Top 10 Letters

*1*
In regards to Hugh Hewitt’s Too Much Information, Attorney General Bill Lockyer’s California Anti-Terrorism Information Center (CATIC) recently released to law enforcement agencies a list of the state’s critical assets to provide local and state peace officers with information about sites in their communities that, should there be a disruption in business, services or activities, would have a critical impact on either the community or the state.

Contrary to Hewitt’s assertion that the attorney general made the list public, this confidential law-enforcement document was distributed only to local law enforcement agencies and was not made available to the public or the media. The list was developed strictly as another preemptive and pro-active tool that the attorney general has provided to law enforcement officers to help them in their efforts to better protect their communities.

CATIC was established in the wake of 9/11 to share information with and develop intelligence and analyses about suspected terrorists and their activities for California law enforcement agencies. The list of critical assets was compiled by the California National Guard, one of 32 federal, state and local “allied agencies” which have personnel assigned to CATIC’s Sacramento headquarters and eight regional task forces. We fully expect this list to continue to evolve. As local law enforcement agencies reach out to sites in their community and ensure that adequate security procedures and emergency backup plans are in place, those sites most likely will be taken off the list and others may be added.

The attorney general and his professional law enforcement agents in CATIC share Hewitt’s view that compiling a list of obvious, as well as the not-so-obvious, targets benefits local law enforcement agencies. There have been no threats against the sites on the list, nor does their presence on the list indicate they are vulnerable to an attack. The list was not made public for obvious reasons, including the fact that the release may unduly frighten citizens and keep them from patronizing businesses or public venues on the list, as well as the belief that those with criminal intent no doubt would love to know what we consider critical assets.

Like Hewitt, we believe that “just because a list exists doesn’t mean it ought to be published.” We at the Department of Justice have declined to discuss specific sites, counties in which they are located or even the number of sites currently on the list with inquiring reporters. If local law enforcement agencies choose to disclose information about their communities, that is their decision. Under Bill Lockyer’s administration, the Department of Justice will continue its efforts to provide the best possible assistance to help local law enforcement agencies protect their communities.

–Hallye Jordan, Press Secretary for California Attorney General Bill Lockyer

Hugh Hewitt responds: It is reassuring to know that California Attorney General Bill Lockyer didn’t intend for this list to get published. It is not reassuring to know that its distribution was handled in such a way as to allow release. How hard would it have been, after all, to distribute the “target list” in pieces so that local law enforcement only received notice of the vulnerable sites in their own communities?

Of course the response from the hapless Lockyer operation raises a second question: Why is he writing The Daily Standard and not the Los Angeles Times? If release was not intended, then the Times did a disservice to the community it allegedly serves. Are Lockyer’s ambitions preventing him from scolding the largest newspaper in California? Perhaps our next letter will shed some light on how the screw-up happened, and what the AG has done to inform the Times’ of its obligations.

*2*
Very good commentary from Claudia Winkler (A War of Conviction and Leadership). This is why Lincoln is revered and Buchanan largely forgotten. It is why history will acclaim George W. Bush and Bill Clinton will be relegated to presidential “conduct-while-in-office” lessons.

–John T. Smith

*3*
I recently attended a Coldplay show in Salt Lake City (David Skinner, Stardumb: Chris Martin of Coldplay). During one of my favorite Coldplay songs, “Everything’s Not Lost,” Martin stopped and made a comment that everything really would be lost if Bush and Cheney got reelected. If that happened “we would all be f—ed,” was, I think, the direct quote. I read a couple of reviews from other shows on the tour and there were references to similar comments made by Martin.

It’s interesting to note that since Martin started dating Gwyneth Paltrow he has begun opining more. As a big Coldplay fan, I am going to cut him some slack and assume he is being influenced by Hollywood.

–Justin Allen

*4*
The filibuster rule (part of Congress’s Constitutional right to organize) prevents Congress from carrying out its Constitutional mandate to advise and consent (Terry Eastland, Filibustering Miguel).

Is it not reasonable to assume Congress cannot establish rules that prevent it from carrying out its duty to advice and consent? Therefore, filibuster of judicial nominee is unconstitutional and Republican leadership should seek court relief. After all, the Senate was not able to filibuster impeachment, so some Senate functions can’t be filibustered.

–Charles Rayner

*5*
A word from France: The “peace march” over here did include “Israel-Nazi state” stickers (David Brooks, It’s Back). The board of one famous left-wing university has voted to boycott research contracts with Israel. Brooks is right. It is back.

And it’s just not the same old Christian or racialist anti-Semitism, but the product of an unholy alliance between liberalism and Islam. Both want to destroy the same enemy: the Western, Judeo-Christian civilization. The leftists couldn’t stand anti-Semitism when it came from Christians, not out of respect from the Jews, but out of hatred for Christianity. Now that it comes from Muslims who share that hatred, it has become as natural to them as the air they breathe.

And another thing. I haven’t yet been called a Shabbas goy. But I would consider it an honor.

–Armand Laferrere

*6*
In Fred Barnes’s Who Wins Without War I quite agree that the United States will lose greatly. However, antiwar proponents have so much animosity towards Bush that they want the United States to be taken down and to lose, even if it means that someone like Saddam Huessin wins. It’s a strange and disturbing mental complex to see: People are willing sacrifice their own freedoms and happiness for some feeling of superiority over the current administration.

–Beatrice Kendall

*7*
Would it be “smug” of this neo-hawk-liberal to bemoan the fact that American is being sorely wounded by the Bush tax design? (Lee Bockhorn, The Neo-hawks’ Secret Shame) I like my stealth bombers and my state parks.

I’m all for defense spending increases, but maintaining a pristine land, without a starving rabble, is worth the fighting for.

–P. Booth

*8*
I have only one point of disagreement with Fred Barnes’s article: The United Nations is already irrelevant with respect to matters of substance and has been for a good 10 years now. This institution has become nothing more than a bloated bureaucracy whose primary goal is to transfer power and wealth from the United States to every banana republic dictator in the third world, and to make us pay the hotel and restaurant bills while they do it. They have passed the point of no return with their behavior regarding Iraq.

–Steve Anderson

*9*
I think Lee Bockhorn should consider that these neo-hawks’ audience is also fervently anti-Bush. If they want to make a difference in their audience’s attitudes toward war with Iraq, they have to couch it in terms not favorable to the president or his image. At my alma mater, the evangelical Seattle Pacific University, we call this “engaging the culture.” They can’t engage their culture very well if they acknowledge Bush as a president with a good foreign policy. And you don’t have to care for the president if you support military action–it’s an intersection of interests and nothing more.

–Greg Piper

*10*
I agree with everything Larry Miller says in No Proof Would Be Enough, but he’s still molly-coddling the antiwar crowd.

The real problem with the America-bashing, pro-Saddam crowd is profoundly psychological and very distressing: Their poor self-esteem and envy has mutated into a murderous resentment.

–Gareth Llewellyn