...but they think it should be illegal for them to have to take it. The Left has turned the 527, issue-oriented organizations that can place ads without any limit on contributions, like MoveOn.org and ACT, into its most potent political tool. This year, conservatives are trying to get into the 527 game, most notably through Freedom's Watch. Now, the Washington Times reports on the Democrats' effort to "chase [Freedom's Watch] from the political playing field:"

The DCCC has ... filed complaints arguing that Freedom's Watch and the NRCC coordinated their campaigns, which would violate federal laws, has charged that the group goes beyond the activities allowed by IRS code, and this week filed a complaint that Freedom's Watch didn't file the right forms from its ads in Louisiana.

Freedom's Watch said the forms were filed, and the FEC has been slow to post them. Both Freedom's Watch and the NRCC said the collaboration charge is wrong.

In addition to its legal challenges, the Democrats have sent out mailings attacking the chief contributor to Freedom's Watch, multi-billionaire Sheldon Adelson. Somewhat laughably, the Dems try to tie Adelson to "forced abortions" because he has business interests in China. They also attack Adelson on the ground that his fortune comes largely from casinos.

What is going on here, it seems, is the Democrats' effort to institutionalize their enormous financial advantage over Republicans. Most rich people who care about politics are on the Left, and the Democrats have also mastered internet fundraising better than the Republicans. As a result, it is a given, for the foreseeable future, that in every important race the Democrats will have more money than the Republicans. Republicans can't match the Left's financial resources, but groups like Freedom's Watch can help narrow the gap somewhat. Hence the Dems' outrage at having their supremacy challenged.

The jealousy with which the Democrats guard their financial superiority is indicated by an over-the-top email that the Democratic National Committee sent to the party faithful this morning. It noted that John McCain is holding a fundraiser tonight:

While we're choosing our nominee, the Republican machine is working their way across the country, raising money and expanding their bank accounts.

What are they going to do with that money? Attack. As soon as we have our nominee, they'll unleash a flood of expensive negative attacks to try to define our candidate.

That's why we have to be ready for anything -- we can't let them Swift Boat us right out of the gate.
***
Everywhere John McCain goes his handlers are organizing fundraising receptions, catering to special interests and lobbyists. It's straight out of the George Bush and Karl Rove playbook.

While our primary continues, we can't afford to let John McCain and the Republican machine get a financial advantage. Help us and our nominee stay competitive.

The idea of John McCain having a "financial advantage" is ludicrous; Barack Obama, the greatest money machine in American political history, has out-raised him more than three to one. That's an advantage the Democrats obviously have no intention of surrendering.

Today's Wall Street Journal publishes a column by former principal deputy commissioner of the Social Security Administration Andrew Biggs on "Obama's faulty tax argument." Like his imporobable history, Obama's argument in favor of higher taxes is both staightforward and misleading. If Obama is elected president, we can count on at least two things: bad economic policy and bad foreign policy. And we won't be able to say we weren't warned.

Yesterday I noted that, in her letter to the editor of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Minnesota state Rep. Mindy Greiling accused Star Tribune metro columnist Katherine Kersten of “reckless journalistic standards” and “gross distortion of facts” with respect to her two columns on the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy.

Kersten's two columns on TIZA are accessible here (March 9) and here (April 9). Greiling's makes no case that supports her assertions regarding Kersten's columns about the school. Yet Greiling called for the Star Tribune to fire Kersten. Here is an overview of the statements Kersten made in her two columns:

The Facts:

1. TIZA’s strong religious connections date from its founding in 2003. Its co-founders, Zaman and Hesham Hussein, were both imams, or Muslim religious leaders, as well as leaders of the Muslim American Society of Minnesota (MAS-MN).

These facts are established.

2. Since 2003, they have played dual roles: Zaman as TIZA’s principal and the current vice-president of MAS-MN, and Hussein as TIZA’s school board chair and president of MAS-MN until his death in a car accident in Saudi Arabia in January.

These facts are established.

3. TIZA shares MAS-MN’s headquarters building, along with a mosque.

This fact is established.

4. MAS-MN came to Minnesotans’ attention in 2006, when it issued a "fatwa," warning Muslim taxi drivers at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport that transporting passengers with alcohol in their baggage is a violation of Islamic law.

This fact is established.

5. The school has a central carpeted prayer space, and "vaguely religious-sounding language" is used in the school, as stated in the the March 2007 Minnesota Monthy article by Kevin Featherly.

Zaman acknowledges this.

6. Students pray daily, the cafeteria serves halal food -- permissible under Islamic law -- and “Islamic Studies” is offered at the end of the school day.

Zaman acknowledges this.

7. In fact, TIZA was originally envisioned as a private Islamic school. In 2001, MAS-MN negotiated to buy the current TIZA/MAS-MN building for Al-Amal School, a private religious institution in Fridley, according to Bruce Rimstad of the Inver Grove Heights School District. But many immigrant families can’t afford Al-Amal. In 2002, Islamic Relief -- headquartered in California -- agreed to sponsor a publicly funded charter school, TIZA, at the same location.

These facts are established.

8. "After-school Islamic learning" takes place on weekdays in the same building under MAS-MN’s auspices, according to the program for MAS-MN’s 2007 convention. At that convention, a TIZA representative at the school’s booth told me that students go directly to “Islamic studies” classes at 3:30, when TIZA’s day ends. There, they learn "Qur’anic recitation, the Sunnah of the Prophet" and other religious subjects, he said.

Zaman acknowledges that after-school Islamic studies takes place.

9. When addressing Muslim audiences, school officials make the link to Islam clear. At MAS-MN’s 2007 convention, for example, the program featured an advertisement for the "Muslim American Society of Minnesota," superimposed on a picture of a mosque. Under the motto "Establishing Islam in Minnesota," it asked: "Did you know that MAS-MN … houses a full-time elementary school?" On the adjacent page was an application for TIZA.

Kersten cites the program she obtained at the MAS-MN convention.

10. TIZA has in effect extended the school day -- buses leave only after Islamic Studies is over.

Zaman acknowledges that no buses leave until Islamic Studies is over.

11. Seventy-seven percent of TIZA parents say that their "main reason for choosing TIZA … was because of after-school programs conducted by various non-profit organizations at the end of the school period in the school building," according to a TIZA report.

This fact is established.

12. The Minnesota Department of Education’s records document only three site visits to TIZA in five years -- two in 2003-04 and one in 2007, according to Assistant Commissioner Morgan Brown. None of the visits focused specifically on religious practices.

This fact is established. Kersten posted the Department of Education's statement to this effect on the Star Tribune Web site.

13. The department is set up to operate on a "complaint basis," and "since 2004, we haven’t gotten a single complaint about TIZA," Brown said. In 2004, he sent two letters to the school inquiring about religious activity reported by visiting department staffers and in a news article. Brown was satisfied with Zaman’s assurance that prayer is "voluntary" and "student-led," he said. The department did not attempt to confirm this independently, and did not ask how 5- to 11-year-olds could be initiating prayer. (At the time, TIZA was a K-5 school.)

These facts are established.

15. Until recently, TIZA’s website included a request for volunteers to help with "Friday prayers."

This fact is established.

16. Charter schools are public schools and by law must not endorse or promote religion.

This is a matter of law.

17. Prayer services take place in the TIZA school building during school hours.

Zaman acknowledges this.

18. Zaman does not deny that "some" Muslim teachers "probably" attend prayer. According to federal guidelines on prayer in schools, teachers at a public school cannot participate in prayer with students.

19. The school schedule is built around prayer. Zaman acknowledges that teachers take students to prayer and supervise them while they wash.

Kersten's second column is framed on the first-hand observations of substitute teacher Amanda Getz:

Getz's observations:

1. Arriving on a Friday, the Muslim holy day, she says she was told that the day’s schedule included a "school assembly" in the gym after lunch.

2. Before the assembly, she says she was told, her duties would include taking her fifth-grade students to the bathroom, four at a time, to perform "their ritual washing."

3. "The prayer I saw was not voluntary," Getz said. "The kids were corralled by adults and required to go to the assembly where prayer occurred."

4. Islamic Studies was also incorporated into the school day. "When I arrived, I was told 'after school we have Islamic Studies,' and I might have to stay for hall duty," Getz said. "The teachers had written assignments on the blackboard for classes like math and social studies. Islamic Studies was the last one -- the board said the kids were studying the Qu’ran. The students were told to copy it into their planner, along with everything else. That gave me the impression that Islamic Studies was a subject like any other."

In short, Rep. Greiling has failed to cite a single fact in her letter to support her claim that Kersten grossly violated journalistic standards or that she should be asked to resign. Under the circumstances, her letter is an abuse of her legislative position. Rep. Greiling should demonstrate Kersten's "gross distortion of facts" or should resign herself.

Jack Kelly looks at the same passage in Obama's North Carolina victory speech that we touched on in "Obama's improbable history." Obama said:

I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.

Kelly provides a refresher course:

Our enemies in World War II were Nazi Germany, headed by Adolf Hitler; fascist Italy, headed by Benito Mussolini, and militarist Japan, headed by Hideki Tojo. FDR talked directly with none of them before the outbreak of hostilities, and his policy once war began was unconditional surrender.

FDR died before victory was achieved, and was succeeded by Harry Truman. Truman did not modify the policy of unconditional surrender. He ended that war not with negotiation, but with the atomic bomb.

Harry Truman also was president when North Korea invaded South Korea in June, 1950. President Truman's response was not to call up North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung for a chat. It was to send troops.

Perhaps Sen. Obama is thinking of the meeting FDR and Churchill had with Soviet dictator Josef Stalin in Tehran in December, 1943, and the meetings Truman and Roosevelt had with Stalin at Yalta and Potsdam in February and July, 1945. But Stalin was then a U.S. ally, though one of whom we should have been more wary than FDR and Truman were. Few historians think the agreements reached at Yalta and Potsdam, which in effect consigned Eastern Europe to slavery, are diplomatic models we ought to follow. Even fewer Eastern Europeans think so.

When Stalin's designs became unmistakably clear, President Truman's response wasn't to seek a summit meeting. He sent military aid to Greece, ordered the Berlin airlift and the Marshall Plan, and sent troops to South Korea.

Kelly contrasts Kenendy's pre-presidential military and politcal experience with Obama's paper-thin resume, but only refers glancingly to Kennedy's 1961 summit with Khrushchev in Vienna. That summit was a disaster for resasons that bear intense scrutiny. I think Vienna is actually a fair comparison and warning against Obama's potted history, but Kelly is harsher:

The closest historical analogue to Sen. Obama's expressed desire to meet with no preconditions with anti-American dictators such as Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the trip British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French premier Eduoard Daladier took to Munich in September of 1938 to negotiate "peace in our time" with Adolf Hitler. That didn't work out so well.

It is amazing that reporters haven't pursued Obama on this subject, or challenged him on his repeated assertion that we're not talking or haven't talked with Iran.

FOOTNOTE: Kelly attributes to Winston Churchill the statement that those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. The statement is George Santayana's.

Few topics have been more thoroughly misreported than our government’s planning for post-Saddam Iraq. In the MSM narrative, a project called the “Future of Iraq” developed a plan for rebuilding Iraq, but neo-conservatives in the Defense Department dismissed it and offered nothing in its place. Thus, the conventional wisdom is that “we didn’t have a plan” for dealing with Iraq in the aftermath of the invasion.

No one who knows anything about government could believe this. Government has many flaws but an inability or reluctance to draw up plans is not among them. Yet the “no plan” refrain is repeated endlessly. I’ve been on television with otherwise intelligent leftists (Christy Hardin Smith, in particular) who have put forth this facially absurd notion as an article of faith. Responding, other than through ridicule, has been difficult since I wasn’t privy to the government’s planning.

Doug Feith was not only privy to the planning, he did much of it. And in his new, invaluable, book War and Decision, Feith describes what the plan was, how it was developed, how the State Department fought against it, how President Bush approved it, and how L. Paul Bremer cast it aside. (In Feith's account, the vaunted “Future of Iraq” project was not a governance plan; it was just a series of ideas which, contrary to the conventional narrative, the so-called neocons thought were mostly fine).

In this post, I’ll focus on the Defense Department’s plan. In a follow-up post, I’ll examine with more particularity the State Department’s opposition to that plan. And I'll describe how Richard Armitage advocated a multi-year U.S. occupation even though he understood that it likely would result in instability and possibly terrorism against U.S. forces. Armitage was motivated by a determination to ensure that “externals” – Iraqi exiles and Kurds – would not assume leadership in Iraq. In the end, of course, we got both instability/terrorism and the “externals.”

The Defense Department’s plan might have avoided much of the instability and terrorism. It was predicated on the idea that the U.S. should not be viewed as an occupier because that perception would breed violence. Thus, it was vital to get the Iraqis involved and out-front promptly. The original concept, developed by Feith, was to follow the Afghanistan model. That meant installing a provisional government immediately and placing it largely in charge of governing the country.

However, Secretary Rumsfeld did not see the Afghanistan model as fully applicable. Afghanistan, he understood, was so bereft of resources and infrastructure that even a bad government could do only limited damage. Iraq, by contrast, was rich in oil and had a substantial military. Thus, a corrupt, incompetent, and/or vicious government could do major harm, for which the U.S. would be held responsible.

Rumsfeld therefore told Feith to modify the plan. Feith responded with the Iraqi Interim Authority (IIA), in essence a power-sharing plan under which Iraqis would be in charge of certain ministries, but not at first the key ones. As the government proved itself, additional ministries would be handed over to it.

The State Department opposed both a provisional government and the IIA concept. Its fear was that Iraqi exiles, and especially Ahmad Chalabi, would dominate in such an arrangement. The fear was rational in the sense that exiles, including Chalabi, might well dominate. What’s less clear is why this prospect was so alarming as to become the touchstone for State's thinking. Feith speculates that this had to do with Chalabi's status as an anathema to Arab states, a status based on (a) his religion -- Shiite -- and (b) his association with the movement for Arab democracy. It is not unheard of for the State Department to accord substantial weight to the preferences of friendly, or nominally friendly, Arab governments.

Feith insists that the Defense Department had no particular interest in installing Chalabi or other “externals.” It was not seriously pro- or anti-Chalabi. Feith says that while there are dozen State Department memos that talk about Chalabi in negative terms, he knows of no Defense Department memo that advocates on his behalf. In fact, Rumsfeld was unequivocally against tilting in Chalabi’s favor. Consistent with that view, the IIA was to be a mixture of externals and internals. Elections would later decide which Iraqis ran the government.

To be sure, the Defense Department favored using the externals in advance of the invasion. It favored using them to obtain intelligence, which was in very short supply. Defense also wanted to hold a political conference among the exiles and the Kurds to develop the principles for a post-Saddam constitution. The purpose was not to favor Chalabi or anyone else; the purpose was to hit the ground running. Defense also wanted to train several thousands Iraqi troops. Here, again, the purpose was not sinister. The idea was to have Iraqis participate in their own liberation and to get a head start on developing a reliable security force. Armitage and others at the State Department fought vigorously against the political conference and the training. They were largely successful.

The Defense Department was successful, however, in getting President Bush to sign-off on their post-invasion plan. General Jay Garner, the head of the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, then set about to put it into effect (Garner states, by the way, that he never received any instruction or request to favor Chalabi; when Feith talked to him about potential leaders, he was neutral and objective).

But Garner’s successor, L. Paul Bremer, decided to reverse course and implement the State Department’s vision. That vision, and Bremer’s decision, will be the topic of a follow-up post.

We noted last month that a Hamas spokesman expressed a preference for Barack Obama over John McCain for president of the United States. Today Obama none too subtly asserted that John McCain had "lost his bearings" by noting this preference last month in a call with bloggers. McCain advisor Mark Salter comments:

First, let us be clear about the nature of Senator Obama's attack today: He used the words "losing his bearings" intentionally, a not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age as an issue. This is typical of the Obama style of campaigning.

We have all become familiar with Senator Obama's new brand of politics. First, you demand civility from your opponent, then you attack him, distort his record and send out surrogates to question his integrity. It is called hypocrisy, and it is the oldest kind of politics there is.

It is important to focus on what Senator Obama is attempting to do here: He is trying desperately to delegitimize the discussion of issues that raise legitimate questions about his judgment and preparedness to be President of the United States.

Through their actions and words, Senator Obama and his supporters have made clear that ANY criticism on ANY issue -- from his desire to raise taxes on millions of small investors to his radical plans to sit down face-to-face with Iranian President Ahmadinejad – constitute negative, personal attacks.

Senator Obama is hopeful that the media will continue to form a protective barrier around him, declaring serious limits to the questions, discussion and debate in this race.

Senator Obama has good reason to think this plan will succeed, as serious journalists have written of the need for "de-tox" to cure "swooning" over Senator Obama, and others have admitted to losing their objectivity while with him on the campaign trail.

Today, Senator Obama is complaining about comments John McCain made about a senior Hamas advisor stating that Hamas would welcome Senator Obama's election as president. Indeed, on April 13th, senior Hamas political advisor Ahmed Yousef said, "We don't mind – actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance."

The McCain campaign has never suggested that Senator Obama supports Hamas' agenda, but it is more than fair to raise this quote about Senator Obama because it speaks to the policy implications of his judgment.

Just today, the president of Iran, whom Senator Obama wants to meet with unconditionally, called the state of Israel a "stinking corpse." Iran is the paymaster and state sponsor of Hamas.

In his victory speech this week, Senator Obama stated that "wisdom" is meeting with our enemies, including Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, North Korea's Kim Jong Il, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Cuba's Raul Castro. John McCain couldn't disagree more. Rather than giving tyrants and dictators the prestige of meeting with an American president, John McCain will instead meet with the champions of human freedom around the world and opposition leaders fighting for liberty .

We understand why Senator Obama doesn't want to engage in a debate over leadership and judgment with John McCain, but the American people demand that debate take place.

These are serious times that call for a serious debate on the profound issues facing our future. John McCain is ready for that debate and we hope Senator Obama will one day get serious and join it.

Salter's comment nails one of Obama's rhetorical weapons of choice to fend off criticism. I'm sure we'll have an occasion or two to return to Salter's analysis in the coming days.

To comment on this post go here.

In what Middle East country do Arabs enjoy the greatest civil rights and political freedom? Algeria? Libya? Saudi Arabia? Egypt? Lebanon? Syria? The Palestinian Authority, either in its main branch or in Hamastan? Well, at least we're getting warm. The answer of course is Israel. It is a fact that captures much of the sickness of the unrelenting worldwide campaign against Israel. We have proclaimed ourselves proud friends of Israel since planting our site in the blogosphere and we salute the country today on its sixtieth anniversary.

Israel is a beacon of freedom and humanity in the world's toughest neighborhood. In every area of modern life the country boasts a genius that on a per capita basis must be unrivaled. Among the many articles and posts worthy of consideration regarding Israel's anniversary are those by Bret Stephens on "Israel's sixty-year test," Michael Oren on Israel as "America's best friend," Alan Dershowitz finding Israel "So deserving of praise," Andrew Bostom on "Israel at 60," and Steve Felder and Robert Sklaroff on "Israel at 60 -- give or take a few thousand years."

JOHN adds: As the site's resident Gentile, let me add that thirteen or so years ago, my wife and I spent two wonderful weeks in Israel, courtesy of a friend and client for whom I had the good fortune to win a hotly-contested case in the federal court here in Minneapolis. It was one of a handful of experiences that can, without hyperbole, be described as life-changing. Like most Americans, I'd always been pro-Israel, but spending some time there, and on the West Bank, strengthened immeasurably my appreciation of the Israelis' accomplishments and of the challenges they face.

We toured Jewish, Christian and Islamic holy sites; had a submachine gun pointed at us by a Palestinian guard on Temple Mount; boated on the Sea of Galilee; explored archaeological digs from one end of the country to the other; hung out in old Jerusalem; partied in Tel Aviv, one of the world's most cosmopolitan cities; and picked up off the ground mosaic tiles and pottery shards that dated from the eras of King David and Jesus.

So: Happy birthday, Israel! May there be many more.

PAUL adds: In addition to the birthday pieces Scott links to, David Hazony's somewhat sobering reflections are worth a look.