

Joyce Comments: This is posted at the request of Bill. Enjoy! http://www.wftv.com/health/4619160/detail.html

WFTV.com OLD SPICE SWEATIEST CITIES
2005 2004 2003 2002*

1. Phoenix 1. El Paso, Texas 1. Phoenix 1. San Antonio

2. Las Vegas 2. Greenville, S.C. 2. Houston 2. Dallas/Fort Worth

3. Tucson, Ariz. 3. Phoenix 3. Miami 3. New Orleans

4. Miami 4. Corpus Christi, Texas 4. San Antonio 4. Houston

5. Corpus Christi, Texas 5. New Orleans 5. Fort Myers, Fla. 5. West Palm Beach, Fla.

6. West Palm Beach, Fla. 6. Houston 6. West Palm Beach, Fla. 6. Orlando, Fla.

7. Houston 7. Miami 7. Tampa, Fla. 7. Memphis, Tenn.

8. Tampa, Fla. 8. West Palm Beach, Fla. 8. Waco, Texas 8. Tampa/St. Petersburg, Fla.

9. Orlando, Fla. 9. Fort Myers, Fla. 9. Austin, Texas 9. Phoenix

10. Fort Myers, Fla. 10. Las Vegas 10. New Orleans 10. Miami/Fort Lauderdale

11. San Antonio, Texas 11. Waco, Texas 11. Dallas 11. Oklahoma City

12. Honolulu 12. Tampa, Fla. 12. Las Vegas 12. Birmingham, Ala.

13. Dallas 13. Dallas 13. Orlando, Fla. 13. Atlanta

14. Montgomery, Ala. 14. Orlando, Fla. 14. Shreveport, La. 14. Nashville, Tenn.

15. New Orleans 15. San Antonio 15. Savannah, Ga. 15. St. Louis

16. Mobile, Ala. 16. Mobile, Ala. 16. Tulsa, Okl. 16. Charlotte, N.C.

17. Baton Rouge, La. 17. Savannah, Ga. 17. Memphis, Tenn. 17. Raleigh/Durham, N.C.

18. Waco, Texas 18. Austin, Texas 18. Baton Rouge, La. 18. Kansas City, Mo.

19. Jacksonville, Fla. 19. Shreveport, La. 19. Charleston, W.Va. 19.
Greenville/Spartanburg, S.C.

20. El Paso, Texas 20. Tulsa, Okl. 20. Mobile, Ala. 20. Washington, D.C.

21. Austin, Texas 21. Charleston, W. Va. 21. Jacksonville, Fla. 21. Sacramento,
Calif.

22. Charleston, W.V. 22. Honolulu 22. Jackson, Miss. 22. Norfolk/Portsmouth, Va.

23. Fresno, Calif. 23. Jacksonville, Fla. 23. Honolulu 23. Greensboro/High Point,
N.C.

24. Savannah, Ga. 24. Tucson, Ariz. 24. Tucson, Ariz. 24. Albuquerque/Santa Fe, N.M.

25. Shreveport, La. 25. Jackson, Miss. 25. Little Rock, Ark. 25. Hilo, Hawaii

26. Columbia, S.C. 26. Montgomery, Ala. 26. Wichita, Kan. 26. Baltimore

27. Memphis, Tenn. 27. Little Rock, Ark. 27. St. Louis 27. Cincinnati

28. Jackson, Miss. 28. Oklahoma City 28. El Paso, Texas 28. Philadelphia (tie)
28. Pittsburgh (tie)

29. Little Rock, Ark. 29. Columbia, S.C. 29. Paducah, Ky. 29. Harrisburg/Lancaster, Pa.

30. Birmingham, Ala. 30. Memphis, Tenn. 30. Louisville, Ky. 30. New York

31. Atlanta 31. Wichita, Kan. 31. Huntsville, Ala. 31. Salt Lake City

32. Tulsa, Okl. 32. Fresno, Calif. 32. Chattanooga, Tenn. 32. Columbus, Ohio

33. Oklahoma City 33. Norfolk, Va. 33. Columbia, S.C. 33. Hartford/New Haven, Conn.

34. Raleigh, N.C. 34. Birmingham, Ala. 34. Birmingham, Ala. 34. Chicago

35. Norfolk, Va. 35. Kansas City, Mo. 35. Norfolk, Va. 35. Denver

36. Chattanooga, Tenn. 36. St. Louis 36. Oklahoma City 36. Fresno/Visalia, Calif.

37. Richmond, Va. 37. Atlanta, Ga. 37. Nashville, Tenn. 37. Minneapolis/St. Paul.

38. Greenville, S.C. 38. Huntsville, Ala. 38. Evansville, Ind. 38. Indianapolis

39. Louisville, Ky. 39. Anchorage, Ala. 39. Atlanta 39. Detroit

40. Washington, D.C. 40. Raleigh, N.C. 40. Kansas City, Mo. 40. Grand Rapids, Mich.

41. Greensboro, N.C. 41. Albuquerque, N.M. 41. Washington, D.C. 41. Cleveland

42. Albuquerque, N.M. 42. Chattanooga, Tenn. 42. Raleigh, N.C. 42. Providence, R.I.

43. Charlotte, N.C. 43. Nashville, Tenn. 43. Greenville/Spartanburg, S.C. 43. Boston

44. Nashville, Tenn. 44. Springfield, Mo. 44. Fresno, Calif. 44. Portland, Ore.

45. Huntsville, Ala. 45. Salt Lake City 45. Richmond, Va. 45. Buffalo, N.Y.

46. Virginia Beach, Va. 46. Sacramento, Calif. 46. Albuquerque, N.M. 46. Milwaukee

47. Wichita, Kan. 47. Philadelphia 47. Charlotte, N.C. 47. Los Angeles

48. St. Louis 48. Washington, D.C. 48. Knoxville, Tenn. 48. San Diego

49. Sacramento, Calif. 49. Virginia Beach, Va. 49. Omaha, Neb. 49. Seattle

50. Knoxville, Tenn. 50. Omaha, Neb. 50. Philadelphia 50. San Francisco

51. Salt Lake City 51. Louisville, Ky. 51. Columbus, Ohio 51. Barrow, Alaska

52. Philadelphia 52. Des Moines, Iowa 52. Harrisburg, Pa.

53. Roanoke, Va. 53. Colorado Springs, Colo. 53. Lexington, Ky.

54. Evansville, Ind. 54. Charlotte, N.C. 54. Greensboro, N.C. (tie)
54. Springfield, Mo. (tie)

55. Baltimore 55. Denver 55. Baltimore

56. Omaha, Neb. 56. Spokane, Wash. 56. Indianapolis

57. Springfield, Mo. 57. Knoxville, Tenn. 57. Roanoke, Va.

58. Kansas City, Mo. 58. Minneapolis 58. Salt Lake City

59. New York 59. Portland, Ore. 59. Cincinnati

60. Lexington, Ky. 60. Greensboro, N.C. 60. Springfield, Ill.

61. Cincinnati 61. Seattle 61. Davenport, Iowa

62. Los Angeles 62. Evansville, Ind. 62. Cedar Rapids, Iowa

63. Columbus, Ohio 63. New York, N.Y. 63. Dayton, Ohio

64. Asheville, N.C. 64. Richmond, Va. (tie) 64. Des Moines, Iowa

65. Indianapolis 64. Roanoke, Va. (tie) 65. New York

66. Moline, Ill. 66. Baltimore (tie) 66. South Bend, Ind.

67. Sioux Falls, S.D. 66. Baton Rouge, La. (tie) 67. Toledo, Ohio

68. Spokane, Wash. 68. San Francisco 68. Moline, Ill.

69. San Diego 69. Chicago 69. Bristol, Tenn.

70. Toledo, Ohio 70. Lexington, Ky. 70. Altoona, Pa.

71. Hartford, Conn. 71. Springfield, Ill. 71. Denver

72. Dayton, Ohio 72. Indianapolis 72. Sacramento, Calif.

73. Des Moines, Iowa 73. Burlington, Vt. 73. Chicago

74. Boston 74. Albany, N.Y. 74. Pittsburgh

75. Providence, R.I. 75. Milwaukee, Wis. 75. Detroit

76. Portland, Ore. 76. Detroit 76. Cleveland

77. Pittsburgh 77. Madison, Wis. 77. Asheville, N.C.

78. Detroit 78. Hartford, Conn. 78. Minneapolis

79. Springfield, Ill. 79. Columbus, Ohio 79. Providence, R.I.

80. Albany, N.Y. 80. Cleveland (tie) 80. Boston

81. Cleveland 80. South Bend, Ind. (tie) 81. Hartford, Conn.

82. Fort Wayne, Ind. 82. Toledo, Ohio 82. Milwaukee

83. Chicago 83. Syracuse, N.Y. 83. Grand Rapids, Mich.

84. Minneapolis 84. Grand Rapids, Mich. 84. Wilkes-Barre/Scranton, Pa.

85. Grand Rapids, Mich. 85. Providence, R.I. 85. Flint, Mich.

86. Denver 86. Dayton, Ohio 86. Colorado Springs, Colo. (tie)
86. Syracuse, N.Y. (tie)

87. Syracuse, N.Y. 87. Boston 87. Rochester, N.Y.

88. South Bend, Ind. 88. Flint, Mich. 88. Youngstown, Ohio

89. Madison, Wis. 89. Cincinnati 89. Madison, Wis.

90. Flint, Mich. 90. Pittsburgh 90. Buffalo, N.Y.

91. Buffalo, N.Y. 91. Asheville, N.C. 91. Albany, N.Y.

92. Burlington, Vt. 92. Cedar Rapids, Iowa 92. Green Bay, Wis.

93. Youngstown, Ohio 93. Portland, Maine 93. Burlington, Vt.

94. Milwaukee, Wis. 94. Los Angeles 94. Los Angeles

95. Seattle 95. Rochester, N.Y. 95. Portland, Ore.

96. Rochester, N.Y. 96. Buffalo, N.Y. 96. San Diego

97. Portland, Maine 97. Fort Wayne, Ind. 97. Portland, Maine

98. Green Bay, Wis. 98. Green Bay, Wis. 98. Spokane, Wash.

99. Colorado Springs, Colo. 99. San Diego 99. Seattle

100. San Francisco 100. Youngstown, Ohio 100. San Francisco
Source: Old Spice


*The 2002 Sweatiest Cities list only included 51 rankings.

Public Health Advocates Cite Lack of Risk Notice on Potato Chip Bags

Pre-Comment: Source courtesy of The Drudge Report. What a joke!

Public Health Advocates Cite Lack of Risk Notice on Potato Chip Bags

Public health attorneys in California have potato chip makers in their sights for not listing a cancer-causing chemical present in many brands.

That chemical is acrylamide. It is an industrial chemical used in plastics, pesticides and sewage treatment that also can occur when starchy foods, such as chips, are processed at high temperatures. The World Health Organization has said acrylamide may be responsible for up to one-third of all cancers caused by diet, as demonstrated by laboratory animal studies. Acrylamide is already on California's list of chemicals known to cause cancer, but some chipmakers haven't listed it on their product packaging as required by Proposition 65 statute.

The attorneys have filed Proposition 65 notices with the manufacturers of Lays, Pringles, Kettle Chips and Cape Cod chips. Research has shown those brands have unsafe levels of acrylamide in some of their chip varieties. The study looked at one ounce servings, which ranged from 11 to 20 chips depending on the brand, and determined the acrylamide content was substantially more than the 0.2 micrograms per day amount which prompts the Proposition 65 warning.

The brands tested and cited for high levels of acrylamide are: Lay’s Baked!, Lay’s Stax BBQ, Lay’s KC Masterpiece. Lay’s Natural Country Barbecue, Lay’s Light KC Barbecue Masterpiece, Pringles Snack Stacks (Pizzalicious Flavor), Pringles Sweet Mesquite BBQ, Kettle Chips Lightly Salted, Kettle Chips Honey Dijon, Cape Cod Robust Russet and Cape Cod Classic Chips.

Processed food manufacturers have reportedly asked Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for a exemption to Proposition 65 labeling for foods with carcinogens caused by heat processing. The governor's office is expected to announce its decision by August.


Story last updated Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 6:58 PM

Defeat of Terror, Not Roadmap Diplomacy, Will Bring Peace

Defeat of Terror, Not Roadmap Diplomacy, Will Bring Peace

by Newt Gingrich

Middle East Quarterly
Summer 2005

Many observers hold that the death of former Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat and the subsequent election of Mahmoud Abbas to lead the Palestinian Authority have created a window of opportunity for the U.S. government to set a course for a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinian people. For the Palestinians, this should mean a democratic Palestinian state under the rule of law and the right to pursue health, prosperity, and freedom. For Israel, this should mean national security and peace. For the White House, there are both practical and moral imperatives to encourage the Israeli and Palestinian people to live together. Regional Middle East peace and security will translate into an ability in Washington to devote attention and resources to other areas of increasing strategic concern, such as the growing dangers from a nuclear-armed North Korea and the unabated poverty and disease in sub-Saharan Africa. Strategically, a protracted conflict will continue to destabilize the Middle East and complicate our relations with Europe. It is to Washington's disadvantage to have the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continue for another generation.

Israelis will face two existential threats if the war continues: first, there is a danger of growing isolation from the rest of the world as Israel's dominant military capabilities make it look like a bully and oppressor. Indeed, Israel has been losing sympathy around the world since 1982 when Ariel Sharon, then minister of defense, took the Israeli army into Beirut. For the last twenty years, the rhetoric against Israel in Europe and on the American left has grown stronger. Another generation of military reprisals, no matter how legitimate in terms of responding to terrorist killings of innocent people, may leave Israel dangerously isolated. This trend is complicated both by the increasing Muslim population in Western Europe and the European sympathy for the plight of the Palestinian people, which is increasingly leading to an acceptance of the view that terrorism is a legitimate response to the dominance of the Israeli military. European officials, trying to placate their new residents, find it easy to posit an anti-Israel stance for domestic consumption, thus unintentionally reinforcing growing anti-Semitic views inside their countries.

Second, there is the real danger that those who are determined to destroy Israel will acquire weapons of mass destruction. Such weapons are already in the hands of North Korea and Pakistan-two countries hostile to Israel's existence. The potential for these weapons to find their way into neighboring nations is troubling, in particular because Syria, which has repeatedly failed to apprehend known terrorists from within its borders, possesses a large number of chemical warheads.[1] Compounding the threat is Iran, believed by many countries to be secretly developing nuclear weapons.[2] Another generation of continuing hatred and violence could culminate in a devastating attack with horrifying casualties. Israel simply does not have the strategic depth or the ability to disperse its population sufficiently to survive a first strike of significant magnitude.

Israel's desire for safety provides a powerful incentive to seek a constructive resolution to the historic conflict. However, for the vast majority of Palestinians, there is an equally powerful imperative for dramatically improving their quality of life.

The Palestinians entered their war with Israel as a relatively wealthy, educated, and cosmopolitan people. They were in some ways among the most international and most advanced people in the Arab world. The long conflict has destroyed their hopes for a better future, left them without a viable economy, and for too long, left them without responsible leadership.

The Arab emphasis on a rigidly defined "right of return" for Palestinians-something no Arab government would grant the equally large number of Jews who migrated from Arab countries to Israel-has been an excuse to keep Palestinian refugees in United Nations camps without property, prosperity, or dignity.

Because the Palestinian Authority's underlying system of intimidation, terrorist support, and kleptocracy has been an impediment to the institutional reforms necessary to enforce the rule of law within the Palestinian-controlled territories, it is incumbent upon Abbas to demonstrate that he is serious about securing a lasting peace and improving the lives of the Palestinian people by controlling both armed terrorists and the local criminals who have for too long preyed on their own compatriots.

As a first step, Abbas must advance substantive government reform by replacing old dominant factions within the Palestinian Authority with an honest, responsible, transparent, and accountable system intolerant of terrorism and willing to live in peace with Israel. Abbas, like his predecessor, has not controlled the terrorist groups that pursue agendas irreconcilable with peace. That, however, does not permit Abbas to cease trying, nor should it let some Europeans continue to support blindly the dictatorial wing of Palestinian society. The ability of a Palestinian minority to deny the opportunity for the Palestinian people to live in peace, prosperity, and freedom should not be tolerated. Nor should Palestinian officials sympathetic to the radical minority be allowed to stay in power. Abbas should dismiss those who have sacrificed and would continue to sacrifice their people's future for their own enrichment.

Why the Oslo Agreement Failed

Any future peace proposal must understand the lessons of the past. The Oslo agreement was a tragic detour from reality. The accords assumed that Arafat could be trusted to keep his word and that engaging Arafat would bring the Palestine Liberation Organization into the civilized world and away from terrorism.

Israeli negotiators began engaging Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza as a result of the 1987-91 Palestinian intifada. But, the Arab League, European Union, and, eventually the U.S. State Department, instead pushed for the Palestine Liberation Organization leadership, long exiled and resident in Tunisia, to be recognized as the voice of the Palestinian people. That decision effectively purged local Palestinians-who had a self-interest in a durable peace-from the process. Gangs and vigilantes loyal to Arafat often intimidated and even murdered those Palestinians who sought to raise an independent voice. Ignoring warnings about the nature of their Palestinian negotiating counterpart, the Israeli government supported the creation of a 15,000-man Palestinian police force, composed largely of terrorist cadres and armed with modern weapons. Israel accepted this in the belief that these Palestinian police would hunt down and stop the terrorists.

In 1993, these hopes might have been reasonable. As a member of Congress, I sat in on a White House meeting with Arafat during the heady days of the post-Oslo Rabin-Arafat diplomacy. Arafat said all the right words. Meeting just two years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was reason to believe he was tired of conflict and wanted to end terrorism. There were hopes that he would actually promote better relations with Israel and would seek to become the founder of the new Palestinian state, even if was a smaller state than he desired.

We were warned by some voices even in 1993 that Arafat was saying more violent things in Arabic than in English. We were warned that Arafat was promising his more militant supporters that these agreements and the handshake on the White House lawn were simply tactics designed to weaken Israel, deceive the Americans, and set the stage for the elimination of Israel. As time went on, it became obvious that these warnings were accurate and that Arafat's regime was doing everything it could to set the stage for the destruction of Israel.

Tragically, the very nature of the post-Oslo aid program made it profitable for Arafat's oligarchs to sustain a program that destroyed the economy for the rest of the Palestinians. Arafat and his associates had become multimillionaires pre-Oslo by skimming money from aid programs meant to ease the suffering of the Palestinian people. Oslo awarded them an irresistible prize-payroll tax revenues collected by the Israeli government from the wages of Palestinians working in Israel. The Oslo agreement required these to be deposited monthly in bank accounts controlled by Arafat while the average Palestinian had no control, no accounting, and no choice.

Even with all the money going to enrich the Palestine Liberation Organization kleptocracy, Arafat and his faction refused to keep their word. They refused to lock up and punish terrorists and those who promoted terrorism. Intelligence officials now know they were spending more to subsidize terror than they were to pay the Palestinian security forces.

The results of the Palestine Liberation Organization perfidy are clear in human terms. In the five years after Oslo, more Israelis were killed (279 men, women, and children in 92 attacks) than in the fifteen years prior to Oslo.[3] From the Israelis' perspective, they were more at risk because of Oslo, not more secure.

Despite documentation that Arafat reached billionaire status as a result of Oslo, the reaction of the European and U.S. governments was to ignore his dishonesty, his support of terrorism, and the violation of nearly every agreement he had signed. In typical fashion, the world's prescription was more diplomacy. Repeatedly, the refrain was that if only Israel would make more concessions, and if only the right settlement of "larger issues" could be achieved, then Arafat would keep his word and terrorism would end.

The Failure of Diplomacy

After watching this charade for more than a decade, including meetings with Arafat in Ramallah and dinners I hosted with Palestinian and Jewish leaders to discuss joint ventures, my conclusion was that we were taken for a dishonest ride by Arafat and his aides. Focusing only on diplomacy as the path to success is wrong.

Diplomacy is important and has a vital role to play, but its function must be different than the Oslo process and the roadmap suggest. The focus on Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy cannot work when one side has a leadership that does not deliver on its word. The State Department may wish to give Abbas the benefit of the doubt. As with Arafat, Abbas says the right things in English to the Western press, but his commitment is not yet tested. So far, there is little evidence that the recognized faction has any more interest in dealing with its terrorist factions than it did under Arafat's leadership. It has shown some will, however, to cease making its priority the enrichment of the Palestinian oligarchy. Hopefully, the new Palestinian leadership will show at least some desire to crackdown on terrorist groups.

At this moment, however, the Palestinian Authority continues to use threats of terrorism as a negotiating tool. As recently as February 2005, Palestinian Authority officials warned that without the release of thousands of prisoners, an upcoming Palestinian-Israeli summit would not succeed. "If Israeli intransigence on this issue continues, the summit will fail," said Minister of Communications Azzam al-Ahmed. "If the prisoners aren't released, we will return to the cycle of violence."[4]

Hamas, too, maintained its terrorist rhetoric regardless of diplomacy between U.S. officials and the Palestinian Authority. Abdel Aziz Rantisi, the late Hamas spokesman, summed up the group's position, saying, "I am telling Sharon and all the Israeli murderers, you don't have any security unless you leave the country. There will be no single Jew in Palestine. We will fight them with all the power that we have." [5] As Ed Koch has pointed out, Rantisi's vision of a future without Jews is no different from Adolf Hitler's intent on making Europe Judenrein.[6] It is impossible to engage diplomatically with those who espouse irreconcilable positions.

Israel has spent the last fifty-seven years trying to protect itself within a system in which every Israeli action is described as a provocation and every Israeli retaliation is described as disproportionate and inappropriate.

Americans need to view the Israeli experience from the standpoint of their own national tradition. There are approximately 47 times as many Americans as Israelis. That means that a bomb that kills 5 Israelis is the equivalent of one that murders 235 Americans. Multiplying by 47 the casualties resulting from a terrorist bombing in Israel gives some idea of how painful the war has been for the Israeli people.

Israeli deaths from 2000 through 2003 are proportionate to population the equivalent of more than a dozen 9-11 attacks on the United States. If anything, Israel's response has been more restrained than our own. After 9-11, for example, we sent our military to Afghanistan to hunt down members of Al-Qaeda and destroy the Taliban government that provided them safe-haven. Israel has taken no similar action to destroy the safe-havens, material support, and sponsorship provided by Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. Rather than restrain or apologize for Israeli defense, the U.S. government should be unapologetic in its support of any Israeli military, intelligence, and police effort which they find necessary to protect their people, whether that be military action, or the more peaceful approach of building a security fence, the same strategy employed by India, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Morocco, and even the United Nations in Cyprus.[7]

The burden of the resulting violence should be upon those who commit terrorism. When a neighborhood shelters terrorists, it should not be surprised at a violent response. When a rocket or mortar is fired from a neighborhood, people should expect retaliatory fire. When someone advocates killing Israelis, they should expect to be killed by those they plan to kill.

The burden for preventing terrorism should rest on the Palestinian Authority. Western governments should not bestow the privileges of governance without its responsibilities. The Palestinian Authority should be held accountable for all violence coming from its territories, and Israelis should be compensated by the Palestinian Authority for all acts of terrorism. The rules of normal international behavior should apply to both sides.

The bias against Israel is now so decisive that no one even asks why Israel has killed Hamas leaders who would be alive today if Arafat had kept his word and locked them up. The result is a vicious circle. First, Israel should not suffer the loss of its innocent citizens murdered by terrorists and simultaneously bare the burden of blame for self-protection, nor should Israel be expected to sit down and talk with the people it knows are co-conspirators in trying to destroy it. This is what the Oslo and roadmap processes have brought to Israel.

Diplomacy cannot be the answer when it has become an arena in which the United Nations and the Europeans can make impossible demands on Israel while turning a blind eye to Palestinian violence. Diplomats did both truth and peace a disservice when they accepted dishonest and implausible excuses from the Palestinian leadership, even while financing that leadership faction and, by extension, its terrorist activity.

Diplomacy in such a circumstance is the wrong answer because it puts the wrong people in charge of finding a solution. Diplomats, by their nature, believe in talk and in paper. They value meetings and agreements. But in order for diplomacy to work, negotiators must be honest brokers willing to keep commitments. Diplomacy should not be used as political checkmate while one side keeps its word, and the other side willfully disregards its promises to gain political advantage. The roadmap, developed by the Bush administration during early 2003 in cooperation with Russia, the European Union, and the United Nations, makes clear that all sides must make tangible steps towards a two-state vision. But, it was a product of a period of failure now past. It is time to move on. With Saddam Hussein's fall and Arafat's death, there is an opportunity to do better. Ironically, the Palestinians have more to gain from replacing the roadmap with a more effective strategy than do the Israelis.

The roadmap should be replaced with a carrot and stick approach that recognizes that the center of gravity for peace in the region is the growth of a pro-peace, prosperity, and freedom wing of the Palestinian people. The primary requirement for peace should be the destruction of the terrorists. This inherently is not a diplomatic task. Smoke and mirrors will not work.

Win the War to Win the Peace

The new strategy should be based on new premises, carried out by new organizational relationships, and focus on a new set of metrics for success. First, both Western governments and their Arab allies should recognize that there is a real war underway between a minority of the Palestinians and the Israelis. This minority of Palestinians has one goal: to destroy Israel. It is impossible to negotiate with this group, and it is equally impossible for the Israelis to engage in rounds of diplomacy when their women and children are being brutally murdered in an ongoing dance of death and destruction.

Second, the goal must be to establish safety for the Israeli people. It is the duty of a government to protect its own citizens.

Third, it is important to recognize that the vast, but intimidated, majority of the Palestinian people would like to live in safety, health, prosperity, and freedom. Most Palestinians do not want their children living in war torn neighborhoods surrounded by poverty and devastation. They do not want to live their lives under the heel of a corrupt, brutal, and incompetent dictatorship.

Fourth, protecting Israel and developing a peaceful Palestinian leadership has to precede any lasting diplomatic solution. Instead of focusing on diplomacy, the White House and State Department should develop two parallel tracks, one for helping Israel defend itself and the other for helping the Palestinian people develop a better future.

The president should state unambiguously that only when there is a stable, peaceful West Bank and Gaza and when Israelis are living in a safe country with no casualties, can the two sides negotiate complex issues such as the status of Jerusalem. Such a policy would put the burden on the Palestinian leadership to create the environment that would allow them to come to the negotiating table.

The intelligence community, police, military, economists, business and medical communities all matter more than the bilateral diplomatic discourse. Only when these elements have succeeded, will it be time once again to call on the Israeli and Palestinian diplomats.

This does not mean there is no role for U.S. and European diplomats. They can develop new strategies and new systems to enable the peaceful Palestinians to defeat terrorist Palestinians and bring prosperity to the Palestinians and security for the Israelis.

But diplomacy must be based on multilateral honesty, metrics defined for safety, peace, and prosperity, and multilateral efforts to help Israel adjust to these new strategies and to help the pro-peace Palestinians acquire control of the resources which have been looted by the previous faction. This is a larger, not a smaller, challenge for today's diplomatic corps. U.S. diplomats in Israel, whether based in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, should not meet with agents of a single Palestinian faction, nor should they be tempted to engage with those who seek to win legitimacy through terrorism. Instead, they should reach out to those who eschew both terrorism and corruption, like the Palestinian banker-turned-democracy activist Issam Abu Issa.[8]

Limitations on Israeli Actions

While Israelis have the right of self defense, Washington should impose three limitations on Israel: first, the White House should insist that a free hand in building a security fence does not mean a free hand to expand the Israeli settlements in a land grab. The U.S. government should become the protector of the Palestinian people's right to have a decent amount of land and to have continuous communications and travel between their areas. The desire of some Israelis to use security as an excuse to grab more Palestinian land should be blocked by Washington even if that requires employing financial or other leverage to compel the Israeli government to behave reasonably on the issue of settlements. It is vital to our credibility in the entire Middle East that we insist on an end to Israeli expansionism. It is vital to our humanitarian duty to the Palestinian people that we protect the weaker party from the stronger power. It is vital that the world sees that our total support for Israeli security is not matched by a one-sided support for more extreme Israeli territorial goals.

Second, the U.S. government should actively support a democratic Palestinian state. There are a number of Israeli politicians who would be willing to see the negotiations carried on forever. In their view, there is no reason to have a Palestinian state. They are in their own way the equivalent of those Palestinians who believe Israel can be coerced into a right of return for Palestinians even if it would mean the end of Israel. The U.S. government can play a constructive role by stating the circumstances under which it would recognize a Palestinian state and establish an embassy. President George W. Bush has already taken key steps in this direction, outlining the conditions for recognizing a Palestinian state in a June 24, 2002 speech.[9] These steps should be driven home repeatedly in public diplomacy. The burden of action should remain on the Palestinians. Ending terrorism is not negotiable nor can concessions be won through violence.

Third, the United States should begin to take clear steps to bring a better life for the Palestinian people and should propose better systems and solutions to ease the daily depravations of the Palestinian people. U.S. agencies might provide specific guarantees and systems to monitor local security activities, to relieve the Israelis of the duty, while still upholding Israel's security needs. For example, U.S. officials might run an airport in Gaza, so people could enter Palestinian territories without having to go through Israel. U.S. security officials might impose biometric requirements for people flying through the airport.

Palestinian Preconditions of Peace

Israel can only find peace when Israel has a partner capable of enforcing the peace. The fanciest diplomatic agreements are of no value if those who seek violence can defeat and intimidate those who seek peace. The key first step toward a lasting peace is not at the negotiating table, but inside Palestinian society.

The Palestinian leadership should replicate the same hard choices that the Irish Free State made in 1922 when it reached the conclusion that it had to defeat the Irish Republican Army if it was ever going to have a stable, independent Ireland. The Irish case is instructive. While the power of the British Empire had been inadequate to defeat the Irish Republican Army over a six-year period (1916-22), the new Irish Free State won the civil war in a few months.

The Irish Free State's leadership put its people first. The Palestinian leadership has until now shown no inclination to do likewise. It remains impossible to establish an independent Palestine for three reasons. First, Palestinian terrorists are prepared to kill those who advocate compromise. Those who favor a better future are too disorganized, too timid, and too untrained to defeat the forces of terrorism. Second, the Palestinian Authority's corrupt machine has viewed any real reforms as a threat to its survival and threatens with violence any true reformers. Lastly, there has been no systematic effort from the outside to identify, organize, train, finance, and equip a responsible wing of the Palestinian people in opposition to terrorists whether they are in Hamas's camp or in the Palestinian Authority's.

For the Palestinians to move forward, the matrix for their government's success should be its ability to bring security, health, prosperity, and freedom for its people. Washington should identify and work with responsible Palestinians who share these goals. By insisting that resources and support will go only to those Palestinians who work actively for an accountable, democratic Palestinian government willing to live in peace with Israel, the White House and State Department can establish a basis on which to build a movement and an accountable government.

The State Department should strongly urge the European Union and the United Nations to insist on transparency and accountability in money being sent into the Palestinian territories. The multi-billion dollar corruption being unearthed in the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food program in Iraq gives Washington the high ground to insist that the Palestinian oligarchs not be allowed to steal from their people and from donors, as Saddam long did.[10] To this aim, there should be an outside independent audit of past expenditures by the United Nations in the camps that its Refugee Works Administration operates. The Palestinian people should expect a full accounting for the money that has been stolen. Forensic investigators should track down all the assets of a lifetime of theft and insist that it be paid back to the Palestinian people.

Congress should establish a program of economic aid for the Palestinian people to match the aid the U.S. government provides Israel. Palestinian aid would be largely economic and for policing while security concerns necessitate that Israel receive a far higher military component. The goal of U.S. aid should be to bring education, jobs, and health care to the Palestinians, not to line the pockets of its leadership. The Bush administration should challenge the Europeans and Arab countries to join in this program.

Congress might also pass a tax credit for businesses and individuals willing to invest in Israeli-Palestinian joint ventures and to subsidize the creation of Palestinian free trade and free investment zones.

It is important not only that Western democracies help the Palestinian leadership develop the infrastructure of a responsible state, but also that the West stands united in pressuring those countries which continue to support Palestinian terrorism. Both the Europeans and Washington should make it clear that they regard this as an act of hostility to them and no longer acceptable under any circumstance.

As the Israeli economy continues to develop into one of the world's most important high technology centers, its demand for labor is an enormous opportunity to enrich Palestinians while also enriching Israelis. As Palestinian entrepreneurs learn to work with Israeli entrepreneurs in creating jobs and wealth for both people, the opportunity is enormous for the Palestinians to develop the highest income among the non-oil economies of the Middle East.

Palestinian population density and the small size of its territory need not be impediments to a productive future. Hong Kong and Singapore are both more crowded than Gaza, but both are richer than Gaza by enormous margins. Gaza has the benefit of proximity to both Israel's high-technology economy and all the wealth of Europe. There is no inherent reason the people of Gaza could not have a terrific future of opportunity and prosperity.

Gaza even has great potential for tourism. Its beaches are far warmer than the beaches of Italy. There is no reason they should be less profitable. The potential for religious tourism in the West Bank is obvious. Bethlehem, Hebron, and Jericho have a historic and tourist interest to billions of Asians whose rising incomes have bolstered their interest in travel. As terrorists are defeated and the West Bank becomes safe, there is every reason to believe the tourist industry could rebound and bring substantial prosperity to the area. Such economic opportunities could convince Palestinian youth to seek a better future instead of violent death.

Fulfillment of these goals will require that the Palestinian education system be overhauled to make it pro-jobs and pro-economic productivity and to eliminate anti-Israel propaganda from the school system. No state-supported newspaper, radio or television stations should engage in anti-Israeli incitement. Monitoring should be intense, and complaints be immediate and with real financial consequence if the agreement is not maintained.

The West is not operating in a vacuum. Many states wish to see a Palestinian democracy fail. They will seek to impose a radical agenda by means of self-described humanitarian organizations. The West should develop secular systems of humanitarian aid for impoverished and ill Palestinians that outperform those support systems run by terrorist organizations. Unfortunately, most Western nongovernmental organizations do not fit the bill. Many have proved themselves to be committed more toward leftist politics than they are to peace.[11]

The Palestinians should be equally responsible for their future. One of the real tests of the new, more responsible Palestinian system will be the ability to assure fellow Palestinians from abroad that they are personally safe and that their money is safe if they want to invest in their ancestral lands and help create wealth. The Palestinian diaspora has been remarkably successful in business. It can help modernize and make prosperous the Palestinian people, just as many Iraqi businessmen have chosen since Iraq's liberation to invest in their own homeland. There is great wealth and, even more important, great knowledge and great contacts among the Palestinian expatriates. If they can be convinced to help their fellow Palestinians prosper as Jews across the world have been doing for Israel since 1948, then the prospects of creating a truly prosperous Gaza and West Bank will increase dramatically. Arafat's failure to engage the great talents of Palestinians overseas is a reflection of the general failure.

Those Palestinians whose hatred of Israel trumps their desire to win a better future for the next generation may wish to ignite a civil war against the forces of Palestinian tolerance and democracy. No one should underestimate how violent and how bitter this civil war could be. Mao Zedong wrote that all power comes out of the end of a rifle. He also wrote that one man with a rifle can control 100 villagers without a weapon.[12] The forces of terrorism have relied on the power of the violent to dominate the tolerant. The U.S. government must strengthen the responsible elements of society so they can defeat the haters and the killers.

Rather than shrink from responsibility, Washington should step forward to defend freedom and democracy. We have done this before, not only helping the Philippines secretary of national defense Ramon Magsaysay defeat the communist Hukbalahap in the Philippines in the late 1940s but also working together with Great Britain to help anti-communists defeat the communist guerrillas in Greece in the wake of World War II. U.S. aid allowed the government of El Salvador to win a full blown civil war in the 1980s. There are a number of other occasions where intervention on the side of a responsible party defeated terrorists.

In effect, Washington would be offering the Palestinian people a straight proposition: if you defeat terrorism and accept Israel as a neighbor, we can invest enough resources to help you become prosperous and create a safe, free country in which people have a good future.

Can America Afford to Do What's Necessary?

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has absorbed a large amount of U.S. government attention and effort over the last forty years, and yet it persists and remains a continuing drain on the American capacity to lead worldwide.

If the U.S. government helps end the war between the Israelis and the Palestinians, we would be both saving a significant amount of potential treasure and blood and living in a dramatically safer world. The United States is an enormous country with the largest economy in the world. If we invested as much in peace between Israel and Palestine as we spend annually on knee replacement, pet food, alcohol, going to the movies, or a dozen other discretionary expenditures, we would have no constraints on our financial ability to support the side of peace.

When Secretary of State George Catlett Marshall proposed the Marshall Plan to keep Western Europe from going communist, he was proposing spending over 3 percent of the American economy.[13] In today's larger economy, that would be a program of over US$330 billion in aid.

The leaders who won World War II, and ultimately the Cold War, understood that the United States should spend whatever was necessary to achieve national security. With real leadership and a real vision of ending the more than half century of bloodshed in the Middle East, the American people will support what their leaders believe it takes to be effective and get the job done. The timidity is not among the American people. The timidity is in their elected officials in Washington and in the bureaucrats who advise those elected officials.

If we set the right goals and develop the right strategies, we will find that for a tiny fraction of the Marshall Plan's costs we can decisively help both the Israeli people and the Palestinian people. In that process, we will also make the world safer for the American people. That is a win-win-win worth working for.

Newt Gingrich, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives between 1995 and 1999. He thanks Bill Sanders for his assistance with the research for this article.

[1] John R. Bolton, undersecretary for arms control and international security, "Syria's Weapons of Mass Destruction and Missile Development Programs," testimony before the House International Relations Committee, Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia, Sept. 16, 2003.
[2] The New York Times, Apr. 6, 2005.
[3] "Terrorism and the Peace Process," background paper, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sept. 14, 1998.
[4] The Jerusalem Post, Feb. 5, 2005.
[5] Quoted in Kenneth R. Timmerman, "Truth from the Mouths of Terrorists," The Washington Times, June 20, 2003.
[6] Ed Koch, "No U.S. Troops to Israel," Jewish World Review, June 20, 2003.
[7] Ben Thein, "Is Israel's Security Barrier Unique?" Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2004, pp. 25-32.
[8] Issam Abu Issa, "Arafat's Swiss Bank Account," Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2004, pp. 15-23.
[9] "President Bush Calls for New Palestinian Leadership," White House speech, June 24, 2002.
[10] Claudia Rosett, "Oil-for-Terror?" National Review Online, Apr. 18, 2004.
[11] Gerald Steinberg, "NGOs Make War on Israel," Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2004, pp. 13-25.
[12] Mao Tse-Tung, "Problems of War and Strategy," Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung (Beijing: China Books and Periodicals, 1990).
[13] Michael J. Hogan, The Marshall Plan: America, Britain, and the Reconstruction of Western Europe, (Cambridge, 1987).

Probe Sought in Terri Schiavo 911 Call

Probe Sought in Terri Schiavo 911 Call

By JACKIE HALLIFAX, Associated Press Writer
Fri Jun 17,11:49 AM ET

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - Gov. Jeb Bush said Friday that a prosecutor has agreed to investigate why Terri Schiavo collapsed 15 years ago, citing an alleged gap in time from when her husband found her and called 911.

In a letter faxed to Pinellas-Pasco County State Attorney Bernie McCabe, Bush said Michael Schiavo testified in a 1992 medical malpractice trial that he found his wife collapsed at 5 a.m. on Feb. 25, 1990, and he said in a 2003 television interview that he found her about 4:30 a.m. He called 911 at 5:40 a.m.

"Between 40 and 70 minutes elapsed before the call was made, and I am aware of no explanation for the delay," Bush wrote. "In light of this new information, I urge you to take a fresh look at this case without any preconceptions as to the outcome."

McCabe was out of state Friday and couldn't immediately be reached for comment, but Bush said McCabe has agreed to his request.

Michael Schiavo's attorney, George Felos, did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment from The Associated Press. But on Wednesday he said his client didn't wait to call for help. He said his client has conceded that he confuses dates and times.

Felos has said that if Michael Schiavo had not called 911 immediately, as Bush and others allege, Terri Schiavo would have died that day.

"There is no hour gap or other gap to the point Michael heard Terri fall and called 911," Felos said. "We've seen the baseless allegations in this case fall by the wayside one by one ... That's what I would call it, a baseless claim to perpetuate a controversy that in fact doesn't exist."

Terri Schiavo died March 31 from dehydration after her feeding tube was disconnected at her husband's request, despite unsuccessful efforts by her parents, Bush and others to keep her alive.

An autopsy released Wednesday concluded that she had been in a persistent vegetative state and revealed no evidence that she was strangled or otherwise abused before she collapsed.

It left unanswered the question of why Terri Schiavo's heart stopped, cutting oxygen off from her brain. The autopsy showed she suffered irreversible brain damage and her brain had shrunk to half the normal size for her age.

Bush's request was immediately criticized by some lawmakers.

"Enough is enough," said Democratic Sen. Ron Klein. "I don't want to see it on TV any more, I don't want to hear politicians talk about it. Let her be at peace."

Bush acknowledged in his letter that an investigation may be difficult.

"I understand that these events took place many years ago, and that you may not be able to collect all the relevant records and physical evidence. However, Mrs. Schiavo's family deserves to know anything that can be done to determine the cause and circumstances of her collapse 15 years ago," Bush wrote. "The unanswered questions may be unanswerable, but the attempt should be made."