The War on Slogans

In the most recent issue of Foreign Affairs, John Edwards and Rudy Giuliani were invited to submit their foreign policy outlines - here, and here. (I previously covered those of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama). More on Rudy in a forthcoming post, but for now let's have a look at John Edwards.

First of all, the former North Carolina Senator and 2004 Vice-Presidential candidate submitted a plan with more maturity and finesse than Obama, who presented a ridiculous list of pie-in-the-sky campaign promises.

None of the 4 outlines published thus far, however. differ substantially from current US policy under the Bush administration, and yes, that includes the Democrats Obama and Edwards (don't hold your breath for any groundbreaking changes to the status quo from Ms. Clinton). They all call for continued US intervention in global affairs, perhaps even military, and all strongly believe in projecting American values onto the rest of the world through democracy promotion, health care, human rights, and other pet projects. Judging by these Republicrat ideals presented thus far, the US is going to try to soften its image with an neoconservative "army" of civilians in button-downs and khakis, using all of their technocratic might to "make the world safe for democracy". Edwards says: (continued...)

"In the coming years, we will most likely see an increasing need to stabilize weak and failing states and provide humanitarian assistance to the victims of disasters across the world.

These missions are demanding, dangerous, and expensive. They require a wide range of resources and sources of knowledge, from experts in water purification to medical technicians, judges to corrections officers, bankers to stock-market analysts...To resolve these problems, I will establish a Marshall Corps during my first year in office...patterned after the military reserves, will consist of at least 10,000 civilian experts who could be deployed abroad to serve in reconstruction, stabilization, and humanitarian missions. They will be on the frontline in the United States' reengagement with the world."

Edwards also gets nostalgic about America's global image under Presidents like JFK and Ronald Reagan.

"This is about much more than convincing people to like us. There was a time when a president did not speak just to Americans -- he spoke to the world. People thousands of miles away would gather to listen to someone they called, without irony, 'the leader of the free world'...We need to reach out to ordinary men and women from Egypt to Indonesia and convince them, once again, that the United States is a force to be admired."

Sounds delicious. Shall we order a side of mloukhia with that?

The other interesting trend, particular in Edwards' and Giuliani's essays, was a total rejection of the phrase "War on Terror":

"The 'war on terror' approach has backfired, straining our military to the breaking point while allowing the threat of terrorism to grow. 'War on terror' is a slogan designed for politics, not a strategy to make the United States safe. It is a bumper sticker, not a plan. Worst of all, the 'war on terror' has failed. Instead of making the United States safer, it has spawned even more terrorism -- as we have seen so tragically in Iraq -- and left us with fewer allies.

...many generals and national security experts have criticized the president's 'war on terror' approach. Retired Marine General Anthony Zinni has said that the 'war on terror' is a counterproductive doctrine...[the] new chief of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) -- has instructed his staff to stop saying that we are in a 'long war.' These leaders know that we need substance, not slogans.

Yet the politics of fear remains tempting. Some have chosen to pillory those who dare question the concept of a 'war on terror' as somehow weak. But these attacks unmask the slogan for what it is: a political sledgehammer used to stifle debate and justify policies that would otherwise be utterly unacceptable."

Edwards seems quite defensive about appearing timid, so he makes sure to flex his muscles:

"There is no question that we must confront terrorist groups such as al Qaeda with the full force of our military might. As commander in chief, I will never hesitate to apply the full extent of our security apparatus to protect our vital interests, take measures to root out terrorist cells, and strike swiftly and forcefully against those who seek to harm us."

But he follows up his tough-talk by blaming the Bush Administration's execution of the strategy.

"The Bush administration has walked the United States right into the terrorists' trap. By framing this struggle against extremism as a war, it has reinforced the jihadists' narrative that we want to conquer the Muslim world and that there is a 'clash of civilizations' pitting the West against Islam. From Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib, the 'war on terror' has tragically become the recruitment poster al Qaeda wanted."

While I do believe that the Bush Administration's prosecution of the "War on Terror" (or whatever it's fashionable to call it these days) largely resembles the removal of microscopic malignant tumors from a vital organ using a butter knife, the idea that Bush alone is responsible for an increase in terrorism is ridiculous. Yes, I concede that his approach has certainly healed no wounds, but someone willing to blow himself up as a means of murdering others is unlikely to be swayed by the minutiae of US policy.

Take, for example, the London subway bombers. After they struck, I recall debating with someone who argued that a withdrawal from Iraq would have prevented these suicide attacks. I find that totally implausible. An individual sick enough to go to the lengths that such terrorists do cannot be evaluated using normal human logic and will always find an excuse to take out anger in a murderous way. With individuals like that, appeasement will certainly not work. Nevertheless, Edwards continues:

"Instead of reengaging with the peoples of the world, we have driven too many into the terrorists' arms. In fact, defining the current struggle against radical Islamists as a war minimizes the challenge we face by suggesting that the fight against Islamist extremism can be won on the battlefield alone."

And once again, his answer is not to reverse the trend of imperialism and excessive intervention into the affairs of other sovereign nations, but to dress up American operatives in pastel shades and call them a "Marshall corps".

Edwards' outline is proof positive that the easiest job in the world is to be an opposition politician. Just toss together a few clichés about the ineffectiveness or unpopularity of the current leader, and make vague statements about change with no specifics. According to Edwards:

• Our enemies are taking advantage of the United States' declining popularity...al Qaeda has expanded its reach not only across Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan but even in Europe
• Iran has been emboldened by the Bush administration's ineffective policies and has announced plans to expand its nuclear program.
• China is capitalizing on the United States' current unpopularity to project its own "soft power"
• Russia is bullying its neighbors while openly defying the United States and Europe

On the plus side, Edwards deserves credit for recognizing the potential impact of climate change on geopolitics, even if he offers no solutions. (note to conservatives: whether climate change is a natural phenomenon or induced by industrial human activity, no one denies that it is a reality.) And his listing of purposes for the US military is not perfect, but also not overreaching.

1. deterring or responding to those who wish to do us harm
2. ensuring that the problems of weak and failing states do not create dangers for the United States
3. maintaining our strategic advantage over major competitor states, in part so that they choose to cooperate with us, rather than challenge our interests militarily

However, Edwards' approach to other global issues brings big government to a whole new frightening level. His idea of moral leadership implies an American obligation to sanitize and educate every child on the globe.

"I will increase our funding for global primary education sixfold, with a $3 billion annual effort to educate poor children in countries with a history of violent extremism. Through the U.S. Agency for International Development and multilateral aid organizations, I will also pursue reform of the school systems in developing countries, working to eliminate school fees and required expenses for books and uniforms, which effectively bar millions of children from enrolling; investing in teacher education, classroom expansion, and teaching materials; and helping to provide safe and hygienic facilities for all students.

Finally, as president, I will lead an effort to increase opportunity for millions of people by adding $750 million annually for microcredit programs."

These are all noble goals, but in my opinion fall under the purview of NGOs, not the United States Government. Why should our tax dollars be used to support microcredit when funds devoted to microloans solicit investors and return dividends to them? It's a profit-making enterprise and therefore should be left alone. As for education in poor countries; it has often occurred to me, having seen many a young talib in Senegal beg me for money, that Saudi dollars could flow in to brainwash these poor youngsters in the absence of proper schools. But again, that is why responsible American NGOs, charities, and foundations - either religious or secular - should lead the charge, not our federal government. But the really dramatic promise of Edwards reads:

"I will concentrate on reversing the spread of these three deadly diseases (AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria) by guaranteeing universal access to preventive drugs and treatment by 2010. I will also substantially increase U.S. funding for clean-water programs. Finally, I will direct U.S. agencies to lead an international effort to dramatically increase preventive care, beginning with increased vaccinations and the provision of sterile equipment and basic medications."

And to accomplish these benevolent deeds, Edwards wants to add more bureaucracy to the Federal Government:

"I will create a new cabinet-level position to coordinate global development policies across the government. I will also replace Kennedy's Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 with a Global Development Act to modernize and consolidate development assistance...With measures like these, we can reclaim our historic role as a moral leader of the world while at the same time making the world safer and more secure for the United States."

But, of course, more perilous for the American taxpayer.
continue reading "The War on Slogans..."

My9 TV appearance - Iraq and 2008 Primaries

My9 News (WWOR tv based in Secaucus, NJ) producer Ronica Harris invited me for a 2nd appearance on the talk show "New Jersey Now", which airs each Sunday at 12pm on Channel 9. This time, the 2 segments were:

1. The ongoing debate about America's continuing military occupation of Iraq
2. Developments in the 2008 Presidential Primaries, including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Giuliani

Naturally, I appeared to offer the "Republican" angle, and opposite me this time was Dick Codey's former Chief-of-Staff (including the brief stint as Governor), Pete Cammarano. Pete was a lot of fun to talk with and as you'll see in the videos, cuts right to the heart of the matter.

Here is the video of the 1st segment on Iraq. The discussion was more free-form, which gave me ample opportunity to discuss non-intervention as a foreign policy and relate that to the Founding Fathers, as well as a paleoconservative argument around the need for a war declaration, according to Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

The second segment was more lighthearted, with some banter about Hillary Clinton and her role as 1st Lady, plus some comments on Barack Obama's food shopping habits.

I thank Ronica Harris for the opportunity and I look forward to future appearances.

continue reading "My9 TV appearance - Iraq and 2008 Primaries..."

The Republican YouTube Debate

The Herald News printed my editorial piece today concerning the YouTube debate for the 2008 Presidential GOP Primary. It reinforces themes I have discussed on this blog before, especially the need for Republicans to understand and embrace technological advances in campaigning.
-----------------------




GOP debates YouTube format
by GEORGE AJJAN - Sunday, August 26, 2007
SPECIAL TO THE HERALD NEWS

Several weeks ago, the eight Democrats contending for their party's presidential nomination assembled at the Citadel in South Carolina for a first of its kind debate – in which ordinary citizens were allowed to ask questions using self-recorded video clips, disseminated through the popular video Web site YouTube. While some of the questions were lighthearted, others were refreshingly blunt, stripped of the politically correct veneer typically brushed on by mainstream media.

As for Republicans, their turn to face the video screen had been scheduled for Sept. 17 in Florida. But less than half of the GOP contenders had agreed to participate, while others became squeamish after seeing their Democratic counterparts in the YouTube format. Rudy Giuliani hinted he would not commit to the debate, with a source from his campaign saying, "We have serious scheduling issues. That's prime fund-raising time." Mitt Romney also attributed his reluctance to scheduling, but added, "I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman," referring to a creative question about global warming posed during the Democrats' debate.

As a New Jersey-based Republican activist and blogger who has been urging a stronger embrace of political technology by GOP candidates and organizations here in the Garden State, I found the reluctance on the part of the so-called "front-runners" in the Republican presidential contest to participate to be disheartening and frankly, disturbing. Thus, I was one of many signatories to a "Save the Debate" petition that played a decisive role in getting the debate rescheduled for Nov. 28, to alleviate any "scheduling issues." That is encouraging news, although participation from all the candidates has not yet been confirmed. (continued...)

The comments of those skeptical about the YouTube debates sadly exemplify many of the traditional and stereotypical shortcomings of Republicans. The GOP has got to shatter the image of country-club elitism that plagues the party. Giuliani's campaign prioritizing fundraising over a one-day commitment to appear before millions of viewers and answer tough questions directly from the electorate is deplorable and plays right into that regrettable typecast.

This is not just an esoteric concern; it is empirically demonstrated by many Republicans, who tend to prefer the cocktail-party chitchat of lavish fundraising affairs to rolling up their sleeves and walking neighborhoods to solicit actual votes. Giuliani's campaign tactic indicates this same mentality: money before people. We Republicans must work to change that.

Equally indicative of this disappointing attitude was Romney's principle reaction to the YouTube debate: grumpiness about a silly snowman, not exuberance over the opportunity to interact with voters and show them perhaps a different side to his candidacy. His remark indicates how Republicans must find a more positive consensus to attract voters. Outside of the enviable optimism in Ron Paul's campaign, lately it seems that negative energy is our primary motivation – anger toward illegal immigrants, revenge for terrorist attacks, etc. We absolutely must break the trend described by the late conservative guru Sam Francis, who cynically identified the drivers of successful conservative movements as "greed and hate."

As far as YouTube itself goes, the issue is not that national Republicans don't want to use new technologies. Both Giuliani and Romney have invested heavily in their online efforts and have specifically touted their embrace of YouTube as a campaigning medium. But their behavior seems to indicate the belief that the internet is a switch they can turn on and off, depending upon whether they're in the mood to communicate. But the internet is always "on," although it's not always "on your terms."

Until our party truly grasps that, we will continue to alienate voters and activists, especially young people for whom the internet is not "new," but an integral part of their political upbringing.

Declining to participate in the YouTube debates is inexcusable on the part of any Republican presidential contender, and GOP activists need to make sure the candidates hear that message loud and clear. After all, only several elections ago, Republicans seeking to portray former President Clinton as weak, cowardly, and out-of-touch with American public would bandy about the term "draft dodger."

Woe to the Republican Party if our own behavior makes us known in today's times as the party of "debate dodgers."

George Ajjan, a Clifton resident, is a Republican activist. He runs a blog at http://www.georgeajjan.com/.

O --- This article first appeared in the Herald News on August 26, 2007.
continue reading "The Republican YouTube Debate..."

El brusco alcalde arrepentido

Back in 2005, I worked day and night for Bret Schundler's gubernatorial campaign (aka the 7 ring GOP circus). The circus was facilitated by 2 circumstances:

1. Public matching funds, which allowed anyone capable of raising a modest amount of money (about $250K) to have taxpayers kick in double the amount raised (thus $333K becomes a cool million). This enables individuals with no chance at winning the governorship, but merely with other political aspirations, to give a big boost to their name recognition at the expense of taxpayers. For some reason, the name Todd Caliguire rings a bell here.
2. The complete lack of faith in the NJGOP on the part of national Republicans. I blame one person: George W. Bush. The President of the United States, an elected Republican who came within 7 points of his rival in NJ the previous year, should have played Godfather and tapped his preferred candidate. Even if 2 or 3 others stayed in the game based on some combination of ego and principles, the primary would not have been the free-for-all it became.

Anyway, I supported Bret Schundler. Not only was I a big fan of Bret personally, but his "reform" theme fit nicely with the Passaic County Reform Republican Committee (PCRRC), one of the players in the intra-party squabble happening in the Passaic County GOP at the time. (continued...)

The PCRRC formed when a group of concerned Republicans, in the aftermath of losing the last vestiges of Republican presence in Passaic County government in 2004, decided to run a primary to wrest de facto control of the Party from the hands of Mike Mecca and his puppeteer Peter Murphy (who in addition to having a record of incompetence too lengthy to delineate here, had openly supported Democrats Bill Pascrell and Jerry Speziale, thus blatantly cuckolding myself and my running mate, Mark Michalski).

The PCRRC included:

• myself and those who worked closely with me during my 2004 congressional campaign (Jesse Starrick and Norma Watson in particular)
• Clifton Municipal leader, 2003 Freeholder nominee, and longtime State Committeeman John Traier
• a Hawthorne contingent featuring Mayor Pat Botbyl, Bob and Jen Scully, and the rest of the Michalski team
• longtime local strategist Jimmy Marotta of Totowa
• former Paterson Mayor Pat Kramer, accompanied by Paterson Board of Education member Chauncey Brown, III
• former District 35 Assemblyman Frank Catania
• Pompton Lakes GOP municipal leader Mered Frankel
• the West Milford "Real Republican" club, including Councilman Phil Weisbecker

Others joined as time went on, including former Haledon Mayor Ken Pengitore (who was set up to screen for Freeholder along with the eventual PCRRO candidates Victor Rabbat and Frank Gaccione, only to be rejected).

We put together a slate of candidates, including 2 Freeholder candidates (Jonathan Soto and Robert Piersanti), 2 State Committee candidates (Traier and former Herald News columnist/minister Teresa Nance, as well as Assembly candidates in District 35. (Not seeking to divide the party, we did not field candidates against the incumbents in Districts 40 and 26 - Kevin O'Toole, David Russo, Joe Pennacchio, Alex DeCroce). District 34 was uncontested across the board, I'm sad to say.

To make a long story short, our candidates earned roughly 35% in the primary. The "line" candidates earned about 50%, and the other 15% went to a slate organized by Ken del Vecchio (including himself as well as Paterson municipal leader Bill Connolly) and aligned with Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan.

At the time, I had a negative attitude towards Lonegan for several reasons:

1. adding a third slate to an already confusing primary, which dulled the impact of our genuine Reform effort to change the leadership of the Passaic County GOP
2. seeking out controversial coverage to earn a reputation as a spokesman for angry right-wingers (protesting the "War on Christmas" and opposing Affirmative Action in Newark on Martin Luther King Day)
3. bringing personal attacks on Schundler supporters into the campaign (including my dear friend Sherine el-Abd, a longtime NJ Republican insider and highly respected activist, who happens to be Muslim) - I have since been satisfied with the explanation given by Lonegan's strategist, the inimitable Rick Shaftan, though I still consider the mailer to have been in poor taste

These frustrations were compounded during the me encanta uprising of 2006, in which Lonegan railed against McDonald's advertising strategy. I thought this was silly and illogical because it came across as anti-immigrant and anti-Hispanic, and seemed to conflict with a free-market laissez-faire approach favored by small government conservatives.

Yet in recent months, Lonegan seems to have been changing his tune. I was not the only Republican to be pleasantly surprised when he came out forcefully defending the arch-nemesis of his right-wing cohorts, former Governor Christie Whitman. Lonegan's editorial in The Record on June 28 raised the eyebrows of many GOP insiders with its less-than-subtle key change:

"I have been a vocal critic of former Gov. Christie Whitman's policies in New Jersey, but I have a new found respect for her courage and integrity in standing her ground in defense of her actions as EPA director.

The hearings held by Reps. Jerry Nadler and Bill Pascrell Jr. are nothing short of partisan witch hunts...

Republican leaders, especially those who benefited under the Whitman administration in Trenton, should have the guts to stand up and defend our former governor."

Have a look at the comments on Lonegan's piece that appeared on his PoliticsNJ blog. Responding to doubts expressed by Bergen County's #1 Republican grouch, Joe Tomanelli (We still love ya, Joe), Shaftan rebutted:

"So you're siding with Nancy Pelosi, Jerry Nadler, Bill Pascrell and Hillary Clinton here. Now who's the RINO? When she's right, she's right."

It started becoming clear that Lonegan sought to reposition himself not as a campaign-for-giggles right-wing curio, but rather as a viable candidate who could unite Republicans under his banner. In this year's contentious Republican Primary in Bergen County, Lonegan came down squarely on the side of the "establishment" Republicans led by Kevin O'Toole. Much chatter has been heard in the ensuring months, and much more will be heard in the aftermath of Lonegan's most recent editorial about gays in the Republican Party:

"My beliefs in limited government can be shared across the chasms that liberals and conservatives perceive to separate us – ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation...

Historically, gay Americans have struggled for the freedom to live their lives the way they choose in order to pursue happiness. This is the American Dream, the cornerstone of conservative thinking, and it is these principles that make the increasingly influential gay community the conservative movement's natural ally.

It may surprise some to learn that the very same conservative who refused to be coerced into performing civil union ceremonies by government believes gay voters should be conservative, yet this very instance points to our common ground – a commitment to the rights of the individual and opposition to the power of a collectivist state."

Yes, you read that correctly. Lonegan appropriated the infamous moniker of Jim McGreevey: gay American. He then gets into the nuts and bolts of his argument:

"Many gay adults are also in upper income brackets, making the issue of low taxes, which conservatives have staked their reputation on, an important one.

The principles of limited government that keep Big Brother out of our personal lives must also keep him out of our pocketbooks. Liberal Democrats may not care what individuals do in their bedrooms, but they are already rattling their tax-hiking sabers to let us know they do care what individuals do with their money."

And he gets practical, even preemptively addressing his socially conservative base:

"Obstacles to achieving our real goal of reducing the size of government and limiting its ability to interfere in our lives must be torn down. Gays shouldn't expect government to foist acceptance of their lifestyle on others; religious conservatives shouldn't expect gays to abandon an integral part of their being."

Perhaps the most compelling part of Lonegan's essay, though was the apparent shedding of his old skin:

"The media like to portray conservatives as wild-eyed ideologues, which is
unfair. Of the philosophies that have directed civilization, conservatism has
resulted in the most liberty for people around the world. It is at the hands of
the liberal welfare state that individualism is destroyed; thus the failure of
communism, fascism and socialism in promoting a signature American entitlement - 'the pursuit of happiness.'"

This is not your father's Steve Lonegan (I mean that quite literally, as my father actually wrote a check to Lonegan in 2005, having been compelled by one of Lonegan's "red meat" fundraising mailers). The man is clearly redefining himself and positioning himself for another crack at the Governorship in 2009. As Shaftan recently commented on PoliticsNJ, in the context of a poll putting Corzine head-to-head with Lonegan in 2 years:

"If you go back to 1976-1980 you will see exactly the same comments about Ronald Reagan. Go pick any newspaper from early 1980 and read how Democrats couldn't wait to get in the ring with the Gipper."

But aside from this series of cultural overtures and insider signaling, there is one strong attribute Lonegan possesses that puts him miles above just about any potential competitor: his commitment to limited government and fiscal conservatism. Even those for whom Lonegan's name evokes a Pavlovian bitterness cannot but admire the man's skill at managing a budget. His record in Bogota is exemplary, and though it is a very small microcosm of New Jersey, a scaled-up Bogota would be a pleasure to inhabit.

Perhaps more important is Lonegan's project in the past couple of years. He leads the New Jersey chapter of a non-partisan group called Americans for Prosperity:

"AFP is an organization of grassroots leaders who engage citizens in the name of limited government and free markets on the local, state and federal levels. The grassroots members of AFP advocate for public policies that champion the principles of entrepreneurship and fiscal and regulatory restraint.

AFP Foundation is committed to educating citizens about economic policy and a return of the federal government to its Constitutional limits."

This is not just any organization; it has some powerful backers, including David Koch (the Koch family of Kansas owns what is generally considered to be the world's largest privately-owned company). By associating himself with this group, and working hard on its behalf, he has shown a true and undying commitment to fiscal conservatism. He has cultivated relationships with big-time national donors. And he has shown more ongoing concern for the taxpayers of New Jersey than any of his fellow ringmasters from 2005. I happen to like all of those guys (though I've lost tremendous respect for Todd Caliguire), has anyone heard from John Murphy, Bob Schroeder, Doug Forrester, or Paul DiGaetano recently? Lonegan has been at the forefront of the battle, continuing to file complaints against the likes of Wayne Bryant (who was later indicted).

All in all, Steve Lonegan has demonstrated much more political skill and strategy than I attributed to him back in 2005 and 2006. I do not think it wise to continue to write him off as a right-wing wackjob. Yes, he went too far in the past and had alienated Republicans like me, but Lonegan is definitely in the game and if he continues to build bridges within the party to unite Republicans under a compelling platform of limited government, he will be a force to be reckoned with - not only in the Primary, but in the 2009 General Election.
continue reading "El brusco alcalde arrepentido..."

Jonathan Pollard's future cellmate

Anti-Semitism is alive and well - and by using the term anti-Semitic, I refer to an individual with a hateful and bigoted attitude toward those of Semitic extraction. An individual like career State Department employee Patrick Syring, who was indicted by a grand jury last week on 2 counts.

What did Syring do? Well, during last summer's Israeli bombardment of Lebanon, he engaged in a series of communications with the Arab American Institute, the foremost and most mainstream Arab-American organization in the US (I am a member of their National Policy Council). I will outline them one by one as listed in the indictment, along with the names of the AAI employees involved (friends and colleagues of mine):

1. Voicemail, 11:17 pm, July 17, 2006

"This is Patrick Syring. I just James Zogby's statements online at the MSNBC website, and I condemn him for his anti-Semitism and anti-American statements.

The only good Lebanese is a dead Lebanese. The only good Arab is a dead Arab. Long live the IDF. Death to Lebanon and death to the Arabs (continued...)

2. Email, 11:17 pm, July 17, 2006, to James Zogby and Natasha Tynes (who is not an Arab-American)



"Zobgy's anti-Semitic, anti-American statements (and those of the AAI in general) are abhorrent, repulsive, and disgusting.

The only good Lebanese is a dead Lebanese (as the IDF knows and is carrying out in its security operations, God bless them).

F___ the Arabs and f___ James Zogby and his wicked Hizbollah brothers. They will burn in hellfire on this earth and in the hereafter."

3. Voicemail, July 18/19, 2006 to Valerie Smith (who is not an Arab-American)
   
   

   "Hello Valerie, you f___ing Arab American s___. James Zogby and you are all Hezbollah supporters.

   The only good Arab is a dead Arab. You god-inaudible bitch."

4. Email, 12:32 am, July 19, 2006 to Valerie Smith
   
   

   "You are a f____ing Arab-American stooge who sympathizes with Hezbollah terror.

   You and your Arab American Institute f___ers should burn in the fires of hell for eternity.

   The IDF is bombing Lebanon back to the Stone Age where it belongs. Arabs are dogs.

   Long live the State of Israel. Death to Arab American terrorists. The only good Lebanese is a dead Lebanese."
   

5. Email, 12:35 pm, July 19, 2006, to Rebecca Abou-Chedid

"You are a f____ing Arab-American terrorist, a Hezbollah sympathizer pig.

James Zogby is a vile evil anti-Semitic pig terrorist member of Hezbollah who is attempting to destroy the State of Israel.

God Bless America. God Bless the State of Israel. The only good Lebanese is a dead Lebanese."

6. Email, 12:13 am, July 29, 2006, to James Zogby, Helen Samhan, Nidal Ibrahim, Rebecca Abou-Chedid, Valerie Smith

"I condemn James Zobgy and the AAI for perpetrating the murder and the shootings at the Jewish Federation in Seattle on Friday July 28 (as well as the killings in Israel).

You wicked evil Hezbollah-supporting Arabs should burn in the fires of hell for eternity and beyond. The United States would be safer without you.

God Bless America. God Bless the State of Israel.

Sincerely,
Patrick in Arlington, VA"

True, the emails were not sent from a US government email address, but rather from Syring's personal email address. And Syring has since retired. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack added:

"Let me just underline for you the seriousness with which [Condoleezza Rice] approaches the idea that the State Department should be a workplace that in no way, shape or form tolerates discrimination or hateful language. It's just not condoned or acceptable in this department."

For his part, AAI President Jim Zogby responded:

"We are pleased with word that the grand jury has returned two indictments. This has been a matter of concern to me and my entire office. The Civil Rights Division of U.S. Department of Justice has been responsive, and we feel protected. The threats were both intimidating and frightening – and the fact that Mr. Syring was a 20 year career officer at the Department of State made it of even greater concern."

The indictment itself contains 2 counts. I will first discuss the 2nd count, since it is more straightforward, under the charge of Threatening Communication in Interstate Commerce, United States Code, Section 875c:

"Patrick Syring knowingly and willfully did transmit in interstate commerce, from Arlington, VA to the District of Columbia, telephone and email communication to Arab American Institute employees, in which Patrick Syring threatened to injure Arab American Institute employees."

I suppose one could argue that Syring never explicitly said, "I will make sure that You and your Arab American Institute f___ers burn in the fires of hell for eternity," and therefore didn't actually threaten anybody. But this is an indictment, not a verdict, and Syring lawyers are welcome to argue his intentions at trial. Good luck to them.

But the indictment's first count, I suspect, will be the source of more controversy. It constitutes a violation of the civil rights of others, according to Section 245 (b2) of the United States Code, by stating:

"Patrick Syring did attempt to and did willfully intimidate and interfere with Arab American Institute employees because of their race and national origin, that is because they were Arab and Lebanese Americans, and because they were and had been enjoying employment, and the prerequisites thereof, by a private employer, the Arab American Institute."

Certainly some will seek to discredit the case against Syring, saying that such an indictment violates his own right to free speech. I found one blogger who stated:

"Patrick Syring should indeed not be in trouble for saying what he said or doing what he did...All Mr. Syring did was express his personal opinion. If insulting opinions have become illegal (as they apparently have), no matter who the insulted party is, there is trouble in this land...Yes, Patrick Syring is a mental midget and is in no way an attribute to our society but even that is not yet illegal."

Again, the jury will determine that. But I doubt indictment would have been handed down if Syring had sent merely "insulting" emails saying, "Jim Zogby and all Arabs smell bad. Long live the IDF." It seems to me there was no explicit threat of imminent harm, but Syring went well beyond "insulting".

The other debate sure to evolve concerns "hate crimes". To my knowledge, the indictment of Syring has nothing to do with his communications with the AAI constituting hate crimes. The hate crime legislation that conservatives rail against was passed in 1994 (and therefore before Republicans retook the congressional majority) and applies to sentencing guidelines, which mandate increased penalties for guilty offenders if their offenses were determined to be "hate crimes". I happen to agree with the critics of such legislation because of the big-brother, thought-police implications.

But the statute cited in the indictment of Syring dates to 1969 and is therefore not a product of modern-day ultra-PC climate. It concerns the fact that the AAI is an organization that advocates for the political integration and civic activities of Arab-Americans, considered to be a "federally protected activity" according to the statute. Since Syring mentioned the views espoused by Zogby and promoted by the AAI (no they are not Hezbollah sympathizers, but only in Syring's warped mind) in the course of his communications, it does make sense that he attempted to intimidate or interfere with their ability to advocate for policy as American citizens and as employees of an organization devoted to such activity.

I suppose the indictment would have read differently if Syring had emailed and voicemailed my youngest sister, for example, who is totally apolitical, and said, "the only good Arab is a dead Arab". In that case, I believe that the first count would be less likely, although I suppose the second count of threatening communication would still hold. Thank the heavens I am not an attorney, but if any lawyers out there would care to dispute, I'd love to hear your critiques.

The other interesting element here is the fact that Valerie Smith reads/writes/speaks Arabic but is not an Arab-American. If therefore, she had been the only recipient of Syring's communications, how might the authorities have sought to prosecute him?

In any case, I stand by my friends and colleagues at the AAI and I hope that justice will be served. This is not just to be shrugged off. For those who think it's no big deal, consider that hateful people come in all varieties and remember that Congressman Darrell Issa had his office bombed because of his ethnicity.

addendum:
As usual, my fellow paleoconservative farm team infielder Daniel Larison offers insightful commentary, including:

"...if the situation were reversed and there were a government official sending such hateful messages to Jewish-Americans and their colleagues, it would be a major story and would be hyped from here to eternity by the usual suspects. We would see daily coverage in The New York Times and hear constant commentary every day. There would be bloviating pundits asking 'how many' other Foreign Service officers held similar views, and what Secretary Rice was doing about it. Certain newspapers and magazines would have a field day and would draw broad, sweeping claims about State's toleration of these attitudes."

continue reading "Jonathan Pollard's future cellmate..."

GOP County Conventions

Anyone who follows this blog knows that I supported both Scott Rumana and Rob Ortiz in their respective quests for the Chairmanship of the Passaic and Bergen County GOP organizations, because I felt each of those candidates was most likely to advance the principles that I consider important for building a successful Republican Party in New Jersey, not the least of which is a more democratic and transparent organization. The election results were to my liking, but that does not mean that my commitment to those principles will relax - hence the following op-ed that appear in The Record today.
--------------------


Breathing new life into North Jersey GOP
by GEORGE AJJAN - Tuesday, August 14, 2007

WITH THE ELECTION of Rob Ortiz as chairman of the Republican Party in Bergen County, the trend of electing young, reform-oriented leaders in North Jersey continues. Of course, the ascension to the corresponding post in Passaic County of Scott Rumana, who has rightly pledged to resign as mayor of Wayne if elected to the Assembly this November as is expected, was another milestone.

Each of these leaders won convincing victories as GOP party chairman with the confidence of the Republican county committee by communicating a plan to break clean from the bumbling ineptitude of the previous administration. Without rehashing the less-than-glorious recent past, suffice it to say that both Passaic and Bergen have seen a nearly complete reversal of their fortunes over the past decade, having gone from just about 100 percent control of the county to almost zero.

While it would be hard to sink much lower, reversing the trend will not happen overnight. Raising enough money to compete with the Democrats in either county is a tall ord