3/28/2007
Iran’s Provocations Aren’t New
Check out Verum Serum’s timeline of Iranian provocations in Iraq. Let’s just say that this didn’t start with the kidnapping of the 15 Brits.
 Hat Tip: Hugh
3/27/2007
Sean Penn Is Off His Meds Again
Nutty Sean Penn and his increasingly Hitleresque mustache made an appearance at a San Fransico town hall meeting over the weekend, and let’s just say he’s apparently gone off his meds again.
…And because, in the absence of a competent or brave Congress, of a mobilized citizenry, that level of power lies in your hands, it is you who have misused it to become our country’s and our constitution’s most devastating enemy. You have broken our country and our hearts. The needless blood on your hands, and therefore, on our own, is drowning the freedom, the security, and the dream that America might have been, once healed of and awakened by, the tragedy of September 11, 2001.
But now, we are encouraged to self-censor any words that might be perceived as inflammatory - if our belief is that this war should stop today. We cower as you point fingers telling us to “support our troops.” Well, you and the smarmy pundits in your pocket, those who bathe in the moisture of your soiled and bloodstained underwear, can take that noise and shove it…
In the words of Laura Ingraham; “shut up and act”… or better yet, just shut up.
TJ’s anti-Contrarian Blog has an interview with SFC Nichols who blogs at Jack Army. There’s some great stuff in the interview, and TJ is right; these guys (and ladies) are heros. They don’t get nearly the credit they deserve for the hard work they’re doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places around the world.
Have you heard or sensed any shift in Iraqis against insurgents (i.e. the Anbar Salvation Council is allegedly fed up with Al-Qaeda and are now battling them in places like Habbaniyah)?
Yes, there is a definite shift in how Iraqis view insurgents. Iraqis are turning in insurgents, calling when they see IEDs and even chasing away bad guys in some cases. Is it enough? No, not yet, but it is improvement and hopefully the momentum is shifting enough to make it a permanent thing. Only time will tell.
Go check out the rest of the interview. It’s well worth the read.
3/23/2007
I think Iran may have crossed the line with this one. The Iranian navy has detained 15 British sailors in Iraqi territorial waters.
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates  — Iranian naval vessels on Friday seized 15 British sailors who had boarded a merchant ship in Iraqi waters of the Persian Gulf as part of efforts to protect the Iraqi coastline and its oil terminals, U.S. and British officials said.
The British government summoned the Iranian ambassador in London and demanded “the immediate and safe return of our people and equipment.” The U.S. Navy, which operates off the Iraqi coast along with British forces, said Iran’s Revolutionary Guard naval forces were responsible.
Ignorance, Executive Privilege, And Leahy’s Hypocrisy
The Denver Post has a stunningly ignorant op-ed regarding the brouhaha over the firing of the eight U.S. attorneys. I plan on taking that editorial apart, but first, a couple of other items.
Patterico’s Pontifications has pointed out a couple of relevant items. First of all, Patrick “leaky” Leahy had an entirely different take on subpoenas during the Clinton administration. Here’s the take he had on them on ABC’s “This week”:
Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee . . .
Unfortunately, Iglesias offers not an iota of evidence for his charge that the Bush administration fired said his committee would vote Thursday on whether to issue subpoenas for [Karl] Rove as well as Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel, and William K. Kelley, the deputy White House counsel.
“I do not believe in this ‘We’ll have a private briefing for you where we’ll tell you everything,’ and they don’t,†Mr. Leahy said on “This Week†on ABC, adding: “I want testimony under oath.
Now, here’s his take on subpoenas during the final days of the Clinton administration:
. . . I do not believe we should be issuing subpoenas to the Justice Department unless that step is absolutely necessary. I appreciate the Chairman’s commitment to fulfilling this Committee’s oversight responsibilities, and I take those responsibilities very seriously myself. . . . Yet, on this clemency matter, the [Justice] Department has voluntarily sent the Committee several boxes of documents, totaling over 3000 pages . . . . The Department has also already made the Pardon Attorney available to provide an informal briefing to the Committee on clemency procedures.
Now, that’s a stunning change of heart. Of course, the more cynical amoung us might think that his position now might be for political reasons.
The next item that Patterico pointed out is a piece written by Ed Whelan. Whelan’s piece is a bit long, but is well worth reprinting in full here:
In yesterday’s New York Times, David C. Iglesias, former U.S. attorney for the District of New Mexico, has an op-ed titled “Why I Was Firedâ€. Referring also to his fellow U.S. attorneys who were recently dismissed, Iglesias asserts, among other things, that “it seems clear that politics played a role in the ousters†and that “we had apparently been singled out for political reasonsâ€. He claims that he was fired “for not being political†and refers twice to the U.S. attorneys brouhaha as a “scandalâ€.
Unfortunately, Iglesias offers not an iota of evidence for his charge that the Bush administration fired him (or any of the other U.S. attorneys) for improper political reasons. As his is the one dismissal among the eight that has as its backdrop seemingly inappropriate inquiries into a pending investigation, this absence of evidence is a striking sign of the lack of substance behind the charges of scandal.
Let’s consider a few points:
1. Iglesias states in his op-ed (and has previously testified) that Representative Heather Wilson and Senator Pete Domenici separately contacted him to inquire about a “politically charged corruption case … involving local Democrats.†They shouldn’t have done so. I won’t sort through here the competing accounts of whether the inquiries were relatively innocuous missteps or grossly improper pressure. In either case, they aren’t chargeable to the Administration.
2. Iglesias does provide one clear account of improper behavior—his own. In the same paragraph in which he states that “[p]rosecutors may not legally talk about indictments,†he relates that he nonetheless informed Domenici that he didn’t think he would file corruption charges before November. Separately, he has admitted that he failed to comply with DOJ directives requiring him to report Domenici’s and Wilson’s improper contacts.
3. Understood in a very broad sense, “politics†probably played the same role in Iglesias’s ouster that it had played in his initial selection. For better or worse, same-party senators have extraordinary influence in the selection of U.S. attorneys for their home districts. Domenici was largely responsible for Iglesias’s appointment. Once he made the fact of his dissatisfaction with Iglesias clear to the Administration, it would hardly be surprising that the Administration would look to replace him at an appropriate time. (It is highly doubtful that it would matter to the Administration whether Domenici offered any reasons, though it’s worth noting that he has stated that he had growing frustration with Iglesias’s alleged failure to move expeditiously on immigration and drug cases.) Giving a home-state senator so much clout may not be the best practice (though there are around 100 senators who like that clout), and it’s understandable that Iglesias would feel aggrieved by it, but it would not be improper, much less scandalous.
Now, on to the Post editorial. They start off on the wrong foot in the first two paragraphs.
3/22/2007
They Apparently Are Only Interested In Setting A Perjury Trap
Judging by their response to President Bush’s offer, House and Senate Democrats seem to only be interested in setting a perjury trap for White House staffers — Carl Rove in particular. Here’s what Senator Reid had to say:
The leader said Democrats may be willing to allow some aides to testify under oath while others do not. But one person who they insist makes a sworn statement is Rove.
“As I’ve said before, we don’t have to have the same rule apply for everybody. Maybe some would have to be under oath, some not,” Reid said. Asked why Rove, Reid pulled his thumb and forefinger together and said, “Because he came this close to being indicted.”
Of course, Rove did not come “this close” to being indicted. He was cleared by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald earlier this year in the Plame case.
As I’ve said before, neither the President nor the justice department did anything wrong or illegal by firing these eight attorneys. In fact, as more and more information comes out about this case we’re finding out that many of these attorneys were fired for just cause. Take for example the San Diego based US Attorney Carol Lam; there have been numerous news reports that she routinely either drug her feet on or refused to prosecute illegal immigration cases. Here’s a little information on that from an Editor & Publisher article written today:
Three districts — Arizona, New Mexico and San Diego — were among the five highest in number of immigration prosecutions. Given their proximity to the Mexican border, the results come as little surprise. The Justice Department, however, attributed former San Diego prosecutor Carol Lam’s firing in part to lagging immigration prosecutions and convictions.
The TRAC data confirm immigration prosecutions in San Diego dropped from 2,243 in 2002 to 1,715 in 2006. Meanwhile, convictions dropped from 1,763 to 1,449 over the five-year period Lam led the office.
One of the others fired — David Iglesais from New Mexico — apparently wouldn’t persue voter fraud cases. The Bush administration had made that a priority. If he wouldn’t persue cases that the administration had made a priority then there was certainly cause for firing him.
The democrats don’t stand a chance of winning this if this goes to court…
The democrats are back to their old ways. They are back to being tax and spend liberals. Rep. John Campbell (R) from California tells us about the democrat’s new budget proposal over at his blog Green eyeshade blog. Here’s a sample of a few of the problems with the proposal according to Campbell:
Their budget proposes the largest tax increase in American history - The Democrat’s budget calls for a tax increase of every tax bracket, slashes the child tax credit, raises the death tax, and reinstates the marriage penalty. And this is just a sampling, there is more. In all, the Democrat’s plan will cost taxpayers over $390 billion in the next 5 years. What is particularly frustrating about this ill-advised action is that the Democrats are blatantly ignoring the economic consequences and fiscal benefits that lower taxes have brought to the treasury the past few years. Revenue has increased in double digits the last two years alone because of the economic expansion encouraged by reduced taxation. This revenue growth has been crucial in reducing the deficit. The Democrats refuse to recognize this, though, and instead they just want to tax us to death. This is a recipe for disaster.  Â
Their budget proposes massive increases in spending, expansion of government - As highlighted above, revenue is not the problem, out of control spending is the problem. The Democrats, however, don’t seem to care. Their singular goal is to spend more and make government bigger. In that spirit, their budget calls for a $42.5 billion increase in non-defense spending this year. Yikes.
Their budget proposes no offsets to pay for these increases - Despite these huge increases, the Democrats offer no way to pay for them except by raiding Social Security and raising taxes. This is completely irresponsible. Governing is about making tough decisions and ending governments programs that are ineffective and wasteful — even if they sound good. Their budget, however, has expansion across the board regardless of effectiveness. Hardly fiscal responsibility.
Their budget proposes no fix to the AMT - In spite of their continued talk of fixing this increasingly oppressive tax, they have done nothing and are allowing it to continue to grow and adversely affect more taxpayers.
Their budget proposes no entitlement reform plan - The Budget Committee has heard testimony from several witnesses warning of the unsustainable growth of entitlement programs likes Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Repeated experts have said that if entitlements are not reformed, in the very near future, the budget will either be completely consumed by them or Congress will have to double current tax levels. Do we really want to saddle our children and grandchildren with our debt? The Democrats apparently do.
Their budget proposes no accountability standards - With all of these increases in expenditures, the Democrats are conspicuously silent on all the current waste in the federal budget. Instead of making the government more efficient with what it is already operating under, they are just calling for more money. I do not know of one business that operates in such a backward fashion. We need to promote efficiency and accountability — not just blindly sign away taxpayer dollars to useless government programs.
Congressman Campbell is doing a great job of keeping us informed of the goings on in Congress. I strongly reccommend giving his blog a read every day.Â
The Campaign Will Go On, And So Will The Fight
John Edwards and his wife announced today that her cancer has relapsed. She now has stage four cancer, which is the last stage, and what is for many “the end game”. Admittedly, I’ve never been a fan of Mr. Edwards or his politics, but I wish he, his wife, and their children the best. There will be many a tough day ahead for the Edwards family, and I’m sure they would all appreciate our prayers.Â
3/21/2007
I’ve resisted commenting on the whole US Attorney non scandal so far because it is precisely that. A non scandal. US attorneys are executive branch employees. The President appoints them, and they serve at his pleasure. That’s why I can’t understand why the Democrats think they’ll get any traction with this. The only reasonable explanation I’ve heard so far as to why they are doing this is to try to catch Carl Rove or some other White House official in a perjury trap like they did with Lewis Libby.
Last night, President Bush had a press conference (one that in my opinion was long overdue) on this issue, and he was as well spoken and confident as I’ve seen him in a long time. He made some concessions to the Democrats, but made two things clear:
- It was his prerogative to keep or replace these attorneys
- Rove, Miers, and others would be allowed to testify in front of the relevant committees, but not under oath.
 The fact that Rove and the others won’t be testifying under oath has already gained condemnation from the likes of Patrick “leaky” Leahy, but the President is on solid ground there as well.
As the President pointed out last night; he must be able to count on candid advice from his advisers at all times, and if his advisers are afraid of being subpoenaed and drug in front of Congress for show trials to score political points he won’t get that candid advice.
The President made another good point last night. There are much more important issues in front of both the Congress and the President. It’s high time we end this partisan nonsense and get back to fighting the war.
3/20/2007
Democrats Are Buying Surrender Votes
Democrats in Washington have decided that since they can’t drum up enough support for their cut and run strategy on its merits they’ll buy that support with billions of dollars in pork barrell spending.
According to the MSNBC articleColorado’s own Marilyn Musgrave (R) is on the fence as to whether or not she’ll support the cut and run strategy. Apparently this indecisiveness has nothing to do with the merits of the Dem’s plan, but everything to do with the billions of dollars in drought relief in the bill for farmers in southeastern Colorado.
“She hates the games the Democrats are playing,” said Guy Short, chief of staff to Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.), a staunch conservative who remains undecided, thanks to billions of dollars in the bill for drought relief and agriculture assistance. “But Representative Musgrave was just down in southeastern Colorado, talking to ranchers and farmers, and they desperately need this assistance.”
What happened to principles? What happened to principled people standing up for what’s right? Just a word of advice for any Republican planning on taking bribes offered by the Democrats; there are millions of principled Republicans like myself that will see to it that you won’t have that opportunity again when you come up for re-election. If you won’t stand up what’s right, we’ll elect people who will.
3/19/2007
A Story You Won’t Find In The MSM
Do you remember President Bush visiting Enterprise Alabama a couple of weeks ago after a tornado devastated the high school there? Eight students were killed as a result of the roof collapsing. Hughpoints us to a story about the President’s visit that you won’t find anywhere in the main stream media.
President Bush toured the area in Marine 1, viewing the remnants of a once peaceful Alabama town. Arriving at the High School at approximately 8:30, he walked the remains the High School with Principal Rick Ranier, stopping in Hallway 3, the site of the deaths of 8 young Enterprise High School students.
Pausing to reflect on the severity of the devastation, he later remarked to the press corps as, he pointed to the Science Wing: “A hundred kids got out of here alive, it’s a miracle.”
U.S. Senator’s Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa, and Jeff Sessions, R-Mobile, accompanied the president along with U.S. Rep. Terry Everett, R-Rehobeth. As you can begin to see from the above photos, this wasn’t going to be the usual tour with a following promise of help in rebuilding.
From the moment of his arrival at Enterprise High School, you could sense an awe and reverence about the President. He is a deeply compassionate man, a father himself, I wonder if he wasn’t pondering how he would have felt, had this happened to his daughters school when they were younger.As he continued his tour of the school grounds he came upon a small group of students standing on an emblem on the floor that read, “EHS, Class of 1965″. Having been told he would meet this group from the student body, he asked, “Which one of you is the President?”
Megan Parks raised her hand slightly, then hung her head and began to cry. President Bush put his arms around Megan and Sarah Carroll and all three cried. A secret service officer standing nearby, although not able to hear every word, reported that he could hear the President quoting scripture and then he said, “It’s tough being President, isn’t it?”
After grieving with these young class officers for a time, he began walking around again. He mentioned that he wanted that emblem preserved, at whatever cost. The Mayor spoke up and said he would see to it.
President Bush replied with, “I was talking to the President.” As he began to walk towards Hillcrest Baptist Church he remarked, “Where are my children?” Lagging behind, they ran up to him, and walked the rest of the way to the church with him. The media was sent in different direction and were not allowed to accompany him to the church.
President Bush walked to the church where the families of the nine that died in this town were waiting. As he entered, his security detail remained at the door. A local police officer attached to the detail questioned the Secret Service agent he was partnered with about not going inside the church with the President. The agent remarked, “This is a far as we go, this is his time with his people.” The officer then questioned the presidents protection, if they remained outside the church. Again the agent remarked, “Yes, he is protected, but not by us.”
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a decent and caring man in the people’s house. Don’t ever let anyone tell you differently. Go read the whole story, and then pass it on to your friends and family.
3/16/2007
Defeatists In The Senate Got “Mitchslapped”
I somehow missed this yesterday. Mitch McConnell let loose during the debate over the Reid resolution, and he’s dead on right. It’s about time the Republicans grew a backbone and started responding. Here’s a statement from his office regarding his speech on the floor. It’s well worth reading in full.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
“Setting a date certain for withdrawal will send a chill up the spine of every Iraqi who has dared to stand with America.â€
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell spoke on the Senate floor Wednesday regarding S. J. Res. 9, the latest Democrat proposal to set a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. The following are his remarks from the floor.
“Today, Senate Republicans will agree to move to a debate on an important question, and that question is this: Should a majority of Senators direct the activity of the War in Iraq?
“Republicans are eager to engage in this debate on the Reid Resolution because it’s different in kind from any previous Democratic proposal.
“It is unprecedented in the powers it would arrogate to the Congress in a time of war; it is a clear statement of retreat from the support that the Senate only recently gave to General David Petraeus; and its passage would be absolutely fatal to our mission in Iraq. “Previous resolutions proposed by the Democrats were a mere statement of opinion, or sentiment. This one has a binding quality. It would interfere with the President and General Petraeus’ operational authority to conduct the war in Iraq as he and his commanders see fit. It would substitute for their judgment the judgment of 535 members of Congress.
“And the judgment they’ve made is this: That Iraq is a distraction in the Global War on terror, and that U.S. troops should begin to withdraw in four months, with all combat forces leaving within a year. That’s the judgment that the Reid proposal makes.
“This is the memo our enemies have been waiting for.
“Osama Bin Laden and his followers have repeatedly said that the U.S. does not have the stomach for a long fight with the terrorists. Passage of the Reid Joint Resolution will be the first concrete sign since Sept. 11, 2001, that he was right on target.
“Timetables are bad. But don’t just take my word for it.
“Speaking at the National Press Club in 2005, my good friend the Majority Leader himself said this: ‘As for setting a timeline, as we learned in the Balkans, that’s not a wise decision, because it only empowers those who don’t want us there, and it doesn’t work well to do that.’
“Six months after that, the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden, said this: ‘A deadline for pulling out … will only encourage our enemies to wait us out’ … it would be ‘a Lebanon in 1985. And God knows where it goes from there.’ That was our friend, Joe Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
“And three months later, Senator Clinton made the same point when she said, ‘I don’t believe it’s smart to set a date for withdrawal,’ said Senator Clinton. ‘I don’t think you should ever telegraph your intentions to the enemy so they can await you.’ “That’s the Majority Leader, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and a prominent Democrat presidential candidate.
“Surely Senators Reid, Biden, and Clinton have not changed their minds about who would benefit the most if we set a date certain for withdrawal. They know just as well as I do that this is what the terrorists have been waiting for — and just what our allies in Iraq, and the entire region of the world have feared.
“Setting a date certain for withdrawal will send a chill up the spine of every Iraqi who has dared to stand with America. Millions of good men and women have helped us in this fight. Since we arrived in Iraq, nearly 120,000 Iraqis have volunteered to serve in their army. More than 8,000 Iraqis have died in uniform to defend the fledgling Democracy over there. And recently, in Anbar province, we’re told that roughly 1,000 Sunnis volunteered for the police force over a period of a couple weeks.
“These brave men and women, Mr. President, are watching what we do here: They know, as we do, that chaos will engulf Iraq and the rest of the region on that day. They know they and their families will likely face a firing squad soon after we leave. And the message we send them with this resolution is this: good luck.
“General Petraeus understands the importance of the mission in Iraq, and his new Mission to Secure Baghdad. In a recent letter to the soldiers under his command, he wrote:
The enemies of Iraq will shrink at no act, however barbaric. They will do all they can to shake the confidence of the people and to convince the world that this effort is doomed. We must not underestimate them. Together with our Iraqi partners, we must defeat those who oppose the new Iraq. We cannot allow mass murders to hold the initiative. We must strike them relentlessly. We and our Iraqi partners must set the terms of the struggle, not our enemies. And together, we must prevail.
“These are the words of the man this body recently sent to Iraq. They are the words of a military commander: confident yet realistic, and committed above all to victory. This is the voice of courage and resolve in the face of danger. We do best to listen to voices like this, which speak of victory rather than defeat and withdrawal. We owe it to him, his soldiers, our allies, and the world.
“Republicans are ready for this debate.â€
Hat Tip: Hugh Hewitt
3/13/2007
There’s been a lot of talk lately about what to do in Iraq. Most Americans want us to succeed in Iraq. Yes, we’re tired and war weary, but we were warned in the dark days following 9-11 that this war would be a long and difficult one. We’re tired of hearing about our brave men and women and brave Iraqi citizens being blown up by terrorist cowards everyday. But, yet, we still crave victory. So, I believe it’s important to examine exactly what victory is, and what the cost would be if we fail to obtain that victory.
First, what is victory? Webster’s online dictionary defines victory like this:
1. a success or triumph over an enemy in battle or war.
and
4. a success or superior position achieved against any opponent, opposition, difficulty, etc.: a moral victory.
These definitions are great, and certainly appropriate. But, I think in this new war we must have a more concise or definitive definition.
Certainly it will be asked of our leaders and policy makers ”what does success or triumph over the enemy look like”? “What does a successful Iraq look like”?
I think in the end a successful Iraq will look like this; it will be a nation that first and foremost is not a threat to the united states because in the end this is not only about the citizenry of Iraq, it’s also about the safety of the united states. More on that in a minute.
A victory in Iraq will also include electoral freedom and economic freedom for all of it’s citizens. Why should we — the most powerful nation in the world — be afraid to imagine an Iraq that’s a beacon to light the way of change in the broader middle east? And, in the end a victory in Iraq will include an end to the murderous reign of terrorist cowards who will not stand up and fight the US military, but instead unleash their brand of hatred on the citizens of Iraq from the shadows and alleyways. In my opinion, there’s a special place in hell reserved for those who would intentionally blow up women and children in order to cow the united states into leaving Iraq rather than putting down their arms and joining the political process which is intended to make Iraq a better place for everyone.
So, we’ve looked at what victory in Iraq looks like. What would the consequences of failure be? First of all, many of the experts say that we would see an Iraq that makes the killing fields of Cambodia look like a picnic. There are other experts that foresee an Iraq which is soaked with oil revenues becoming a terrorist training ground. Imagine the evil of someone like Osama bin Laden with the oil revenues of Iraq. No matter who you listen to, the consequences would be dire for both the US and the citizens of Iraq.
The worst part about all of this is that it’s become obvious that while the majority of Democrats and some cut and run Republicans are more than eager to get us out of Iraq, they are not willing to accept the consequences for such an action.Â
3/12/2007
Things Are Heating Up On The Texas Border
Things are really heating up on the Texas Border. Border patrol agents have faced a doubling of attacks on their ranks, and now they’re being outgunned by “coyote’s” and drug smugglers.
Violence along the U.S.-Mexico border is undergoing what U.S. law-enforcement authorities call “an unprecedented surge,” some of it fueled by weapons and ammunition purchased or stolen in the United States.
    Federal, state and local law-enforcement officials from Texas to California, concerned about the impact of illegally imported weapons into Mexico, say they already are outmanned and outgunned by ruthless gangs that collect millions of dollars in profits by smuggling aliens and drugs into this country.
    ”These gangs have the weapons and the will to protect their lucrative cargoes,” said Sigifredo Gonzalez Jr., the sheriff of Zapata County, Texas, who founded and served as the first president of the Texas Border Sheriff’s Coalition. “With automatic weapons, grenades and grenade launchers, they pose a significant danger.”
    Last month, Mexican military officials in Matamoros, just south of Brownsville, Texas, stopped a tractor-trailer containing weapons and ammunition, along with a pickup truck fitted with armor and bulletproof glass.
    The weapons included 18 M-16 assault rifles, one equipped with an M-203 40mm grenade launcher. Also seized were several M-4 carbines, 17 handguns of various calibers, 200 magazines for different weapons, 8,000 rounds of ammunition, assault vests and other military accessories.
Perhaps it’s time that the national guard start doing things other than building checkpoints. If the Border Patrol doesn’t have the firepower to go up against these thugs maybe the National Guard does.
3/11/2007
Crittenden Takes Us Back To The Calm Before The Storm
Jules Crittenden takes us back to four years ago today and shares his memories of two journalists who didn’t come home.
…David Bloom of NBC was in the seat ahead of me. He was a pleasant and engaged-looking guy who seemed to have some idea of what was going on, and I said, “So Dave, what do you think? Is this the cool bus or the geek bus? 
Go read the whole thing.
3/8/2007
The Dinosaur Media And The Libby Verdict
As I wrote yesterday, the conviction of Lewis “Scooter” Libby for perjury was a travesty of justice. Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald did a great disservice to both the law and the administration in persuing this case. Now to add insult to injury, the media has decided to pile on and go after both the administration in general and Vice President Cheney specifically.
A quick look at some of the editorials in the nations leading news papers finds an unbelievable ratio of papers that decide to go after the administration and Cheney rather than talk about the merits of the case and the verdict. Let’s take a look at some of the coverage.
First, from our local Denver rags, here’s how the Denver Post opened it’s editorial:
Tuesday’s conviction of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby was a repudiation of the arrogance of White House insiders who manipulated intelligence and attacked their critics.
Libby resigned last year as chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney and now he’s on the hook for a prison term. Some loyalists are already whispering the “P” word, but it would be intolerable for President Bush to overturn the jury’s judgment with a pardon. Libby should be held accountable.
The picture that emerged from the perjury and obstruction trial of Libby is one of officials who thought nothing of attacking an opponent of their Iraq war policy, even jeopardizing a career intelligence officer.
Ok, I have several problems with this. First of all, the White House didn’t manipulate intelligence. A bipartisan commision came to that conclusion after researching all of the facts. So, right off the bat, the Post’s editorial is misleading.
Second, In the first sentence they criticize the administration for “attacking” their critics. What is wrong with responding to your critics especially when your critics are wrong? Joe wilson’s CIA report did not come to the conclusion (despite what he wrote in his op-ed at the New York Times) that Niger wasn’t selling yellow cake to Saddam’s Iraq. The report actually said that the evidence was inconclusive.
Next, Why would it be intolerable for Libby to be pardoned? As I’ve said before, Fitzgerald knew before he interviewed Libby that Libby wasn’t the source of the leak. He also knew that Plame/Wilson was not a covert agent as described in the law that he was prosecuting under. The investigation should have ended there, but instead Fitzgerald continued his political witchunt and managed to indict “Scooter” Libby for having a faulty memory. Many on the left continue to insist that Libby lied, but, why would he lie? What’s the motivation? He wasn’t the source of the leak, and Plame/Wilson wasn’t a covert agent as described in the applicable law.
Finally, they say that the administration thought nothing of “attacking an opponent of their Iraq war policy, even jeapordizing a carreer intelligence officer”. I’ve already covered the aspect of “attacking” one’s critics, but, I’ll say it again; what’s wrong with responding to one’s critics especially when they’re misrepresenting the facts? The other issue raised in that quote was whether or not the administration jeapordized a carreer intelligence officer. Plame/Wilson was not a covert agent at the time, and at the time she was not deployed overseas. In fact, she came to work at the CIA in Langely Virginia every day. Covert agents do not do that. After all, it wouldn’t be good for foreign intelligence agencies to see you walking into the CIA building every day.
The next paper we’ll look at is the — usually — conservative Rocky Mountain News.
‘Perjury by the chief executive of the land is nothing less than a subversion of the legal system.”
That’s what we said in 1998 at the time the House of Representatives was about to consider articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton, who lied under oath on more than one occasion. We need to revise that judgment only slightly with the conviction Tuesday of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby: Perjury by the vice president’s former chief of staff is nothing less than a subversion of the legal system, too.
Libby lied to investigators multiple times, and these were not crimes that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald felt inclined to overlook. We don’t blame him, although Fitzgerald’s investigation should never have reached the point where he had to make such a decision, either (more on that in a moment). Moreover, if Libby lied to a grand jury, he deserves at least some time in prison.
Still, the Libby trial must count as one of the strangest political spectacles of recent times, given the lack of an underlying crime.
I’ve certainly got to give credit to the Rocky in that they pointed out that there was no under lying crime. However, I’ve got to take issue with the statement that Libby lied. Yes, that’s what the jury decided, but once again, if there’s no underlying crime what was Libby’s motive?
Next on the list is the infamous New York Times.
There will be a great deal written and said in coming days about the frustrations of the Scooter Libby verdict — that it did not tell us whether someone deliberately blew Valerie Plame Wilson’s cover or erase serious concerns about the prosecutor’s abuse of the First Amendment. Let’s focus first on what the verdict does say.
One of the most senior officials in the White House, Lewis Libby, the chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, was caught lying to the F.B.I. He appears to have been trying to cover up a smear campaign that was orchestrated by his boss against the first person to unmask one of the many untruths that President Bush used to justify invading Iraq. He was charged with those crimes, defended by the best lawyers he could get, tried in an open courtroom and convicted of serious felonies.
Same song and dance. Libby lied, and libby tried to cover up a smear campaign against one of the administration’s critics. But, then there’s a new one — at least in terms of the papers we’ve looked at so far. Despite evidence to the contrary the New York Times tries to make the case that President Bush lied us into the War in Iraq.
So, those are three of the eight papers I looked at today. The only two papers that even made an effort to cover the facts of the case were the New York Post and the Rocky Mountain News.
Chris Matthews — on his show Hard Ball — tried to make the case that Libby lied to cover up some unknown transgression committed by Vice President Cheney. This, of course, is rediculous. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support this wild claim, and there’s plenty to refute it.
Because of the way that the media has covered this whole situation and the facts surrounding it, I’ve come to the conclusion this whole thing was a media driven political witchunt. It’s high time that the dinosaur media either cover the story fairly or drop the subject alltogether.
3/7/2007
I was truly dismayed yesterday to hear that “Scooter” Libby was convicted of perjury. The problem with this conviction is two fold. First and foremost, Libby’s defense rested on the premise that his memory was faulty. This rings true to me in that the other witnesses in the trial had faulty memories of the events as well, and as Byron York points out in his column in National Review Online Libby’s conviction rests solely on the credibility of Tim Russert.
What convinced jurors to convict Libby, apparently, was the credibility of a single prosecution witness, NBC’s Tim Russert. “I thought he was very credible,†Collins said of Russert. “A lot of people thought he was very credible.†And Russert was the key in more ways than one. It was his phone conversation with FBI agent Jack Eckenrode in November 2003 that let prosecutors know there was a conflict between his story and Libby’s, thus turning the CIA-leak investigation into a perjury probe. And it was his testimony—that he did not tell Libby about Valerie Plame Wilson, as Libby told the grand jury—that was the fatal blow to Libby’s defense.
Libby had claimed that Russert told him about Mrs. Wilson and that, even though he, Libby, had learned about her earlier, he had forgotten about her in the crush of events in July 2003, and thus was surprised, as if hearing it for the first time, when Russert mentioned it to him. Russert denied that, and his testimony simply overwhelmed Libby’s version of events.
And because the jury believed Russert, they tended to discount problems they had with the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. For example, some jurors simply did not trust Ari Fleischer—“Some said, ‘I don’t believe him, he was Slick Willie,’†said Denis Collins—but because they believed Russert, it appears they tended to accept the other accounts that jibed with his story, including Fleischer’s.
The other reason that this is a bad conviction is because there was no underlying crime. The prosecution knew long before they even interviewed Libby that Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was the one who “outed” Plame-Wilson. When you add to that the fact that Plame didn’t even fit the law’s description of a covert agent there truly wasn’t any reason to even interview Libby.
Fred Thompson covers all of the ins and outs of this miscarriage of justice in another National Review Online column today.
Doesn’t Patrick Fitzgerald look like a man who has dodged a bullet and is ready to get out of
town? That was my first impression after watching the special-prosecutor’s press conference after news came down Wednesday about Scooter Libby. It would seem that prosecuting a Bush official before a Washington jury is not necessarily a slam dunk after all when the gruel is this thin.Two crucial decisions were made in order for this sorry state of affairs to have played out this way. The first was when the Justice Department folded under political and media pressure because of the Plame leak and appointed a special counsel. When DOJ made the appointment they knew that the leak did not constitute a violation of the law. Yet, instead of standing on that solid legal ground they abdicated their official responsibility.
The Plame/Wilson defenders wanted administration blood because the administration had had the audacity to question the credibility of Joe Wilson and defend themselves against his charges. Therefore, the Department of Justice, in order to completely inoculate themselves, gave power and independence to Fitzgerald that was not available to Ken Starr, Lawrence Walsh, or any prior independent counsel under the old independent-counsel law. Fitzgerald became unique in our judicial history in that he was accountable to no one. And here even if justice had retained some authority they could hardly have asked Fitzgerald why he continued to pursue a non-crime because they knew from the beginning there was no crime.
In my opinion, President Bush should immediately pardon Libby, and the DOJ should open an investigation into how such a miscarriage of justice could happen.
 ***UPDATE 3:42 PM***
The Wall Street Journal Online has a great piece covering exactly what’s wrong with this prosecution and conviction.
In hindsight, the defense seems to have blundered by portraying Mr. Libby as the “fall guy” for others in the White House. That didn’t do enough to rebut Mr. Fitzgerald’s theory of the case, and so the jury seems to have decided that Mr. Libby must have been lying to protect something. The defense might have been better off taking on Mr. Fitzgerald for criminalizing political differences.
For that, in essence, is what this case is really all about. We learned long ago–and Mr. Fitzgerald knew from the start of his probe in 2003–that Mr. Libby was not the source of the leak to columnist Robert Novak that started all this. Mr. Libby thus had no real motive to cover up this non-crime. What he did have strong cause to do was rebut the lies that Mr. Wilson was telling about the Administration and Mr. Cheney–lies confirmed as lies by a bipartisan report of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004.
Go read the whole thing…
3/5/2007
Hillary Sure Hasn’t Lost Her Ability To Pander…
Hillary, Bill, and Barack made their appearances this weekend in Selma Alabama to commemorate “bloody Sunday”. At her appearance Hillary seemed to be channeling Scarlet O’hara… Well, see for yourself, and bear in mind that this was done in front of a predominately black congregation.
Frankly, if I was anyone in that congregation I would have been offended. What is this woman from New York City doing at the church pulpit using quite possibly the worst fake southern accent I’ve ever heard? Not only was it a horrible fake accent, it was used in a way that made southerners sound ignorant… of course, playing in to the left’s stereotypical view of anyone living south of the mason dixon line.
Now, here’s the other problem; has anyone heard the ACLU or atheists complaining about Hillary or Obama’s appearances at the pulpit? What about seperation of church and state that these groups scream about anytime a conservative group wants to put out their ideas? Furthermore, does anyone doubt that if Gulianni or Romney showed up at a church stumping for their presidential campaign the ACLU and atheists would have been all over them? I’m getting really tired of this double standard.