Let Freedom Ring Throughout the World

It's Official

2006-03-27T19:51:00.000-08:00

Well, it's official now. I've finally made the move to my new site. Many thanks to Mike Jones for his designing it. Thanks to all the people who've faithfully stopped past Let Freedom Ring. Now it's time for you to follow this link to the new site.

Technorati Tags: Let Freedom Ring blog, Author: Gary Gross

Schieffer: Don't Blame Media for Iraq Failures

2006-03-12T22:33:00.000-08:00

That's a deal, Bob. We'll just blame the media for not getting the stories out accurately. Here's how Schieffer closed his 'Face The Nation' program:

CBS "Face the Nation" host Bob Schieffer lashed out at the U.S. military on Sunday, saying top generals need to "stop blaming the media" for negative coverage of the Iraq war. Closing his broadcast Sunday with a commentary on reports that Iraq has descended into civil war, Schieffer urged: "What must stop is the ongoing government effort to sugar coat [the lack of progress in Iraq], trying to blame it on the media or saying it's all going very, very well, as our top general Peter Pace did last week."

The reality is Mr. Schieffer's colleagues in the Agenda Media haven't gotten much right about the supposed Iraqi civil war. The truth is that Ralph Peters exposed their failings for all the world to see. The truth is that Jack Kelly exposes them in his Sunday column for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, aptly titled "All Bad News, All the Time". For Schieffer to accuse Pete Pace of sugarcoating what's going on in Iraq is shameful.

If he wants to accuse Gen. Pace of sugarcoating what's happening in Iraq, it might serve him well to also attack the media's willing accomplices who misrepresent what's actually happening in Iraq.

Here's another example of the media's not telling us the truth about the military:

"Much of the reporting has exaggerated the situation," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Tuesday. "The number of attacks on mosques had been exaggerated. The number of Iraqi deaths had been exaggerated. The behavior of the Iraqi security forces had been mischaracterized." For instance, The Washington Post reported on Feb. 25 that 120 Sunni mosques had been attacked in retaliation for the destruction of the Golden Mosque, holy to the Shiites. In a March 3 news conference, Gen. George Casey, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, said:
"We can confirm attacks on about 30 mosques around the country, with less than 10 of those mosques moderately damaged, and only two or three severely damaged. We visited eight mosques (in Baghdad) that were reportedly damaged. We found one broken window in those eight mosques."

This is breathtakingly awful reporting. In fact, it's a stretch to call it reporting. It's more like fiction because it's got nothing to do with factual things. And this is just one thing that I can cite. Earlier I mentioned Ralph Peters' reporting. There's no better example of the media getting things wrong than Col. Peters' reporting. His mocking them saying:

"I’m trying. I've been trying all week. The other day, I drove another 30 miles or so on the streets and alleys of Baghdad. I'm looking for the civil war that The New York Times declared. And I just can't find it. Maybe actually being on the ground in Iraq prevents me from seeing it. Perhaps the view's clearer from Manhattan. It could be that my background as an intelligence officer didn't give me the right skills. And riding around with the U.S. Army, looking at things first-hand, is certainly a technique to which The New York Times wouldn't stoop in such an hour of crisis."

That's called sticking the knife in deep, then twisting it ever so slowly as you extract it. That type of report lays open the Agenda Media's willful disregard for the truth. There couldn't have been any fact-checking back at the office. There couldn't have been any true investigating on the reporter's behalf that led the NY Times to conclude that Iraq had descended into civil war.

Mr. Schieffer would do well to not push this issue too far, lest the Right Blogosphere call him on the awful reporting that the Agenda Media have done.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Jack Kelly, Bob Schieffer, Face the Nation, Ralph Peters

A Fitting Tribute To Kirby

2006-03-12T19:27:00.000-08:00

I hope that my writing this week has shown me to be an unabashed Kirby Puckett fan. As I watched tonight's tribute to Kirby, I often felt a lump in my throat, usually because former Twins players like Dan Gladden, Al Newman and Kent Hrbek reminded us of what it was like to be a Minnesota Twin in those glory years of this proud franchise.

As a Minnesotan, it'd be easy to think of Kirby as our own native son. That, of course, is us just kidding ourselves. Kirby was closest to us, we all wanted to believe, because he wasn't just a great ballplayer. Clearly, Kirby is the best player to ever don a Twins uniform. Still, Kent Hrbek, the man who hit cleanup while Kirby just in front of him, was right in saying that tonight that it wouldn't be the homeruns he stole from others or the homers that he hit. Herbie said that people were still robbing people of homeruns, a veiled reference to Torii Hunter. Herbie said that people were still hitting homeruns around here, though not at the pace that the Herbie and Kirby teams did.

The thing that Kent Hrbek said that he'd remember most about Kirby was his laugh, his smile and his friendship. I thought he might've thrown in Kirby's mischief-making but I guess that was Cal Ripken's job tonight.

Ripken said that he first remembered meeting Kirby right after he first came to the majors in 1984. He said that the Twins were just finishing up taking batting practice and Kirby approached Ripken and Eddie Murray, who were then the Orioles' stars. Kirby, he remembered, walked up and introduced himself, calling Ripken and Murray Sir and saying that he had looked up to Ripken for years. Ripken asked how old Kirby was and found out that the 'Puck' and Ripken were the same age. Finally, Ripken recalled that the conversation took 15 minutes and deprived them of taking batting practice that night.

Perhaps the most poignant moment of the night came when for Twins' GM Andy MacPhail told about the great legace that Kirby had left for Twins players for generations. Mr. MacPhail said that everyone in baseball knows that, to be a Twin is to mean that they "play the game right and that you respect the game", which is a fact. He remembered how Kirby took a young outfielder named Shane Mack, who "was a former first round draft pick of the San Diego Padres" who was struggling in the minor leagues and helped Mack become an integral part of the 1991 World Series championship team.

MacPhail mentioned, too, that it was obvious what respect Kirby had for the game, telling of a spring training game in Florida. It was the third inning and Kirby was hitting. MacPhail said you could look down the right field foul line and see this massive wall of water of a Florida rain storm fast approaching. "You didn't need to be a meteorologist to see that this game was about to be over." Kirby hit a "three hopper to short", the ball was fielded cleanly, yet Kirby beat the throw to first. The stopwatch read that Kirby made it down the line in 4.2 seconds. No one would've been upset if Kirby had coasted down there and gotten thrown out because, after all, this was just spring training and a game that was about to be rained out.

That, MacPhail inferred, wasn't Kirby and that wasn't how he played the game. He's right, of course. To this day, Kirby's example set all those years ago, is still how the Twins play the game. Today, the man who finally took over in center field, Torii Hunter, is teaching Denard Span, the Twins' first round pick two years ago, about how to play the outfield right. That's because of the 'fraternity' that Kirby started by taking Torii under his wing.

To this day, if I were starting a team with the goal of winning as many world championships as I could in a ten or fifteen year span, I'd start with Kirby without blinking an eyelash. It isn't that Kirby's the best player I've ever seen. It's that Kirby's the best player I'd ever want as a team leader and a manager's best friend.

Finally, TK, still the best manager I've ever seen, called together the teammates from the championship teams of 87 and 91, along with Rod Carew, Tony Oliva, Harmon Killebrew, the Twins' TV color analyst in 1987, Cal Ripken, Dave Winfield, Paul Molitor and current Twins Joe Mauer and Torii Hunter and said "Folks, get this picture now because this is the best picture you'll ever see." He's right. What a picture for the ages!!!

As a baseball fan first and foremost, it was a sight to behold. Imagine an outfield of Kirby in right, Torii in center and Dave Winfield in left and an infield of Rod Carew at first, Paul Molitor at second, Cal Ripken at short and Harmon at third, with Frank Viola, Bert Blyleven, Jack Morris and Kevin Tapani pitching to Joe Mauer, with Kent Hrbek DH'ing, Randy Bush pinch hitting and TK managing. Give me that team anytime and I'll take my chances. Against anyone, anytime, anywhere.

That's Kirby's legacy. We're still one big family after all these years. Because Kirby and Herbie and Bert and Sweet Music Frankie Viola made the Twins 'Club Fun' when they were together. Today, that torch has passed to Torii and Joe Mauer. How lucky are we?

UPDATE: I just watched a special "Remembering Kirby' show and they had the best line, though I don't know who said it. The line was "Only Kirby could bring Cooperstown to Minnesota." So true. So true.

Clashing Cultures; Priorities Diverging

2006-03-12T12:22:00.000-08:00

That's what the homeschooling vs. public school debate boils down to. Nowhere is that divergence made more clear than in Nathanael Blake's latest column for Townhall.com.

When I tell people about my plans for my (hypothetical) children, I invariably hear the same infratentorial objection, which is that they won't "socialize" properly. No one ever tells me that home schooling will stifle my children's academic ability. The stereotype is quite the opposite: home schoolers are smart but socially inept.

Thus we see why more people homeschool now than ever before. Now we see why most conservatives throw their hands up in disgust over exhorbitant funding with precious few results. It's simply a matter of priorities. It seems to me that teaching kids things that are important in building a base of knowledge is far more important than teaching them social skills. With knowledge comes power is a cliche that most people my age understand and accept.

Unfortunately, too few in school administration positions make this a priority. The proof that they don't is shown in the lowering of test scores vs. the rest of the industrialized world. Liberals talk all the time about lowering class sizes as the key to improving eductation. Until President Bush pushed the NCLB legislation, though, no one thought about making schools accountable for measurable improvements.

By contrast, homeschooling is all about making the students accountable. Homeschooling is about learning excellence. It's also about extricating the children from awful school conditions. And I'm not just talking about inferior buildings, either.

The standard (though rarely articulated) definition of successful socialization is to "fit in" with a lot of immature little savages raised by television, video games, and the internet. Spending at least 35 hours a week, nine months of the year, with 20-30 kids of one's own age (with a harried adult supervising) is the antithesis of what is needed in order to learn how to function in society. Give me the shut-in homeschoolers any day; from their family and their books, they will at least have some notion of life beyond their cohort and how to interact with it.

Don't read this as an unqualified endorsement of the homeschooling system. Insetad, see it for what it is: a disparaging indictment against the teacher union regressive system that children are currently trapped in. As for social skills, the truth is that the culture in schools is alarming.

Do you think that a majority of parents were repulsed by Mr. Bennish's anti-Bush diatribe?

It's hard to imagine a high priority item that everyone's involved in to some extent or another where the contrast is defined in starker terms. Sadly, the ones who lose out are the children.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Education, Home School, Parenting

U.N.: Milosevic's Death 'Pity for Justice'

2006-03-12T11:31:00.000-08:00

This is what the U.N. really boils down to. They express their "pity" about Milosevic dying without being convicted but they're the same idiots that put process before results. They're the ones that rail about having a dignified process with little regard for the victims.

Fairness isn't bending over backwards for a evil person. Fairness is making certaint that the defendant is able to view the evidence, mount a defense, then dispensing justice. In this instance, dispensing justice means death by execution. The truth is that the whole world saw what Milosevic wrought. The ethnic cleansing happened because he touched off the powderkeg. The lives that were lost were lost because he commanded armies to kill anyone who opposed him.

Meanwhile, the families of the victims get cheated. But does the U.N. care? Probably. It's just that they don't care more for delivering justice to the victims' families than they care about process. This is what caused the world to run away from League of Nations.

The U.N., like the League of Nations is all about process, nothing about seeing that real justice happens.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Slobodan Milosevic, United Nations, International Law

Giving McCarthyism A Bad Name

2006-03-11T23:33:00.000-08:00

That's Chuck Colson's first impression of Defcon's attack ad against Ralph Reed, Jim Dobson and Lou Sheldon. I couldn't agree with Mr. Colson more. DefCon is the George Soros-funded hate group that bought the ad in the NY Times. Here's the most objectionable line in the ad (titled "The Religious Right Has a Gambling Problem"):

"all the time they must have been betting that they would not get caught taking their thirty pieces of silver and selling out the millions who believed them. [But] they were wrong."

This isn't just another looney left hate website. They're looney alright but they're far from ordinary. Here's the link to Defcon's Advisory Board staff.

The attack on these Christians is sponsored by a group called Defcon. Its website lists the people, a Who’s Who of the extreme left, including same-sex "marriage" and pro-abortion activists, liberal professors, and ACLU luminaries. And they have the nerve to say that Dobson, Reed, and Sheldon have "waged war against our Constitution."

Suffice it to say that these people aren't part of the mainstream of American politics. Anything that's a Tides Center project is anything but conservative, or even centrist, in nature. To say that they're part of the most extreme wing of the Democratic Party isn't a bit out of line. The truth is that these people will say anything to villainize Christian conservatives.

The ad that ran last week was on TV and in all the major metropolitan newspapers. The ad was a mixture of truth, wild-eyed guesses and lies. Ralph Reed did accept money from Abramoff or an Abramoff-related group. That's the truthful part of the ad. The makers of the ad can't know if Mr. Sheldon accepted money from Abramoff, though it's doubtful that he did. As for them saying that Dr. Dobson accepted money from Abramoff, why would he? AFter all, Dobson's been railing for years against gambling of any sort. The implication, of course, is to portray Dr. Dobson as a religious hypocrite.

The best way to beat these charges is to live in such a way as to make the charges seem totally absurd or to make the people who launched the attack look absurd for even thinking it. Actions speak much louder than words in instances like this. Thus far, the known actions of the three gentlemen are quite above board.

Perhaps that's why Mr. Colson said "I was called the Nixon "hatchet man," so I ought to know a "hatchet job" when I see one, though I am not sure that I have ever seen anything quite this vicious since the McCarthy era."

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Ralph Reed, Jack Abramoff, Focus on the family, James Dobson, Chuck Colson, McCarthyism

Chicago Tribune Series

2006-03-11T20:26:00.000-08:00

The Chicago Tribune's John Crewdson has written a devastating indictment of the CIA's ability to keep their operatives secret. He also ridicules the CIA in the Valerie Plame fiasco with an article titled "Plame's identity, if truly a secret, was thinly veiled".

Here's a glimpse of his Plame article:

When the Chicago Tribune searched for Plame on an Internet service that sells public information about private individuals to its subscribers, it got a report of more than 7,600 words. Included was the fact that in the early 1990s her address was "AMERICAN EMBASSY ATHENS ST, APO NEW YORK NY 09255."
A former senior American diplomat in Athens, who remembers Plame as "pleasant, very well-read, bright," said he had been aware that Plame, who was posing as a junior consular officer, really worked for the CIA. According to CIA veterans, U.S. intelligence officers working in American embassies under "diplomatic cover" are almost invariably known to friendly and opposition intelligence services alike. "If you were in an embassy," said a former CIA officer who posed as a U.S. diplomat in several countries, "you could count 100 percent on the Soviets knowing."

This article begs the questions: When Andrea Mitchell said that Plame's identity was "common knowledge", was she lying? Or is she lying when she changed her tune after the Libby indictment that it wasn't "common knowledge"? Why should we think that Plame's identity was secret to most of official Washington?

After this series, it's pretty difficult to believe that Mitchell didn't know Plame. It's even more absurd to think that Patrick Fitzgerald didn't know that she wasn't a covert operative.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Plame, Fitzgerald, Data Mining, Chicago Tribune

Phoney Polling

2006-03-11T16:24:00.000-08:00

The AP's Will Lester is reporting that an AP/Ipsos poll shows that "70 percent of Republicans and 90 percent of Democrats" think that "it's likely that a civil war will break out."

Unfortunately, he's right but only because the media's coverage has been awful. If the American people were told the truth, they wouldn't hold these opinions. Earlier this week, I wrote daily about Col. Peters contrarian reports from Baghdad (found here, here, here, here, here and here), which offered, to say the least, an unflattering appraisal of the media's coverage. I suspect that people wouldn't hold those opinions if they knew that 379 people were killed following the mosque bombing, not 1,300. I suspect their opinion would be different if they'd read about the infrastructure improvements that are happening, too.

Considering all the untruthful reporting that the AP's done prior to this, it's amazing that 10 percent of Democrats think that we aren't on the verge of civil war.

Technorati Tags: AP/Ipsos, Will Lester, Iraqi Civil War, Ralph Peters

Milosevic Found Dead in Jail Cell

2006-03-11T08:34:00.000-08:00

The AP is reporting that

"Slobodan Milosevic, the former Yugoslav leader who orchestrated the Balkan wars of the 1990s and was on trial for war crimes, was found dead in his prison cell near The Hague, the U.N. tribunal said Saturday. Milosevic, 64, apparently died of natural causes, a tribunal press officer said. He was found dead in his bed at the U.N. detention center."

Yet another instance in which Kofi Annan's 'cooler heads must prevail' approach yields miserable results.

A figure of beguiling charm and cunning ruthlessness, Milosevic was a master tactician who turned his country's defeats into personal victories and held onto power for 13 years despite losing four wars that shattered his nation and impoverished his people.

Most sociopaths and mass murderers share those traits. He chose to combine the two, making him one of the most evil men in the 20th century.

Technorati Tags: Slobodan Milosevic, Human Rights, International Law

Political Cowardice Vs. Substance

2006-03-09T09:29:00.000-08:00

That's what the House Appropriations Committee's 62-2 vote amounts to. Gone is the attitude of weighing the facts of the matter, coming up with a logical plan and setting a sensible policy. It's all about political panic and cowardice. If a genie granted me three wishes, I'd (a) wish that all 62 politicians that voted for the appropriations bill would be fired by the voters, (b) strand Peter King, Chuck Schumer, the Clintons and newly appointed New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez on Antarctica and (c) replace all these idiots with real leaders.

To make matters worse, the UAE is threatening to cancel a couple of multi-billion dollar deals, especially one with Boeing. They're also threatening to not let U.S. Navy ships dock in Dubai's ports and stop helping us in the GWOT. Who can blame them? They've changed their ways, they've helped capture AQ terrorists, they've provided safety for our Navy ships and this is the thanks they get?

UPDATE: DP World has just announced that they're cancelling the deal and divesting itself of all its American investments. This is a tribute to the demagogues who didn't care a bit about substance but caved into the worst type of bigotry.

This is what happens when politicians react to phoney baloney polls. Yes, I believe that 80 percent of Americans think this port deal is wrong. But I also think that that poll isn't based on substance but on Democratic demagoguery.

Rush is on fire on this, too. He started his second hour monologue by saying that Democrats don't care about national security. His suggestion is that House Republicans attach the appropriations bill to a bill that authorizes the NSA warrantless intercept program forever. I couldn't agree more, Rush.

Time For a Pep Talk

2006-03-08T19:39:00.000-08:00

Tuesday night, I went to the GOP precinct caucuses. I'm glad I did. One of the resolutions we passed in our precinct was to support President Bush for his proactive policy in the GWOT. It passed unanimously, if I recall correctly.

Another benefit of attending was meeting people who shared my enthusiasm for the conservative agenda. It's the first time in weeks that I felt like I wasn't subject to the avalanche of negativism that we're fed by the Agenda Media.

Earlier today, I read George Will's column about Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion in the Rumsfeld v. FAIR case. I was reminded that President Bush deserves alot of praise for picking John Roberts to succeed Chief Justice Rehnquist when he passed away.

I also had the privilege of reading Katherine Kersten's column on Minnesota's educational system. I realized that the liberal legacy on education isn't a pretty picture. On the other hand, it's obvious that the "pillars" of No Child Left Behind, namely "accountability for results; an emphasis on doing what works based on scientific research; expanded parental options; and expanded local control and flexibility."

As I said earlier, it seems to me that this is an issue we should rally around. Why shouldn't we put Democrats on the defensive on this issue? It isn't like their 'throw-more-money-at-the-problem' approach is defensible. It isn't like we can't make a strong, common sense case for NCLB's "pillars". It isn't like school vouchers for inner city children wouldn't be a winner with those children's parents.

It's also time for conservatives everywhere, in every state, to jump on board with Mike Pence's "Republican Study Committee’s budget: "Contract With America: Renewed." It's time we started caring about fiscal sanity. That's how we rode to power in 1994. That's the road we need to take to appeal to blue collar workers and executives alike. Only incumbents like it when money is needlessly spent. Don't forget, too, that proposing a balanced budget plan would attract alot of voters to the GOP.

In the end, conservatives of all stripes need to remember that this is another pivotal election. Staying home is like voting for Democrat. The votes not cast might make all the difference between a House Judicial Committee Chairman John Conyers convening impeachment hearings as opposed to Chairman Sensenbrenner holding immigration hearings. Which do you prefer?

The votes not cast in Senate races might mean the difference between a Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy and a Chairman Specter is the difference between getting a J. Michael Luttig confirmed to John Paul Stevens seat or settling for someone who's wishy-washy and who doesn't have a judicial philosophy.

The votes not cast might mean the difference between hearings based on the criminalization of policy disputes or hearings that actually accomplish solid legislation.

In the end, conservatives have alot to vote for and alot to vote against. What isn't an option is staying home. Sending a 'message vote' by staying home in a midterm election that promises to turn on turnout is the equivalent to letting Democrats pursue their agenda of obstruction and hyperbole.

We must not forget to do the mundane but important things that made a difference in 2004. The hours of doorknocking, manning the phone banks, winning neighbors over to our side and many other things are vital in winning races and building on our current majorities.

We've worked far too hard and far too long to let this majority slip away.

When Ignorance Hurts

2006-03-08T17:40:00.000-08:00

When was the last weekday that you didn't hear a poll claiming some alarming message? It seems likea ages to me. Most of the time, I read them, fisking them in my mind just to stay sharp, then discarding them as having been manufactured for political purposes.

Monday night, I read Katherine Kersten's column on how ignorant people are of the Constitution, complete with poll results that should legitimately scare us. Here's some of the statistics that Ms. Kersten quoted:

A new survey reveals that only about one in four Americans can name at least two of the First Amendment's five freedoms: freedom of the press, religion, speech and assembly, as well as the right to petition government for redress of grievances. But 52 percent can name two or more members of TV's "Simpsons." More than 20 percent of Americans actually think the First Amendment gives us the right to own and raise pets! We shouldn't be shocked. Americans', especially young Americans', woeful ignorance of history and civics has been documented repeatedly.

It's stunning to me that people could be that ignorant of the basic foundations that this nation was built on. It's one thing to hear that people know chapter and verse about the Simpsons or other popular TV shows. It's quite another to hear them being this ignorant about things that I learned about as a high school freshman.

What this should tell conservatives is that it's worth fighting against the school system that liberals crafted, not against education. This is an election year and I'd make education reform a center of the GOP agenda. Abolishing the Department of Education isn't the solution, either, because abolishing it just means the bureaucracy changes names. It's changing the policies that matters.

The good news is that Minnesota has made progress on this front. Today, our state has decent K-12 standards in American history and government. That's thanks to a successful battle to dump the Profile of Learning, a costly over 10-year experiment in "hands-on" learning. The Profile aimed to create "critical thinkers," not knowledgeable citizens. As a result, it was notoriously short on facts and long on "process." During the Profile's tenure, students at some schools could satisfy history requirements by completing "performance packages" on subjects such as non-conformity in the 1960s, instead of writing papers about major figures and events in American history.

Forgive me for asking this naive question but how can you have people who are talented critical thinkers but who don't have the basic information about the subjects that prepares them for a career? It seems to me that logic can't exist apart from a detailed understanding of the topic being debated.

Also, isn't it a bit presumptuous to think that process alone will yield higher learning? It seems to me that real learning involves process but it's far more comprehensive than just that. Another key component is accountability, which is a key component of the No Child Left Behind Act.

In the end, education should be a winning issue for conservatives because we can point to recent successes while Democrats have to defend their failed legacy on that subject.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Education, No Child Left Behind, First Amendment

Sipping Roberts' Vinegar

2006-03-08T14:59:00.000-08:00

This week, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion in the "Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights" case. In his opinion, he gave FAIR a dose of some bitter vinegar, though it starts out relatively 'vinegar-free':

“Accommodating the military's message," Roberts wrote, "does not affect the law schools' speech, because the schools are not speaking when they host interviews and recruiting receptions. Unlike a parade organizer's choice of parade contingents, a law school's decision to allow recruiters on campus is not inherently expressive."

It isn't until the closing that he gives them a healthy dose of his vinegar:

"Nothing about recruiting," Roberts wrote, "suggests that law schools agree with any speech by recruiters. We have held that high school students can appreciate the difference between speech a school sponsors and speech the school permits because legally required to do so, pursuant to an equal access policy. Surely students have not lost that ability by the time they get to law school."

Ouch. It should be noted that not only did the Supremes strike this argument down hard, they slapped it down unanimously. I'm guessing that this case will have a chilling effect on alot of the silly court cases that are filed annually. I can't imagine that this is the type of verdict that these law professors want to be associated with.

On another note, people have noticed that there's alot more unanimity with the Roberts Court than with the Rehnquist Court. That isn't a shot at Chief Justice Rehnquist. It's high praise for Chief Justice Roberts. Here's what the LA Times had to say about that this morning:

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., in less than six months as leader of the Supreme Court, has turned the famously quarrelsome justices, at least for now, into a surprisingly agreeable group that is becoming known for unanimous rulings.
Monday's decision rejecting a free-speech challenge to having military recruiters on college campuses marked the ninth consecutive ruling in which all of the justices agreed.
----------
The outbreak of harmony has lawyers and law professors wondering whether they are seeing a court transformed or a honeymoon for the chief justice. "I think it is a real phenomenon, and it's because of the new chief," said Georgetown University law professor Richard J. Lazarus. "As the court begins to define itself anew, there is a real effort by all of them to build a new court. And it has brought them together."

It's too early to reach any long-lasting conclusions about the Roberts Court but I do think that the qualities we saw in his confirmation hearings are winning people over to his line of thinking. His intellect, charisma and logic make him a persuasive force on the court.

It was easy to see that he'd have this effect on the Supreme Court by how he manhandled liberal lion Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin and Russ Feingold. They looked positively impotent in their questioning of him. Who can forget Roberts answering Durbin's feeble question "What assurances do we have that you'll side with the little guy?" Roberts responded, saying "Senator, I'll guarantee to you that when the law is on the little guy's side, he'll get my vote everytime." No hint of pandering. No thought of saying what Durbin wanted to hear. He just stated his judicial philosophy without hesitation and with total clarity. You can't do better than that.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Chief Justice Roberts, FAIR, SCOTUS

Iran Threatens U.S.

2006-03-08T12:14:00.000-08:00

In what might be its dumbest statement yet, Iran has threatened the U.S. with harm and pain. Here's the summary of the U.S.-Iranian exchange:

"The United States has the power to cause harm and pain," said Ali Asghar Soltanieh, a senior Iranian delegate to the IAEA. "But the United States is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if that is the path that the U.S. wishes to choose, let the ball roll." He did not elaborate but suggested Iran was awaiting additional American moves. Diplomats accredited to the meeting and in contact with the Iranians said the statement could be a veiled threat to use oil as an economic weapon. Iran is the second-largest producer within the OPEC, and a boycott could target Europe, China or India.
The White House dismissed the rhetoric out of Tehran. "I think that provocative statements and actions only further isolate Iran from the rest of the world," White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters traveling with President Bush to the Gulf Coast. "And the international community has spelled out to Iran what it needs to do."
John Bolton, America's ambassador to the United Nations, said Iran's comments showed how much of a menace it was. "Their threats show why leaving a country like that with a nuclear weapon is so dangerous," he told The Associated Press in a phone call from Washington. Bolton classified the Iranian comments as "reflecting their determination to acquire weapons."

I've consistently maintained that sanctions likely wouldn't hurt the mullahs who run the country. They'd only hurt the average Iranian. I've also maintained that, irrespective of our troop deployments, declaring war with Iran isn't smart policy. Even if we weren't in Iraq, I'd suggest a different tack: start supplying Iranians who hate the mullahs with weapons so they can take out their own government.

Before anyone starts saying that that's how the Taliban and Saddam gained power, I'd note that we're dealing with a different dynamic in this instance. In this instance, we're dealing with people who actually like America and want to live a western lifestyle. Saddam liked the western lifestyle but he hated America. The Taliban and al-Qaida hate the West and they don't want anything to do with western lifestyles.

It's also worth noting that in both instances, we chose people that hated our enemies but who were, at best, the least objectionable of two lousy choices. In both instances, we chose the group that we saw as the lesser of two evils. If we started arming Iranians, we'd be supporting people that love the internet, western clothing and the western civilization in general.

This isn't to say that we should expect this type of operation to be quick and clean. The mullahs are in power because they're willing to crush rebellions so that they can implement their worldview. In their minds, it's their religious duty to crush western societies. That their own countrymen and women want western civilization is of little consideration to them. They're as much infidels as Americans.

I suspect, though, that the U.S. has a presence in Iran, most likely special forces teams who are befriending Iranians in preparation for whatever future actions are taken.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Iran, John Bolton, UN, Terrorism

Dems: Data Mining OK to Identify Democratic Voters, Illegal to Identify al Qaida

2006-03-08T07:53:00.000-08:00

Alright, I admit that not all Democrats think that data-mining, which is an integral part of the NSA intercept program, should be outlawed but alot of them screamed to high heavens when they first heard about it. It seems, though, that they're more than comfortable using data mining techniques to identify Democratic voters. Here's a behind-the-scenes look at their data-mining program:

A group of well-connected Democrats led by a former top aide to Bill Clinton is raising millions of dollars to start a private firm that plans to compile huge amounts of data on Americans to identify Democratic voters and blunt what has been a clear Republican lead in using technology for political advantage.
The effort by Harold Ickes, a deputy chief of staff in the Clinton White House and an adviser to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), is prompting intense behind-the-scenes debate in Democratic circles. Officials at the Democratic National Committee think that creating a modern database is their job, and they say that a competing for-profit entity could divert energy and money that should instead be invested with the national party.
Ickes and others involved in the effort acknowledge that their activities are in part a vote of no confidence that the DNC under Chairman Howard Dean is ready to compete with Republicans on the technological front. "The Republicans have developed a cadre of people who appreciate databases and know how to use them, and we are way behind the march," said Ickes, whose political technology venture is being backed by financier George Soros. "It's unclear what the DNC is doing. Is it going to be kept up to date?" Ickes asked, adding that out-of-date voter information is "worse than having no database at all."

This type of operation will cause a split in the Democratic Party. Not because of the data-mining but because the DNC won't have access to the names on this database. I wonder what the FEC will say to the fact that this private company is built to help Hillary. Would this firm sell names to Hillary? Would they just develop the list for Hillary? It seems to me that if they just gave the names to Hillary that that would constitute a campaign contribution. It seems to me that 'selling' Hillary those names below cost would similarly constitute a campaign contribution.

Let's also note this for what it is: an in-your-face Clinton manuever to say 'It's all about Hillary in 08.' Yes, it's a no-confidence vote on Dr. Dean but it's much more than that. This projects tells one and all that Hillary's getting elected is the only thing that matters to the Clintonistas. This action will hurt Democratic candidates because they can't access the information on this database. Anyone want to bet that this won't be a source of friction between Hillary's campaign and legislative candidates?

Now that it's official that Soros is funding a 'For Clinton' data-mining operation, I wonder if there will be calls for congressional hearings into whether (a) she has the Constitutional authority to benefit from this type of operation or (b) if this invades people's privacy. Sorry for the sarcasm but it just struck me as hypocritical since the Democrats railed endlessly about the data-mining involved in the NSA intercept program.

Finally, I agree with Captain Ed when he said "This puts Democratic candidates in a real bind; normally they would work with their elected leadership to coordinate voter strategy and outreach. However, now they will have to choose between that official leadership and this shadow elite that wants to use Soros' money to bypass the party's official management."

The truth is that the Clintonistas have hated Dr. Dean from the beginning. This is just the latest stick in Dean's eye from the Clintonistas.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Hillary, NSA, Harold Ickes, Howard Dean, DNC

Iraq: The Untold Truths

2006-03-07T21:45:00.000-08:00

I've enjoyed Ralph Peters' reporting from Iraq immensely. He's now returning home so this is his last article from the trenches. Fortunately, he saved his best for last:

What actually happened last week, as the prophets of doom in the media prematurely declared civil war?
The Iraqi army deployed over 100,000 soldiers to maintain public order. U.S. Forces remained available as a backup, but Iraqi soldiers controlled the streets.
Iraqi forces behaved with discipline and restraint, as the local sectarian outbreaks fizzled, not one civilian had been killed by an Iraqi soldier.
Time and again, Iraqi military officers were able to defuse potential confrontations and frustrate terrorist hopes of igniting a religious war.
Forty-seven battalions drawn from all 10 of Iraq's army divisions took part in an operation that, above all, aimed at reassuring the public. The effort worked, from the luxury districts to the slums, the Iraqis were proud of their army.

Prophets of doom is an apt description for the Agenda Media. First, they won't leave their hotels so they're getting second-hand information (at best). To make matters worse is that they don't have a way of verifying the accuracy of the information that their Iraqi 'helpers' are feeding them. Finally, and worst of all, they don't try finding out anything about the total picture in Iraq.

Thankfully, we've had Col. Peters in theater reporting facts because he cared enough about 'the big picture' to go there and get the facts firsthand. He should be applauded for his great reporting.

AS a result of its nationwide success, the Iraqi army gained tremendously in confidence. Its morale soared. After all the lies and exaggerations splashed in your direction, the truth is that we're seeing a new, competent, patriotic military emerge. The media may cling to its image of earlier failures, but last week was a great Iraqi success.
This matters. Not only for Iraq's sake, but because standing up a responsible military subordinate to an elected civilian government is the essential development that will allow us to reduce our troop presence in the next few years. Much remains to do, and much could still go wrong, but I, for one, am more optimistic after this visit to Baghdad.

Hallelujah and Hooray!!! Good for them, too!!! This can't be seen as anything other than a major positive development. No need for qualifiers. Let's hope that these troops keep improving, keep gaining in confidence and keeping building their morale. It sounds like these soldiers are brimming with pride and patriotism, too. Good for them.

Let's go deeper and probe into the growth of Iraq's army. On Saturday, The Post conducted an exclusive interview with the commander of Iraq's ground forces. It was Lt.-Gen. Abdul Qadir's first sit-down with the press, he's been a busy man.
The general looks like a vigorous, good-natured grandfather in uniform. But his affable dignity masks a heroic past. An armor officer with extensive battlefield experience, Qadir stood up to Saddam, stating that his adventure in Kuwait was destined to fail. The reward for his integrity, the patriotism of the honest soldier, was seven years in prison. Only his history of combat valor saved him from death. Now Saddam's in prison and Qadir's determined to build a better Iraq.

This is an incredible man. Iraqis should be thankful that he's in a leadership position. Just standing up to Saddam must've taken an incredible amount of courage. Now he's training and leading forces. I can only imagine that these soldiers are well-trained and full of pride. I'll guarantee you won't read this account in the NY Times; I'd doubt if we'd hear Sen. Biden admitting anything like this.

Thank you for your outstanding reporting, Col. Peters. I, for one, am most grateful for the information that you reported.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Ralph Peters, Iraqi Military, Iraqi Civil War, Agenda Media

Chevron Boosting Oil, Gas Production

2006-03-07T13:59:00.000-08:00

I wonder how Democrats, especially of the envirnmental extremist ilk will react to this:

Chevron, the country's second-largest petroleum producer, told Wall Street analysts concerned about the company's growth that daily output would rise from 2.5 million barrels per day of oil equivalent in 2005 to 3.1 million barrels per day by 2010. By 2008, daily output would be about 2.9 million barrels per day. "We as a company are doing a lot about supply," O'Reilly said in response to a reporter's question about the criticism the industry has faced from Congress over soaring gasoline prices and tight supplies.

Anyone wanna bet that the environmentalists scream bloody murder on this?

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Chevron, Environment, Refineries

What's the Rush?

2006-03-07T12:57:00.000-08:00

A NY Post editorial headline caught my eye. The title is " THE GRAND RUSH TO DECLARE DEFEAT". It's an editorial on what's happening in Iraq. Here's a glimpse into the Agenda Media's heated rush to declare defeat:

Violence following the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra two weeks ago "proved" that, this time, for sure, America's mission to Iraq was ending in ignominy. "IRAQ - BREAKING POINT," screamed a Time magazine cover last week. "This is it," the magazine quoted one Sunni pol saying. "This is the start of the civil war." A front-page New York Times headline proclaimed: "Political Talks Are in Ruins." Yet, 48 hours later, the once-upon-a-time paper of record reported: "Iraqi Sunni Bloc To Rejoin Talks on Government." So much for "ruins."
Equally reckless was The Washington Post's report that some 1,300 people died in the week-long violence after the shrine-bombing. A review by Editor and Publisher magazine of news-service accounts found no evidence to support that number. "When our correspondent examined the books at the morgue, he could find only about 250 bodies logged in as killed in the violence," the E&P story quoted a Knight Ridder editor saying. Iraq's Cabinet said 379 people were killed.

It's been said that the Agenda Media doesn't report the news; it reports what it thinks should be that day's news. That's a bit grand for my blood but I don't totally disagree, either.

What is clear, though, is that their isn't alot of accuracy to these articles. When you report 1,300 dead from "the week-long violence after the shrine-bombing" but then it comes out as being between 250 and 379, someone isn't doing much fact-checking. That's misreporting on a magnitude almost approaching Katrina levels.

When someone says that "Political Talks Are in Ruins" but a headline from 48 hrs. later reads "Iraqi Sunni Bloc To Rejoin Talks on Government", that's sloppy reporting at best. When the NY Times declares that civil war has broken out but then a reporter, a former Army intelligence officer, on the ground sarcastically writes "I've been trying all week...I'm looking for...civil war...and I just can't find it", then you know it's shoddy reporting.

The questions that must be answered is simple: How can supposedly objective-minded reporters with proper eyesight with proper access to the facts get something so badly wrong? How can the American pubilc trust them with reporting verified facts while providing them with accurate, logic- and fact-based analysis?

I submit to you that these 'reporters' aren't objective-minded. In fact, they haven't been in ages, not sice Woodward and Bernstein broke the Watergate story. I'd also submit that that part of their 'accuracy problems' stems from such a biased world-view that they can't see events as they are. It's fair to say that we all come with our biases. We can't eliminate from the equation. What we must eliminate, though, is the blind, overwhelming bias of reporters and analysts.

Something that I hadn't thought of before but which makes alot of sense is that reporting has diminished in quality after the trend that brought in shock jocks. Ratings weren't determined by talent of the host or the accuracy of the content. Ratings were determined by how outlandish the claims they were. There's a case which I think I can make that reporters are hyping things so they get more notoriety so they get on more TV shows.

Isn't it time we demanded better?

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Iraqi Civil War, Agenda Media, Katrina, Military

Democratic Obsession: Denying al-Qaida

2006-03-07T08:10:00.000-08:00

Michael Barone asks why Democrats keep insisting that there was no connection between al-Qaida and Saddam's regime even though there's sufficient proof of that connection. Here's his theory on why:

Democrats fear that more Americans would support Bush and the war effort if they believed there was. The career professionals, with their many years of training in the subtleties of the Middle East, have developed a vested interest in the notion that religious Wahhabis like al-Qaida could never collaborate with a secular tyrant like Saddam.

In other words, Democrats repeat the lie because they don't want people believing that the President. To them, it's all about regaining their seats of power. It isn't about setting policy based on facts. Here's what the Senate Intelligence Committee wrote in its report:

(U) The briefing slides contained a "Summary of Known Iraq -al-Qaida Contacts, 1990-2002," including an item "2001: Prague IIS Chief al-hi meets with Mohammed Atta in April." Another slide was entitled "Fundamental Problems with How Intelligence Community is Assessing Information." It faulted the IC for requiring "juridical evidence" for its findings. It also criticized the IC for "consistent underestimation" of efforts by Iraq and al-Qaida to hide their relationship and for an "assumption that secularists and Islamists will not cooperate." A "findings" slide summed up the Iraq -al-Qaida relationship as "More than a decade of numerous contacts," "Multiple areas of cooperation," "Shared interest and pursuit of WMD,” and "One indication of Iraq coordination with al-Qaida specifically related to 9/11."

Sounds to me like a connection, doesn't it? It certainly doesn't establish a connection between Saddam and 9/11 but that's another matter entirely.

Minnesota Democrats cite the 9-11 commission's report that it found no evidence of "operational" cooperation between al-Qaida and Iraq, although it did find evidence of many contacts. But, as Donald Rumsfeld likes to say, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Then there's this:

Light on the Saddam regime's collaboration with terrorists will almost certainly be shed by analysis of some 2 million documents captured in Iraq. But, as the intrepid Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard has pointed out, almost none of those documents has been translated or released either to the public or to the congressional intelligence committees. It appears that career professionals and, perhaps, political appointees have been blocking release of these documents.

It's worth noting that Stephen Hayes said that about 50,000 of these documents have been translated and already provide proof of this connection. Stephen Hayes isn't just a Johnnie-come-lately to this issue either. He's written "The Connection", which is the definitive book on this subject. Hayes has done the most extensive research on this issue and his conclusion is that there's a connection between Saddam and UBL.

The truth is that Democrats don't want people to have confidence in President Bush's policies in fighting the GWOT and in keeping America safe. The reality is that it's more important to Democrats to return to power than it is in winning the GWOT. Democrats are playing fast and loose with the facts and they're trying to divide people based on bald-faced lies.

That's my definition of being "un-American."

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Iraqi Civil War, Murtha, Ralph Peters

Kirby's Gone

2006-03-06T17:24:00.000-08:00

WCCO-TV is reporting that Kirby Puckett, the most popular athlete in Minnesota sports history, died this evening. It's a loss every Twins fan will feel.

By this time tomorrow, there will literally be thousands of Kirby stories being told. Almost all of those stories will be told with smiles on peoples' faces. The lone exception is likely to be the story about how glaucoma cut his career way too short. In the end, losing his eyesight might have set him on a path towards his demise.

Kirby showed up to a press conference wearing his white pinstriped uniform on July 12, 1996 and announced "It's the last time you're going to see Kirby Puckett in a Twins uniform."

There wasn't a dry eye in the room. I suspect that there wasn't a dry eye in the TV audience, either.

As was typical Kirby, though, he wouldn't let his friends stay down, instead giving them a pep talk.

"I want my young teammates to know right now that when you put this uniform on, you play with pride and integrity, like Kent Hrbek and Molly [Paul Molitor] and Knobby [Chuck Knoblauch]...Just don't take it for granted, because tomorrow is not promised to any of us."

One of those "young teammates" is the man who eventually took over for Kirby, Torii Hunter. To this day, Torii's the heart and soul of the Twins. He's also the Twin that was closest to Kirby, mostly because Kirby taught him how to be a professional, partially because, in his first spring training with the big club, he was assigned the locker in between Kirby and Dave Winfield.

When news of Kirby's stroke broke Sunday morning, Torii was so upset that he removed himself from the lineup and he left the ballpark. Yesterday, it was being reported that he'd be travelling to Arizona to be with Kirby. It's pretty certain that he'll be attending Kirby's funeral. The truth be told, I'd bet that most of Kirby's teammates will be at his funeral. To many, if not all of them, he was far and away the best player they ever played with or against.

Forget all the overhyped types that got more notoriety than Kirby. At various times, people rated Eric Davis, Jose Canseco, Ken Griffey and Darryl Strawberry as better but they couldn't hold a candle to Kirby. Canseco was the first player to ever hit 40 homers and steal 40 bases in the same season. But he was erratic at best at the plate. And he was a worthless outfielder. All Kirby did was hit the ball hard most every at bat while being the best defensive centerfielder the Twins had.

Kirby was so talented that he could 'elevate his game' whenever his teammates needed him to. In my mind, he's still the best 'Game 6' player I ever saw.

Last night, I wrote about Kirby's outrageous Game 6 against Atlanta in 1991, calling it the best performance I've ever seen in the World Series. I'll stick with that opinion. But I'd be remiss if I didn't mention his almost as outrageous Game 6 that he had against the St. Louis Cards in the 1987 World Series. All he did that day was go 4-for-4, score 4 runs, stole a base and drive in a run.

And I can't forget Kirby's 'Weekend in Milwaukee' performance, either. That, too, was in 1987. The last weekend in August, to be precise. The Twins were a lousy road team that year but monsters in the Metrodome. By the time they arrived in Milwaukee, the Twins had gone a long time, almost 2 full months, without winning a road series. Then they lost the opening game of the series.

In typical Kirby fashion, he put the team on his massive shoulders and carried them the rest of the weekend. All he did that weekend was go 10-for-12, almost hitting for the cycle in Sunday's game. Instead of getting the cycle, Kirby 'settled' for a 2 singles, two doubles and two homers while going 6 for 6 that day.

UPDATE: I stand corrected. Kirby didn't go 10-for-12 Saturday and Sunday. He went 10-for-11. KSTP-TV had a special Sportswrap tonight and did a beautiful job with it. The part that got me was hearing TK saying that "He made me alot better manager. He made us alot better team." That's true, TK, but you're the best manager I've ever seen.

What Kirby story would be complete without telling about all the jaw-dropping homerun-robbing catches in straightaway centerfield? It's something that Kirby started and that Torii continues to this day.

This isn't to say that Kirby didn't have his faults:

In March 2002, Anne Potter filed an order for protection against Tonya Puckett, alleging that Tonya had threatened to kill her over an alleged affair with Kirby. That month, a St. Louis Park woman asked for protection against Kirby Puckett, saying in court documents that she had had an 18-year relationship with him and that he had shoved her inside his Bloomington condominium. Then, in September 2002, Puckett was involved with a woman in a very public incident at Redstone American Grill in Eden Prairie. That time, the woman accused Puckett of dragging her into a restaurant restroom and grabbing her breast. After a nine-day trial, a jury ruled Puckett not guilty of false imprisonment, fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct and fifth-degree assault. "I just want to go home," Puckett said that day, when the verdicts were released.

For a Twins' fan, that news was almost impossible to believe. His every-present smile was seared into the average fan's mind. The image of him signing autographs for the kids two hours after he'd left the lockerroom helped fans have nothing but love for Kirby. In the end, Dan Bareirro summed it up best, saying that we don't really know a person if we only know them from what they're like at the ballpark or hanging out in hotels on roadtrips.

In the end, though, I suspect that most fans will let their memories of Kirby, the ballplayer, wash away all the memories of his misbehavior.

You see, in the end, Kirby was just too likeable and too charismatic to not love.

We'll miss you, Kirby. Thanks for the memories.

Technorati Tags: Kirby Puckett, 1987 World Series, 1991 World Series, Cooperstown, Minnesota Twins

Anti-Flag Desecration Amendment To Receive a Vote in The Senate

2006-03-06T13:58:00.000-08:00

Matt Margolis just emailed the bloggers on the GOP Bloggers blogroll that Sen. Frist will "announce that a constitutional amendment giving Congress the power to ban the physical desecration of the American flag will receive a floor vote in the United States Senate. The vote will occur during the last week of June."

As Drudge would say "Developing...."

Technorati Tags: Sen. Frist, Flag Burning Amerndment

PDB (Peters' Daily Briefing)

2006-03-06T13:05:00.000-08:00

Here's some interesting facts from today's Peters' Daily Briefing from Iraq, entitled Infantry Patrol:

Instead of collapsing into sectarian strife, the brigade's area of operations had become quieter since the Samarra bombing. The people do not want any part of more violence. The zone's big event had been a thousand-man demonstration by Sunnis and Shias together at the al-Rahman Mosque, to protest the media's overreaction to the flurry of attacks that followed the bombing of the Golden Mosque.

John Murtha told an all-too-willing Bob Schieffer yesterday that civil war had broken out in Iraq. He's been spouting that lie since he came out with his plan to "immediately redeploy" U.S. troops. In fact, he said that he couldn't trust Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Pete Pace in that interview.

I wonder if he'll now say that he can't trust Ralph Peters' reporting from Baghdad's streets. After all, Peters' information goes further than anything that Gen. Pace or President Bush has said.

The truth is that Murtha's the liar. He's ignored Washington Times reporting that says

"A prominent Sunni religious leader in Anbar province, Sheik Abed al-Latif Hemaiym, told The Times in an interview in Amman that Sunnis were prepared to work with the Americans. "We now believe we must get on good terms with the Americans," Sheik Hemaiym said. "As Arab Sunnis, we believe that within this hot area of Iraq, facing challenges from neighboring nations who want to swallow us, especially the Iranians, we feel we have no alternative."

He's ignored the rebuilding projects that have been completed. (See my News from the Iraqi Theater series.)

He's lied about American troops being the main targets of the insurgents. According to the Washington Times reporting I just listed, terrorists who want to topple Iraq's government are the insurgents' main targets.

Considering Murtha's long list of lies, why shouldn't we think that he'll attack Col. Peters' reporting, too?

Staff Sgt. Adam T. Navarro, an Army Reservist serving in Iraq, is a member of New York's Finest in "real life." Born in Manhattan, raised in The Bronx and now a resident of Brentwood, Officer Navarro works in Queens. He could serve as a symbol of NYC's heart and soul: A big-fisted bear with a great sense of humor, strong opinions and a fan not only of the Yankees, but of Yankee Stadium itself. (He's a Post fan, too. Back home, his morning ritual begins with the sports section.)
His police experience has been a great advantage in Iraq (as he puts it, "Never underestimate the value of a New York City cop"). A veteran of Bosnia, as well, he sees a common threat: No matter what the elites or the media say, "The poor are always happy to see U.S. troops." He worries that the people back home aren't getting a true picture of Iraq. Navarro's a firm believer in the mission.

I couldn't agree more. So much for the notion that the overwhelming majority of troops want out ASAP.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Ralph Peters, Murtha, Peter Pace, Iraq

Dean Called on Spending Priorities

2006-03-06T09:50:00.000-08:00

It seems that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid called Howard Dean on the carpet for his spending habits. Their complaint: Dean's spending money in strongly red states when he should be putting more money into competitive races. That's what happens when you have a chairman who thinks that Democrats should be competitive wherever they field a candidate.

Neither side was willing to give ground, according to several accounts of the meeting. Dean argued that his strategy is designed to rebuild the party across the country, and that he had pledged to do so when he ran for party chairman. Reid and Pelosi countered that if Democrats squander their opportunities this year, longer-term organizing efforts will not matter much.

It seems to me that they're missing the boat. It seems to me that it's impossible to be competitive in the short term if you don't have a compelling message. It seems to me that not having a compelling agenda also shrinks fundraising appeal.

Also hurting the D's are things like John Murtha's lie-filled diatribe yesterday where he tells the world that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is a liar. As long as Democrats come off as military-haters, they're completely writing off a major block of voters. Calling Pete Pace a liar isn't the way to endear yourself with the military. It's the road to doom with that important and reliable voting group.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Dean, DNC, Pelosi, Reid, Murtha

Time to Challenge Murtha

2006-03-06T00:19:00.000-08:00

It's time that someone challenged John Murtha's reckless lies. NOW.

It isn't surprising that John Murtha is spewing the same lies as before several soldiers disgraced him in town hall meetings settings. What's surprising is that he's now upped the ante by calling Pete Pace, Chairman of the Join Chiefs, a liar.

SCHIEFFER: Congressman Murtha, thank you for coming this morning, and I want to start by quoting something that General Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said this morning on "Meet the Press." He said he believes the war in Iraq is going, in his words, "very, very well." What is your assessment?
Representative JACK MURTHA (D-PA; House Appropriations Committee): Why would I believe him? I mean, that administration, this administration, including the president, had mischaracterized this war for the last two years. They, first of all, they said it will take 40,000 troops to settle this thing right after the invasion. Then they said there's no insurgency. They're dead-enders is what the secretary of defense said. On and on and on, the mischaracterization of the war. They said there's nuclear weapons. There are no nuclear weapons there. There are no biological weapons there. No al-Qaeda connection. So why would I believe the chairman of the joint chiefs when he says things are going well.

Why would Murtha believe Pete Pace? The better question is why would anyone trust anything that Murtha's said about Iraq? This guy's an idiot. This guy is the liar. The title of Gateway Pundit's article is 9 Lies in 90 Seconds. Check out their account for documentation of Murtha's lie-filled diatribe.

I'd love to see someone challenge Murtha to a debate on this issue. Someone like Jed Babbin, Austin Bay, Ralph Peters or Christopher Hitchens. I'd love seeing the moderator come prepared to challenge Murtha with followup questions. Someone like Chris Wallace would do nicely. Murtha wouldn't appear in such a debate because he knows he's the liar and those are men of serious credentials who would challenge his every talking point. Murtha knows that any of these men would tear his assertions apart within seconds. He knows that he'd be exposed. So let the exposing begin.

The truth is that this diatribe breaks new ground. In the past, Murtha challenged President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld. This time, he calls the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs a liar. Anyone thinking that this won't inflame people in the military into voting against anyone allied with John Murtha is kidding themselves.

Democrats have lost the military vote badly the last 2 presidential elections as well as during the 2002 midterms. Any Democratic strategists who hoped that their candidate had a shot at picking off some military people just lost that shot. This plays into Republican hands. This interview should be turned into a commercial for next fall and for right now. It plays into the earned stereotype that Democrats not named Joe Lieberman hate the military.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Murtha, Iraq, Austin Bay, Ralph Peters, Chris Wallace, Christopher Hitchens

Pray For Kirby

2006-03-05T22:38:00.000-08:00

Earlier today, the best player to ever wear a Twins uniform, Kirby Puckett, suffered a major stroke. The prognosis isn't good. I ask all my readers to keep Kirby in your prayers. This is what the Strib's beat writer for the Twins, LaVelle E. Neal III, said in his article:

Kirby Puckett, a Baseball Hall of Famer and the driving force behind the Twins' two World Series titles, was fighting for his life after suffering a stroke Sunday morning at his home in Scottsdale, AZ.
Puckett was first rushed to Scottsdale Memorial Hospital, then airlifted to Scottsdale Healthcare Osborn where he underwent surgery for most of the afternoon, according to Twins President Dave St. Peter. Puckett was transferred after the surgery to St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix, St. Peter said.
According to two people familiar with Puckett's condition, he suffered bleeding in the brain and surgery was required to drain blood and relieve pressure. Scottsdale Osborn and St. Joseph's representatives said no information on Puckett was available, but both hospitals said they withhold patient identity and condition information at the request of the family.

Kirby was the face of the Twins during his playing days. He was a round ball of charisma, talent and work ethic. His teammates loved him. Because of his, Bert Blyleven's and Kent Hrbek's lockerroom pranks, the Twins were known as Club Fun in those days.

To understand Kirby's appeal, you have to look beyond Kirby the superstar. You also have to take into consideration the fact that he rarely tired of signing autographs after the game. During his playing days, he considered himself one of baseball's ambassadors. Major League Baseball couldn't have done better. You also have to take into account Kirby's infectious smile. He won people over with that smile and his personality.

Anyone that considers themselves even nominal Twins fans can't forget Kirby's Game Six in the 1991 World Series. I still consider it to be the most incredible and dominant performance in World Series history. All Kirby did that night was collect 3 hits, including the walk-off, game-winning homer in the bottom of the 11th inning off lefthander Charlie Liebrandt. He also made the spectacular up-against-the-plexiglas catch of a Ron Gant drive that would've been an easy double.

Here's how the SI article described Kirby's night:

Impossibly, both the Braves and the Twins had loaded the bases with less than two outs in the eighth inning and failed to score. Improbably, both threats had been snuffed with mind-boggling suddenness by double plays. Atlanta was done in by a slick 3-2-3 job courtesy of Minnesota first baseman Kent Hrbek and catcher Brian Harper. The Twins were stymied by a crowd-jolting unassisted DP by Lemke, who grabbed a soft liner off the bat of Hrbek and stepped on second. So by the bottom of the 10th, when Harper, seeing Larkin make contact, threw his batting helmet high into the air in the on-deck circle and Gladden jumped onto home plate with both feet, the switch was thrown on a 30-minute burst of emotion in the Metrodome stands, an energy that, if somehow harnessed, would have lit the Twin Cities through a second consecutive sleepless night.

For it was only 24 hours earlier that Minnesota centerfielder Kirby Puckett had virtually single-handedly forced a seventh game by assembling what has to rank among the most outrageous all-around performances the World Series has ever seen. Puckett punctuated his night by hitting a home run in the bottom of the 11th inning off Atlanta's Charlie Leibrandt. The solo shot gave the Twins a 4-3 win and gave Puckett's teammates the same "chill-bump feeling" Braves manager Bobby Cox confessed to having had in Atlanta, where the Braves had swept Games 3, 4 and 5 earlier in the week to take a three games to two lead into Minneapolis.
----------
Understand what Kelly and 55,155 paying customers had just seen Puckett do beneath the dome. In addition to his game-winning home run, he had singled, tripled, driven in a run on a sacrifice fly, stolen a base and scored a run of his own. In the third inning he had leapt high against a Plexiglas panel in centerfield, hanging there momentarily like one of those suction-cup Garfield dolls in a car window, to rob Ron Gant of extra bases and Atlanta of an almost certain run.

Kirby wasn't just a great player who could elevate his game as high as he needed it to go but he was a player with an incredible work ethic. He once did a commercial for Gatorade. Kirby's talking, saying "They want to watch me work out. They want me to make a commercial. So I look at them and I say "You want to make a three hour commercial?"

Here's how Patrick Reusse, the best baseball writer in the Twin Cities, wrote about getting the news about Kirby:

Al Newman went to church on Sunday morning. "I just had this thought about Puck, and included him in my prayers," he said. After church, Newman went to Hammond Stadium, where he would be scouting the Twins and Boston for his new employers, the Arizona Diamondbacks. "I ran into Tom Kelly, and we started talking about Puck," Newman said. "We were worried about him. He had gotten so big, and with that history of the men in his family dying young, we were worrying."
An hour later, around 10:30 a.m. in Florida, Newman received a call informing him that 44-year-old Kirby Puckett, Puck to anyone associated with the Twins since the mid-80s, had suffered a massive stroke in Scottsdale, AZ. Hours later, Newman was watching the final innings of the exhibition game. "I was sitting here scouting, but thinking about Puck, thinking about including him in my prayers, and I got a little tear in my eye," Newman said of his Twins teammate and friend. "How does that happen? You're in church, you think, 'I'll say a prayer for Puck,' and 90 minutes later, you find out he had a stroke and he's fighting for his life."
Newman was the Twins third base coach in 2003 when he suffered a stroke. It was an ordeal, but his recovery was complete within a few months. Puckett's situation Sunday was much more grave, so much so that Twins people gathered for spring training seemed to be trying to prepare themselves for the worst.

Newmie, as Newman was called in his playing and coaching days with the Twins, was one of Kirby's best friends on the team. Of all of Kirby's teammates, I suspect that the news of Kirby's stroke will affect Newmie the most, partially because of his being a stroke survivor but mostly because of his close relationship with Kirby.

Finally, Reusse recounts this story:

What did Kirby Puckett mean to us in those days, mean to Minnesota and to baseball in those days? "There was a TV crew here from a Spanish-speaking station in Miami maybe 12 years ago," Oliva said. "The man had his 8-year-old son with him. He introduced me and said, 'This is Tony Oliva, a great Cuban player for the Twins.' And that little boy said, 'No, Papa. The great player for the Twins is Kirby Puckett.'"

Had Kirby heard that, I suspect he would've corrected the little boy, telling him that Tony O, as Twins fans recall him, was the reason for most of Kirby's success.

Let's hope that Kirby recovers from this massive stroke so we can go back to remembering the greatness that was Kirby Puckett, Twins centerfielder. That's how we should be thinking of a 44 year old man, right?

Technorati Tags: Kirby Puckett, 1991 World Series, Baseball

Agenda Media: Truth Averse?

2006-03-05T11:09:00.000-08:00

To say that I've been wary of the Agenda Media is understatement. After reading Ralph Peters' latest account from Iraq, though, I'm now asking a more important question: Are the Agenda Media averse to the truth? Here's the part of Col. Peters' column that's got me asking that question:

I’m trying. I've been trying all week. The other day, I drove another 30 miles or so on the streets and alleys of Baghdad. I'm looking for the civil war that The New York Times declared. And I just can't find it. Maybe actually being on the ground in Iraq prevents me from seeing it. Perhaps the view's clearer from Manhattan. It could be that my background as an intelligence officer didn't give me the right skills. And riding around with the U.S. Army, looking at things first-hand, is certainly a technique to which The New York Times wouldn't stoop in such an hour of crisis.
Let me tell you what I saw anyway. Rolling with the "instant Infantry" gunners of the 1st Platoon of Bravo Battery, 4-320 Field Artillery, I saw children and teenagers in a Shia slum jumping up and down and cheering our troops as they drove by. Cheering our troops. All day, and it was a long day, we drove through Shia and Sunni neighborhoods. Everywhere, the reception was warm. No violence. None. And no hostility toward our troops. Iraqis went out of their way to tell us we were welcome. Instead of a civil war, something very different happened because of the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra. The fanatic attempt to stir up Sunni-vs.-Shia strife, and the subsequent spate of violent attacks, caused popular support for the U.S. presence to spike upward. Think Abu Musab al-Zarqawi intended that?

I've preached alot about getting your information and analysis from the Right blogosphere and from dedicated reporters. Peters' column is proof that the American Agenda Media isn't willing to take risks to get the story that paints the accurate picture. They're more than willing to just 'phone it in' from their hotel rooms.

It's insulting to have the 'Paper of Record' tell us that civil war had broken out in Iraq, then find out from a soldier-turned-journalist that the NY Times' article wasn't accurate, which leads to another pet peeve of mine: Why is it that the clowns who won't even make an effort to report are considered reporters but great investigators from the Right blogosphere like Ed Morrissey, Brian Maloney and others aren't considered journalists?

Quite frankly, it's insulting to hear the out-of-touch media 'giants' like Dan Rather and Marvin Kalb declare bloggers as out-of-control but then state that people who have editors 'check' their work are true journalists.

You owe it to yourself to read Col. Peters' columns from Iraq. Without his reporting, we wouldn't get the true picture of what's happening over there.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Ralph Peters, NY Times, Iraqi Civil War, Agenda Media

Wrong As Usual

2006-03-04T16:27:00.000-08:00

That's all I can say about Eleanor Clift's latest MSNBC column. She starts getting things wrong in the first paragraph. No sense waiting, right?

John Kerry lost the presidency in Ohio, a state with huge job losses that should have been his to win. But voters had no clear idea of Kerry’s economic agenda, and the moral implications of gay marriage were drilled into them every Sunday by their neighborhood pastor.

Kerry lost because (a) the Ohio GOTV effort was so rock solid; (b) Ohioans knew that Kerry was a tax-and-spend liberal who wasn't a good panderer; (c) Christians coming out in droves so that their voices be heard in a major cultural issue; and (d) because Kerry didn't have a serious approach to fighting the GWOT, something that persists to this day. Other than that, Ms. Clift was right. Sorta.

When Clift says that Christians had "the moral implications of gay marriage" "drilled into them every Sunday by their neighborhood pastor", the implication is that evangelical Christians didn't understand that already. Also implied in that paragraph is that courts should settle major social issues, not passion-driven voters.

The only way the Republicans can win in Ohio is if the Democrats blow it, and they’re working at it. Democratic Party leaders pressured Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett to withdraw from the Senate race (in favor of a veteran congressman) with undercover operatives launching a whisper campaign about Hackett’s service that was reminiscent of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign against Kerry, and equally reprehensible. And with every House seat critical for the Democrats to regain control, the party is seeking to retain the seat of Rep. Ted Strickland, their candidate for governor, but still fell short of the required number of 50 signatures. Fifty signatures! How hard is that? In addition to these snafus, after a string of losses over two decades, Ohio Democrats aren’t sure they know their voters anymore. The political muscle of the religious right, which grew the conservative electorate in a state historically focused on bread-and-butter issues, has Democrats running scared, as well it should.

Here's another classic case of liberal denial. As Clift says, Ohio Democrats aren't sure they "know their voters anymore" but "it's still Democrats' race to lose"? There's only one way to explain it: typical liberal logic. The truth is that Democrats, not just in Ohio but nationwide, have become the elitist party. They've stopped being the "Party of the People" that they were well into the 80's.

The truth is that most Americans think of themselves as having traditionalist viewpoints on cultural issues. Most people don't want courts forcing their liberal social views on unsuspecting Americans and rightfully so.

In my opinion, liberalism died when progressives took over the Democratic Party. No longer was it good enough to be a traditionalist on the issues. NOW wasn't happy just with abortion rights or equal rights for women. They fought for judges that said that abortion wasn't just legal but available anytime the woman wanted. They fought for judges that said a parent couldn't be involved in their minor daughter's 'reproductive rights'. Anti-war activists weren't just opposed to the military. They started labelling good men like Joe Lieberman as Republican lite and sellouts.

A group of 31 mainstream pastors has filed a complaint with the IRS challenging the tax-exempt status of churches that openly engage in partisan campaign activity, which is unlikely, even if the campaign succeeds, to stem the tide of evangelical support for Blackwell. His political rivals are looking for ways to expose him as a black Elmer Gantry, a huckster with no core convictions.

Notice the prominent placing of the term mainstream pastors? The implication is that pastors that actually believe the things that the Bible teaches are somehow far outside the political mainstream. Notice, too, the way that Clift and his political enemies don't attack his positions on the merits. They simply label him as being a "huckster." I'm certain that they believe that. Still, it isn't like the name-calling is persuasive to anyone with actual intellectual capabilities.

Clift's saying that this should be the Dems' year to win in Ohio sounds much like Bob Beckel and Susan Estrich telling everyone that the race was over in 04, that it was Kerry's "race to lose." Either Kerry was more than up to the task to lose by 3+ million votes or Estrich and Beckel were wrong.

I suspect that Clift is wrong, too.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Ken Blackwell, Ohio, Hackett

"Trust Us" Isn't Good Enough

2006-03-04T12:44:00.000-08:00

That's the message that Francine Busby delivered for the Democratic Weekly radio address. Ms. Busby is running for the U.S. House seat vacated by disgraced Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who was sentenced yesterday to 8+ years in prison after pleading guilty to accepting bribes.

"Given the record of this administration, 'trust us' is not a safe enough answer for the American people," Busby said, accusing the administration and Republican-led Congress of underfunding ports security and ignoring warnings on Hurricane Katrina. "At our ports, like our borders, Americans expect and deserve a Congress committed to stopping people who are intent on breaking the law," she said.

That sounds tough but I'm curious as to what laws are being broken at our ports. Talk is cheap. As for border security, what would Ms. Busby propose? After all, she's a San Diego resident. In fact, she's a school board member in San Diego. She "promised to be "an independent voice" in Congress. How do we know that that's what she'll be if she doesn't have her own plan for securing the California-Mexico border?

Unless and until we see proof of that independant streak in Ms. Busby, we'll remain skeptical at best. After all, talk is cheap.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Democratic Radio Address, Francine Busby, Randy Cunningham, Border Control, Illegal immigration

Iran's Nuclear Program Hits Obstacles

2006-03-04T12:12:00.000-08:00

Saturday's NY Times has a compelling article on Iran's nuclear program. Here's some key parts of the article:

When Iran defiantly cut the locks and seals on its nuclear enrichment plants in January and restarted its effort to manufacture atomic fuel, it forced the world to confront a momentous question: How long will it be before Tehran has the ability to produce a bomb that would alter the balance of power in the Middle East? Iran's claims that it is racing forward with enrichment have created an air of crisis as the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency prepares to meet Monday in Vienna before the United Nations Security Council takes up the Iran file for possible penalties.
Yet behind the sense of immediate alarm lies a more complex picture of Iran's nuclear potential. Interviews with many of the world's leading nuclear analysts and a review of technical assessments show that Iran continues to wrestle with serious problems that have slowed its nuclear ambitions for more than two decades. Obstacles, the experts say, remain at virtually every step on the atomic road. And the most significant, they say, involve the two most technically challenging aspects of the process, converting uranium ore to a toxic gas and, especially, spinning that gas into enriched atomic fuel.

These paragraphs are indicative of the issues that nuclear analysts have raised on Iran's nuclear capabilities. To say that Iran faces major hurdles before building a nuclear weapon and delivery system would be accurate if this report is correct.

Therein lies the problem, though. Do we know that these theories are accurate? I'd hate to base our policy on the CIA's analysis or the IAEA's assurances. The good news is that this article highlights the fact that we don't have to go by those factors alone. We can rely on the opinions and observations of nuclear industry experts who know what types of hurdles the Iranians need to overcome.

According to the analysts, the Iranians need to do repairs and build new machines at a prototype plant before they can begin enriching even modest quantities of uranium. And then, for a decade, they would have to mass produce 100 centrifuges a week to fill the cavernous industrial enrichment halls at Natanz. What is more, the gas meant to feed those machines is plagued by impurities. The perception gap was underscored in February when Tehran issued a stark warning. By late this year, Iranian officials said, they would begin installing nearly 3,000 centrifuges at the giant Natanz plant, buried deep underground to withstand attack. That many centrifuges, international inspectors knew, could make fuel for up to 10 nuclear warheads every year.
In Washington and Europe, the announcement was dismissed as an empty boast. "Maybe they can move that fast," said a senior American official who tracks Iran's program but who declined to be named because it is an intelligence matter. "But they would need lots of help, luck and prayer."

In other words, these experts find their professed enrichment capability to be suspect at best. Again, caution is needed since we don't know what help Iran has received along the way but if they're just getting technical advice, the flow of equipment can be monitored to a degree of certainty, especially in a post-9/11 world.

I strongly recommend reading the entire article.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Iran, Natanz, Nuclear Weapons, Centrifuges

Iraqi 'Crisis Has Passed'

2006-03-03T23:27:00.000-08:00

Sounding a note of good cheer, Army Gen. George Casey said "It appears that the crisis has passed." He had this to say, too:

The top U.S. commander in Iraq yesterday declared an end to a 10-day wave of sectarian violence that killed an estimated 350 civilians, asserting that many reports of violence were "exaggerated."
----------
Gen. Casey said that in a reported 30 attacks on mosques, only two were severely damaged. Of eight mosques that were reported damaged, inspections showed only one had damage, a broken window. "The overall levels of violence did not increase substantially as a result of the bombing," he said in a statement that seems at odds with the 10 days of television footage and commentary. "It took us a few days to sort our way through what we considered in a lot of cases to be exaggerated reports."

In other words, we can't trust the media to get their stories straight. Even when they had footage of the events unfolding, their reports were unreliable.

The good news is that the Iraqi people didn't let this disintegrate into a much worse situation. Alot of credit also goes to Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani, Ibrahim al-Jafaari and other leaders, who urged calm and reconciliation. It appears as though those pleas were heard and heeded.

Thus far, I've been impressed with how Iraqis have held together amidst all the violence and all the attempts to plunge Iraq into utter chaos. They haven't, which should be seen as an encouraging sign. These are all positive signs that Iraqis want real freedom and that they're 'getting' this governance thing.

Asked if civil war could break out, Gen. Casey said, "Anything can happen." However, the four-star general added: "The vast majority of the Iraqi people remain committed to forming a government of national unity."

The next important step is to form a government. It's taken too long a time to do that. Hopefully, U.S. Amb. Khalilzad will be persuasive in getting the different factions pulled together. If and when that happens, the Iraqi people will have met another milestone.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: General Casey, Ambassador Khalilzad, al-Sistani, al-Jafaari

Get Out the Butter, He's Toast

2006-03-03T15:54:00.000-08:00

This has been Rod Blagojevich's month from hell and because of it, he's pretty much toast. It all started with Blagojevich going on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

The interview focused on his executive order requiring pharmacies to fill prescriptions for emergency birth control. Interviewer Jason Jones pretended to stumble over Blagojevich's name before calling him "Governor Smith." He urged Blagojevich to explain the contraception issue by playing the role of "a hot 17-year-old" and later asked if he was "the gay governor." At one point in the interview, a startled Blagojevich looked to someone off camera and said, "Is he teasing me, or is that legit?"

He doesn't know that the Daily Show is a comedy? That's like someone not knowing that Dell makes computers. Even if you don't watch the Daily Show, which I don't, you still hear about it by watching the news shows. If there's anything that will take a politician down fast, it's being a joke on a national stage. Still, it gets worse:

...the naming of a Nation of Islam official to a commission that fights discrimination has exploded into an election-year furor for Gov. Rod Blagojevich, putting him in the middle of a conflict among blacks, Jews and gays. Even if Blagojevich makes his way through the racial and religious minefield this issue presents, his claim of ignorance about the appointment could reinforce his image of a detached, uninformed governor.
"No matter what he does, he's going to tick somebody off," Rick Garcia, political director of the gay rights organization Equality Illinois, said Friday. "It's completely a no-win situation." Two Jewish members of the Governor's Commission on Discrimination and Hate Crimes resigned Thursday rather than serve alongside an aide to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, known for his disparaging remarks about Jews, whites and gays.
----------
The Democratic governor, in a recent interview with The Associated Press, said he did not realize he had appointed a Nation of Islam official until learning about it from news reports.

That's called being caught between a rock, a hard place and the pits of hell. There's nothing good that can come of this for Blagojevich. NOTHING. He was stumbling before this but these major problems have finished him off. (If I recall correctly, his JA rating was in the upper 30's before this, which is hardly the number you'd like it to be at heading into the primary/caucus season.

I'd now call this governorship leaning Republican.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Rod Blagojevich, 2006, The Daily Show, Jon Stewart, Louis Farrakhan

More Democratic Desparation (And They Don't Even Know It)

2006-03-03T11:49:00.000-08:00

Maryland Democrats are getting desparate in their attempts to stop Michael Steele in Steele's bid for the U.S. Senate. Here's their desparation strategy:

Maryland Democratic leaders are aiming to tie Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele to the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina to dampen his appeal among black voters in his U.S. Senate bid. "I think it's one of President Bush's major failings as president, and I think it symbolizes a very disturbing approach to governing," said Derek Walker, executive director of the Maryland Democratic Party. "Bush has wrapped himself around Steele's campaign, and Steele has wrapped himself around Bush. Steele needs to address that," Mr. Walker said.
Rep. Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat and House minority whip, said: "I don't think the African-American community is going to want to give a stamp of approval to the Bush administration."

If that's what passes for Democratic strategerry, then they need a major influx of competent strategists in that party. That's a stretch and a half. They're planning on using Katrina to dissuade black voters from voting for Steele.

Meanwhile, Prince George's County State's Attorney Glenn Ivey, a Democrat, said his initial "concerns" about blacks voting for Mr. Steele have subsided. "I had some concerns, but my sense is that the whole Katrina episode has reminded a lot in the African-American community as to why they're Democrats," Mr. Ivey said.
Isiah "Ike" Leggett, the former state Democratic Party chairman, however, said linking Mr. Steele to Hurricane Katrina is "a hard sell. You can't tie everything that has happened with the president and the state of Louisiana and the city of New Orleans in such a direct way to a person holding office in the state of Maryland," said Mr. Leggett, who is running for Montgomery County executive.

Finally some people that aren't clueless. This is just more proof of what I've been saying in my outreach articles: The black monolithic vote is crumbling before our very eyes.

Not a decade too soon.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Michael Steele, Hoyer, Maryland, Maryland Politics

Bennish Banished (Temporarily)

2006-03-03T00:14:00.000-08:00

The geography teacher that compared Bush with Hitler has been put on "paid leave in part to shield him from the public outcry." How nice.

By many accounts, teacher Jay Bennish was notorious for veering off topic to blast President Bush, capitalism and U.S. foreign policy during his social-studies classes here at Overland High School. Then Sean Allen got an MP3 player for Christmas. This week, Mr. Bennish was placed on administrative leave pending a school-district investigation after 16-year-old Sean recorded a lecture during his sophomore geography class in which the teacher compared Mr. Bush to Adolf Hitler.
During the 20-minute recording, Mr. Bennish said there were "eerie similarities" between "things that Adolf Hitler used to say" and Mr. Bush's statements during his Jan. 31 State of the Union address. Mr. Bennish also said that capitalism was "at odds with human rights," and that the United States was "probably the most violent nation on planet Earth." Jeff Allen, Sean's father, said his son would often complain about his teacher's left-wing rants, but Mr. Allen assumed he was exaggerating, until he heard Mr. Bennish on the recording. "I had no idea he was this nuts," said Mr. Allen.

Sean Allen has done a great service to the nation. It's time we fired hatemongers like Mr. Bennish. This isn't a free speech issue, either. This is about fulfilling your professional duties. If Mr. Bennish wants to organize a protest and say these things, I'll defend his right to say it with whatever tools I've got at my availability. But I'll do everything I can to fire teachers that wander that far off topic in the classroom.

Debate in the classroom is fine on contentious issues. This isn't debate, it's a diatribe. And it's off-topic. He's paid to do a job. Clearly, wandering that far afield isn't part of the job description for a geography teacher.

Furthermore, with what verified facts can he justify saying that capitalism was "at odds with human rights" Or that the United States was "probably the most violent nation on planet Earth"?

If you're debating, you've got to present coherent information first before offering opinions. There isn't any proof that Mr. Bennish tried laying a factual foundation for his diatribe. There's only proof of his factless diatribe.

That's how Bennish let his students down. That's how he let the school down.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Jay Bennish, Sean Allen, Hitler, Bush

'Storm the White House'

2006-03-02T23:55:00.000-08:00

Just when I thought the lunatic fringe base of the Democratic Party couldn't get worse, I'm proven wrong. Here's the latest example:

An anti-war group that belongs to the umbrella organization United for Peace and Justice (UPJ) has announced that it intends to topple the Bush administration during a March 15 Washington, D.C. protest. In a message headlined "Storm the White House" that appears on the UPJ Web site, the group Political Cooperative is urging its members:
"TAKE THE WHITE HOUSE BY STORM, Stop Genocide, Torture and Occupation."
The message goes on to explain:
"We will not allow the Slave Holders that Still Prevail in this Country to Rule us any longer...The Administration is Criminal and if they will not step down, we must storm in, show them how many of us do not accept a criminal government." The Political Cooperative goes so far as to announce its plans to install an interim government after the Bush administration is toppled:
"The Political Cooperative will put a new, temporary government in place that is comprised of people from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and all the organizations that have finally made us aware of the truth of the savage practices and illegal policies of our government in assassinating our own officials as well as people throughout the world who oppose their criminal activity."
Bush-bashing filmmaker Michael Moore apparently endorses the coup plan, linking to the "Storm the White House" message on his Web site.

The slave holders? The "Administration is criminal"? These idiots are far enough left that they'd make San Fransiscans look moderate. And having Michael Moore endorse the plan is just the type of thing that this White House needs as it tries to convince people that they can't entrust the country to liberals.

Now all we need is another Pelosi blast or another Reid recrimination or a John Murtha diatribe and the image of the Democratic Party being the party of the political lunatics will be seared into peoples' memories forever.

Let's all pray that this 'event' gets covered by all the major media in Washington.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Storm the White House, Michael Moore, Looney Left, United for Peace and Justice

Roberts Unimpressed With VT Campaign Finance Law

2006-03-02T23:18:00.000-08:00

Based on this LA Times article, it's safe to say that Chief Justice John Roberts wasn't impressed with the Vermont campaign finance law the Supremes heard Tuesday.

"We are trying to create competitive elections and grass-roots campaigning," with volunteers going door-to-door, said Vermont's attorney general, William H. Sorrell. "A tremendous amount of campaigning can be done with a limited expenditure."

That's a quaint goal but it also gives incumbents an incredible advantage since their name recognition is usually higher than their challengers. That's besides the fact that this is a means to limit political speech.

"Is Vermont a clean state or corrupt?" Roberts asked the Vermont attorney general. If it is corrupt, he said, more politicians should be prosecuted. "How many prosecutions have been brought for political corruption?" he continued. Sorrell said that the problem was not bribery, but that money influenced what legislation won a hearing. During state hearings, lawmakers admitted that the drive for campaign money affected their decisions, he said. "In Vermont, if you accept $1,000, they think you have been bought," Sorrell said.
Roberts said he was not convinced. "I assume if they think the candidate can be bought, they would act accordingly at the polls, don't reelect that candidate," he said.

That last Roberts sentence must've made Sens. McCain and Feingold cringe. Their legislation is built on the premise that laws should be enacted to improve the image of Washington's political class without there being a substantive problem. In essence, their legislation's justification is similar to the 'justification' given for filibustering the Patriot Act: Neither group could cite specific problems; they could just worry about hypothetical situations.

Had Chief Justice Roberts replaced Justice O'Connor on the Court when BCRA was heard, that law wouldn't have passed Constitutional muster. It would've been struck down. I suspect that the Supremes are just looking for a good case on the matter so they can strike BCRA down.

Thirty years ago, the Supreme Court, in the case of Buckley vs. Valeo, struck down federal spending limits and said candidates had a free-speech right to spend as much money as they could raise. The Vermont case, Randall vs. Sorrell, challenged that rule. But a majority of the justices seemed inclined to stick with it. "You are not talking about money. You are talking about speech," Justice Antonin Scalia told the defenders of the Vermont law. "You are constraining speech. And that is very unusual in American democracy."

As usual, Justice Scalia is right on the money. Free speech, especially politically free speech is one of the cornerstones of American society. When we can't speak out against the political class during the primary and general election seasons, then we've lost the ability to shape the debate.

That's unacceptable in the greatest democracy in the world's history.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: McCain-Feingold, First Amendment, Freedom of Speech, Vermont, Politics

Minnesota CD-6 Race Getting National Publicity

2006-03-02T20:55:00.000-08:00

I was astounded this morning to see a column in Townhall.com about the MN CD-6 race. Still, it's a welcome sight. While I still think that whoever wins the GOP endorsement will win this race, I'm still positive that picking the right candidate matters. Here's a look at Daniel Sullivan's column:

The race for Minnesota’s vacant Sixth District Congressional seat has increasingly become one to watch. Open seats are rare in Congressional races and less predictable; this year such unpredictable races are especially important. The Sixth District covers an area of suburbs and exurbs north of St. Paul, as well as some smaller cities and farmland to the west. It's a sort of conservative island in Blue State Minnesota, but if Democrats expect to seize the House, they must be able to win in districts like this, where the population is booming and Republicans have formed a strong base.

In most Minnesota House races, Republicans have 1 decent candidate, maybe 2. In this district, we have an embarassment of riches. Phil Krinkie and Jim Knoblach (pronounced nob-lock) are or have been committee chairs, with Knoblach still chairing the House Ways and Means Committee. Jay Esmay is an entrepreneur with solid conservative credentials. Then there's my choice, State Senator Michelle Bachmann, whose moniker is "the Complete Conservative".

As I reported earlier, Sen. Bachmann visited our church to talk about the 'Definition of Marriage' Amendment that she's working on.

As I said then, I found her to be a terrific speaker who responded to questions crisply and directly. I found Sen. Bachmann to be persuasive in making her arguments in a logical, straightforward way. Combine that with her personality and her seemingly endless energy and it's easy to believe that Sen. Bachmann is a future GOP superstar.

Phil Krinkie bills himself as "the consistent conservative". The downside is that he's also known as "Dr. NO". That isn't a flattering image if you're trying to grow the GOP base.

A little over a month ago, things got dicier on the Democratic side:

For some time, the Sixth District looked as if it would be an opportunity for the latter group to prove itself, with former Methodist minister Elwyn Tinklenberg apparently cruising to a Democratic endorsement. But the party’s 2004 candidate, activist and organizer Patty Wetterling, who until recently planned to run for the U.S. Senate, announced her intention on February 3rd to run again for the Sixth District. The Democratic primary has thus become another proxy battle between the Deaniacs and moderate Democrats.

Patty Wetterling has done lots of good things as a child safety advocate but she's a single issue candidate. The rest of her positions are clearly out of touch with Central Minnesota's voters. In fact, she once said that she "could never win the Sixth." When she said that, she was right. She said that in November, 2004. Things haven't changed in CD-6 since then.

It'll be interesting to see which candidate Democrats endorse. While it makes more sense to pick Tinklenberg on ideological fit, they might well choose Wetterling because of her name recognition and because she's got three times the money in her campaign coffers as Tinklenberg.
The GOP precinct caucuses are this Tuesday, March 7. The state Republican nominating convention falls a week before the Democratic one.

In the end, though, I expect to hear Sen. Bachmann being declared the winner this November.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Michelle Bachmann, Elwyn Tinklenberg, Patty Wetterling, Phil Krinkie

Nuclear Deal Reached

2006-03-02T19:20:00.000-08:00

In a surprise, President Bush and Indian Prime Minnister Singh were able to announce the signing of a landmark nuclear energy agreement that should have far-reaching implications.

"We concluded an historic agreement today on nuclear power," Bush said. "It's not an easy job for the prime minister to achieve this agreement, I understand. It's not easy for the American president to achieve this agreement, but it's a necessary agreement. It's one that will help both our peoples."

This is what leadership is about. This deal wasn't expected to get finished on this trip but President Bush hammered it out. Credit also goes to Prime Minister Singh, too. This treaty will help in a number of different ways, not the least of which is getting full inspections of both the military weapons program and the energy-producing program. India getting nuclear power will make a big difference longterm, too.

As you'd expect, though, the nitpickers have already started criticizing the treaty:

Critics said the deal undermines the Nuclear Nonproliferation Agreement, which India won't sign. And they say it sends the wrong signal to leaders of North Korea and Iran, who have snubbed their noses at international calls to halt their nuclear weapons programs.

The last time I looked, India simply had nuclear technology. The last time I looked, Iran and North Korea had that, too, but they were terrorist-supporting countries, too. The last I checked, having a willingness to support terrorists should cause countries to get snubbed.

Further, it's noteworthy to think that giving the IAEA full permission to inspect their military and domestic nuclear capabililities is worth far more than Iran's signing the NPT, then kicking the inspectors out. Iran's signing of the NPT is a joke. There isn't a European country that's worried about India's nuclear program. We know that there's plenty of European countries that are worried about Iran's program.

It's times like this that criticizing everything that the President does looks especially stupid.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Bush, India, Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, IAEA

Power to the People

2006-03-02T10:17:00.000-08:00

Ralph Peters has another installment on the mythology created by the Agenda Media. Here's some of his observations:

One of the most persistent myths about Iraq is that our efforts to improve the electrical system failed. That's just plain wrong. The country's in far better shape than it was under Saddam. But freedom always has a cost: In this case, the demand for power soared after Saddam fell, and crashed the grid. It's been a long, hard fight to get it back up. Iraq never had an adequate power grid. Under the Ba'athist regime, Baghdad might have enjoyed power 18 or 20 hours a day, but other cities got three or four. One of the first things we did was to distribute power more equitably. Baghdad gets less, so its residents complain, but if you're in almost any other Iraqi city, you're far better off today than you were three years ago.

TRANSLATION: Everything that the Agenda Media has told you is 95% bull. When Michael Moore portrays Saddam's Iraq as a heaven on earth, it's 100% bull. When Ted Kennedy sticks with the "Iraq is a quagmire" meme, it's a lie.

When I post the things I get in CentCom's weekly newsletter, trust them. When Col. Peters or people of his stature report from Iraq, trust them.

In the wake of the war, we faced two immediate problems:
First: The grid was even more decrepit than the worst pessimists had suspected. Saddam never funded electrification adequately; spare-parts money from the Oil-For-Food program went to build palaces and monuments instead.
Second: As soon as the borders opened, appliances flowed in, from refrigerators to air-conditioners to satellite dishes (the dishes are everywhere). Money came out from under a few million beds and the country went on a massive shopping spree that hasn't ended. As soon as the Saddam-era system was exposed to "normal" demands, it crashed.
Nonetheless, power generation last July averaged 5,300 megawatts; the top pre-war peak was 4,300. Just now, output's down to 3,900 to 4,200 megawatts, because the system's being serviced and upgraded to meet this summer's demands.

In other words, because, in Michael Isikoff's words, "We don’t cover hospital and school openings. We cover bombings.", rest assured of the fact that we aren't getting the full story. (Follow this link to view the video.)

The truth is that the old saying still applies "If it bleeds, it leads." That might make for a splashy lead-in to the newscast but it isn't a way to keep us informed properly.

Cross-posted on California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Ralph Peters, Iraq, Rebuilding Iraq, Agenda Media

Sensenbrenner Speaks Out

2006-03-02T09:06:00.000-08:00

After holding his fire since before Christmas, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, (R-WI), gets his say in a USA Today op-ed. The opening paragraph says it all. Here it is:

Zero. That's the number of substantiated USA Patriot Act civil liberties violations. Extensive congressional oversight found no violations. Six reports by the Justice Department's independent inspector general, who is required to solicit and investigate any allegations of abuse, found no violations. Intense public scrutiny has yet to find a single civil liberty abuse. Despite many challenges, no federal court has declared unconstitutional any of the Patriot Act provisions Congress is renewing.

In other words, Chairman Sensenbrenner thinks that all the rhetoric before the first temporary extension was just that: rhetoric focused on theoretical possibilities, at least in the mind of paranoid people. Because these provisions are closely monitored, civil rights violations aren't likely to happen. We know that they haven't thus far.

Most important, this renewal would permanently tear down the pre-9/11 "wall" that prevented the FBI and CIA from communicating. This law recognizes the vital importance of sharing information to "connect the dots." The Patriot Act has made it much more difficult for America's enemies to live openly among us as they plot to murder innocent Americans.

This is far and away the single biggest improvement caused by the USA Patriot Act. Had the USA Patriot Act been in place when the Able Danger people wanted to brief the FBI on the activities of Mohammad Atta, we might have prevented 9/11.

Yes, I care about protecting my civil rights but I care alot more about staying alive.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Patriot Act, War on Terror, James Sensenbrenner

Why DFLers Are Afraid of Voting on Same Sex Unions

2006-03-01T22:12:00.000-08:00

Katherine Kersten, my favorite Strib columnist, has another great column up titled Why are DFLers scared of voting on same-sex union?. Methinks that it's because they know it's a lose-lose bigger situation for them. DFL'ers saw how definition of marriage amendments pulled people to the polls in 2004. The last thing they want here in Minnesota is to let something like that onto the ballot.

According to Ms. Kirsten, here's how they're trying to dodge this issue:

The marriage amendment is unnecessary. Opponents note that Minnesota already has a law limiting marriage to one man and one woman. But in states such as Iowa and Maryland, similar laws are under legal assault. Activist state courts can throw out a Defense of Marriage law like Minnesota's as discriminatory, unless it is backed up by a similar provision in the state constitution.

God knows that there's plenty of liberal activist judges who'd gladly rip a DOMA apart here in Minnesota. I suspect that the Roberts Court would toss out such rulings because they'd side with voters expressing their will via a vote over a panel of black-robed activists.

Here's another dodge:

The marriage amendment is divisive. What delicious irony! Same-sex-marriage supporters themselves created the rancorous dispute they now lament, by relentlessly promoting a radical social experiment that is essentially unique in human history.

Let people vote on it. That's how the constitutional amendment process is laid out in Minnesota. If people want to dwell on this issue, that's their problem. I won't lose a minute of sleep over it.

The amendment is discriminatory, a product of unfounded fear and hatred of gays. The Muslim faith permits a man to marry four wives. I oppose redefining marriage in America to allow polygamy. This doesn't mean I "hate" or "fear" Muslims, or wish to discriminate against them. It merely means I believe one man-one woman marriage is best for American society and families.

Makes sense to me. Why let a modern 'movement' get in the way of us upholding 6 millenia worth of marriage tradition, right?

The marriage amendment is a cynical political wedge issue, a distraction from issues that people really care about, like schools and housing. What could be more vital than marriage, a universal social institution that connects fathers and mothers to their children, and thereby perpetuates the social order? Redefining marriage to include people of the same sex will erode expectations that children need both a mom and a dad, and that the mom and dad should be married. Our inner cities are reeling from the disastrous consequences of abandoning these ideas. The long-term consequences of redefining marriage are unknown and potentially disastrous.

Same sex marriage opponents are dismissive of the value of a mother-father home but that doesn't mean that the evidence isn't abundant showing the strength and stability of a 'traditional' family.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: DOMA, Democrats, Midterm Elections

Eminent Domain Legislation Working Through Minnesota House

2006-03-01T21:32:00.000-08:00

The Strib's David Peterson is reporting on the progress being made on eminent domain reform legislation currently wending its way through the Minnesota House. Here's some noteworthy quotes to ponder:

"Some infirmities were brought up today," said Rep. Chris DeLaForest, R-Andover, who chaired the session. "And as it wends its way through, they will be tightened up."
----------
Miles Seppelt, economic development director for the city of Hutchinson told the committee that "the standard in the bill for a building to be in such bad shape that it can be condemned is so high that the city's building inspector told him he has "never seen anything that dilapidated in his entire career."
----------
Jeff Eaton, senior vice president of real estate services for United Properties, representing the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties, said the bill "swats a mosquito with a sledgehammer."

Particularly disturbing is Mr. Eaton's quote that the bill "swats a mosquito with a sledgehammer." Though we haven't dealt with anything like Suzette Kelo dealt with in New London, CT, I'd doubt that we'd consider the stealing of our properties just so a contractor can make a bushel basket full of money as a proverbial "mosquito." And if the "mosquito" is pesky enough, I'd use a "sledgehammer" on it in a heartbeat.

Mr. Eaton's comments belittle the seriousness of the problem. They also show a utter disregard for private property, like it's just another untapped commodity. With all due respect, our property shouldn't be viewed as a contractor's next project site. EVER.

Johnson said that what began as a one-sentence bill has expanded with time to six pages to make allowances for important projects. The problem, he said, is that standards today for what is "blighted" are so loose that any claim that can be made "with a straight face, is good enough."

Clearly, that type of definition of "blighted" property isn't acceptable.

The city government of New London, CT won the first round in Kelo v. New London but they've sparked a bipartisan firestorm of eminent domain reforms nationwide. I hope a contractor challenges one of these reforms just so it can make its way back to the Supreme Court so they can swat that ruling aside. Frankly, I think that an eminent domain constitutional amendment would sail through both houses of Congress & be ratified within a couple months by 40+ state legislatures.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Kelo v. New London, Eminent Domain, SCOTUS, Property Rights

Bloody Thursday, Black Friday?

2006-03-01T19:17:00.000-08:00

With Vikings' owner Zygi Wilf promising to spend alot of money on free agency (ESPN's John Clayton says that we're $24 million under the cap) and lots of teams being way over the cap, I decided to put together a list of possible 'cap cuts' from the teams most over the cap entering 'Bloody Thursday'. Here's the list by team of potential cuts and players already cut (players already cut are in bold print):

KC Chiefs
LB Shawn Barber $4,707,142 ($1,278,568) OL Chris Bober $2,175,000 ($1,275,000) RB CB Dexter McCleon $2,775,000 ($1,600,000) CB Eric Warfield $4,264,285 ($2,121,425) OL John Welbourn $1,400,000 ($1,400,000) S Greg Wesley $3,766,666 ($1,099,998) S Jerome
Still over cap after cutting these guys: $11.8 million
Miami
QB Gus Frerotte $1,680,000 $1,430,000 CB Reggie Howard $4,000,000 ($1,000,000) OL Jeno James $3,208,333 $374,999 S Tebucky Jones $6,800,000 ($6,500,000) CB Sam Madison $6,305,931 ($2,625,000) OL Damion McIntosh $4,475,000 ($4,275,000) LB Junior Seau $2,923,750 $2,100,000 DT Jeff Zgonina $895,000 $770,000
Those in BOLD already cut.
Still over cap after cutting these guys: $7.5 million
Tennessee Titans
Player Cap number 2006 savings
OL Eugene Amano $393,833 ($384,999) OL Ken Amato $695,002 ($204,994) RB Travis Henry $2,142,000 ($1,574,000) OL Brad Hopkins $11,160,336 ($4,608,990) OL Benji Olson $9,083,250 ($5,982,750) QB Billy Volek $3,273,335 ($1,953,329)
Those in BOLD already cut.
Still over cap after cutting these guys: $4.1 million
Washington Redskins
S Matt Bowen $2,400,000 ($2,000,000) K John Hall $1,965,000 ($1,035,000) CB Walt Harris $2,750,000 ($2,000,000) DT Brandon Noble $2,630,000 ($1,700,000) QB Patrick Ramsey $2,881,500 ($1,688,000) OL Cory Raymer $1,118,333 ($984,999)
Still over cap if cutting these guys: $7.7 million
Atlanta Falcons
CB Kevin Mathis $887,500 ($325,000) DE Brady Smith $3,125,000 ($2,500,000)
Still OVER cap if cutting these guys: $8.9 million
Jets
LB Eric Barton $3,915,000 ($1,170,000) WR Laveranues Coles $10,000,000 ($6,000,000) OL Jason Fabini $4,500,000 ($3,200,000) QB Jay Fiedler $6,495,000 ($6,095,000) OL Pete Kendall $5,187,000 ($4,362,000) CB Ty Law $10,060,000 ($7,660,000) LB Barry Gardner $815,000 ($655,000) DT Lance Legree $1,850,000 ($1,450,000) RB Jerald Sowell $922,857 ($551,428) OL Kevin Mawae $4,466,666 ($633,330) QB Chad Pennington $15,000,000 ($3,000,000)
Those in BOLD already cut.
Still over cap after cutting these guys: $ 11.1 million
Still $2 million over if cutting everyone from this list except Coles, who I’d think would restructure deal.
Denver Broncos
DT Trevor Pryce $10,296,666 ($8,529,996); RB Mike Anderson (cap savings unknown) TE Jeb Putzier (cap savings unknown) OL Matt Lepsis (O) $6,950,000 $5,050,000; DT Gerard Warren (O) $8,250,000 ($7,600,000)
I haven't been able to figure out where the Broncos are with the cap because of Anderson & Putzier's cap savings realized.
Indianapolis Colts
DT Josh Williams $3,700,000 ($1,300,000) QB Travis Brown $630,500 ($545,000) DT Joaquin Gonzalez $645,000 ($445,000)
Those in BOLD already cut.
Still over cap after cutting these guys: $ 9.4 million
Pittsburgh Steelers
OL Jeff Hartings $8,129,166 ($4,749,997) S Mike Logan $1,758,333 ($1,474,999) QB Tommy Maddox $1,700,000 ($600,000) OL Chukky Okobi $2,097,500 ($1,751,500) RB Duce Staley $4,371,250 ($857,500) CB Willie Williams $1,235,000 ($985,000)
Cutting these players gets them $3.42 under

To summarize, the Dolphins, Chiefs, Colts, Jets and Titans will still need to cut alot more players to comply with the cap by Friday.

Of the players already cut, my wish list for the Vikings are: Denver RB Mike Anderson, TE Jeb Putzier; Bills OT Mike Williams; Oakland's SS Derrick Gibson. Of the players listed that I'd like to see cut, I'd include Pittsburgh C Jeff Hartings, Jets WR Laveranues Coles & Tennessee RB Travis Henry as players I'd hope the Vikings would consider.

Let the bloodbath begin.

Today's Must Reading, Part II

2006-03-01T17:06:00.000-08:00

Ralph Peters has another must read article in the NY Post tonight. To say that he isn't happy with the 'reporting' from Baghdad is a vast understatement. Here's a glimpse into this report:

OUR Humvees splashed through troughs of sewage, between ponds of filth that covered several acres. Shanties crowded on accidental islands fringed with stands of reeds. A stall selling brilliant vegetables did a brisk business at the edge of the sludge. The Risalah slum is home to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis no one ever cared about. No one. Until the U.S. Army arrived. And tried to make their lives better. We were on our way to inspect a "minor" project to change the lives of the poor.
----------
From top to bottom, Baghdad's culture is broken. It often seems to be every man for himself, and damn the world. Yet, that first impression deceives: More and more Iraqis are stepping up to build a better society. Saddam didn't just ravage the physical infrastructure, he wrecked the moral infrastructure, too. The recovery will be long and often painful. But the patient wants to get better, something that's easily lost amid skewed headlines.
After inspecting a number of antiquated water-processing plants, where Gandara offered tough love and tools to Iraqi managers (he'll deliver expertise and spare parts, but won't do their work for them), we wrap up the tour at the far western edge of Baghdad, where the dug-in poor live in shanties, and new arrivals huddle in squats.

Does this even remotely sound like the reporting that we've heard from correspondents from the AP, CNN, Washington Post and others? We all know that it doesn't sound anything like it. It sounds more like the reporting that Laura Ingraham provided. These are the types of articles that America must hear if it's to get a complete picture of what's happening in Iraq.

It's reports like these that weren't getting out that inspired me to start my "News From the Iraqi Theater" series. Democracies can't function unless the people get accurate information on the important issues of the day.

As long as I'm on my soapbox, citizens should be insulted when the Agenda Media doesn't give us the story because (a) that's their job; (b) we need them to do their job properly; and (c) we need the information so that fools like John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their ilk can't demagogue the Iraq issue.

Murtha's constant yapping about there being a civil war, that we're the targets, not Iraqis, that our "troops are living hand to mouth", etc. would be shot down with a flood of ridicule if the Agenda Media weren't so obsessed with being the liberals' mouthpiece. But I digress.

Notice that Col. Gandara supplies the tools and materials but Iraqis are doing the work. I've included that type of information in my articles, too, because that was a major complaint in the early aftermath of the fall of Baghdad. (See here and here as examples of this 'reporting'.)

As I said when I started the series, I'm giving you these updates because the Agenda Media won't. Thankfully a talented man like Col. Peters ant others like Austin Bay and Michael Yon are fulfilling that role.

I suspect that Americans will notice the difference in 2-3 years after things have settled down more. To think that all fighting will be quashed in a Middle Eastern country isn't reasonable in the short terms. That shouldn't be our yardstick. Rebuilding infrastructure and training troops should be. Based on those benchmarks, especially considering Col. Peters' reporting of the latest infrastructure projects, I'd say that we're making progress.

Something that isn't making into the NY Times, CBS, the AP or the Washington Post nearly often enough.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Ralph Peters, Agenda Media, Iraq, 4th ID

Culture of Corruption, Democratic Style, Partt II

2006-03-01T09:58:00.000-08:00

The Hill, self-titled as "The Newspaper for and about the U.S. Congress", is reporting that one of the most bitter partisans in the House, John Conyers, (D-MI), might be the target of an investigation for unethical practices. Here's the ethical lapses he'd be investigated for:

Deanna Maher, a former deputy chief of staff in Conyers’ Detroit office, and Sydney Rooks, a former legal counsel in the district office, provided evidence for the allegations by sharing numerous letters, memorandums and copies of e-mails, handwritten notes and expense reports with The Hill.
In letters sent separately by each woman to the House ethics committee, the FBI and the U.S. attorney’s office, they allege that Conyers demanded that aides work on several local and state campaigns and forced them to baby-sit and chauffeur his children. They also charge that some aides illegally used Conyers’ congressional offices to enrich themselves. Maher decided she could no longer work for Conyers in such an unethical environment and quit in May 2005. Rooks had left Conyers years earlier; she was a full-time staffer working in the office for him from 1997 to 1999. Before leaving, Conyers placed her on paid administrative leave for several months and stopped paying her in April 2000.
"I could not tolerate any longer being involved with continual unethical, if not criminal, practices which were accepted as 'business as usual,'" Maher wrote in a letter to the ethics panel dated Jan. 13, 2006.

These aren't small issues. Getting investigated for these activities isn't something to be taken lightly. But the Agenda Media won't report a peep about this because it doesn't fit the "Culture of Corruption Republicans" meme. If anyone sees something about this issue in the Washington Post, NY or LA Times or on CBS, drop me a note here.

The truth is that Conyers isn't the least bit concerned about ethics unless it involves a Republican. He's among the most bitter, hateful partisans in House history, along with Maxine Waters, David Bonior, Jim McDermott and Nancy Pelosi. He's been in power forever. He's one of the few still sticking around that remembers what it's like to be in the majority.

Until the Republican Revolution in 1994, he was part of the majority that exempted themselves from the laws they passed (with the exception of taxes). They couldn't be sued in civil courts for their misbehavior. That's the mindset that he operates with. In his mind, ethics don't apply to him.

I want there to be a fair, evidence-based investigation. If that investigation finds wrong-doing, then Rep. Conyers needs to be ousted from the House. PERIOD.

A partisan dispute over staffing issues shut down the ethics committee in 2005, but GOP sources said the panel, known formally as the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, has since hired a staff director and a team of investigators. The committee is evaluating which investigations to pursue, including the Conyers matter. Rooks said that she spoke to Ken Kellner, a lawyer on the committee, last year but that he dismissed her complaints "as old news." While the ethics committee has been aware of the allegations against Conyers for at least two years, Maher’s allegations date back to 1998, a year after Conyers hired her.

Typical. And disgusting.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: John Conyers, Culture of Corruption, Democratic Ethics Violations

Today's Must Reading

2006-03-01T09:03:00.000-08:00

The NY Post has Ralph Peters' column up from Iraq. To say that he doesn't have a high opinion of the Agenda Media is understatement. Here's a glimpse into his column:

The reporting out of Baghdad continues to be hysterical and dishonest. There is no civil war in the streets. None. Period. Terrorism, yes. Civil war, no. Clear enough? Yesterday, I crisscrossed Baghdad, visiting communities on both banks of the Tigris and logging at least 25 miles on the streets. With the weekend curfew lifted, I saw traffic jams, booming business, and everyday life in abundance.
Yes, there were bombings yesterday. The terrorists won't give up on their dream of sectional strife, and know they can count on allies in the media as long as they keep the images of carnage coming. They'll keep on bombing. But Baghdad isn't London during the Blitz, and certainly not New York on 9/11.

In other words, Col. Peters is suggesting that we ignore the Agenda Media and start searching for the truth about Iraq. Col. Peters characterizing the 'reporting' as hysterical and dishonest is meant to be a hard shot at the nincompoops who act like they're the authorities on Iraq. It should be noted that Col. Peters isn't a Bush apologist by any stretch of the imagination.

No one's fleeing the Black Death, or the plague of terror. And the people here have been impressed that their government reacted effectively to last week's strife, that their soldiers and police brought order to the streets. The transition is working.
Most Iraqis want better government, better lives, and democracy. It is contagious, after all. Come on over. Talk to them. Watch them risk their lives every day to work with us or with their government to build their own future.

Imagine that. Iraqi people prefer order in their lives. They even prefer freedom over living under a tyrant. Worse yet (in the Agenda Media's eyes), this freedom thing is contagious. Does this mean that we should put the Agenda Media on suicide watch? I'm sure this isn't what they wanted to hear but I'm equally positive that it isn't that big a deal to them since they make most of their 'reports' up anyway.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Iraq, Ralph Peters, Civil War, Agenda Media

They're American Ports

2006-03-01T08:38:00.000-08:00

That's the title of Hillary's op-ed for the NY Daily News. New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez co-authored the op-ed.

Wouldn't it have been nice if the Co-President had given a damn about American ports when the Chinese were gaining access to American ports in the late 90's? Wouldn't it have been nice if they'd implemented policies that would've stopped those takeovers?

Think of this logic: We were told that SDI shouldn't be funded because terrorists were more likely to smuggle a dirty bomb or biological weapon in than we were likely to see a missile attack. I don't disagree with that. If that was true then, why would the Clintons turn control of major West Coast ports to the Chinese? Or did they just trust the Chinese to be honest and trustworthy?

One last thing: Did the Co-Presidents get involved in the review process then? In the final analysis, Hillary would have more credibility if she wasn't involved in turning major ports to the Chinese.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Hillary, Dubai Ports World, Homeland Security

Pakistanis Hit Militants on Afghan Border

2006-02-28T23:56:00.000-08:00

The AP is reporting that Pakistanis hit some terrorists hard in the North Waziristan area just across the border from Afghanistan. Here's some details from the attack:

Pakistani security forces backed by helicopter gunships struck a militant hideout Wednesday in a tribal region near the Afghan border, killing or wounding at least 25 militants, an official said. The militants had entered Pakistan's North Waziristan tribal region after a raid inside Afghanistan. Army troops and three helicopter gunships attacked them, said Syed Zaheerul Islam, the top government administrator of the region.
He said between 25 and 30 militants were killed or wounded in the raid. He said militants were running a training camp and that the strike triggered explosions in an arms dump at the site. "They were foreigners. They had set up tents in mountains in the area," Islam said.
----------
The early morning operation took place near Saidgi, a village about 9 miles west of Miran Shah, the main town in North Waziristan, army spokesman Maj. Gen. Shaukat Sultan said. Sultan said the raid was carried out on "confirmed intelligence" that militants were in the area.

The raid comes just before President Bush visits India and Pakistan. It's nice to read that the Pakistani general said that the "raid was carried out on "confirmed intelligence" that militants were in the area." This should make for some interesting conversations in the Pakistani press, too.

Cross-Posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Pakistan, North Waziristan, Musharraf

Court Rules Pro-lifers Aren't Racketeers

2006-02-28T22:47:00.000-08:00

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that the RICO statute couldn't be used to "against protesters at abortion clinics." Predictably, both sides had immediate reactions to the ruling:

Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, charged that by vacating a nationwide injunction against abortion clinic protesters "on narrow, technical grounds, the Supreme Court sided today with thugs and bullies, not peaceful protesters." Mrs. Gandy held that the injunction "contributed to the dramatic reduction in clinic violence that we have witnessed in recent years." She noted that the 1998 injunction was imposed after a Chicago jury found that clinic demonstrators had engaged in a pattern of racketeering by interfering with clinic operations, damaging clinic property, menacing doctors and assaulting patients. Mrs. Gandy said that if yesterday's ruling "ushers in a return to clinic violence in the United States, NOW stands ready to fight in every jurisdiction."
Pro-lifers exulted in the decision.
"Naturally, I am gratified to be vindicated once again by the U.S. Supreme Court," Joseph M. Scheidler, national director of the Chicago-based Pro-Life Action League and petitioner in the case, Scheidler vs. NOW. He said the Supreme Court was "right" in 2003 when it initially lifted a nationwide injunction against clinic protests by pro-life groups. "But NOW refused to acknowledge defeat. They convinced the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to keep the case alive in spite of the Supreme Court's clear mandate to end it," Mr. Scheidler said.

Frankly, it's more than melodramatic for NOW to say that "clinic demonstrators had engaged in a pattern of racketeering by interfering with clinic operations, damaging clinic property, menacing doctors and assaulting patients" or that the Supreme Court's ruling might usher in "a return to clinic violence in the United States..."

If she didn't think it might lead to increased violence, then the only other explanation for her saying that was to play the 'fear card'. I guess that that's certainly possible considering the circumstances.

I suspect that NOW will use this ruling to gin up financial support for their narrow cause, likely saying something like "this ruling is proof that the radical right wing is intent on taking away a woman's right to choose." Of course, that claim won't hold water considering that the vote was 8-0. Then again, NOW doesn't need facts because lies work just as well in this type of argument.

Pro-lifers were expectedly pleased with the ruling. I, along with most pro-lifers thought that using RICO laws against abortion clinic protesters were a bit of overkill. If states want to pass laws that provide a buffer zone around a clinic, that's their call. But calling pro-life protesters the equivalent of gangsters is over the top.

On another note, I liked that the majority opinion was written by Stephen Breyer and that it actually made sense. The unanimous verdict was gratifying, too.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, SCOTUS

Propaganda or Not?

2006-02-28T10:40:00.000-08:00

So far today, I've come across more propaganda today than I can handle. Here's what I've found:

One article tries telling us that two thirds of Americans think that President Bush isn't doing a good job. Another tries telling us that Americans hate high gas prices when oil companies charge high prices but they don't mind it if their government taxes them more. Finally, a newspaper thinks it has a right to see "highly classified" documents that would leave us far more vulnerable against terrorist attacks.

The CBS poll that just came out is nothing more than propaganda. I can't even call it bad polling because calling it that would denigrate bad polls like AP-Ipsos.

First off, the poll was taken Feb. 22-26. In other words, the polling is skewed by part of it being conducted over the weekend.

Second of all, it's badly skewed with the representation of political parties. According to their own breakdown:

"Total Republicans" contacted: 272 unweighted and 289 weighted or 28% of the sample.
"Total Democrats" contacted: 409 unweighted and 381 weighted or 37% of the sample.
"Total Independents" contacted: 337 unweighted and 348 weighted or 33% of the sample.

Worse yet is that the poll wasn't of registered voters or likely voters. So who cares what this propaganda tool says?

This story taken by itself is bothersome but it gets worse when taken in context. Let's look further into the propaganda business. Here's the opening paragraph in a NY Times article:

Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to a higher federal gasoline tax, but a significant number would go along with an increase if it reduced global warming or made the United States less dependent on foreign oil, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

What type of question would produce that type of result? People are vehemently opposed to higher gas prices when they think it's the result of oil company's price-gouging but they're cool with paying more at the pump when the government steals the money? Surely they don't expect us to be that stupid, do they?

Let's take a poll of our own. Here's what I'm asking:

A. Are you ok with higher gas prices if it's the result of higher gas taxes?
B. Are you ok with higher gas prices if it's the result of higher profits for oil companies?
C. Are you not ok with higher gas prices under any circumstances?

Let me know by commenting on this article. I'll update the results every couple hours.

This propaganda tells me is that the 'poll' is weighted heavily towards Democrats predisposed to increasing taxes. Other than that, the 'poll' is total garbage.

If you think these stories are absurd, wait. I've saved 'the best' for last:

The New York Times sued the Department of Defense on Monday, saying the government has refused to turn over records related to its The New York Times sued the Department of Defense on Monday, saying the government has refused to turn over records related to its domestic warrantless surveillance program. In a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, the Times asked the court to order the government to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request requiring it to release documents or provide a lawful reason why it cannot. The spying program was revealed by the Times in a story in December.

This is breathtakingly inaccurate and arrogant. Look at that first sentence: They're still calling it DOMESTIC surveillance. ENOUGH!!! It isn't DOMESTIC. when a person boards a plane in LA and they fly to Vancouver, BC, does the airline call it a domestic flight? People would ridicule the airline from sun up to sundown if they tried characterizing it that way. Yet the NY Times, the Washington Post, the AP, the 3 broadcast networks and CNN all call it that way. And not just once in awhile. Every time.

If that isn't stupid enough, then there's the NY Times' request through the FOIA for classified information. Sure. Let's hand that information right over to them. In fact, let's turn this information over to terrorists, too. Actually, we don't have to since this information will be part of a NY Times series on the NSA.

Anyone thinking that these clowns are the mainstream media isn't in touch with the mainstream of American politics. Then again, CBS and the NY Times couldn't find the mainstream of American politics if their life depended on it.

Cross-posted at California Conservatives

Technorati Tags: NY Times, NSA, CBS

Closing In?

2006-02-28T08:10:00.000-08:00

The people at the American Spectator seem to think that something might break in the NSA Leak Scandal. Here's a glimpse into their article:

Word out of the Defense Intelligence Agency and law enforcement sources has the FBI and the Department of Justice comparing notes and dates on who in the U.S. Senate received national security briefings on both the overseas terrorist prisons and the NSA overseas terrorist monitoring programs, and when those briefings took place. "The number of Senators who received briefings is not as large as people think," says one law enforcement source. "These were programs with a limited 'Need to Know" list on Capitol Hill."
----------
Focus of the investigation remains on the staffs of two Senators, Sen. Jay Rockefeller and Sen. Dick Durbin, as well as committee staff for the Senate Intelligence Committee and career intelligence staff detailed to U.S. Senate offices and committees.

Insiders have suspected that Rockefeller was one of the leakers for awhile now, which makes sense. He's the person that developed a plan to politicize an intelligence report about whether the WH unduly pressured intelligence. He's also the guy that leaked a letter he typed on the NSA matter that he said was so top secret that he couldn't put it on his computer. It was so secret that he couldn't even have his secretary type it up.

I hope that the investigation hands down indictments against Rockefeller and any of his staffers who leaked this information.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Jay Rockefeller, NSA, Investigation, DOJ

Media Update

2006-02-27T23:54:00.000-08:00

I'd like to thank Lores Rizkalla for inviting me on her Just a Woman radio show Sunday night to talk about the Dubai Ports World fiasco. Lores was a most gracious host and I thoroughly enjoyed getting interviewed by Lores. Follow this link to listen to the interview. I was on for two segments so they're broken down into two parts.

As I listened to the first hour's callers, it was obvious that most of the callers were strongly opposed to the deal. I'm glad that I listened to these callers because most, though not all, of their worries were legitimate worries. Because I'd researched these issues this past week, I think I helped bring a comfort level to more of the listeners.

One thing that Lores and I strongly agreed on is that the Bush Administration did a miserable job handling this story. As I told Lores in an email this afternoon, what's most frustrating to me is that this issue wouldn't be such a wide split (Last I'd heard, it was a 62-17 split) had the Bush communications team done a better job of educating people as quickly as possible.

One other thing that became apparent during the interview is that Lores' interviewing style was far less confrontational than the WH press corps, which I think is a far better interviewing technique.

I strongly recommend that everyone make time to listen to Lores' show. You won't be disappointed. (Follow this link to listen to the live audio stream.)

Major AQ in Iraq Figure Jailed

2006-02-27T23:22:00.000-08:00

Abou al-Farouq, a Syrian who financed and coordinated groups working for Iraq's most wanted terrorist, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was captured Monday.

Acting on a tip from residents, members of the Interior Ministry's Wolf Brigade captured al-Farouq with five other followers of al-Zarqawi near Bakr, about 100 miles west of Baghdad, the ministry officer said.

What's most interesting to me is the absense of American troops in this capture. "Residents" gave al-Farouq up and Iraq's Wolf Brigade brought al-Farouq and five followers to justice in a raid.

If that isn't enough positive news, here's more:

"That crisis is over," U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad declared. "I think the country came to the brink of a civil war, but the Iraqis decided that they didn't want to go down that path, and came together," the ambassador told CNN. "Clearly the terrorists who plotted that attack wanted to provoke a civil war. It looked quite dangerous in the initial 48 hours, but I believe that the Iraqis decided to come together."

This was the closest that Iraqis have come to letting a civil war get started and it didn't happen. Let's hope that Amb. Khalilzad is right in saying that Iraqis never want to go down that path and that they have come together after this. The positive thing that I took from this weekend were the goodwill gestures by the Sunni and Shi'ite clerics towards each others and their urging calm for their followers.

Without their calling for calm and without them condemning "the blowing up of the Shiite mausoleum of Samarra as much as the acts of sabotage against the houses of God", this could've escalated into a much worse situtation.

I think that the initial response to the destruction of the Golden Mosque was purely visceral but the susequent responses were logical, intelligent responses. It would have been preferable to not have that initial response but at least we got the more rational response later.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: al Qaeda, Zarqawi, Civil War, Khalilzad

Polling Analysis

2006-02-27T20:43:00.000-08:00

According to this Washington Times' article, the national polling doesn't look as bad for Republicans as the Agenda Media and the DNC have been crowing about. Let's take a look at that article:

Most polls say a majority of registered voters would vote Democrat if the congressional elections were held today, but a new independent polling analysis now finds that Republicans could lead among people who actually vote. The CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll reported last week that the Democrats led Republicans among registered voters in the generic congressional survey by 50 percent to 43 percent, a seven-point margin that could give Democrats enough victories to take control of the House, if their supporters participate in November's elections.
But a deeper analysis of these numbers by David W. Moore for the Gallup Poll said, "It is likely many voters will not do so" because turnout among registered voters tends to be lower than that among "likely voters" who say they plan to vote and usually do. In his analysis, Mr. Moore writes that Gallup's "experience over the past two midterm elections, in 1998 and 2002, suggests that the [registered voters] numbers tend to overstate the Democratic margin by about 10? (sp) percentage points. Given that Democrats currently lead by seven points, that could mean that among people who will definitely vote, Republicans actually lead by three to four points," he said.

As I've written about numerous times, the best way for a conservative to view polls is with a hefty bit of skepticism. This article shows why. Who cares how the general public feels in terms of campaigns if they won't show up and vote? It's a totally useless statistic, like the right track/wrong track numbers. The truth is that I ignore all right track/wrong track polling totals unless they're really dramatic.

This should also put a little more lift in the steps of the GOP. Until this article, we've been told again and again that we were sunk, we'd lost the House already, that the Senate was ready to flip, etc. I didn't give those opinions alot of credibility, though, because they underestimate the passion that conservatives have towards conservative candidates.

I highly recommend that you read the entire article.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Gallup, Midterm Elections, USA Today, CNN

White House Rejects Special Counsel

2006-02-27T18:22:00.000-08:00

This morning, I wrote "A special investigation to determine the legality of the NSA intercept is a facade." That's still how I feel. Today, though, the White House weighed in on the issue:

The White House on Monday rejected the call by more than a dozen House Democrats for a special counsel to investigate the Bush administration's eavesdropping program. President Bush's spokesman Scott McClellan said those Democrats should instead spend their time investigating the source of the unauthorized disclosure of the classified program, which "has given the enemy some of our playbook." "I really don't think there's any basis for a special counsel," McClellan also said.

I love that last shot because it shows that the White House isn't taking the WH press corps' guff anymore. They aren't just slipping the questions, which is what McClellan did during the Cheney debacle. They're hitting back and with good reason.

The truth is that the WH press corps is mostly the PR machine for Congressional Democrats, meaning that slapping the WH press corps is essentially the same as slapping the Congressional Democrats.

As I said earlier, the only way to put a final stamp of approval on this issue is when the Supreme Court rules in the President's favor on this issue, which is precisely what I'd expect the opinion to be. After all, all prior precedents have said exactly that.

The Democrats see "ample precedent" for a special counsel, citing the Justice Department's appointment of U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Oddly enough, the 'Fitzgerald Precedent' is undergoing tight scrutiny on constitutional grounds. There's a question as to whether his appointment was valid since he wasn't approved by Congress or appointed by the Executive branch. That's the threshhold established by the Constitution. I understand that that's just a motion but it's got some merit to it. If the defense wins that motion hearing, then the case will be dismissed since the ruling would mean that Fitzgerald wasn't legally authorized to conduct an investigation.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: NSA, Democrats, Patrick Fitzgerald

Sunnis Ready to End Boycott

2006-02-27T11:17:00.000-08:00

It's welcome news that the AP is reporting that Sunnis are willing to get to the negotiating table so that a government can be formed.

Sunni Arabs are ready to end their boycott of talks to form a new Iraqi government if rival Shiites return mosques seized in last week's sectarian attacks and meet other unspecified demands, a top Sunni figure said Monday.
----------
Adnan al-Dulaimi, whose Iraqi Accordance Front spearheaded the Sunni boycott, said the Sunnis have not decided to return to the talks but are "intent on participating" in a new government. "The situation is tense and within the next two days, we expect the situation to improve and then we will have talks," he told The Associated Press. "We haven't ended our suspension completely but we are on the way to end it."

Bit by bit, the tensions are diminishing. The key to understanding this situation is to know that it's a process, not an event. It's about putting subtle pieces of the puzzle together.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags:

Boxer's Rebellion

2006-02-27T10:43:00.000-08:00

In a major departure from their opinion, the LA Times is excoriating Sen. Boxer for playing politics with free trade. Here's a glimpse into the excoriation:

Now there is a Republican in the White House, and of all the grandstanding surrounding the Dubai Ports World deal, none tops Boxer's performance. She said last week that she would support legislation preventing any foreign firm, state-owned or not, from buying port operators. Memo to Boxer: 13 of the 14 container terminals at the ports of L.A. and Long Beach, the biggest port complex in the U.S., are run by foreign-owned companies. She later told The Times that she meant such deals should get greater scrutiny, not be banned. Still, this is the sort of proposal one would expect from a senator from a land-locked state like Vermont, not one where international trade plays a vital role in the economy. The Clinton-Menendez bill, which Boxer is backing, would do little more than disrupt port operations and attract international protest.
Boxer had a more enlightened view in 1998, when she supported the Cosco move. She now borrows a line from George W. Bush and says the world has changed since 9/11, but that still doesn't explain why she supported terminal operations run by a foreign government-owned company eight years ago but now distrusts any foreign operator whether it comes from a country involved in terrorism or not.
One possible explanation is that the Cosco deal was heavily backed by a Democratic administration, while the Dubai Ports World deal is heavily backed by a Republican administration. But that would mean Boxer is working against the interests of her state in order to score cheap political points. She would never do such a thing. Would she?

I wasn't expecting the LA Times to attack Sen. Boxer on anything but it's a welcome sight. The LA Times obviously knows the importance of free trade on California's economy. I suspect that they'll cut Boxer alot of slack if the subject was anything else.

The truth is that Boxer is the ultimate anti. I won't predict this but I wouldn't be shocked to find Boxer arguing with the President if he said that the sun rose in the east. As I've said before, Sen. Boxer is all about being against everything that the President is for. That's her right except that she frequently does it without any thought or logic.

The people of California deserve far better than Sen. Boxer. She's defined the notion of loyal opposition down to simply opposition. The distinction is worth noting. When Democrats controlled the House, Senate and the White House from January, 2003- January, 2005, Republicans opposed alot of legislation but it wasn't a knee-jerk reaction. It was based on substantive beliefs. You can't say that about today's Democrats.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Boxer, Free Trade, Los Angeles Times

Democrats Seek Probe of NSA Eavesdropping

2006-02-27T09:28:00.000-08:00

In yet another attempt to damage their chances of taking back the House or Senate, 18 House Democrats told President Bush that Alberto Gonzales should appoint a special counsel to investigate the legality of the Bush administration's eavesdropping program.

"If the effort to prevent vigorous and appropriate investigation succeeds, we fear the inexorable conclusion will be that these executive branch agencies hold themselves above the law and accountable to no one," wrote the lawmakers, led by Rep. Zoe Lofgren, (D-CA), a member of the Judiciary and Homeland Security committees.
----------
The Democrats see "ample precedent" for a special counsel, citing the Justice Department's appointment of U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. After 22 months of investigation, Fitzgerald indicted the vice president's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, for allegedly lying about his role in the disclosure. "Indeed, the allegation of a secret NSA spying program conducting warrantless domestic surveillance of U.S. persons is at least as serious" as the matter Fitzgerald investigated, the Democrats wrote.

A special investigation to determine the legality of the NSA intercept is a facade. The only way to make a final determination is by getting the Supreme Court to rule on the issue. All the 'investigations' in the world won't resolve the issue.

Democrats have shown their hand by holding up Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation as what they prefer. Let's remember that Fitzgerald didn't find wrongdoing on the initial concern of his investigation. That should've stopped the investigation dead in its tracks. Instead, Fitzgerald didn't follow the mandate given him by the Justice Department.

If Fitzgerald had wanted to investigate the White House on whether they violated the IIPA or the Espionage Act, he would've started by asking all of the reporters that said that Plame's identity was common knowledge to national security writers.

Similarly, all that this 'investigation' is intended to do is to criminalize policy differences. Democrats don't have to say anything when the word investigation is used, and rumors swirl about possible charges. All they have to do is sit back and talk about how worried they are at 'possible improprieties' that the current Administration might be involved in.

The truth is that the NSA intercept program is keeping us safer because we're intercepting AQ's international communications. That's the dirty little secret that Democrats don't want highlighted.

Cross-Posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: NSA, Democrats, Fitzgerald

Biden Blasts Bigots, McCain Manhandles Hillary

2006-02-26T22:17:00.000-08:00

As is always the case, the Sunday morning talk shows created more than a few notable quotes. The funniest soundbite of the morning shows came from Slow Joe 2.0 (as Hugh Hewitt likes calling Sen. Biden):

Biden said the Bush administration had caused "a diplomatic problem" by not briefing congressional leaders on the Dubai ports deal before criticism reached a fevered pitch. "The diplomatic problem has been brought on by this administration's tone-deafness," he told Fox. "What they should have done, knowing this [ports] application was being made, they should have brought in Republican leaders in the first place. They should have gone through this thoroughly and showed everybody what was going on."

Biden thinks that it's the Bush Administration's fault for not leading loud-mouthed senators by the hand through the process? Biden makes it sound like the hyperbole could all have been avoided had the Bush Administration laid out all the facts that anyone on the, say, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee could've had a staffer find out?

The only reason why this got so blown out of proportion is because (a) loud-mouthed politicians wanted to sound important and (b) because the Agenda Media whipped the public into a frenzy by running one factless article after another on the subject.

In fact, it wasn't until talk radio, starting with Rush, and the Right blogosphere got involved that we started learning pertinent information about the deal. In fact, at the risk of sounding self-important, this blog was one of the first to tackle this issue in a substantive, serious way. (I'd hate to think that senators can't find out more about national security issues than bloggers find in 24-36 hrs.)

"The fact of the matter is that there are some people, I'm sure this is anti-Arab-bashing," Biden told "Fox News Sunday," adding, "I'm sure that's true." But in the next breath Biden said that Arab allies throughout the Mideast should be treated differently from European nations. "You don't sell the same aircraft to Saudi Arabia, our great ally, that you do to England or to France or to a NATO country. So there's always been a distinction."

Sadly, Joe, I'm afraid you're right. And it didn't have to happen if only people weren't pre-disposed to thinking ill of ALL Arabs.

Appearing on ABC's "This Week", John McCain took Hillary to the proverbial woodshed on the Dubai Ports' issue, saying

Sen. John McCain said Sunday that the reaction to a Dubai-based company's proposed takeover of several U.S. shipping terminals has reached the point of "near-hysteria," singling out Sen. Hillary Clinton for criticism. "The near-hysteria about this is not warranted, particularly in light of the other major crises that we're facing throughout the world," McCain told ABC's "This Week."
The Arizona Republican criticized Mrs. Clinton for urging that all foreign operation of U.S. ports be banned, warning that if she gets her way, "We've got a lot of disinvestment to do. Does that mean the British are not allowed?" McCain posited, before reminding that convicted al Qaeda shoe bomber Richard Reid "was British, as you know. I think obviously this has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis," he added, rejecting Mrs. Clinton's blanket ban. McCain said that the United Arab Emirates, home to Dubai Ports World, is "freer than China," reminding that "700 [U.S.] warships have visited Dubai."

The 'debate' started off as more heat than light. Now serious people are weighing in, from Sen. McCain to Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol to the Heritage Foundation. I hope that President Bush follows these gentlemen's defense up with a series of speeches similar to the one he did on Iraq just before Christmas. That got Democrats back on their heals for awhile.

When the American people know the facts about port management and port security, the more they'll see this as just another time when politicians started talking before they had a clue on what's going on. When they learn that Democrats tried politicizing national security again, they'll express their disgust in November.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: McCain, Hillary, Biden, Election 2008

45 Day Delay: Time to Kick It Into High Gear

2006-02-26T16:31:00.000-08:00

Everyone's been yapping about the need to go through the full 45 day investigation for the Dubai Ports deal, which the Bush Administration has agreed to. I'm all for it, especially if the Administration uses the time to go on the offensive on this.

As I've said before, I expect the deal to get done so I don't believe that's what this delay is about. Instead, I'm hoping that the Administration targets the bigotted Democrats that we've heard from this week. My first target would be Gov. Jon Corzine, (D-NJ), who gave the Democratic radio response yesterday.

Here's a taste of Corzine's hate-filled speech:

"Dangerous men, tainted blood money and nuclear technology have moved across UAE borders," said Corzine, who is suing to block the government-approved acquisition by Dubai Ports World, a state-run company. We were told that the president didn't know about the sale until after it was approved. For many Americans, regardless of party, this lack of disciplined review is unacceptable," Corzine said.

Gov. Corzine is right in noting that "blood money and nuclear technology have moved across UAE borders..." What he fails to note is that most of that activity happened during the Clinton Administration. The Clinton Administration didn't push UAE to reform their banking laws so that terrorist money wouldn't go washing through the UAE without restrictions.

The reason the Clinton Administration didn't push the UAE at that time had alot to do with the fact that they didn't take the terrorists' threat seriously. It would've been nice to have seen them done so.

Let's also remember how helpful the UAE has been post-9/11:

The UAE Is an Ally. Since 9/11, the UAE has provided unprecedented cooperation to the United States in the war on terrorism, including finding, arresting, and turning over high-ranking al-Qaeda operatives and participating in the U.S. Container Security Initiative to screen cargo bound for the U.S. That Dubai World Ports is owned by the UAE should reassure Americans.

That's part of the Heritage Foundation's research on Dubai Ports. This isn't insignificant information. I'd use this information and more to gore Democrats who have sounded awfully bigotted this past week. They haven't made distinctions between troublespots in the Gulf Region and allies in the region. Generalizations are how bigotries get started and re-inforced.

We owe our closest allies far better than that type of rhetoric.

Cross-Posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Jon Corzine, UAE, Ports, Bigotry

Hadley Sees Violence Subsiding

2006-02-26T12:38:00.000-08:00

Appearing this morning on CBS' Face the Nation, Stephen Hadley said that the White House was optimistic that the violence was subsiding. Naturally, a Democrat stepped forward to criticize his statement.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D-CA), said more sectarian violence and a failure to form a government would bring the country "a step away from major civil war. The worst thing would be for the United States to get caught in the middle," Feinstein told CNN's "Late Edition." Feinstein criticized Bush for not stating his plan for dealing with a civil war if one were to develop. "This is a deteriorating situation, and we have to deal with it as such and not just say, 'I'm optimistic,'" she said.

I'm getting tired of the Democrats' whining about our military plans for every contingency. Are they saying we should announce to the entire world what we'd do if something happens so they'd know what to do to counter our strategy? Besides, what's to say that the plan would work based on a thousand different variables that aren't knowable beforehand?

It's also worth noting that Lt. Col. Bill Cowan, appearing on Friday night's O'Reilly Factor, said that it's important that American soldiers be in their bases during this violence, not in the streets. Cowan retired from the USMC and is now a senior military analyst for FNC. I don't suppose that that's good enough for Feinstein, though, because she sounds like she knows better than the military.

Also, if Mrs. Feinstein weren't so quick to criticize, she might've read this AP article. Here's the most important part:

The government also decided not to extend the ban on private vehicles in Baghdad because of an easing of the sectarian crisis and the impact of the heightened security on the public, an Interior Ministry official said Sunday.

I'm not predicting that this means that all violence is over but it is improving as more Sunni and Shi'ite clerics are coming together to renounce the violence. Even Muqtada al-Sadr is looking like a statesman of sorts.

Now if only we could get the Democrats to start sounding like statesmen we'd be alot better off...

Cross-posted on California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Feinstein, Golden Mosque, Iraqi Civil War

Media Alert

2006-02-26T06:13:00.000-08:00

For West Coast and nightowl readers of this blog, I'll be interviewed by Lores Rizkalla of Just a Woman Radio to start off the 1am hour. We'll be talking about the Dubai Ports deal and how I went from initially opposing the deal to supporting it now. Follow this link to listen to the live audio stream.

Be sure to check out Lores' blog, too.

Technorati Tags: Lores Rizkalla, Just a Woman Radio, California Conservative

"Pact of Honour"

2006-02-25T21:16:00.000-08:00

According to The Australian, "Four sheikhs from the Sadr movement made a "pact of honour" with the conservative Sunni Muslim Scholars Association", which is great news.
H/T Captains Quarters)

It gets better:

The agreement was made in the particularly symbolic setting of Baghdad's premier Sunni mosque Abu Hanifa where the Shiite sheikhs prayed under the guidance of Sunni imam Abdel Salam al-Qubaissi. The meeting was broadcast on television and the religious leaders all "condemned the blowing up of the Shiite mausoleum of Samarra as much as the acts of sabotage against the houses of God as well as the assassinations and terrorisation of Muslims".
----------
"It is not permitted to spill the Iraqi blood and to touch the houses of God," said the statement, adding that any mosques taken over by another community should be returned. The meeting also announced the formation of a commission to "determine the reasons for the crisis with a view to solving it", while also calling for a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops.

This is splendid news, though it doesn't guarantee that the fighting will end immediately. I suspect, though, that this show of unity is making it alot more difficult to justify future acts of violence to other Iraqis. I also suspect that anyone still planning these types of attacks will get reported to the authorities.

Let's hope that this is just another puzzle piece to true peace.

Cross-Posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Muqtada al-Sadr, Sunnis, Shiites, Civil War

A Liberal Voice Of Sanity

2006-02-25T16:33:00.000-08:00

Congratulations to Thomas Friedman for being a liberal voice of sanity on the Dubai Ports issue. Writing for the Desert News, Friedman asks some important questions. Here's a glimpse:

If there were a real security issue here, I'd join the critics. But the security argument is bogus and, I would add, borderline racist. Many U.S. ports are run today by foreign companies, but the U.S. Coast Guard still controls all aspects of port security, entry and exits; the U.S. Customs Service is still in charge of inspecting the containers; and U.S. longshoremen still handle the cargos.
The port operator simply oversees the coming and going of ships, making sure they are properly loaded and offloaded in the most cost-effective manner. As my colleague David E. Sanger reported: "Among the many problems at American ports, said Stephen E. Flynn, a retired Coast Guard commander who is an expert on port security at the Council on Foreign Relations, 'who owns the management contract ranks near the very bottom.'"

Mr. Friedman makes more intelligent points in those brief paragraphs than everything Senate Democrats have said on this issue in their 'hearings'. By alot. He follows those points up with this bigger, more important point:

My point is simple: The world is drifting dangerously toward a widespread religious and sectarian cleavage, the likes of which we have not seen for a long, long time. The only country with the power to stem this toxic trend is America. People across the world still look to our example of pluralism, like no other. If we go Dark Ages, if we go down the road of pitchfork-wielding xenophobes, then the whole world will go Dark Ages.
There is a poison loose today and America, America at its best, is the only antidote. That's why it is critical that we stand by our principles of free trade and welcoming the world to do business in our land, as long as there is no security threat.

America is the example of true freedom to the rest of the world. Even the terrorists agree with that. In fact, al Qaida hate America because they prefer closed societies that more closely resemble the fifth century AD than anything modern.

If we don't show the Arab world that we reward those who change their habits in the Post-9/11 world, we'll lose the hearts and minds battle we must win to win the GWOT.

It's really that simple.

Cross-Posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Thomas Friedman, Dubai Port Deal, Middle East, GWOT

Free Speech Fascists

2006-02-25T15:43:00.000-08:00

Cathy Seipp has written a column in today's LA Times on what passes for free speech. This quote says it all:

However, it did occur to him that perhaps the long-delayed English translation of Oriana Fallaci's new book, "The Force of Reason," might finally be available, and that because Fallaci's militant stance against Islamic militants offends so many people, a store committed to selling banned books would be the perfect place to buy it. So he asked a clerk if the new Fallaci book was in yet.
"No," snapped the clerk. "We don't carry books by fascists."

Forgive me but that sounds alot like censorship, doesn't it? I haven't read the book and don't know much about it or the author. It seems to me that not exposing yourself to different perspectives is how you develop blinders, which leads to an uninformed mind.

Isn't that what we're worried about in big city newsrooms and in universities? Aren't we worried that there isn't a diversity of opinions there? Aren't we worried that the only diversity we'll find there is diversity in skin color or ethnicity? I'm not saying that that type of diversity isn't worthwhile but if that's the only type of diversity you'll find, then they're fallins short of the mark.

Now let's just savor the absurd details of this for a minute. City Lights has a long and proud history of supporting banned authors, owner Lawrence Ferlinghetti was indicted (and acquitted) for obscenity in 1957 for selling Allen Ginsberg's "Howl," and a photo at the bookstore showed Ferlinghetti proudly posing next to a sign reading "banned books."
Yet his store won't carry, of all people, Fallaci, who is not only being sued in Italy for insulting religion because of her latest book but continues to fight the good fight against those who think that the appropriate response to offensive books and cartoons is violent riots. It's particularly repugnant that someone who fought against actual fascism in World War II should be deemed a fascist by a snotty San Francisco clerk.

Now that's chutzpah. Calling someone fascist that fought real fascism during WWII is like Ted Kennedy calling someone a drunk or a philanderer. I don't know this bookstore clerk's name is but that person doesn't have an ounce of credibility.

In fact, I'd say that this clerk is emblematic of what's wrong with liberal elitists. There isn't a bit of depth to their arguments. There's only name-calling. What a sad picture.

It's nothing like the liberalism of Hubert Humphrey, Pat Moynihan and Christopher Hitchens.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: censorship, Free Speech, Christopher Hitchens, Patrick Moynihan, Hubert Humphrey

al-Qaida Threatens to Hit More Saudi Sites

2006-02-25T12:04:00.000-08:00

The AP is reporting that al-Qaida is threatening more attacks on Saudi soil. If their attacks are as well-planned and executed as their attack on the Abqaiq oil processing facility, let's hope that al Qaida is planning alot more of those types of raids.

A statement appeared on a militant Web site saying that Friday's attack was "part of a series of operations that al-Qaida is carrying out against the crusaders and the Jews to stop their plundering of Muslim wealth." It was signed "al-Qaida in the Arab Peninsula", the name of the Saudi branch of the terror network. The statement did not acknowledge that the attack was foiled. In fact, it claimed that the two "heroic holy warriors" managed to enter Abqaiq.

Forgive me for saying this but al Qaida sounds like they're settling for moral victories like Democrats do these days. When al Qaida terrorists get blow to smithereens without even entering the gates of their target, their website praises two "heroic holy warriors". When Paul Hackett came close and lost in the special election in Ohio, Democrats talk about getting on a roll and that the Republicans are headed for defeat in 06.

I hate breaking this to them but failing can't be categorized as winning. It's still a defeat. It's still nothing to get excited about. In fact, it means that you've got to do better, if you can. And the "if you can" part is still much in doubt. It isn't my intention to sound flippant about al Qaida's attack on Abqaiq. Instead, it's my intention to ridicule the futile nature of the attack.

Remember to put this in context, too. At the start of this GWOT, we were told that Arabs respected strength. If that's true, which I believe it is, then Arabs ridicule weakness and ineptitude. In light of that context, shouldn't we be mocking AQ's diminishing capabilities?

Cross-Posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Abqaiq, al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia

Iraq Mosque Update

2006-02-25T06:12:00.000-08:00

Alot has happened since I last talked about the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarrah so here's some updates on the situation:

Omar at Iraq the Model has posted about the defense minister's press conference. Here's some important facts from that press conference:

The defense minister in a press conference currently on Iraqi TV gave statistics to correct what he described as "exaggerated media reports" about civilian casualties and attacks on mosques since the attack on the Samarra shrine:
Mosques attacked/shot at without damage: 21 not 51
Moderately damaged: 6 not 23
Mosques destroyed totally: 1 not 3
Mosques occupied by militias: 1 not 2 (evacuated later).
Civilians killed: 119 not 183

That sounds more like Katrina reporting than anything I've seen since Labor Day Weekend. In fact, I'd say that doesn't sound like reporting but rather wild-eyed speculation.

Follow the ITM link for the entire update from Iraq.

Then there's this report:

Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari reached out to Sunnis and Shiites, promising to rebuild the Shiites' Askariya shrine in Samarra and Sunni mosques damaged in two days of reprisal attacks. The daytime curfew kept most vehicles and pedestrians off the streets of Baghdad, preventing many people from reaching mosques for the main Muslim prayer service of the week but also blunting protests and preventing attacks. People were allowed to walk to neighborhood mosques, many of which were guarded by heavily armed Iraqi police and soldiers. Preachers at several leading mosques urged their followers to maintain calm for the sake of the nation.
----------
In an overture to the Sunnis, the country's top Shiite political leader, Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, issued a statement expressing regret over the deaths of all Iraqis. He said those who carried out the Samarra attack "do not represent the Sunnis in Iraq," blaming Saddam Hussein loyalists and religious extremists from al-Qaida in Iraq, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
"This is what al-Zarqawi is working for, that is, to ignite sectarian strife in the country," al-Hakim said in the statement broadcast by Iraqi television stations. "We call for self-restraint and not to be dragged down by the plots of the enemy." A Sunni spokesman, Dhafer al-Ani, called al-Hakim's statement "a step on the road of healing the wounds." But he said his Iraqi Accordance Front was waiting for an apology for failing to protect Sunni mosques from reprisal attacks.

The Iraqis aren't out of the woods yet but we're seeing signs that they're taking the first steps to getting out of those woods, which is an important first step. Let's hope and especially pray that the transition to peace continues and that the AQ terrorists and the Saddam loyalists get their comeuppance.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Iraq, Mosque Bombings, al Qaeda, Saddam Loyalists

Iranian advisor: We'll Strike Dimona In Response to U.S. Attack

2006-02-25T05:44:00.000-08:00

Again proving that they're a bunch of hotheads, an Iranian advisor said that Iran would attack "Dimona nuclear reactor and other strategic Israeli sites such as the port city of Haifa and the Zakhariya area. Haifa is also home to a large concentration of chemical factories and oil refineries."

This is stupid on several levels, not the least of which is that most Arab countries would say that Israel would be justified in defending itself, especially if they didn't invade Arab airspace.

I have no doubt but that there would be a major uproar if Israel attacked Iran in a pre-emptive strike. But that dynamic isn't in play in the 'attack Israel' scenario. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Jordan gave Israel permission to attack Iranian jets in the narrow situation of an attack against Israel.

It's just opinion on my part but I think of this statement and the attack on the Saudi oil processing facility as part of a plot to widen the conflict currently going on to include Israel to inflame Arabs to turn against the spread of freedom.

I say this because it's obvious that AQ terrorists aren't making an impact against our forces, which is causing them to resort to more desparate measures. At the same time, Iran's threats are happening because they see Iraq's democratization as a major threat to the mullah's rule.

Bit by bit, the noose is tightening around al Qaida's and Iran's throat. The key to ending their threat is (a) persistence and (b) winning people over as to the benevolence of 'the Great Satan'. Thus far, we're doing both, which is why al Qaida and Iran are getting desparate.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Dimona, Haifa, Israel, Iran

AQ Attack Thwarted

2006-02-25T05:22:00.000-08:00

Al Qaida attempted an attack against a Saudi oil processing facility. According to Reuters, it's the largest such facility in the world.

Several news reports have called the attack bold or daring but I can't call it that for one reason. The attackers didn't even breech the first security perimeter. There are three security perimeters at the Abqaiq facility.

The assault began when two cars tried to drive through the gates of the outermost of three fences surrounding the processing facility, al-Turki told The Associated Press. Al-Arabiya reported that the attackers' cars bore the logo of Aramco, the state oil company that owns the facility. Guards shot at the cars, and both vehicles exploded, al-Turki said. The explosions caused a fire that was quickly controlled, the oil minister said. Guards then battled for two hours with two other militants outside the facility, said a Saudi journalist who arrived at the scene soon after the explosion. He said he saw workers repairing a pipeline.
----------
The attack in Abqaiq, about 25 miles inland from Saudi Arabia's eastern Gulf coast, took place at about 3 p.m., several hours after the weekly prayers on Friday, a day off for Saudis though the facility was in operation.
----------
"We have no clue so far about who are the perpetrators or to what group they belong," al-Turki said. Later, the al-Qaida terror group said two of its militants carried out the suicide attack. The claim was posted on a Web site frequently used by terror groups but there was no way to check its authenticity. This "is part of the project to rid the Arabian Peninsula of the infidels," the statement read.

In my opinion, AQ's getting desparate when they cite ridding "the Arabian Peninsula of the infidels." The truth is that AQ hates Saudi Arabia's attempt to rid "the Arabian Peninsula of" AQ.

I acknowledge the need to take threats seriously but I refuse to take this attack seriously.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, Abqaiq

Why The Left Should Cringe at The Mention of Hugo Chavez

2006-02-24T13:09:00.000-08:00

Alvaro Vargas Llosa has an op-ed for RealClearPolitics that focuses on why liberals should be distancing themselves from Hugo Chavez. Llosa deserves alot of credit for that position, especially in light of the fact that liberals have seemed more than willing to get pictured with him recently. Of the 9 items that should concern liberals, these are the 2 that stick out most to me:

4. CHAVEZ WANTS TO BECOME A WORLD BANK. Few causes have impassioned the left more in the last few decades than the foreign debt of underdeveloped nations, which is attributed to a conspiracy on the part of big banks and their government backers. Chávez is fast becoming a creditor to many Latin American nations by buying their sovereign bonds (which are issued only after he offers to buy them.). He has become an IMF and a World Bank onto himself. Argentina and Ecuador combined owe him a bit less than $2 billion so far.

This should scare the daylights out of people. Anyone that thinks that Chávez is content with being Venezuela's president haven't been paying attention. This man wants to be the big fish in a big pond. Him being the banker to the Caribbean isn't something that I'm comfortable with.

5. CHAVEZ POLLUTES THE ENVIRONMENT. The left has denounced industrial capitalism as an assault on the environment and has called time and again for the replacement of oil as a primary source of energy because of its polluting effects. But Chávez´s government owns scores of refineries and cashes in big time on the processing of his sulphur-heavy crude. In the U.S. alone, Citgo, the affiliate of Venezuela's state oil concern, owns eight refineries and pays Chávez almost $500 million a year in dividends!

Citgo is something that everyone should be wary of. In fact, I've advocated the boycotting of Citgo stations for quite awhile now. The money Citgo makes helps fund drugrunners in Columbia, anti-democracy rebels throughout Central America and props up Castro. If you want Chávez´s wings clipped, that's the fastest, most direct way.

At the day's end, Chávez´s powergrabbing ways should make Americans very nervous. Clipping his wings now is the intelligent thing to do.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Hugo Chavez, Oil, Environment, Cuba

Rice Makes Surprise Beirut Visit

2006-02-24T12:35:00.000-08:00

This morning, the Jerusalem Post reported that Secretary of State Condaleezza Rice made a surprise visit to Beirut this morning in an effort to bolster efforts to separate Lebanon from Syrian control.

Rice said she came to Lebanon "to affirm the firm support of the United States of America for the Lebanese people as they work to have a fully sovereign, democratic Lebanon." In a visit of several hours, Rice met Prime Minister Fuad Saniora and leaders of the anti-Syrian majority in parliament, but she did not meet President Emile Lahoud, a staunch ally of Syria.
----------
Rice met Saad Hariri, son of the slain Rafik and leader of the anti-Syrian majority in parliament, and the Druse political leader Walid Jumblatt. The two men have played key roles in the campaigns against Syrian influence and President Lahoud. She also met Cardinal Nasrallah Sfeir, the spiritual leader of the influential Maronite Catholic Church whom she described as a strong voice calling for freedom and democracy.

This is typical of her visits to the region. She's refused to meet with leaders who oppose true democracy while meeting with leaders who've fought courageously to gain true independance for their nation. Jumblatt and Hariri fit into the category of courageous leaders of the march to democracy in Lebanon.

Let's hope Dr. Rice's visit provides the boost that Beirut needs to separate themselves from the last of Syria's influence on them.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: Beirut, Syria, Condoleezza Rice, Middle East

What Happened to Actual Debate?

2006-02-24T08:26:00.000-08:00

This past week, we've seen politicians of both parties defining political debate downward. This week, the issue that's allowed them to sink to new lows is the Dubai Port 'Scandal', which isn't a scandal at all. Daniel Henninger, writing for OpinionJournal.com, has noticed too. Here's a glimpse into his column:

One would not have thought it possible, but Washington's political class is defining our politics down. After nearly seven days of elevating the Cheney bird-hunting accident to the level of a national crisis, now comes this week's flap over managing the ports. To be sure, the matter of secure U.S. ports trumps the hunting of quail as an affaire d'état. But it was the strikingly low quality of the politicians' commentary and behavior that attracted notice.
Within hours, if not minutes, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Rep. Robert Menendez announced "emergency" legislation to "ban foreign governments from controlling operations at our ports." No matter that most of the current operators of our ports are from Denmark, Britain and, uh-oh, China. Chuck Schumer: "It's hard to believe that this administration would be so out of touch with the American people's national security concerns." Yes, that is hard to believe.

It's worth noting that it was Bill Clinton that was president when China gained control of several West Coast ports. As I said last night, Democrats think that we don't remember anything beyond last week. We didn't hear anything from the co-president then, did we? We didn't hear anything from Schumer, either, did we?

What we have here is the dawn of the new Yosemite Sam school of national politics. Put any news event in front of our politicians now, Hurricane Katrina, Terri Schiavo, Dick Cheney's quail or this week the ports, and like Bugs Bunny's hair-triggered nemesis they'll start spraying the landscape with wild remarks and opinions decoupled from what is knowable about these events.

This week has reminded me of an episode of Hogan's Heroes. In this episode, the POWs are in a hotel bar as waiters for some hotshot generals. Newkirk starts throwing smokebombs on the floor. As people start looking for the door out of the room, Newkirk runs around hollaring "PANIC...PANIC!!!"

This week, Congress is panicking while journalists are running articles that are the equivalent of Newkirk hollaring "Panic!!!"

It's been a pathetic sight, a sight that can only be defeated by electing senators and representatives who pay alot less attention to the Agenda Media outlets. Remember that this November when you go to the polls.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: OpinionJournal.com, Agenda Media, Congress, Dubai Port Deal

Heritage Foundation on Dubai Deal

2006-02-23T22:47:00.000-08:00

The Heritage Foundation has weighed in on the Dubai Port deal with a must read. They've made the most sense on this subject that I've seen thus far.

Not a Terrorist Gateway. Dubai World Ports is a holding company, and it will have little to do with the day-to-day management of these port facilities. Its ownership alone does not entitle its employees to access any classified or sensitive security information unless, as now, they meet the requirements of ISPS and U.S. law. Moreover, almost all of the employees at these facilities are U.S. citizens. As well, with over $6 billion invested, no company would want to see its facilities used by terrorists. Finally, terrorist tradecraft does not involve high-profile purchases of companies. Terrorism infiltration, like criminal smuggling, involves penetration by individuals. That is a challenge for any company.
The UAE Is an Ally. Since 9/11, the UAE has provided unprecedented cooperation to the United States in the war on terrorism, including finding, arresting, and turning over high-ranking al-Qaeda operatives and participating in the U.S. Container Security Initiative to screen cargo bound for the U.S. That Dubai World Ports is owned by the UAE should reassure Americans.

Based on this analysis, I don't see a need for legislation isn't needed. Further, I'd say that hearings and briefings are appropriate. Finally, establishing safeguards that guarantees port security is needed.

At the end of the day, though, building up an ally like the UAE is vital in winning the GWOT. That isn't the type of thing we can ignore. When they say that "the UAE has provided unprecedented cooperation to the United States in the war on terrorism, including finding, arresting, and turning over high-ranking al-Qaeda operatives and participating in the U.S. Container Security Initiative to screen cargo bound for the U.S.", this should tell you about the great change that they've underwent.

What this points out, too, is that Democrats aren't guided by principle. During the 04 campaign, John Kerry lamented the fact that President Bush didn't assemble a "real coalition." Now it's Democrats that are willing to stick a finger in the eye of a valuable ally.

Further, don't think that the Arab world isn't watching. Don't think the terrorists aren't hoping this falls through so they can use this to use this as 'proof' that America hates Muslims.

At the end of the day, this is a decision that deserves scrutiny. At the end of the day, it's a decision that will only strengthen our ties into the region, something that we need in the fight against the terrorists.

Technorati Tags: Heritage Foundation, Dubai, National Security

GOP Outreach Update

2006-02-23T22:29:00.000-08:00

The Washington Times' Brian DeRose has a good article on how Ken Mehlman's outreach is affecting the recruitment of minority candidates.

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman said yesterday that despite the party's significant progress in attracting black supporters and candidates, the federal response to Hurricane Katrina and lingering mistrust stemming from the 2000 presidential vote recount have posed great challenges. "Katrina has made it harder because people saw a government at every level, federal, state and local, not operating the way it should," he said.

I've reported that the GOP, through Mehlman's leadership is making progress. That said, I've never said that the black vote would flip anytime soon. Destroying the black voting monolith is going to be more of a process than an event. With that in mind, it's wise that Mehlman speaks candidly with minority voters.

Mehlman deserves kudos for being a good listener too. Listening and acting is a great way of showing someone that you care, which is vital in changing the black voting monolith.

There are more than 50 black Republicans running for federal, statewide and local offices this year, with more announcing candidacies daily, like Ada M. Fisher, who last week announced she will challenge Rep. Melvin Watt, a Democrat and chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, in North Carolina's 12th District. But Mr. Mehlman focused on two candidates, Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, running to fill the seat of retiring Democratic Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes, and former Pittsburgh Steeler Hall of Famer Lynn Swann, who is running for governor of Pennsylvania.
"I can only talk about those two because they are nominees running unopposed [in Republican primaries], but there are other great candidates, like Ken Blackwell, who is running for governor of Ohio, and [the Rev.] Keith Butler, who is running for Senate in Michigan," he said. He said state Republican parties are clearing the field for black candidates while Democrats "are putting up obstacles to one of their Senate candidates in Maryland, Kweisi Mfume, making it tough for him and anointing someone else."

As I've said before, the more that people see black candidates winning as Republicans, the more the monolith will weaken. This won't happen overnight but it's coming.

Technorati Tags: RNC, Elections, GOP Outreach

Port Substance

2006-02-23T20:06:00.000-08:00

I just finished reading Andrew McCarthy's piece for NRO on the Dubai Port transaction. If only our legislators were as serious as people like Mr. McCarthy, we'd be in alot better shape. Here's a glimpse of Mr. McCarthy's article:

With the approval of the Bush administration, a company owned by the United Arab Emirates is poised to take over commercial management of shipping and stevedoring operations at six major American ports, located on the eastern seaboard and in New Orleans. When attention was suddenly drawn to this development last week, the urge toward public-safety questions was understandable. Not panic, but legitimate questions.
Sure as Dean follows Howard, though, understandable concern rapidly degenerated into calculated hysteria from poseurs seeking to claim the high ground from a president against whose measure they stand as national-security Lilliputians. Accelerating the downward spiral, the administration’s initially temperate but unconvincing defense of the transaction devolved just as quickly into nauseating politically correctness.
Neither corner of the ring has distinguished itself. In one, leading Democrats and some Republicans are evidently shocked to learn that many of the nation’s ports are managed by foreigners. Indeed, even as they railed against the prospect of this buy-out by UAE’s Dubai Ports World, Inc., they skipped past the inconvenient fact that the seller, the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, is a British concern.

McCarthy isn't fully on board with the idea of having the UAE managing these ports but he's very dismissive of Democrats who think they're damaging the President's reputation on the issue of national security.

To raise questions on the sale is one thing but it's another thing to play politics with the issue. Clearly, the average American doesn't think that everything should be turned into a political fight, especially with national security. I'm not ready yet to say that Democrats are overplaying their hand yet but it's obvious they're heading in that direction.

Technorati Tags: Dubai, Senate, Senate Democrats

First Amendment Hypocrites

2006-02-23T14:22:00.000-08:00

Katherine Kersten has taken up the case against the First Amendment hypocrites in the Democratic Party. The truth is that Democrats aren't the warriors for free speech that they tout themselves to be. Let's examine the facts.

When Minnesota State DFL chairman Brian Melendez calls Marine Lt. Col. Bob Stephenson, a 23 year veteran "un-American" for his part in an ad buy, then calls for the ads to be pulled off the air, is that what we expect from a free speech warrior? Not in my books, it isn't.

When Cindy Sheehan set up shop in Crawford, TX, last summer, the ever-hostile Mo Dowd said that Mrs. Sheehan's loss of a son in Iraq gave her absolute moral authority on the issue of Iraq. That sounds awfully rigid to me, especially since other moms who lost sons or daughters in Iraq or Afghanistan should be accorded the same "absolute moral authority" as 'Mother' Sheehan is accorded.

In fact, Miss Dowd's claims on Sheehan's behalf sounded more like cover for the ensuing criticism that Sheehan earned for her statements that "The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush..." or "What they're saying, too, is like, it's OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons. But Iran or Syria better not get nuclear weapons...It's OK for Israel to occupy Palestine,...for the United States to occupy Iraq, but it's not OK for Syria to be in Lebanon. They're a bunch of (expletive) hypocrites."

When a black conservative speaks up, that person is labeled an oreo like Michael Steele. Or Harry Belafonte labels Colin Powell and Condaleezza Rice as tokens.

Where are the warriors for free speech when liberals run Larry Summers out of Harvard just because he said things that they didn't agree with? Thankfully, Alan Dershowitz and Bill Bennett combined their substantial intellects to decry the First Amendment hypocrisy of the people that Alan Dershowitz labelled as "the most radical, hard-left elements within Harvard's diverse constituencies."

Thanks to people like Katherine Kersten writing in a local paper and thanks to people like Bill Bennett and Alan Dershowitz writing to the world, the facade is being exposed.

And not a minute too soon.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Technorati Tags: First Amendment, Katherine Kersten, Alan Dershowitz, Cindy Sheehan

On the Wrong Side Again

2006-02-23T10:08:00.000-08:00

Democrats are unleashing their attack against the Dubai Port deal. They think they're winning, too. They were but there's been a steady erosion of support as more facts become known about the actual operation. Here's what the AP's Tom Raum has to say:

President Bush's marquee issue, the war on terror, is being turned against him by Democrats and rebelling members of his own party in an election-year dustup over a deal that allows an Arab company to manage major U.S. ports. People in both parties are suggesting it's another case of Bush seeming to be tone deaf to controversy, on top of government eavesdropping, Katrina recovery and Vice President Dick Cheney's hunting accident. The storm is forcing the president to choose between losing face with the Arab world and embarking on what would be his first veto battle with the GOP-led Congress. And it has enabled Democrats to seemingly outflank him on a key GOP issue: national security.

Raum's bias is showing again. The truth is that the only Democratic talking points that Raum left out was something about Halliburton. Of course, people don't think that President Bush is less committed to protecting us from future terrorist attacks. And people have noticed how we haven't been attacked since 9/11. And they've noticed that people are getting arrested as a result of stepped up FBI and CIA activity.

Raum's analysis is indicative of the day-at-a-time perspective that the Beltway live in. The Beltway theory is that what happened yesterday or last week or last month isn't factored in by the voters. Raum's theory only holds up if we forget all the Bush decisions and policies that have protected us from future terrorist attacks.

In a related story, the AP's Ted Bridis is reporting on how Democrats are showing their ignorance in hearings on the Dubai Port deal.

Brushing aside Bush's assurances, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the panel's ranking Democrat, said the UAE backed the Taliban and allowed financial support for al-Qaida. Levin also charged that the UAE has an "uneven history" as "one of only a handful of countries in the world to recognize the Taliban regime in Afghanistan." He added that millions of dollars in al-Qaida funds went through UAE financial institutions. Levin at one point noted that a special commission that investigated the terror attacks against the United States on Sept. 11, 2000 concluded that "there's a persistent counterterrorism problem represented by the United Arab Emirates."

"Just raise your hand if anybody (at the witness table) talked to the 9-11 commission," commanded Levin. There was no response among the handful of administration representatives.

Sen. Levin is right in identifying the UAE as having recognized the Taliban as the official government of Afghanistan and as having had some banking rules that allowed al Qaida to fund terrorists. That was all PRE 9/11.

Since 9/11, they've been staunch allies in the GWOT.
Since 9/11, they've tightened up their banking laws.
Since 9/11, the Dubai port is the port most often used to restock our Navy's ships.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, (D-NY), also was critical, calling the approval process "a failure of judgment" because officials "did not alert the president, the secretary of the treasury and the secretary of defense" that several of our critical ports would be turned over to foreign country.

Notice that nobody is saying that we should scrap the deal.
Notice that Democrats are sounding hawkish while backing away from their initial reactions.

In the end, I suspect that something will get worked out so that the deal gets done and Congress will save face to the extent that that's possible.

Technorati Tags: Democrats, Dubai Port Deal, Hillary

Democratic Disconnect

2006-02-23T09:23:00.000-08:00

The Washington Times' Ralph Hallow is reporting that there's a disconnect between the rank-and-file Democrats and their party's leaders. Here's a glimpse at Hallow's article:

By objecting to virtually every initiative and proposal of the Bush administration and congressional Republican majority, Democrats are undermining their party's chances of regaining the majority this fall, the John Zogby poll of 1,039 likely voters suggests.
While House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and other visible Democrats in Washington pick fights with Republicans, the poll shows that 58 percent of rank-and-file Democratic voters say their leaders should "accept their lower position in Congress and work together with Republicans to craft the best legislation possible."

In other words, Howard Dean's belief that the most important 'feature' in a Democratic candidate is being combative runs contrary to what the rank-and-file Democrats' wishes.

The truth is that this division has been predicted for a long time. It's just now being proven in the polls.

The Democratic National Committee disputes that interpretation. "The poll reconfirms what Americans have been saying for months: Under Republican leadership, America is headed in the wrong direction," said DNC communications director Karen Finney. "The truth is, a lot of Democrats know that Republicans aren't doing a good job running Congress, and a strong majority have faith in Democratic leadership and ideas."

Now that's the type of spin that you'd expect from the DNC. The truth is that this polls shows nothing that would back up Ms. Finney's spin. She can put all the lipstick she wants on that pig but, at the day's end, it's still an ugly pig.

Technorati Tags: DNC, Howard Dean, Zogby

Here Comes Al

2006-02-23T08:27:00.000-08:00

That's Dick Morris' opinion after Gore's hyperbolic speech in Saudi Arabia. In his latest column for Jewish World Review, he takes a good shot at Hillary, too. Here's that shot:

Could Al beat Hillary? If Mrs. Clinton persists in her support of the Iraq war, he could. But never count on Hillary losing an election over a principle. It's a bad bet.

OUCH!!! I'm sure she could care less but Morris is right on the money with that analysis. It also plays into the 'Clinton image' because they've shown that their main overriding principle is that of staying in power. All other considerations come in a distant second.

So what does Morris think of Al's chances?

The former vice president's slashing attacks on the administration and his stalwart, if misguided, opposition to the Iraq war leave him without the complications and complexes that will devil Clinton as she seeks to appeal to the unforgiving left of the Democratic Party.
And Gore may be a man whose time has come in his party. It was he who warned of climate change and predicted its consequences. Hurricane Katrina was just a fulfillment of the prophesies Gore wrote about in his late-1980s book Earth in the Balance. He has been an energy-conservation nut for years, and his obsessions with alternatives to oil will play better and better as we come to realize how our addiction to oil has led us to dependency on the dealers of this particular drug, Iran, the Saudi royal family and Hugo Chavez.

In other words, he's just right in the Kossacks' eyes. Too bad that they're so far removed from America's political mainstream. Attaching yourself to their ideology for the primaries is instant death in the general campaign.

Technorati Tags: Al Gore, Hillary, Election 2008

Politically Correct Coup

2006-02-22T23:47:00.000-08:00

According to Alan Dershowitz, Larry Summers was run out at Harvard for all the wrong reasons. Here's a glimpse into what happened:

The Faculty of Arts and Sciences, which forced Summers’ resignation by voting a lack of confidence in him last March and threatening to do so again on Feb. 28, is only one component of Harvard University and is hardly representative of widespread attitudes on the campus toward Summers. The graduate faculties, the students, and the alumni generally supported Summers for his many accomplishments. The Faculty of Arts and Sciences includes, in general, some of the most radical, hard-left elements within Harvard's diverse constituencies. And let there be no mistake about the origin of Summers’ problem with that particular faculty: It started as a hard left-center conflict. Summers committed the cardinal sin against the academic hard left: He expressed politically incorrect views regarding gender, race, religion, sexual preference, and the military.
----------
In the minds of at least some vocal members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, expressing such politically incorrect views is the academic equivalent of provoking Islamic extremists by depicting Prophet Mohammed in a political cartoon. Radical academics do not, of course, burn down buildings, at least not since the 1970s. Instead they introduce motions of no confidence and demand resignations of those who offend their sensibilities (while insisting on complete freedom of speech for those with whom they agree, free speech for me but not for thee!).

It seems to me that free speech for only some of the people or only some of the times isn't much like the free speech of decades gone by. Still, that's exactly what's happening these days on college campuses.

This is yet another indicator of the mental vacuity of the far left professors of the world. It's a shame that only a handful of radicals can set policy at what once was the premier university in America.

How the mighty have fallen.

Technorati Tags: Free Speech, Alan Dershowitz, Harvard

Today's Must Reading

2006-02-22T23:34:00.000-08:00

Check out today's Washington Post op-ed by Alan Dershowitz and William Bennett. It's the comeuppance that the Agenda Media has needed for far too long.

Here's a glimpse of their op-ed:

We two come from different political and philosophical perspectives, but on this we agree: Over the past few weeks, the press has betrayed not only its duties but its responsibilities. To our knowledge, only three print newspapers have followed their true calling: the Austin American-Statesman, the Philadelphia Inquirer and the New York Sun. What have they done? They simply printed cartoons that were at the center of widespread turmoil among Muslims over depictions of the prophet Muhammad. These papers did their duty.

The first responsibility of newspapers is to report what it knows and can confirm. What the newspapers did instead was tell the story about the outrage spreading throughout the Muslim world without letting the public judge for themselves if the outrage was justified or not.

Simply put, the Agenda Media did the unthinkable: They told only a small portion of the real story.

After finishing reading the Dershowitz-Bennett op-ed, make sure to read George Will's great column titled "Smile If (and Only If) You're a Conservative". Mr. Will has long been one of my favorite columnists but this is one of the most enjoyable columns I've seen from him.

Technorati Tags: Alan Dershowitz, Bill Bennett, First Amendment, Free Speech

Port Security Worries, Part II

2006-02-22T19:41:00.000-08:00

The AP is now reporting some new information has surfaced regarding the UAE port agreement. Here's what they're saying:

The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The AP. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions. As part of the $6.8 billion purchase, state-owned Dubai Ports World agreed to reveal records on demand about "foreign operational direction" of its business at U.S. ports, the documents said.
----------
Dubai Port's top American executive, chief operating officer Edward H. Bilkey, said the company will do whatever the Bush administration asks to enhance shipping security and ensure the sale goes through. Bilkey said Wednesday he will work in Washington to persuade skeptical lawmakers they should endorse the deal; Senate oversight hearings already are scheduled. "We're disappointed," Bilkey told the AP in an interview. "We're going to do our best to persuade them that they jumped the gun. The UAE is a very solid friend, as President Bush has said."

It sounds to me like Dubai Port is willing to play by the rules that we establish, which is more than fair in my opinion. It's also apparent that Mr. Bilkey will have the opportunity to discuss things with key congressional committee chairs before the hearings so they start the hearings with a base of solid information.

This type of openness by Dubai Port will serve them well in the hearings, which will still happen but, I predict, won't have the bang to them that it appeared they would 2 days ago.

"They're not lax but they're not draconian," said James Lewis, a former U.S. official who worked on such agreements. If officials had predicted the firestorm of criticism over the deal, Lewis said, "they might have made them sound harder." The conditions involving the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. were detailed in U.S. documents marked "confidential." Such records are regularly guarded as trade secrets, and it is highly unusual for them to be made public. The concessions, described previously by the Homeland Security Department as unprecedented among maritime companies, reflect the close relationship between the United States and the United Arab Emirates.

The UAE is working in good faith on this national security issue and should be rewarded for its cooperation and openness. These aren't the actions of a company trying to hide something in their operations. Quite the opposite, actually. Turning down this deal would be a foreign policy disaster for years to come because we'd essentially be telling cooperative Arab countries that their cooperation won't buy them anything in return.

We can't afford to be put in that position while we're fighting a war against jihadists.

Technorati Tags: UAE, Ports, Terrorism

Court Documents: Hospital Gave Lethal Injections to Patients During Hurricane Katrina

2006-02-22T18:09:00.000-08:00

NPR is reporting that they've seen court documents that show a disregard for human life. Here's the most stunning part of Lifesite.com's article:

In a February 16 report, NPR says it has reviewed secret court documents related to the investigation and not yet released to the public. The documents, says NPR "reveal chilling details about events at Memorial hospital in the chaotic days following the storm, including hospital administrators who saw a doctor filling syringes with painkillers and heard plans to give patients lethal doses. The witnesses also heard staff discussing the agonizing decision to end patients' lives." The allegations revolve around a group of patients left on the seventh floor at Memorial Medical Center. This floor was leased to a different entity, LifeCare Hospitals. According to NPR, the patients on the seventh floor were all DNR patients, they had "do not resuscitate" orders.

I don't know much about Lifesite.net so I won't put alot of credence in them. That said, I do respect NPR's reporting, though I strongly disagree with their news analysis. If NPR says that they've seen documents that prove this, then I look forward to these documents getting released.

More importantly, if this happened, the medical personnel who carried this out need to be prosecuted.

Not Dead Yet compared the allegations to what transpired at a New Orleans nursing home where 34 residents who were abandoned by staff drowned. "Death by drowning is easy to prove and so the owners of the nursing home are charged with 34 counts of negligent homicide," said Not Dead Yet. "It's unclear what will happen in the case of LifeCare medical staff. It's hard to prove morphine medication overdoses in badly decomposed bodies."

Let's hope that there's conclusive proof one way or the other. If they can prove that lives were taken via lethal injection, then the medical personnel must be brought to justice. The fact that these patients had "Do not resuscitate" orders isn't relevant because there isn't proof that any of these patients needed to be resuscitated.

Technorati Tags: Katrina, LifeCare Hospitals, NPR

Samarrah Mosque Bombing

2006-02-22T17:46:00.000-08:00

Reuters' reporter in Baghdad, Alistair Macdonald, is reporting that tensions are running high after the bombing of a major Shia mosque. Here's some details from the article:

In the bloodiest apparent reprisal for the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, men in police uniform seized a dozen Sunni rebel suspects, including two Egyptians, from a prison in the mainly Shi'ite city of Basra and killed 11 of them. Gunmen fired on dozens of Sunni mosques in Baghdad and elsewhere.
President Jalal Talabani summoned leaders of all sides to a summit early on Thursday after the bloodless but symbolic dawn bombing provoked outrage among majority Shi'ites that surpassed the anger caused by the thousands of killings by Sunni militants since U.S. forces toppled Saddam Hussein three years ago.
----------
The Shi'ites' reclusive and aging senior cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani made a rare, if silent, television appearance that underlined the gravity of the crisis. He called in a statement for protests but restraint as protesters outside his office in Najaf chanted: "Rise up Shi'ites! Take revenge!"

Sistani has alot of sway in Iraq so his calls for peaceful protests is a step in the right direction. Talabani's summit might go a long way toward lowering the temperature, too. I suspect it will.

It's worth remembering that a tiny minority of people are the troublemakers and that alot of restraint has already been shown. I suspect that that's what Talabani will stress and what Sistani is stressing.

UPDATE: Iraq the Model has some important information. Here's a portion of that information:

Ayatollah Sistani reacted quickly to the escalating anger by issuing a fatwa that forbids his followers from "Taking any action against Sunni sites" obviously to discourage his followers from carrying out retaliatory attacks on Sunni mosques. Sistani has also demanded a 7 day mourning and to consider it a week off but the government so far has announced only a 3 day official mourning.

and:

I believe there are foreign terror groups behind this attack and I don't think local insurgent would do such a thing, simply because this particular shrine had been in Sunni territory for a thousand years and the residents of Samarra had always benefited from the movement of religious tourism and pilgrimage.

First of all, if ITM is doing the reporting, then I'll trust that it's accurate. Secondly, if Sistani issued a fatwa, then his followers will lower their 'temperature' accordingly.

Sidenote: Sistani has been a real leader through all of this, keeping the Shi'ites from making unreasonable demands. They've been more than fair.

Here's the rest of the update:

It seems that I have no choice but to point out a few important updates that I found from the local media as well as my personal observations:

President Talabani promises to make rebuilding the shrine his personal responsibility and to donate the required money from his own.
Head of the Sunni endowment sheikh Ahmed al-Samarra'I announces that he will allocate 2 billion dinars (~1.4 million $) for the rebuilding of the shrine from the treasury of the Sunni endowment.
Huge demonstrations in many of Iraq's provinces including Samarra and Mosul where thousands of people condemned the attack.
The top 4 Shia Ayatollahs hold a meeting at Sistani's home to discuss the situation.
The Association of Muslim scholars and the Islamic Party condemn the "criminal act".
Retaliatory attacks on reportedly 29 Sunni mosques and the Accord Front warns from the consequences of such violent reactions.
Jafari in a press conference calls for national unity and the leaders of the UIA hold a meeting. A press release is expected to come soon.
The Iraqi TV opened the phone lines to receive the reactions of the audience to the attack and hosts Sunni clerics and politicians in an attempt to relieve the tension.
Baghdad is in undeclared emergency situation, shops closed and streets nearly empty.
Tight security around the shrine of Abu Haneefa in Aazamiya district of Baghdad, this is considered the top shrine/mosque for Sunni Muslims in Iraq.
Masked gunmen attack Shia protestors in at least one neighborhood in western Baghdad and armed clashes in Ghazaliya and Hay al-A'amil.
People exchange phones calls with their relatives and friends to check on them and discourage them from leaving their homes.

Technorati Tags: Sistani, Talabani, Samarra, Golden Mosque

GOP Powerhouse in the Making

2006-02-22T12:59:00.000-08:00

This past Sunday, I had the opportunity to meet State Senator Michelle Bachmann. To say that I was impressed with her is understatement.

She was articulate in her presentation. She had a ready answer for all of the questions posed to her. Most of the people I talked with said that they were either impressed or very impressed with her speaking skills. Her energy was impressive, too.

Here's a picture of Senator Bachmann and I.

It didn't take long for me to recognize that Senator Bachmann is a GOP superstar in the making. She's a passionate and compassionate social conservative but Senator Bachmann can't be pigeon-holed into being a one issue candidate. Based on her State Senate record, it's obvious that she's a strong economic conservative. She's also an attorney who's recently spoken at a eminent domain conference.

Part of her presentation addressed her thinking on the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling mandating gay marriage. Senator Bachmann said that one of the problems with the ruling is that it mandated that the legislature pass legislation that made gay marriage the law of Massachusetts.

If that sounds a little strange to you, join the crowd. One of the things that I've spoke of often is the separation of powers. A ConLaw professor would laugh at the notion of the judiciary telling the legislative branch what legislation it had to write. After all, the Constitution is based on 3 co-equal branches of government and the premise of checks and balances.

If the 'Massachusetts Model' became the law of the land, that's essentially turning the Judiciary into a superlegislature. If there's anything that's anti-conservative thinking, that's it.

Frankly, it isn't difficult finding people who agree with the conservative agenda. On the other hand, it's relatively rare to find someone who can articulate the conservative agenda as powerfully and as compellingly as Senator Bachmann. That's my kind of candidate.

Technorati Tags: Michelle Bachmann, Midterm Elections, Mark Kennedy

"Why Do They Hate Us?"

2006-02-22T12:32:00.000-08:00

That's the name of Carol Platt-Liebau's latest column for the American Spectator. Make sure to check out Carol's article.

I'd also recommend adding the American Spectator and Carol's blog (Carol Platt-Liebau) to your daily reading lists.

Iran Promises Financial Assistance to PA

2006-02-22T10:42:00.000-08:00

The Jerusalem Post is reporting that Iran has committed to help finance a Hamas-led Palestinian Authority.

That isn't shocking in the least, of course. What it is, though, is a clarification of Hamas' intentions. The veil has been stripped off the 'Peace Process' because Hamas is much more open in its opposition to a nation called Israel than Arafat was. Arafat was a terrorist, too. It's just that he tried disguising it whenever he met with the Western press. Because Hamas is a terrorist organization and unapologetic about it, it isn't into the gamesmanship that Arafat was.

This also strips away from the world's eyes the notion that Iran is interested in joining 'the community of nations' on anything but their own terms.

Technorati Tags: Iran, Hamas, Israel

Praising Alan Dershowitz

2006-02-22T07:44:00.000-08:00

Over the years, I haven't agreed with Alan Dershowitz on much. After reading Tony Blankley's Washington Times column, though, I'll readily side with Prof. Dershowitz. Here's what I'm agreeing with:

"The shift from responding to past events to preventing future harms is part of one of the most significant but unnoticed trends in the world today. It challenges our traditional reliance on a model of human behavior that presupposes a rational person capable of being deterred by the threat of punishment. The classic theory of deterrence postulates a calculating evildoer who can evaluate the cost-benefits of proposed actions and will act, and forbear from acting, on the basis of these calculations. It also presupposes society's ability (and willingness) to withstand the blows we seek to deter and to use the visible punishment of those blows as threats capable of deterring future harms. These assumptions are now being widely questioned as the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of suicide terrorists becomes more realistic and as our ability to deter such harms by classic rational cost-benefit threats and promises becomes less realistic."

This is utterly rational thinking on Dershowitz's behalf. In that paragraph, Prof. Dershowitz explains why the usual deterrents won't work. As he points out, our past enemies could be deterred because they knew that swift and deadly retaliation would be leveled on their country. When you're dealing with an al Qaida, that deterrent won't work because threatening a suicide bomber with death isn't a deterrent.

It's also worth noting that terrorists don't present us with the types of military targets that countries provided. That's why it took so long to start the war in Afghanistan. Finding military targets for our helicopters and bombers to hit was difficult at first.

Blankley continues, saying:

It is simply not enough anymore to say a country violates the norm by acting in its ultimate, but not imminent, self-defense. We need new standards for a new age. The new realities of unacceptable risk require new, and lower, standards of certainty before defensive action is permitted.

I don't agree with that first sentence because we have the duty to protect ourselves. Further, it's pretty clear at this point who our enemies are from the standpoint of who's declared their intentions with their actions.

I do agree, though, that using Prof. Dershowitz's idea of lower threshholds of proof before action makes sense. We're prosecuting a war, not a criminal. That isn't saying that we accept just anything as proof but we shouldn't hamstring ourselves with unduly high burdens of proof, either.

Finally, there's this:

To see the difference between traditional Anglo-American criminal jurisprudence and his proposed jurisprudence of prevention, he raises the great maxim of criminal law: better that ten guilty go free, than one innocent be wrongly convicted. That principle led our law to require proof beyond a reasonable doubt before conviction in criminal trials. Most of us agree with that standard. But then Prof. Dershowitz updates the maxim thusly: "Is it better for ten possibly preventable terrorist attacks to occur than for one possibly innocent suspect to be preventively detained?" I would hunch that most people would not be willing to accept ten September 11th attacks (30,000 dead) in order to protect one innocent suspect from being locked up and questioned for a while.

While we never want to treat our civil liberties lightly, the truth is that most of us assumed that they'd be curtailed a bit Post-9/11. That's the nature of war. It seems logical to me, then, that Prof. Dershowitz's logic is appopriate, especially in light of the President's affirmative duty to protect us from ALL ENEMIES.

Technorati Tags: Alan Dershowitz, Terrorism

Port Security Worries

2006-02-22T06:51:00.000-08:00

Washington Times National Security reporter Bill Gertz is reporting that some anonymous Bush administration officials objected to the deal that would transfer management of 6 U.S. ports from British to UAE control, citing the possibility of terrorists using the ports to bring in WMD's.

The reality is that our ports haven't been run by U.S. companies for quite some time.

The current firestorm in Congress is much ado about PR and politics. Transfering management to a Dubai-based and government-owned company just sounds wrong. At the same time, Democrats are using this issue to criticize the administration. The difference this time is that it appears that they'll finally gain traction on a national security issue.

It seems to me that Congress and President Bush need to get more serious about port security. That's why it was puzzling to me that President Bush didn't start talking key senators like Pat Roberts and Chuck Grassley through this alot earlier. If he had, maybe they would've raised some concerns on this and those concerns would have gotten addressed. As it stands right now, that didn't happen and the concerns are being aired publicly.

I can understand the President's insistence that the deal go through, knowing that keeping the UAE as an active ally in that part of the world is vitally important. They've been one of our better allies in the post-9/11 world. I can understand Congress' obstinance on this, too, knowing that they would've gotten pummeled on this issue this fall.

In the end, I suspect that Congress will sit down with President Bush and work something out that allows Congress to show that they're serious about security and that allows the President to keep the UAE on board.

Technorati Tags: National Security, Bush Administration, UAE, Ports

Civil Rights Group Blasts Bryant Gumbel

2006-02-21T08:44:00.000-08:00

Project 21, a self-proclaimed moderate and conservative civil rights group, has criticized Bryant Gumbel's racial comments at the Turino Winter Olympics.

While covering the games from Turino, Italy, Gumbel mused:
"Count me among those who don't care about [the Olympics] and won't watch them... So try not to laugh when someone says these are the world's greatest athletes, despite a paucity of blacks that makes the winter games look like a GOP convention."

In a statement issued Friday, Project 21's Mychal Massie said the former "Today" show host was out of line:

"For Gumbel to castigate an entire field of athletes who have worked a lifetime in pursuit of a dream, and then injecting race into it, is unforgivable." Turning the tables on Gumbel, Massie added: "Should he be condemned for only having one other black on his news team? Following Gumbel's rationale, I would expect the answer to be yes."
Project 21 member Deneen Moore accused Gumbel of trying to score "cheap racial political points," explaining: "Accessibility, affordability and motivation are key requirements for individuals to excel in sport activities, not the color of one's skin. Mr. Gumbel should be aware of these obvious facts and not try to score cheap racial political points."

It's great to see Republicans fighting back in this arena of politics. It's long overdue. People like Bryant Gumbel and others were given a free pass on this type of comment for far too long.

Follow this link to view a history on Project 21.

Technorati Tags: Bryant Gumbel, Olympic Games, Race

That's All I Need To Know

2006-02-21T08:27:00.000-08:00

Newsmax has posted Jimmy Carter's endorsement of the Dubai Port deal.

Based on his past record of 'making peace' with the most violent thugs on the face of the earth, both recently and in the past, this must be a really bad deal. As far as I'm concerned, all further analysis can be canceled and the deal rejected because it's a waste of taxpayers' money.

In 1979, the Georgia Democrat helped usher in the era of Mideast terrorism against the U.S. by yanking American support from the Shah of Iran. The shah was succeeded by the Ayatollah Khomeini, whose revolutionary guards took over the U.S. embassy and held Americans who worked there hostage for 444 days. Carter also presided over the giveaway of the Panama Canal, whose vital Atlantic and Pacific ports are now controlled by Communist China.

Jimmy Carter's foreign policy record is the worst, most shameful in American history. Treating him with any respect or giving him any credibility in this area is foolish.

Technorati Tags: Jimmy Carter, Dubai, UAE, Terrorism

Blogging Will Be Light Today

2006-02-21T04:42:00.000-08:00

Blogging will be light today until later today, when I'll be back due to dealing with some business issues. Thanks for your daily visits . They're most appreciated.

I hope to finish by 2pm CT.

Alan Simpson's Take On Washington Press Corps

2006-02-20T08:21:00.001-08:00

I had the joy of watching Chris Wallace interview former Senator Alan Simpson about the Cheney hunting accident on yesterday's Fox News Sunday. It made me long for the days when he and Bob Dole and Pat Moynihan were the main players in the Senate. Here's the most telling exchange of the interview:

WALLACE: Now, your friend is not a touchy-feely guy who generally lets people feel his emotions. But I've got to tell you, Senator, I was struck by how pained he seems to have been by this incident.
SIMPSON: Well, I haven't talked to him, because the first few days of it, I was in Ohio, and they were calling me, and I had the sense that they were saying have you talked to Cheney, and if you did, what did he say you should say -- in other words, a sinister approach to put a spin on it.
I haven't talked with him. As soon as this is over, I will have done all these, and I'm going to call him. But let me tell you, he probably went home that day when he got back to Lynne and probably put his head down on her shoulder and cried, because this guy -- think of how you would feel if you pulled up any kind of a gun and a human being was in front of it and he dropped. And then you went over to see him and he didn't say anything.
I always say in this line of work, how would you feel if this were happening to you -- not you, Chris, I mean, but there is a human element here that got lost in the perfect storm of people who don't like Cheney. They don't like hunting. They don't like guns. They don't like people who kill birds and eat them. I mean, good grief.

With that exchange, Alan Simpson reminds us all of how badly the White House press corps missed the story. They didn't think about the fact that Vice President Cheney was going through a terrible ordeal himself. No, Cheney wasn't the victim. The victim was Harry Whittington. But for the White House press corps to think that he just brushed this accident off and that he didn't have a care in the world was foolish.

Here's another great exchange:

WALLACE: Senator, as we mentioned, Democrats have taken this opportunity to pound on the vice president and the White House for what they say is a display of arrogance. Let's take a look at some of that, sir.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
U.S. SENATOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D-NY): A tendency of this administration from the top all the way to the bottom is to withhold information.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
U.S. SENATOR HARRY REID (D-NV), MINORITY LEADER: This administration is the most secretive administration in modern history.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Senator, what do you make of that?
SIMPSON: Well, you know, that's an interesting pitch, but we haven't had another 9/11, so something good must be going on with all this, quote, evil, secret stuff. And then this business of the 20-hour gap -- I mean, it is a laugher. I mean, that's a laugher. It's a lot more sinister than the 18 minutes on Rosemary Woods' tape with Nixon. I mean, what is this? What are they doing?
Let me tell you, the American people know that when you have an accident on your ranch, and you're the host, and a guy gets bucked off a horse and has a concussion, or there's a hunting accident, your first impression is not to pick up the phone and call your dearest, you know, A.P. or Reuters or Bloomberg. That is not the first thing in your head.
First thing is take care of the guy, go to the hospital, call his relatives, sit down, say who wants to do this. As I understand it, Dick said, you know, to her it's your call. And the sadness, the tragedy, was that she called the Corpus Christi Caller-Times instead of The New York Times. This has just got them all worked up, for God's sake.

For Hillary to complain about White House secrecy isn't just laughable, it's shameless. Then again, that's what you should expect with a Clinton. They're shameless by nature and they're full of chutzpah.

Then there's this:

WALLACE: Some Republicans, though, Senator, have also been unhappy with the way the vice president handled this. I want to point out one example. Peggy Noonan, the former Reagan speech writer, wrote an article in The Wall Street Journal in which she said that Dick Cheney has become the hate magnet for this administration.
And then she went on to say this. Take a look. She said, "So Mr. Bush may feel in time that he has reason to want to put in a new vice president in order to pick a successor who'll presumably have an edge in the primaries." Senator Simpson, what do you make of that?
SIMPSON: Well, we have a word for it, but we won't use it here, out here in the wild west. Let me tell you, that is -- she is a wonderful gal. And I mean, I know her, and when I read her words, they're lyrical and they're marvelous.
Dick Cheney has become the hate symbol from the beginning. He was the hate symbol when he was with Halliburton. He was the hate symbol when he came in and the votes with South Africa and this and that. And then he was the hate symbol of hiding an energy conference. He was the hate symbol of terrorists, hate symbol of torture.
Let me tell you, those who don't like him have put a big red tail on his bum, and cloven hooves, and horns on his head. And let me tell you, if anybody thinks -- if this had happened to anybody else in America, it would have been like a sparrow belch in a typhoon.
WALLACE: Could you be a little more colorful, Senator?
SIMPSON: Well, I don't think I could, because it really is absurd. It's absolutely absurd. I go around the country. I travel all the time. And the American people are just shaking their heads and saying it's a hunting accident, a tragic hunting accident -- a victim, a guy who's hurt, and a guy who's hurt because he shot, who's pained, who's anguished. What's new, for God's sakes?

Sen. Simpson nails it. Outside of the Washington press corp and the Daily Kos/MoveOn.org children, nobody cares about this incident with this type of intensity. Most of America doesn't hate Cheney like they do. They might not agree with him but they don't have the hatred towards him like that group has towards him.

This is why I'd love to have Sens. Simpson, Moynihan and Dole back in the Senate. They're colorful, intelligent and they had a great sense of humor.

Finally, there's this shot at the Washington press corps:

WALLACE: So I take it, Senator, do you really miss this place?
SIMPSON: No, I do. I loved it. I did. I loved it. And I loved it because it was fun. And I have a lot of pals on both sides of the aisle. I worked with President Clinton. I enjoyed him. President Bush, President Carter -- good people doing good things.
But let me tell you, you'll never find it if you just follow the Washington media. You'll never know the good. All you get is controversy, crap and confusion.
WALLACE: So I take it, Senator, do you really miss this place?
SIMPSON: No, I do. I loved it. I did. I loved it. And I loved it because it was fun. And I have a lot of pals on both sides of the aisle. I worked with President Clinton. I enjoyed him. President Bush, President Carter -- good people doing good things.
But let me tell you, you'll never find it if you just follow the Washington media. You'll never know the good. All you get is controversy, crap and confusion.

A CQ reader has already designed and copyrighted that line on a bumper sticker. Sen. Simpson is right though in castigating these pompous idiots for their worthless reporting and their negativity. They're all legends in their own minds.

Alan Simpson's Take On Washington Press Corps

2006-02-20T08:21:00.000-08:00

WALLACE: Now, your friend is not a touchy-feely guy who generally lets people feel his emotions. But I've got to tell you, Senator, I was struck by how pained he seems to have been by this incident.
SIMPSON: Well, I haven't talked to him, because the first few days of it, I was in Ohio, and they were calling me, and I had the sense that they were saying have you talked to Cheney, and if you did, what did he say you should say -- in other words, a sinister approach to put a spin on it.
I haven't talked with him. As soon as this is over, I will have done all these, and I'm going to call him. But let me tell you, he probably went home that day when he got back to Lynne and probably put his head down on her shoulder and cried, because this guy -- think of how you would feel if you pulled up any kind of a gun and a human being was in front of it and he dropped. And then you went over to see him and he didn't say anything.
I always say in this line of work, how would you feel if this were happening to you -- not you, Chris, I mean, but there is a human element here that got lost in the perfect storm of people who don't like Cheney. They don't like hunting. They don't like guns. They don't like people who kill birds and eat them. I mean, good grief.

WALLACE: Some Republicans, though, Senator, have also been unhappy with the way the vice president handled this. I want to point out one example. Peggy Noonan, the former Reagan speech writer, wrote an article in The Wall Street Journal in which she said that Dick Cheney has become the hate magnet for this administration.
And then she went on to say this. Take a look. She said, "So Mr. Bush may feel in time that he has reason to want to put in a new vice president in order to pick a successor who'll presumably have an edge in the primaries." Senator Simpson, what do you make of that?
SIMPSON: Well, we have a word for it, but we won't use it here, out here in the wild west. Let me tell you, that is -- she is a wonderful gal. And I mean, I know her, and when I read her words, they're lyrical and they're marvelous.
Dick Cheney has become the hate symbol from the beginning. He was the hate symbol when he was with Halliburton. He was the hate symbol when he came in and the votes with South Africa and this and that. And then he was the hate symbol of hiding an energy conference. He was the hate symbol of terrorists, hate symbol of torture.
Let me tell you, those who don't like him have put a big red tail on his bum, and cloven hooves, and horns on his head. And let me tell you, if anybody thinks -- if this had happened to anybody else in America, it would have been like a sparrow belch in a typhoon.
WALLACE: Could you be a little more colorful, Senator?
SIMPSON: Well, I don't think I could, because it really is absurd. It's absolutely absurd. I go around the country. I travel all the time. And the American people are just shaking their heads and saying it's a hunting accident, a tragic hunting accident -- a victim, a guy who's hurt, and a guy who's hurt because he shot, who's pained, who's anguished. What's new, for God's sakes?

We Can't Have That

2006-02-20T07:48:00.000-08:00

Jimmy Carter has been on a roll lately, first saying that the NSA intercept program was illegal, the next day equating Nixon's wiretapping of pollitical enemies and JFK's and RFK's wiretapping of Martin Luther King with President Bush's performing his constitutional duty of protecting us from all enemies, foreign and domestic and now telling the world that the US shouldn't stop aid to the Palestinians over such a small matter of electing a terrorist organization to run the country.

He makes that announcement in a Washington Post op-ed. If he stays on this roll much longer, he'll be telling us that Saddam's mass graves were just his way of stomping out the Shi'ite jihadists.

It's time to move this doddering old fool from the national stage and into a rest home somewhere that he won't be a further embarassment to himself and where he can't kiss up to all of the global tyrants, although there aren't that many tyrants left that he hasn't touted as great leaders. UBL, Zawahiri, the Iranian mullahs, Ahmadinejad and Bashar al-Assad might be the only ones left on that list.

Most people my age and older already thought of Carter as the worst president in our lifetime. Now the entire nation is seeing that he's the worst ex-president, too.

Technorati Tags: Jimmy Carter, Coretta Scott King, Hamas, Terrorism