Bush reiterated that the administration never said that "the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated" between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. "We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda," he said. [...] "I always said that Saddam Hussein was a threat," Bush said. He was "a threat because he provided safe haven for a terrorist like (Abu Musab al-) Zarqawi, who is still killing innocents inside of Iraq."

"We don't have evidence that Saddam Hussein helped plan the attack on September 11th, but we do have plenty of evidence that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden shared a similar view of the United States and were exploring ways to develop closer ties. Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden are cut from the same cloth. One leads a terrorist organization, while the other led a terrorist government."

This is clear -- if anything in this regard can be said to be "clear" -- from the staff's murky but carefully phrased summation sentence, which is worth parsing since it is already being gleefully misreported: "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." (Italics mine.) That is, the staff is not saying al Qaeda and Iraq did cooperate -- far from it. The staff seems to be saying: "they appear to have cooperated but we do not have sufficient evidence to conclude that they worked in tandem on a specific terrorist attack, such as 9/11, the U.S.S. Cole bombing, or the embassy bombings." [...]al Qaeda is a full-time terrorist organization -- it does not have the same pretensions as, say, Sinn Fein or Hamas, to be a part-time political party. Al Qaeda's time is fully devoted to conducting terrorist attacks and planning terrorist attacks. Thus, if a country cooperates with al Qaeda, it is cooperating in (or facilitating, abetting, promoting -- you choose the euphemism) terrorism. What difference should it make that no one can find an actual bomb that was once in Saddam's closet and ended up at the Cole's hull? If al Qaeda and Iraq were cooperating, they had to be cooperating on terrorism, and as al Qaeda made no secret that it existed for the narrow purpose of inflicting terrorism on the United States, exactly what should we suppose Saddam was hoping to achieve by cooperating with bin Laden?

"The recent terror attacks on Westerners in Saudi Arabia reveal a crucial reason why a deadly clash between Islam and the West is unavoidable in the 21st century--and why only one of those civilizations can survive the clash....

...It might seem as if the focus of our civilization is material: industrial production, fueled by oil--while the focus of theirs in spiritual: the 14-century-old Muslim faith centered in the Saudi city of Mecca. In fact, the Arab world's only real strength is its oil wealth--while our strength, a force which the Arabs both depend on and fear, is our ideas.

...Pakistani strongman Pervez Musharaff, in an op-ed for the Washington Post, recently described his vision for "Enlightened Moderation," an article that echoed the same themes as former Malaysian strongman Mahathir Mohammed. The theme of these Islamic "reformers" is this: that the Muslim world needs the economic and technological development that is only possible if they import the education and technical knowledge offered by the West--studying our ideas, adopting our mental habits, and opening the Muslim world up to Western intellectual influence. But both Musharaff and Mahathir are desperately trying to find a way to do the impossible: to open their societies to the benefits of our civilization's science, while maintaining their civilization's traditional religious dogmas."

The Supreme Court preserved the phrase "one nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling Monday that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath but sidestepping the broader question of separation of church and state. ... The high court's lengthy opinion overturns a ruling two years ago that the teacher-led pledge was unconstitutional in public schools. ... The [overruled] 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the language of the First Amendment and the Supreme Court's precedents make clear that tax-supported schools cannot lend their imprimatur to a declaration of fealty of "one nation under God."... Congress adopted the pledge as a secular, patriotic tribute in 1942, at the height of World War II. Congress added the phrase "under God" more than a decade later, in 1954, when the world had moved from hot war to cold. Supporters of the new wording said it would set the United States apart from godless communism.

Faced with the need for a controversial decision, the Supreme Court bravely dodges the issue, deciding (somewhat dubiously) that a girl's own father doesn't have standing to sue on her behalf. But when the court finally does make its decision, it is clear that there are at least four votes on the court for weakening the wall of separation between church and state.

Sultaana Freeman -- the woman suing the State of Florida to win the right to be pictured on her driver's license wearing a niqab and showing just her eyes -- is back in the news today, with a report in the Orlando Sentinel on the arguments yesterday in front of the judges at Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal. The paper summarizes these:

Howard Marx, Freeman's attorney, argued that the state should not substantially burden his client with the requirement that she appear without her veil on her drivers license. Conversely, Assistant Attorney General Jay Vail relied on the decision last year in an Orange County circuit court that favored the state's argument that 9-11 security concerns must outweigh a person's individual rights.

This case will go some way to deciding whether Saudi norms, with all their implications, will be imposed on the United States or not. (If judges read the opinion polls, there won't be any doubt; see the unscientific but convincing WFTV survey that finds 97 percent of respondents replying "no" to the question "Should the judge allow her to wear her veil in her driver license photo?")

Turns out the Florida woman who is suing for the right to wear a Muslim headdress in a driver's license photograph has previously been subjected to an, um, unveiled government portrait. Following her 1997 conversion to Islam, Sultaana Freeman (formerly Sandra Keller) was arrested in Decatur, Illinois for battering a foster child. Freeman, 35, pleaded guilty in 1999 to felony aggravated battery and was sentenced to 18 months probation. As a result of the conviction, state officials removed two foster children from Freeman's care.

Sultaana Freeman should not feel too bad--in Saudi Arabia she would not be able to wear a veil to cover her face for a photo ID--in fact, she in Saudi Arabia women are not even permitted to drive. (Postscript: In Muslim countries where women are allowed to drive, such as Iran, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Jordan, women do not cover their faces for a photo ID.) [Freeman Unveiled]

Freedom of religion doesn't give one the right to a driver's license, which is a privilege granted by the owner of the roads--in this case the government. Freeman's options are to uncover her face, or forgo getting a license. [Islam vs. Driver's Licenses]

A drivers license may serve as a proxy for an ID, but in fact, it is nothing more than a license to operate a motor vehicle on government highways. Such a license should not demand invading an individual's privacy if they wish to maintain it.

If the question before the court was regarding the woman's passport, for example, I would probably side with the woman having to remove her veil if she wished to be issued a passport on the grounds that a passport serves as a form of identification and demands the means to physically identify the person in question.

"At this hour, stockpiles go unguarded, bomb-making materials sit in forgotten facilities, and terrorists plot away," the senator said. "They have their technology. They have their scientists. All they need is that material. But we can stop them." ... "Remember. No material. No bomb. No nuclear terrorism," he said. [June 1, 2004]

In a new speech, Democratic candidate John Kerry sets forth his plan to deal with the threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. His answer, as usual, is to fire off a barrage of paper bullets, negotiating new "anti-proliferation" treaties and appointing new people, as a cover for doing nothing of real substance.

International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei was critical Monday of Iran's cooperation with his agency as the IAEA board of governors met. Iran's cooperation with U.N. nuclear inspectors is "less than satisfactory," ElBaradei said. [...] But, ElBaradei said, there is "steady progress" in the rest of the agency's work with the Islamic republic.

If Iran goes nuclear within the next year or two, don't blame the inspectors at the International Atomic Energy Agency. Earlier this month Mohammed ElBaradei's U.N. team issued yet another damning report on the mullahs, describing a pattern of deception and non-cooperation that all but screams "bomb program." But the international community, with the apparent acquiescence of the Bush Administration, is treating it all as a matter of indifference. OK, that's a mild overstatement. IAEA member states have been going through the motions required by their inspection process. But when they meet today in Vienna the consuming issue will be whether to "deplore" Iran's deceptions or note them with "serious concern." The Iranians are protesting that they consider even those words as all but a casus belli, but they are reported to be privately pleased as punch that the IAEA will yet again fail to refer them to the U.N. Security Council for sanction.

Members of Iraq's government have become targets of insurgents who see them as collaborating with the U.S.-led coalition. Saturday morning, Bassam Salih Kubba, one of Iraq's four deputy foreign ministers, was killed when a carful of assailants drove by and fired at him. Assailants also opened fire on Iraq's deputy health minister, Ammar al-Saffar, Wednesday morning as he left his home for work. He escaped unharmed. Last month, a convoy carrying Salama al-Khafaji, a female member of the Iraqi Governing Council, was ambushed. Al-Khafaji survived the assassination attempt. In mid-May, a suicide bomber killed Izzedine Salim, who was just two weeks into his monthlong term as the council's president.

The governing council dissolved itself June 1 to make way for the interim government, which assumes leadership from the coalition June 30.

There has, in fact, been a profound silence in the kingdom in the wake of the attacks in Yanbu and Khobar, in which foreigners were the main targets and Muslims were pointedly spared. Web sites popular with the more religious Saudis brimmed over with condemnation for the April bombing of the traffic police headquarters in Riyadh because all the victims were Saudis, while virtually ignoring the two subsequent attacks. That leads some Saudi intellectuals to conclude that the religious establishment, or at least its more militant elements, basically support Al Qaeda's goal of driving all foreigners out of the Arabian peninsula and establishing a Taliban-like caliphate. (The Saudis Fight Terror, but Not Those Who Wage It)

Almost half of all Saudis said in a poll conducted last year that they have a favorable view of Osama bin Laden's sermons and rhetoric, but fewer than 5 percent thought it was a good idea for bin Laden to rule the Arabian Peninsula. The poll involved interviews with more than 15,000 Saudis and was overseen by Nawaf Obaid, a Saudi national security consultant. It was conducted between August and November 2003, after simultaneous suicide attacks in May 2003 when 36 people were killed in Riyadh.

The Saudi declaration must not be confused with America's war. The Saudis have declared a war, not against fundamentalist Islam -- of which they are a part -- but against those Muslims who disagree with Saudi Wahhabism. [...] For those who think that Islam is not violent, or that only "some" Muslims have "hijacked a great religion," consider that all sides in these conflicts require the sanction of clerics for their declaration of wars.

The man was reported missing shortly after gunmen killed Kenneth Scroggs, an American working for a British-Saudi company, at his home in Riyadh's upscale Malaz neighborhood.  The [Al Falluja Squadron group's] statement identified the man it said it had kidnapped, posting a driver's license, passport, business card and other documents and described him as a system engineering "specialist" for the Apache AH-64 helicopter."We have our legal right to treat them [hostages] the same way they treat our people," the statement reads. "We will publish more details about the man kidnapped and explain the mujahedeen's demands." The group added, "We will continue this determination in the same road toward Jihad and for supporting our brothers in Palestine, Iraq, Cuba and everywhere." Meanwhile, the same Web site posted a video purporting to show the killing of Robert Jacobs, an American worker Saudi authorities said was gunned down Tuesday at his Riyadh home. CNN has not confirmed the authenticity of the video, and the victim's face is never seen. Jacobs, a 63-year-old employee of Vinnell Arabia, was gunned down in the eastern Riyadh neighborhood of al-Khaleej, which contains several residential compounds for Westerners, according to Saudi police and Jacobs' company.

This cartoon was inspired by a post at Charles Johnson's blog, Little Green Footballs. We stole his title outright: Hip-Hop, Islamofascist Style. The post is about an Iranian rapper who was allowed by the theocracy to release an album, but only after the "ministry of Islamic guidance and culture" censored 20 lyrical excerpts and a few songs. What was left? According the London Telegraph article:

Many of the songs question the habit of girls following western fashions. The lyrics mock the girls in Teheran who stroll through the capital with designer headscarves and make-up. "More important than bread at night is your lipstick and lipliner," raps Binesh Pagoh about a conceited girl. "There's a lot of religious people here, cover your legs with that skirt."

The article claims the album's release is an indication that officials are easing the restrictions on art. Perhaps. It's certainly an indication of how far Iranian people are from a free society.

"The main factor in the decline of their capability is the killing and capture of their leadership. Only one senior West Bank Hamas figure, Ibrahim Hamad who is the commander in the Ramallah area, is still at large, having survived numerous attempts to capture or kill him. Others have fled and are believed to be in Syria...

..."Their rotating leadership is expending all its energy hiding. They are afraid of Israel hitting them which makes any sort of sophisticated planning difficult," said Bar, a senior research fellow at the Institute for Policy and Strategy at the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya." [Hat Tip: Max Harris]

This year terrorism and its likely impact on world oil prices will see the European leaders lining up with the U.S. in common concern, according to [Katynka] Barysch [, an analyst at the Center for European Reform].

A cultural establishment that (on the whole) doesn't give a damn about World War II or its veterans thinks it can undo a half-century of indifference verging on contempt by repeating a silly phrase ("the greatest generation") like a magic spell while deploying fulsome praise like carpet bombing. The campaign is especially intense among members of the 1960s generation who once chose to treat all present and former soldiers like dirt and are willing at long last to risk some friendly words about World War II veterans, now that most are safely underground and guaranteed not to talk back, enjoy their celebrity or start acting like they own the joint.

'Fahrenheit 451' author says filmmaker stole his title for Bush-bash...

...Moore's film won the Palme d'Or award at the Cannes Film Festival last month and is scheduled to hit theaters on June 25. Of the Cannes award, Bradbury told the paper: "I have won prizes in different places and they are mostly meaningless. The people there hate us, which is why they gave him the d'Or. It's a meaningless prize."