It’s Alito! Yeah So...Who’s Alito?

Today President Bush announced that his new nominee to the Supreme Court Justice would be Samuel Alito-55, currently a sitting judge on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.

Candidate Alito, graduate from Princeton and Yale Law School is well known as a strongly conservative judge who is sometimes called “Scalito” for his conservative record and his Italian heritage. He has been on the 3rd Circuit Court for 15 years. He has a long record for the Senate Liberals to evaluate so there should be no whining complaints from them about a lack of information on his background.

Judge Alito has acquired a reputation as a strong and intelligent voice on the court. He is considered to be as predictably Conservative as is Justice Scalia, but is considered to be less acerbic in demeanor, being generally less emotional and more polite than Scalia who is known for his sharp wit and stinging dissents.

As to the major issues, from his past court decisions:

• Roe v. Wade-He was the lone dissenter in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992. In which the 3rd Circuit Court struck down a Pennsylvania law requiring a married woman to notify her husband prior to having an abortion. The court’s decision was upheld by the SCOTUS in a 6-3 decision. The Justices supporting the decision were, O’Conner, Souter, Kennedy, Stevens, Blackmun, with Rhenquist concurring some and Scalia, White, and Thomas dissenting in part, and concurring in part.
• Civil Rights-In a sex-discrimination case Sheridan v. DuPont he dissented in his opinion by objecting only in the use of an absolute restriction: ”the majority here holds that when the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case and has offered enough evidence to support a finding that the explanation was pretextual, a defense motion for summary judgment or judgment as a matter of law must always be denied.” Judge Alito disagreed, stating that there are some occasions (by stare decisis) which contradict the use of the word always.
• Civil Rights-In Fatin v. INS he wrote the majority opinion stating that an Iranian woman could establish a valid claim for asylum by showing that she might be persecuted because of her gender, belief in feminism, membership in a feminist group, or failure to follow gender-specific laws such as those mandating she wear a veil in public.
• Civil Rights-In a freedom of speech case Saxe v. State College Area School District, he wrote the majority opinion striking down the schools anti-harassment rule restricting nonvulgar, non-school-sponsored speech posing no realistic threat of disruption to the learning environment.
• Civil Rights-In a sexual harassment/disabilities case, Shore Regional High School Board of Education v. P.S Alito wrote the majority opinion ruling that by not protecting a student from “severe and prolonged harassment” for not being athletically inclined, and because of his perceived sexual orientation the school failed to provide free access to education.
• Church-State “Separation”-He wrote a dissenting opinion in ACLU v. Schundler, supporting the right of a municipality to display a crèche and a menorah did not violate the Establishment Clause because it also incorporated secular features such as Frosty The Snowman and a banner proclaiming commitment to diversity.

Judge Alito has argued 12 cases before the Supreme Court. In his earlier career, Samuel Alito, Jr. began as a Law Clerk for Judge Leonard I. Garth of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals 1976-77. He was named Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, 1977-81. He was then Assistant to the U.S. Solictor General for the Reagan Department of Justice ’81-85 and then was named as the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, again for the Reagan Justice Department ’85-87. From 1987 until he was seated on the bench of the 3rd Circuit Court in 1990, he was the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey.

Basically what all this means is that Judge Samuel Alito, Jr. is imminently qualified to ascend to the Supreme Court of the United States. For the Democrats, this nomination is a nightmare. Why is that? Because he was unanimously approved by the Senate, including the extremists on the Left like Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Patrick Leahy, Chris Dodd, and Harry Reid. So what are they going to object to now? We know that they will object to him and vote against him, they have already come out whining. Edward (the Killer) Kennedy said:

“Rather than selecting a nominee for the good of the nation and the court, President Bush has picked a nominee whom he hopes will stop the massive hemorrhaging of support on his right wing. This is a nomination based on weakness, not on strength...

“Although he is clearly intelligent and experienced on the bench, that is only the beginning of our inquiry. If confirmed, Alito could very well fundamentally alter the balance of the court and push it dangerously to the right, placing at risk decades of American progress in safeguarding our fundamental rights and freedoms...”

So now, Conservatives are not just “heartless” and “uncaring,” but now, according to “the Killer,” we’re actually “dangerous.”

Leakey Leahy stated:

“This is a needlessly provocative nomination. Instead of uniting the country through his choice, the President has chosen to reward one faction of his party, at the risk of dividing the country. Instead he should have rewarded the American people. America could have done better through consultation to select one of the many consensus conservative Republican candidates who could have been overwhelmingly approved by the Senate...

“With the announcement of Judge Samuel Alito to fill the position being vacated by Justice O’Connor, the White House failed to follow through with initial discussions and engage in meaningful consultation. The Democratic Leader of the Senate and I wrote to the President last week, urging him to pick one of the many qualified mainstream women and minority candidates who can win widespread bipartisan support in the Senate and among the American people. I regret that the President has not chosen the clear path of a consensus candidate to unite the American people and the Senate. The nation and the Senate would have overwhelmingly welcomed his choice if he had.”

What’s that Patrick? “Blah, blah, blah, talking points, talking points, blah, blah, blah. President Bush didn’t do what we told him to do!” Well what do you expect; they are just parroting what their extreme Left-wing boss, Ralph Neas of People for the American Way told them to say:

“President Bush put the demands of his far-right political base above Americans’ constitutional rights and legal protections by nominating federal appeals court Judge Samuel Alito to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor...

“Replacing a mainstream conservative like Justice O’Connor with a far-right activist like Samuel Alito would threaten Americans’ rights and legal protections for decades. Justice O’Connor had a pivotal role at the center of the Court, often providing a crucial vote to protect privacy, civil rights, and so much more. All that would be at risk if she were replaced with Judge Alito, who has a record of ideological activism against privacy rights, civil rights, workers’ rights, and more...

“President Bush wasn’t willing to stand up to the far right, so Americans must count on senators to stand up for the Constitution. Americans will have to live with the next justice long after President Bush has left office. It is senators’ duty not to act as rubber stamps for the President’s nominees, but to examine all the evidence about the nominee’s record and make an independent judgment. We are confident that a careful examination of Samuel Alito’s record and judicial philosophy will ultimately lead to his rejection by the Senate.”

This is the same garbage the extremists of the Left tried to fling at Roberts, and I predict it will have the same result. The Left can come up with no arguments to detract form Judge Alito’s qualifications; he is entirely qualified as to temperament and experience. His hearings will probably sound like Roberts Redux. They hope to stop his nomination be lying about his record as they have already begun to do on the People for the American Way webpage. Their only weapons are those with which we have become so familiar, lies, half-truths, twisted words, and personal attacks on him and his family. I hope this to be so because the more they show their true nature, the more they will alienate the American voters.

My prediction is a Senate Judiciary Committee Approval, probably along party lines maybe with a couple of Democrat votes. That will be followed by a filibuster by the most extreme liberals in the Democrat Left-wing which will be broken by the “nuclear option.”

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

More Press Mountain Out of Scooter's Mole Hill

A Leak, Then a Deluge
Did a Bush loyalist, trying to protect the case for war in Iraq, obstruct an investigation into who blew the cover of a covert CIA operative?

By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 30, 2005; Page A01

Air Force Two arrived in Norfolk on Saturday morning, July 12, 2003, with Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff aboard. They had come "to send forth a great American ship bearing a great American name," as Cheney said from the flag-draped flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan.

As Cheney returned to Washington with I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the two men spoke of the news on Iraq -- the most ambitious use of the war machine Reagan built two decades before. A troublesome critic was undermining a principal rationale for the war: the depiction of Baghdad, most urgently by Cheney, as a nuclear threat to the United States.

Defending the war became the animating priority aboard Air Force Two that day. According to his indictment on Friday, Libby "discussed with other officials aboard the plane" how he should respond to "pending media inquiries" about the critic, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. Apart from Libby, only press aide Catherine Martin is known to have accompanied Cheney on that flight.

The crimes alleged in Libby's indictment would come later. But the flight from Norfolk marked a transition in the four-month slide from politics as usual -- close combat in defense of the president's policies -- to what a special prosecutor described as perjury and obstruction of justice. Summer would give way to fall before Libby reached the point of no return, with his first alleged lies to the FBI. But he skirted the line soon after stepping off the aircraft.

That Saturday afternoon, the indictment states, is when Libby confirmed for Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and disclosed to Judith Miller of the New York Times the classified fact that Wilson's wife, who was known as Valerie Plame, "worked at the CIA." Just over two weeks earlier, after a previous conversation with Cheney, Libby had told Miller more tentatively that Plame "might work at a bureau of the CIA."

It may never be clear what drove Libby, the most cautious of Washington insiders, to take such risks, ostensibly to protect the administration. In a news conference Friday, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald described the question as unanswerable so far. "If you're asking me what his motives were, I can't tell you; we haven't charged it," Fitzgerald said. The obstruction of his inquiry, he said, "prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make."

Libby's possible motive is only one of many unknowns left in the aftermath of Friday's indictment, which prompted the resignation of one of the most powerful figures in the White House and left the Bush administration reeling politically. Still to be determined is who first leaked Plame's name to syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak -- the original act that led to Fitzgerald's investigation -- and the roles of many other administration officials, including Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove.

Even so, the grand jury's 22-page indictment fleshes out a saga that has been largely shrouded for almost two years by grand jury secrecy. While Friday's disclosures allege no wrongdoing by Cheney, they place the vice president closer than has been known before to events at the heart of the case.

One notable disclosure is that Libby and Cheney made separate inquiries to the CIA about Wilson's wife, and each confirmed independently that she worked there. It was Cheney, the indictment states, who supplied Libby the detail "that Wilson's wife worked . . . in the Counterproliferation Division" -- an unambiguous declaration that her position was among the case officers of the operations directorate. That conversation took place on June 12, 2003, a month before the Norfolk flight and nearly two weeks before Libby first told a reporter about Plame's CIA affiliation.

Wilson was a former ambassador who traveled to Niger in February 2002 after Cheney requested elaboration on a Defense Department report -- based on erroneous information originating from the Italian security service -- that Iraq had an agreement to buy processed uranium ore, or "yellowcake." Upon his return, Wilson reported to CIA and State Department analysts that he had found no support for the allegation and had reasons to believe it was untrue. When the Bush administration nonetheless launched a public relations campaign that highlighted the uranium report -- most prominently in the president's State of the Union speech on Jan. 28, 2003 -- Wilson began raising questions among friends in government. In March, when the International Atomic Energy Agency exposed the documents as forged, a fact Wilson had not discovered, he began telling journalists in not-for-quotation interviews that the White House propounded a deliberate lie.

Wilson pressed himself fully into the spotlight in the late spring and early summer, a vulnerable moment for the president. The occupation of Iraq had turned unpredictably perilous, with casualties rising in an as-yet-unacknowledged insurgency and strong signs emerging that search teams were at a loss to discover evidence of "weapons of mass destruction."

The uranium claims had never been significant to career analysts -- Iraq had plenty already and lacked the means to enrich it. But the allegations proved irresistible to the White House Iraq Group, which devised the war's communications strategy and included Libby among its members. Every layman understood the connection between uranium and the bomb, participants in the group said in interviews at the time, and it was the easiest way for the Bush administration to raise alarms.

Really Barton, it was perfectly legitimate for the White House to defend its policies in Iraq from the lies, and make no mistake they were blatant lies, of Joe Wilson. Wilson was a political hack attempting to torpedo the Bush reelection campaign, and he was lying to do so. Those lies included his implication that he was sent to Niger by Dick Cheney and that he had debunked the French initiated, Italian executed, forged documents which he had never seen. As to your claim oft repeated by your allies in the Democrat Pary that this was an attack on Wilson using his wife, that doesn't hold water. Replying to an unprompted question from a reporter that you have heard something hardly adds up to a conspiracy to attack someones credibility. It's more reminiscent of the paranoid delusions of a disturbed has been mid-level ambassador.

Full Story: Barton's Bull

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Do We Really Need A Special Prosecutor?

Special Counsel's Value Is Upheld
Analysts Praise Probe's Autonomy

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 30, 2005; Page A14

Whether or not special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald wins a conviction against former vice presidential adviser I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, legal analysts say he already may have proved what many once doubted: that the Justice Department can deal credibly with allegations of White House wrongdoing.

The CIA leak case in the Bush White House is the first high-level scandal since 1999, when the federal law that had authorized past independent counsel investigations had been allowed to lapse because of frustration by both Republicans and Democrats with past inquiries' cost, length and lack of accountability.

But, the analysts say, Fitzgerald's investigation has maintained its focus, there have been no leaks from his grand jury and he has shown restraint by indicting just one person so far -- declining even to name publicly other people he might have targeted. The main reason his 22-month investigation has gone on so long is that he spent months in a related court fight over the right to question reporters about their confidential sources.

Fitzgerald's appointment "eliminated the risks of the old independent counsel statute, and it's worked just beautifully," said John Barrett, a professor of law at St. John's University who served as a senior aide to Iran-contra independent counsel Lawrence E. Walsh for five years. "It looks like a traditional, responsible, very aggressive but professional prosecutor's work."

The 1978 independent counsel law was enacted as a response to the 1973 "Saturday Night Massacre," in which President Richard Nixon ordered the firing of Archibald Cox, a Watergate special prosecutor who had been appointed by his own attorney general. That experience created a lasting concern about conflicts of interest within the executive branch.

Under the law, which was renewed every five years in slightly different versions, the independent counsel was appointed by a three-judge panel that was itself selected by the chief justice of the United States. The law survived a Supreme Court challenge from opponents who saw it as creating an unaccountable, fourth branch of government.

But after the Republican administration of President Ronald Reagan was bruised by Walsh's nearly seven-year investigation, and the administration of Democrat Bill Clinton was battered by Kenneth Starr's probe, Congress let the law expire in 1999.

And a damn good thing too. I do not believe we need to have "Special Prosecutors" fishing around for crimes which appear to have been created by the investigation itself. If they need to investigate a crime, the prosecutor needs to have a narrow scope of investigation focused only on the crime originally being investigated. As much as I dislike the fact that Louis Libby seems to have perjured himself in the Plame investigation, I am uncomfortable with the fact that the perjury came about due to the investigation and had nothing whatsoever to do with the original crime. This will lead to the criminalization of everything. Not good.

Full Story: Got You! Investigations

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Wishfull Thinking by Democrats Based On Dishonest Assessment

Conservatives' Tactics Against Miers May Backfire Next Time
Liberals Say the Rules Keep Changing

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 30, 2005; Page A04

Conservative activists crippled Harriet Miers's Supreme Court nomination largely by challenging her judicial philosophy, debating the importance of her religious beliefs, demanding to see White House documents and derailing her before she reached a Senate vote. Those tactics may make it harder for them to defend President Bush's next pick, expected by many to be a solid conservative, according to a number of Democrats, independent analysts and even some conservative commentators.

They are struck by differences between the Miers nomination process and that of John G. Roberts Jr., who was confirmed as chief justice a month ago. When liberals mentioned a possible filibuster of Roberts, Republicans insisted on an "up-or-down vote," which Miers never received. Virtually all GOP senators defended the White House's refusal to surrender documents concerning Roberts, but some of them demanded comparable documents regarding Miers.

And whereas Republicans said Roberts's religious beliefs should not be a subject of Senate inquiry, Bush cited Miers's church affiliation and religious convictions as one of her chief qualifications. Now the Democrats may be in a stronger position to wage a filibuster or demand more detailed documentation and explanation of the next nominee's positions if they conclude he or she is out of the judicial mainstream.

"The Republican senators are changing every rule they attempted to set" in the Roberts confirmation, said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), the Judiciary Committee's most senior member. "They flip-flopped on whether judicial philosophy and religious beliefs are appropriate" topics of Senate probing, he said. "And they flip-flopped on whether Harriet Miers deserved an up-or-down vote."

Marcia D. Greenberger, founder of the National Women's Law Center, said: "I don't know how people can, with a straight face, make some of the same arguments they made in the Roberts nomination after what they said so vociferously with Miers."

Some conservatives agree. Commentator Hugh Hewitt, in a New York Times op-ed column Friday, noted that several Senate Republicans campaigned in 2002 and 2004 on the "up-or-down vote" issue for judicial nominees. "Now, with the withdrawal of Harriet Miers under an instant, fierce and sometimes false assault from conservative pundits and activists, it will be difficult for Republican candidates to continue to make this winning argument: that Democrats have deeply damaged the integrity of the advice and consent process," wrote Hewitt, a law professor at Chapman University in California.

Many of his fellow conservatives reject this argument. "Harriet Miers was heading toward an up-or-down vote" when she decided to withdraw, said Brian McCabe, president of Progress for America, which backed Roberts and Miers. He said there was no talk of a filibuster -- in which 40 of the Senate's 100 members can prevent a question from reaching a vote.

Come on Charles. "Some conservatives agree?" Hugh Hewitt is not "some," but one. Most of us were willing to give Miss Miers her day in the sunshine, but our missgivings stemmed not from her religious beliefs, that was a red-herring put out there by the White House, nor from her philosophy (there were some who did question this). It stemmed from an apparent complete lack of qualifications for the position. Even Senator Specter, who Friday railed about not giving her a chance, said that she needed a crash course in Constitutional Law. That Senator is not what I would call a ringing endoresment. If Democrats choose to take this tack, they will have their posteriors handed to them for it.

Full Story: Dem Dreams

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Attention Conservatives, Support Your Troops!

Battling the Leftist Propaganda Machine

It's time to counter those anti-war Lefties once more. You can show your support by dropping by General Westley Clarke's WesPAC webpage and sending a message to your congressmen to support the effort to prevent Ed Schultz's radio program from being carried by Armed Forces Radio.

Of course this is exactly the opposite of the action intended by Westley Clarkes efforts, but as he is providing the vehicle to contact your representatives in Congress, and a form letter which you can edit to say whatever you wish, I see no reason not to use their facilities. Even better, you will recieve a thank-you e-mail from Wes Clarke.

The website provides direct e-mailing of your message to your people in Congress.

Of course you have to provide your home address and e-mail, but I like to get funny e-mails from idiot Liberals and Clarke is definitely one of those.

Here's the web address: WesPac

Have fun at their expense. I did. Oh yeah, do what I did, suggest that they add the Tony Snow show to the AFN broadcasts.

Remember you can say what you want and it goes out unfiltered.

Cheers!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Less Wishful Thinking, More Objective Analysis Mr. Weisman

The Rift's Repercussions Could Last Rest of Term

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 28, 2005; Page A08

The withdrawal of Harriet Miers's nomination to the Supreme Court yesterday was a triumph for conservative activists, but some of the drama's lead players said the bruising battle between erstwhile allies may have left scars for the remainder of President Bush's term.

Those who opposed Miers as insufficiently qualified and unreliably conservative said yesterday they would use their new zeal and organization to drive Bush not only to pick an outwardly conservative nominee but also to press a more conservative agenda through his last three years in office. Some accused those who stuck with Miers as showing themselves more loyal to the White House than their stated conservative principles.

Those who stuck with Miers warned that the White House will long remember the activists who turned on the president's nominee and are not likely to be receptive to their demands.

"This is an enormously significant event for conservatives, no doubt about that," said Manuel A. Miranda, a former top aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), who led the conservative drive to scuttle Miers's confirmation. "It will be stamped across our foreheads for years: Which side were you on in the Miers fight?"

Without doubt, Miers's nomination stirred passions among conservatives that have lain dormant for much of the Bush presidency. Richard A. Viguerie, an architect of the conservative movement, said activists held their tongues for nearly five years as Bush expanded the federal role in education, imposed tariffs on imported steel, secured a prescription drug benefit for Medicare, and oversaw the rapid expansion of federal spending.

"But we did that because it was all about the courts, all about the courts, all about the courts," Viguerie said. "Then when he betrayed us on a Supreme Court nominee, that just woke us all up."

Sometimes it just escapes me how some of the guys keep their jobs. This "analysis" is so far off that it could pass for parody. This was no rift, it was a family squabble. The Republican Party emerges stronger and more united. Democrats are growing more and more desperate as they see their dreams of winning back the Congress and White House fade into the mist. As these minor bumps such as the non-crime of Valerie Plame Wilsons "exposure" and the trumped up charges against DeLay get resolved, the Democrats are going to come off as the petty, vindictive, haters they are.

Full Story: Republican Unity

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Courts Continue to Work Against Fair, Valid Elections

Voter ID Law Is Overturned
Georgia Can No Longer Charge For Access to Nov. 8 Election

By Darryl Fears
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 28, 2005; Page A03

In a case that some have called a showdown over voting rights, a U.S. appeals court yesterday upheld an injunction barring the state of Georgia from enforcing a law requiring citizens to get government-issued photo identification in order to vote.

The ruling allows thousands of Georgians who do not have government-issued identification, such as driver's licenses and passports, to vote in the Nov. 8 municipal elections without obtaining a special digital identification card, which costs $20 for five years. In prior elections, Georgians could use any one of 17 types of identification that show the person's name and address, including a driver's license, utility bill, bank statement or a paycheck, to gain access to a voting booth.

Last week, when issuing the injunction, U.S. District Judge Harold L. Murphy likened the law to a Jim Crow-era poll tax that required residents, most of them black, to pay back taxes before voting. He said the law appeared to violate the Constitution for that reason. In the 2004 election, about 150,000 Georgians voted without producing government-issued identification.

"Obviously, we're very pleased with the decision," said Daniel Levitas of the American Civil Liberties Union, which joined the NAACP and other groups in a federal lawsuit against the Georgia law. "It's especially timely to see the federal courts step in to protect the precious rights of voters. This decision confirms our contention that the Georgia ID law poses a constitutional hurdle to the right to vote."

State officials say they will challenge the decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that was handed down by Judges Frank M. Hull, Stanley F. Birch Jr. and Joel F. Dubina. Birch and Dubina were appointed by President George H. W. Bush, and Hull was named to the appellate court by President Bill Clinton. The case is being watched nationally as Republicans and Democrats in many states battle over who will be allowed on the voter rolls.

The Georgia ID law has been controversial from the day it was submitted in March. Conservative lawmakers said it was needed to limit elections fraud. Liberal lawmakers said that argument was a smokescreen masking another intent: to maintain Republican power in the state by diluting the minority vote, which typically goes to Democrats.

Democrats are ever reliable in working to undermine the electoral system using fraudulent voters. This 11th Circuit Court ruling needs to be slapped down. The integrity of our voter rolls is fundamental to the validity of our elections. Since we now know that the vast majority of voter fraud is committed by Demorats, it stands to reason that they would oppose any reasonable attempt to insure the integrity of the system.

Full Story: 11th Circuit-Fraud Okay

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Wide-spread Corruption In U.N. Dealings with Iraq

U.N. Panel Says 2,400 Firms Paid Bribes to Iraq
Oil-for-Food Program Report Alleges $1.8 Billion in Payments

By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 28, 2005; Page A16

UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 27 -- More than 2,400 businesses, including scores of international shell companies and major blue-chip European firms such as Siemens and DaimlerChrysler, paid nearly $1.8 billion in illegal kickbacks to the former Iraqi government through the U.N. oil-for-food program, according to a report by a U.N. committee investigating misconduct.

The 623-page report, which was presented Thursday by former Federal Reserve chairman Paul A. Volcker, the head of the Independent Inquiry Committee, is the most detailed account of how Iraq persuaded almost half of its 4,500 trading partners in more than 60 countries to circumvent U.N. sanctions by secretly channeling kickbacks into Baghdad-controlled Jordanian banks.

The report also shows how French and Russian diplomats, business executives, U.N. officials and anti-sanctions advocates, including a former Vatican official, either solicited oil trade from Iraqi officials on behalf of companies or benefited financially from the program.

After the report was released, Volcker and his top advisers pleaded with the 191-member U.N. General Assembly to change U.N. business practices to prevent future abuses. But he received a chilly response from Costa Rican and Mexican officials, who complained about not being formally given copies of the report. They also questioned why Volcker was raising the matter with the assembly when the Security Council bears primary responsibility for mismanaging the program.

Volcker said design and management failures that permitted the abuses in the oil-for-food program permeate the United Nations. He noted that the failure to institute administrative changes to confront the flaws will lead the world body to repeat its mistakes, further undermining its credibility.

The release of Volcker's fifth and final report marked the end of a $35 million, 18-month investigation into abuses in the United Nations's largest humanitarian program. U.N. investigators expect criminal prosecutors in the United States and other countries to follow up on the report's findings and investigate the firms and individuals named in the report.

Federal and state prosecutors in New York have already charged more than a dozen companies and executives with paying bribes to the former Iraqi government. The Securities and Exchange Commission is conducting its own inquiry into Iraqi businesses.

Texas oil tycoon Oscar S. Wyatt Jr., the former chairman of Coastal Corp., pleaded not guilty Thursday in New York to charges that he paid bribes. The report says Wyatt-controlled firms paid more than $7 million in illegal surcharges. Wyatt has denied wrongdoing through his attorney.

Iraq used its oil wealth to influence some countries' policies at the United Nations, rewarding Russia $19 billion in oil contracts and France $4.4 billion in deals, according to the report. The report notes that numerous U.S. companies, prevented from directly entering the trade, established subsidiaries in France to do business in Iraq.

I think these revelations more than explain the true reason that Russia and France were so inflexible in their opposition to Americas efforts against Iraq. All of the time we were seeking UN support for action against Saddam Hussein's government, the French and Russians were active lobbying against us. The French have now very clearly been exposed as more of an enemy than an ally. As a result of this information, they should be treated as a hostile nation and we should sanction them with trade restrictions and tarrifs.

Full Story: Our French "Allies" Exposed

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

With Conservative Pick, President Will Rebound Quickly

A Weakened President Faces New Risks

By Dan Balz and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, October 28, 2005; Page A01

President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers on Oct. 3 was made from a position of weakness by a White House beset by political problems and eager to avoid a fight over the Supreme Court. Twenty-four excruciating days later, the supposed safe choice crashed, exposing the president as even weaker than before.

Bush now has an opportunity to recover from one of the biggest political miscalculations of his term, the failure to anticipate the backlash Miers would cause with his own conservative base. But in repairing that breach, he risks a new confrontation with Democrats and further estrangement from the political center -- precisely the situation he hoped to avoid when he tapped his loyal and unassuming personal lawyer in the first place.

Few Republicans in Washington saw the timing of Miers's withdrawal as coincidental. With potential indictments of senior White House officials looming in the CIA leak case, the president could ill afford a sustained and increasingly raw rupture within the GOP coalition.

The Miers nomination was more than a humiliation for Bush, however. It was an episode that seemed wholly out of character with the president's style. No Republican president -- not even Ronald Reagan -- has catered to the right more methodically than Bush. But on a matter of first-order significance to many conservatives, the president let personal loyalty override what had been a central tenet of his political strategy.

Across Washington yesterday, there were all manner of explanations being offered: that special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's leak investigation had distracted top advisers such as White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove; that growing insularity within the president's inner circle had skewed his judgment; that Bush had grown cocksure, blithely assuming conservatives would respect the choice because it came from him.

The uproar over Miers was distinctive in another way: The loudest opposition came from conservative intellectuals, not grass-roots activists. Bush's team managed at first to keep cultural and religious conservatives divided over Miers with aggressive lobbying of leading figures such as Focus on the Family's James C. Dobson, who endorsed Miers immediately. But they could not withstand the battering that came from opinion-shapers such as columnists George Will and Charles Krauthammer, Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol and former White House speechwriter David Frum. By the end, even Dobson announced he probably would have reversed course and opposed her.

Nor in the end could Bush stand up to the barrage of criticism coming from Capitol Hill, where the nominee's meetings with senators stirred unease about her prospects of surviving the grilling that was coming in confirmation hearings. Rarely has a nominee faced the kind of criticism that Miers heard from Republican leaders such as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (Pa.).

This convergence of special factors in the Miers situation makes its long-term impact hard to predict. A number of Republicans said yesterday that, assuming Bush selects a new nominee widely judged to be well qualified, the damage may dissipate quickly. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) described Miers's withdrawal as "a speed bump" that will have no lasting significance. Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, said, "The sense was of disappointment, not of betrayal."

Far from being "weakened," this whole affair has strengthened the Republican party and the President because it reconfirmed that the strength of the party lies in its conservative base. Republicans again and again have to be reminded that "fortune favors the bold" and that they are most successful when they are unapologetically faithful to their conservative ideals. Everytime the Republicans attempt to reachout to the left, they get burned, and everytime they hold the line and stay truly conservative they win big.

Full Story: Apres L'Affair Miers

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Hooray! Now Bush Can Really Lay the Wood to the Left

Miers withdraws nomination

Thu Oct 27, 2005 9:37 AM ET
By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, White House counsel Harriet Miers, abruptly withdrew from consideration on Thursday after fierce criticism from the right and the left about her credentials for the lifetime job.

Bush said in a statement he reluctantly accepted her withdrawal and would move in a timely manner to fill the vacancy left open by the pending retirement of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

In a letter to Bush released by the White House, Miers said she was concerned that the Senate confirmation process "presents a burden for the White House and our staff that is not in the best interest of the country."

Some opponents had mounted a campaign to force her withdrawal and some conservative senators had expressed doubts as to whether Miers was sufficiently conservative to move the divided nine-member high court firmly to the right.

Some Democrats were also skeptical about whether she was against a woman's right to abortion, a hugely divisive issue that could come before the Supreme Court.

As a reason for pulling out, Miers, 60, cited the need to maintain privacy of internal records of her White House service that members of Congress wanted to see but Bush wanted to keep confidential.

"I have been informed repeatedly that in lieu of records, I would be expected to testify about my service in the White House to demonstrate my experience and judicial philosophy," Miers wrote.

This is great news for Conservatives. Miers was far too much of an unknown quantity. Her nomination was one of President Bush's worst decisions, and now at last that has been rectified. Harriett Miers did the best thing for the Nation and the President. We should applaud her for her good judgment. Now Mr. President please nominate a strong, unapologetic Conservative like Janice Rogers Brown. Please, Please, Please, Janice Rogers Brown.

Full Story: Miers Graciously Bows Out

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Democrats Need To "Beware the Log In Their Own Eyes"

Democrats try on ethics issue for size
Republicans poised to counter any attacks with claims of their own

By BENNETT ROTH and SAMANTHA LEVINE
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - As Republican political troubles mount on the national scene, Democrats hope to pick up seats in Congress next year by portraying the White House and its allies as incompetent, corrupt and lacking in compassion for the poor.

Republicans, however, dismiss the Democratic strategy, arguing that their opponents have failed to offer any plans to deal with pressing issues.

If Democrats try to exploit the ethics issue, Republicans threaten to hammer away at the legal problems of Democratic lawmakers over the years.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., suggested at a news conference on terrorism Wednesday that the White House has mismanaged a range of issues.

"As with Iraq, as with Katrina, so too with fighting terrorism, the Bush administration does not have a plan," she said. "America can do better," Pelosi added, using the Democrats' new slogan.

Democrats, surrounded by victims of Hurricane Katrina, this week criticized efforts by Republicans to make deep cuts in social programs to pay for storm relief.

With the prospects of indictments of top White House officials in the leaking of the name of a CIA agent, Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean said his party will stop the "culture of corruption that the Republicans have brought to Washington and to statehouses all around the country."

Okay, if you don't like Biblical quotations, how about "People who live in glass houses..." I've been talking about this for some time. The corruption in the Democrat party is so prevalent that they are taking a big chance in using "corruption" as a central pillar of their campaigns. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Okay Pelosi, Dean, bring it on!

Full Story: Pot to Kettle "Your Black"

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

I'm So, So, Happy That This Man Was Not Elected

Kerry Urges U.S. to Start Withdrawal From Iraq
Senator's Timetable Specifies 15 Months

By Chris Cillizza and Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, October 27, 2005; Page A03

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) yesterday called for the withdrawal of 20,000 troops from Iraq by year's end as the first step in a proposal that would significantly reduce U.S. military forces in the region over the next 15 months.

Kerry offered a middle ground between those advocating an immediate drawdown of the more than 150,000 U.S. troops stationed in Iraq and the Bush administration, which has declined to set a timetable for a decreased U.S. military presence.

"The way forward in Iraq is not to pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay 'as long as it takes,' " Kerry said during an address at Georgetown University. "We must instead simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces."

Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, is the highest-profile figure in either party to back a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq. Kerry's decision to announce his proposal comes amid a crop of national opinion polls showing the war growing increasingly unpopular among Democrats, independents and even Republicans.

Kerry is not the first Democratic senator to call for a phased pullout. In mid-August, Russell Feingold (Wis.) set December 2006 as the end date for a significant U.S. military presence in Iraq. Both Kerry and Feingold are weighing presidential runs in 2008.

Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, recently suggested developing a timeline for a contingent withdrawal plan designed to give Iraqis more incentive to take control of their country. His counterpart on the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), has similarly suggested bringing U.S. troops home as Iraqi forces build.

Under Kerry's plan, the first wave of U.S soldiers would leave after Iraq's planned Dec. 15 parliamentary elections, with the "bulk of American combat forces" withdrawn by the end of 2006.

Bush administration officials and military commanders have strongly resisted the idea of setting any timetable, in part because the insurgency has remained active and large swaths of Iraq remain insecure. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said any withdrawal will be "conditions-based," relying on the success of the Iraqi government, the status of the insurgency, and the strength of the Iraqi security forces.

Just imagine having a president whose vision has been shaped solely by our failure in Vietnam. His only understanding of warfare is that we should abandon our allies to their enemies out of political expediency. A President willing to abandon his position because of public reaction or more correctly the reaction of the press would be an unmitigated disaster. We don't need a President who would be ruled by the New York Times or by world opinion. Do we want the French to dictate American policy?

Full Story: Disaster Averted

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Heating Aid Program, Typical Government Program

Bid for More Home Heating Aid Fails in Senate

Associated Press
Thursday, October 27, 2005; Page A02

The Senate decided yesterday the money was not there for a substantial spending boost for the federal home heating program, deflecting arguments that soaring energy prices could force the poor to choose between heat and food this winter.

Senators voted 54 to 43 in favor of a proposal to boost the fiscal 2006 budget for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program from $2.2 billion to $5.1 billion. A 60-vote majority was needed to approve new spending not coupled with equivalent spending cuts.

Northern senators who pushed for increased spending for the program, led by Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), argued that low-income families would be particularly hurt by the surge in fuel costs.

People could have to "choose between keeping the heat on, putting food on the table or buying much-needed prescription drugs," Collins said. "No family should need to make such terrible choices."

Reed cited estimates that those who heat their homes with fuel oil will need $1,600 this winter, up $380, and the cost of using natural gas for heating could rise $500, to $1,400.

The Senate also defeated, 53 to 46, an alternative put forward by Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) that would have increased spending on the program by about $1.3 billion. The measure would have paid for the increase with an across-the-board cut of almost 1 percent in programs included in a $146 billion spending bill covering health, education and labor programs.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said that education grants for low-income children would be cut by $118 million, affecting 37,000 youths, and that Head Start would lose $63 million.

It was the third time this month that Reed unsuccessfully offered a LIHEAP amendment to a spending bill. He said he would keep trying.

This is so very typical of government programs. Does anyone remember when this program was first created? It was going to be a temporary measure to assist those in the north who were faced with unprecedented increases in heating oil prices due to the Oil Embargo. That embargo ended two decades ago. There is nothing unexpected in the higher oil prices of today. This is another tax-money give away by those in Congress with socialist leanings which has metasticized into another entitlement.

Full Story: Senate Actually Acts Responsibly

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

More Disappointing News for Democrats and MSM

The New Sunni Jihad: 'A Time for Politics'
Tour With Iraqi Reveals Tactical Change

By Ghaith Abdul-Ahad
Special to The Washington Post
Thursday, October 27, 2005; Page A01

NORTH OF BAGHDAD -- For weeks before Iraq's constitutional referendum this month, Iraqi guerrilla Abu Theeb traveled the countryside just north of Baghdad, stopping at as many Sunni Arab houses and villages as he could. Each time, his message to the farmers and tradesmen he met was the same: Members of the disgruntled Sunni minority should register to vote -- and vote against the constitution.

"It is a new jihad," said Abu Theeb, a nom de guerre that means "Father of the Wolf," addressing a young nephew one night before the vote. "There is a time for fighting, and a time for politics."

For Abu Theeb and many other Iraqi insurgents, this canvassing marked a fundamental shift in strategy, and one that would separate them from foreign-born fighters such as Abu Musab Zarqawi, the Jordanian who leads the group al Qaeda in Iraq.

Two years of boycotting the process had only marginalized Sunnis while Iraqi's Shiite majority gained power. And Abu Theeb's entry into politics was born partly of necessity; attacks by Shiite militias, operating inside and outside the government security apparatus, were taking an increasing toll on Sunni lives.

So at 6:30 a.m. on the day of the referendum, Oct. 15, Theeb was already at the polling center in his village, which he had scouted out days in advance. Two of his fighters took up positions. Abu Theeb and the rest of the fighters, more relaxed, propped their Kalashnikov rifles against walls or placed them on tables.

"No one will attack," Abu Theeb assured a reporter. "I made sure some wrongdoers are protecting the school," he said, jokingly referring to al Qaeda loyalists. To head off any violence, he had co-opted the group by enlisting two of its supporters as his polling site guards.

Oh dear, what are the Democrat naysayers going to do? Drat, another sign of success in Iraq. First Democrats are forced to suffer through a record military victory, their only bright spot being the insurrection. Then they are made to live through the capture of Saddam Hussein. Following that is that danged first election, and the terrorists didn't even blow anyone up. Next they have to suffer the indignity of watching the free Iraqis approve the new constitution (all you can do is attempt to discredit the document). Your only bright spot is the certitude that the Sunnis aren't going to participate, and now this. DRAT!

Full Story: Sunnis Join In

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Last Minute Activity Indicates Desperation to Justify Investigation

Grand Jury Hears Summary of Case On CIA Leak Probe
Decision on Charges May Come Friday

By Carol D. Leonnig and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, October 27, 2005; Page A01

The prosecutor in the CIA leak investigation presented a summary of his case to a federal grand jury yesterday and is expected to announce a final decision on charges in the two-year-long probe tomorrow, according to people familiar with the case.

Even as Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald wrapped up his case, the legal team of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove has been engaged in a furious effort to convince the prosecutor that Rove did not commit perjury during the course of the investigation, according to people close to the aide. The sources, who indicated that the effort intensified in recent weeks, said Rove still did not know last night whether he would be indicted.

Fitzgerald is completing his probe of whether senior administration officials broke the law by disclosing the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame to the media in the summer of 2003 to discredit her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, an administration critic. The grand jury's term will expire Friday.

But after grand jurors left the federal courthouse before noon yesterday, it was unclear whether Fitzgerald had spelled out the criminal charges he might ask them to consider, or whether he had asked them to vote on any proposed indictments. Fitzgerald's legal team did not present the results of a grand jury vote to the court yesterday, which he is required to do within days of such a vote.

Yesterday's three-hour grand jury session came after agents and prosecutors this week conducted last-minute interviews with Adam Levine, a member of the White House communications team at the time of the leak, about his conversations with Rove, and with Plame's neighbors in the District.

Should he need more time to finish the investigation, Fitzgerald could seek to empanel a new group of grand jurors to consider the case. But sources familiar with the prosecutor's work said he has indicated he is eager to avoid that route. The term of the current grand jury has been extended once and cannot be lengthened again, according to federal rules.

The down-to-the-wire moves in Fitzgerald's investigation have made for a harrowing week at the White House, where officials are girding for at least one senior administration official to be indicted, according to aides.

What is it with the sudden rush to action by this Special Prosecutor? Is this a sign that he has nothing with which to validate his assignment? It is beginning to look like the Republicans were right in talking about token charges. Is it really a crime to make mistatements to a grand jury investigating a crime that never occurred? While it is true that perjury is a serious crime, how can you, in good concious, find someone guilty of lying about something that never occurred?

Full Story: Fitzgerald's Folly?

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Canadian Whine: Who Cares, Canada Needs Us More Than We Need Them

In Ottawa, Rice Seeks to Temper Bitterness About Bush Policies
Many in Poll See Americans As 'Rude, Greedy and Violent'

By Doug Struck
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, October 26, 2005; Page A10

TORONTO, Oct. 25 -- As relations between the U.S. and Canadian governments have increasingly soured, Americans here are being viewed with suspicion, derided in jokes and shunned as representatives of a sinister force.

One quick way for dinner speakers in Canada to win applause is to take verbal shots at the United States. President Bush is a frequent target of newspaper columnists. Pollster Michael Adams said Canadian views of the United States this month are the most unfavorable he has seen in 25 years. His findings coincide with the results of a survey of 17,000 Canadians in June by the Pew Research Center in which 53 percent viewed Americans as "rude, greedy and violent."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Ottawa Monday and Tuesday to try to soothe the rancor. She spoke warmly of the friendship between the North American neighbors. "This is a relationship that is deep and broad and good," she said in an appearance Tuesday with Foreign Minister Pierre Pettigrew.

But her arrival served to remind Canadians of their irritation with the United States. In April, Rice pointedly canceled a visit to Canada as a diplomatic rebuke for its decision not to participate in the Bush administration's missile defense system. The decision broke a long tradition of visits to Canada by incoming secretaries of state.

The Toronto Star newspaper noted Monday that Rice visited 39 countries, traveled 167,366 miles and spent 357 hours in the air "before making the 90-minute hop to Ottawa."

Her presence this week also gave Prime Minister Paul Martin and members of Parliament an opportunity to state their grievances against the U.S. government.

Top on their list is the U.S. refusal to accept rulings under the North American Free Trade Agreement that the United States has illegally collected nearly $4 billion in tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber imports. The Bush administration views the issue as an arcane trade dispute and Rice asked Tuesday that Canadians "keep this in perspective." But to Canadians, it has become a searing symbol of arrogance and hubris by the Bush administration.

Blaring newspaper headlines have described the U.S. government as a "bully" and "outlaw." The national tenor was captured in a blunt question to Rice on Tuesday by a reporter in Ottawa: "If you don't live up to a decision with your closest neighbor, how will other countries around the world trust the United States?"

In response, Rice urged Canadians "not to speak in apocalyptic language," and she insisted the U.S. commitment "has been as good as gold."

Martin, though, has been persistent on the issue. "Friends live up to their agreements," he scolded when asked about the U.S. position in a news conference Monday. In a telephone conversation with Bush on Oct. 14, Martin rejected the president's request to negotiate the tariff issue, saying Canada "would not negotiate a win," according to an account by Martin's office uncontested by the White House.

Hey Martin, friends don't act snarky, sneer at, don't snipe behind their back, make cheap jokes at their friends. It's a two way street. How can you expect me to respect you if you show us no respect. Perhaps, if you were more respectful of your "friends," you would get more respect?

Full Story: Condi Soothes Canadian Hurt

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Brown Was Not Fired, He Was Planning to Leave Before Katrina

Brown Had Resignation Plans Before Katrina Hit

By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Michael D. Brown was days away from announcing plans to resign as director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency when Hurricane Katrina hit Aug. 29, according to e-mails released by separate House and Senate investigations into the government's flawed response to the disaster.

Sen. Susan M. Collins (R-Maine), chairman of the Senate investigation, questioned whether Brown's status played a role in the response.

"The fact that it appears that Michael Brown was planning to resign may explain in part his curious detachment during the Katrina catastrophe," Collins said.

The e-mails also suggest that the administration knew Brown was on the verge of departing when he was recalled as head of the sluggish rescue and relief efforts for the New Orleans area.

Brown resigned on Sept. 12, but the Department of Homeland Security then contracted with him at his full $148,000-a-year salary to serve as a consultant on a review of the response to Hurricane Katrina. The consulting arrangement, initially set to end Oct. 10, has been extended by four weeks, department spokesman Russ Knocke said.

Collins was "surprised to learn" that Brown's consulting deal has been extended, she said, because Michael P. Jackson, deputy secretary of homeland security, told her it would last 30 days.

Knocke said Brown "is transitioning out of a job he held for three years, transferring relevant documents and data and his experiences at the agency."

Brown had privately shared his intentions with acquaintances, and FEMA announced in the aftermath of Brown's resignation that the director of the agency's recovery division, Daniel A. Craig, had also planned to leave a month later.

Brown had privately shared his intentions with acquaintances, and FEMA announced in the aftermath of Brown's resignation that the director of the agency's recovery division, Daniel A. Craig, had also planned to leave a month later.

In an Aug. 31 e-mail to FEMA aide James Tillie, Brown wrote, "I should have done my announcement a week early." That evening, Craig wrote to Brown: "We need to get this done right or neither of us are leaving on great terms . . . and we were days away."

Well this would explain his in attention to the aftermath of Katrina. Bush was ill-served by this man whose attention was obviously focused elsewhere.

Original Post: Michael Brown "Disinterested"

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Stephen, I Don't Want Your Opinion On How The Constitution Should Read

In Print: Bookends of Ideology

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 26, 2005; Page A17

One of the Supreme Court's more interesting internal dynamics is the intellectual sparring between two former law professors, Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen G. Breyer.

Scalia, the conservative, wants the court's interpretations of the law to stick as closely as possible to the text of statutes and the original meaning of the Constitution; Breyer, the liberal, argues just as forcefully that this approach is narrow and impractical. It's a battle of ideas that has been waged in their opinions, their remarks at oral argument -- even in a televised debate at American University in January.

Now Breyer has taken his side of the argument to the next level, publishing a book called "Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution" about how justices should decide cases. It is based on speeches he gave as the Tanner Lectures on Human Values at Harvard University last year -- just as Scalia's 1997 manifesto, "A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law," was based on Scalia's 1994-1995 Tanner Lectures.

Breyer's thesis is that justices must be guided by the broad democratic purposes embodied in the Constitution's various provisions, rather than its words alone. As an example, he writes that campaign finance regulations are constitutional because they "help further the kind of open public discussion that the First Amendment seeks to sustain, both as an end, and as a means of achieving a workable democracy."

In an interview about his book, Breyer said that it is not a direct riposte to Scalia's but acknowledged, "I have to, of course, describe the views of those who disagree with my approach."

Stephen, when you achieve the brilliance of our founding fathers and have an equal understanding of government and how a republic should be run, then maybe I'll consider you qualified to edit their work.

Full Story: Breyer's Ego

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

The Difference Between Lying and Forgetting

What's a Little Lying Between Friends?

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 25, 2005; 11:18 AM

"Some perjury technicality"?

Did Kay Bailey Hutchison really say that?

She must have. It was on "Meet the Press."

Is this the Republican strategy for dealing with any CIA leak indictments? Saying no real crimes were committed, just a teensy weensy bit of perjury? Turning Patrick Fitzgerald into Ken Starr?

I hasten to add that I have no idea whether anyone will be indicted. I've never met Pat Fitzgerald, and I had problems with the way he threatened reporters with jail, but as the U.S. attorney in Chicago who went after some Daley cronies, he has a sterling reputation.

It is true that prosecutors who can't prove the original crime often wind up bringing perjury and obstruction charges. But lying to investigators, or to a federal grand jury, strikes at the heart of the law-enforcement process. This happens to be the message that GOPers pounded over and over again when Clinton dissembled over Monica, so surely they take it seriously. Or is that only when a Democrat is president?

Hutchison likened the senior administration officials who might or might not be indicted to Martha Stewart, who was only charged with a cover-up (lying about insider trading is okay as long as you're not convicted of insider trading? Well, Martha did get two TV shows, even though one is tanking). The Texas senator also complained about "sort of a gotcha mentality in this country," which again, try as I might, I can't remember being a significant Republican complaint during the prosecutions of the Clinton years.

It instantly occurred to me that I might check what Sen. Hutchison had to say during the Lewinsky scandal. But in the blog world, somebody's already thought of your best idea five minutes ago. So before I could type in the Nexis search, I saw that Michael Crowley , on the New Republic's new group grope "The Plank," has this:

"Hmm . . . That's not the tune Hutchison was singing back when Bill Clinton was caught with his hands in the intern jar. Here's the February 13, 1999 Dallas Morning News:

" 'The principle of the rule of law-- equality under the law and a clear standard for perjury and obstruction of justice-- was the overriding issue in this impeachment,' said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who also voted 'guilty' on both counts."

Boy Howard, you reporters really have a problem with understanding the difference between intentionally deceiving a grand jury ("I did not have sex with that woman...")or a Senate Committee while under oath ("I don't recall that, Senator") and forgetting what you said the last time you were called before the grand jury months before, without the help of a lawyer to refresh your memory (in the Senate hearing you are allowed to have a lawyer present). Of course, if someone intentionally deceived the grand jury or special prosecutor, then they should throw the book at them. But what Kay Bailey Hutchison is correct.

Full Story: Kurtz's Confusion

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Cheney's Right: Boil These Animals in Oil

Cheney Plan Exempts CIA From Bill Barring Abuse of Detainees

By R. Jeffrey Smith and Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, October 25, 2005; Page A01

The Bush administration has proposed exempting employees of the Central Intelligence Agency from a legislative measure endorsed earlier this month by 90 members of the Senate that would bar cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoners in U.S. custody.

The proposal, which two sources said Vice President Cheney handed last Thursday to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the company of CIA Director Porter J. Goss, states that the measure barring inhumane treatment shall not apply to counterterrorism operations conducted abroad or to operations conducted by "an element of the United States government" other than the Defense Department.

Although most detainees in U.S. custody in the war on terrorism are held by the U.S. military, the CIA is said by former intelligence officials and others to be holding several dozen detainees of particular intelligence interest at locations overseas -- including senior al Qaeda figures Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaida.

Cheney's proposal is drafted in such a way that the exemption from the rule barring ill treatment could require a presidential finding that "such operations are vital to the protection of the United States or its citizens from terrorist attack." But the precise applicability of this section is not clear, and none of those involved in last week's discussions would discuss it openly yesterday.

McCain, the principal sponsor of the legislation, rejected the proposed exemption at the meeting with Cheney, according to a government source who spoke without authorization and on the condition of anonymity. McCain spokeswoman Eileen McMenamin declined to comment. But the exemption has been assailed by human rights experts critical of the administration's handling of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"This is the first time they've said explicitly that the intelligence community should be allowed to treat prisoners inhumanely," said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "In the past, they've only said that the law does not forbid inhumane treatment." Now, he said, the administration is saying more concretely that it cannot be forbidden.

The provision in question -- which the Senate on Oct. 5 voted 90 to 9 to attach to its version of the pending defense appropriations bill over the administration's opposition -- essentially proscribes harsh treatment of any detainees in U.S. custody or control anywhere in the world. It was specifically drafted to close what its backers say is a loophole in the administration's policy of generally barring torture, namely its legal contention that these constraints do not apply to treatment of foreigners on foreign soil.

The House version of the appropriations bill contains no similar provision on detainee treatment, and lawmakers are to meet later this week to begin reconciling the conflict.

Cheney's meeting with McCain last week was his third attempt to persuade the lawmaker, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, to accept a less broad legislative bar against inhumane treatment. Cheney spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride declined to comment, saying, "the vice president does not discuss private conversations that he has with members [of Congress] . . . or information that may be exchanged with members."

She added that the intent of such meetings is usually "to build consensus on legislative issues, still in the policymaking process." CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, a former Cheney aide, said the agency does not comment on the director's meetings.

Other sources said the vice president is also still fighting a second provision of the Senate-passed legislation, which requires that detainees in Defense Department custody anywhere in the world may be subjected only to interrogation techniques approved and listed in the Army's Field Manual.

This concept is absurd. We are not fighting a normal enemy here. These people have no compunction about using the most heinous forms of treatment of Americans they have in custody. It does not matter to them if we put their people up in the Waldorf Astoria, they are still going to brutalize and murder the Americans. They only see our good treatment of their people as a sign of our weakness. McCain needs to shut up and go home. He is a fool and an embarrassment to America. He served America and for that I thank him, but it does not entitle him to behave like an ass.

Full Story: They're Criminals not POWs

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Milbank and Pincus, Your Biases Are Showing

Husband Is Conspicuous in Leak Case
Wilson's Credibility Debated as Charges In Probe Considered

By Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, October 25, 2005

To his backers, Joseph C. Wilson IV is a brave whistle-blower wronged by the Bush administration. To his critics, he is a partisan who spouts unreliable information.

But nobody disputes this: Possessed of a flamboyant style and a love for the camera lens, Wilson helped propel the unmasking of his wife's identity as a CIA operative into a sprawling, two-year legal probe that climaxes this week with the possible indictment of key White House officials. He also turned an arcane matter involving the Intelligence Identities Protection Act into a proxy fight over the administration's credibility and its case for war in Iraq.

Also beyond dispute is the fact that the little-known diplomat took maximum advantage of his 15 minutes of fame. Wilson has been a fixture on the network and cable news circuit for two years -- from "Meet the Press" to "Imus in the Morning" to "The Daily Show." He traveled west and lunched with the likes of Norman Lear and Warren Beatty.

He published a book, "The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity." He persuaded his wife, Valerie Plame, to appear with him in a January 2004 Vanity Fair photo spread, in which the two appeared in his Jaguar convertible.

Now, amid speculation that prosecutors could bring charges against White House officials this week, Republicans preparing a defense of the administration are reviving the debate about Wilson's credibility and integrity.

Wilson's central assertion -- disputing President Bush's 2003 State of the Union claim that Iraq was seeking nuclear material in Niger -- has been validated by postwar weapons inspections. And his charge that the administration exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq has proved potent.

At the same time, Wilson's publicity efforts -- and his work for Sen. John F. Kerry's presidential campaign -- have complicated his efforts to portray himself as a whistle-blower and a husband angry about the treatment of his wife. The Vanity Fair photos, in particular, hurt Plame's reputation inside the CIA; both Wilson and Plame have said they now regret doing the photo shoot.
The truth is Wilson is a publicity seeker.

Wilson's critics in the administration said his 2002 trip to Niger for the CIA to probe reports that Iraq was trying to buy uranium there was a boondoggle arranged by his wife to help his consulting business.

The Wall Street Journal's conservative editorial page, defending the administration, wrote yesterday that, "Mr. Wilson became an antiwar celebrity who joined the Kerry for president campaign." Discussing his trip to Niger, the Journal judged: "Mr. Wilson's original claims about what he found on a CIA trip to Africa, what he told the CIA about it, and even why he was sent on the mission have since been discredited."

Wilson's defenders say he is a truth-teller who has been unfairly attacked. "[T]he White House responded to Ambassador Wilson in the worst possible way," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) said at a Democratic gathering in July. "They did not present substantive evidence to justify the uranium claim. . . . Instead, it appears that the president's advisers launched a smear campaign, and Ambassador Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, became collateral damage."

Before the Niger episode, Wilson was best known as the charg d'affaires in Baghdad, a diplomat commended by George H.W. Bush for protecting and securing the release of American "human shields" at the time of the Persian Gulf War. He was not known as a partisan figure -- he donated money to both Al Gore and George W. Bush in 1999 -- and says he was neither antiwar nor anti-Bush when he went to Niger in late February 2002.

But that changed when he went public with his criticism of the Niger affair in mid-2003. In August, he said at a forum that he would like to see Karl Rove "frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs." In the fall, he endorsed Democrat Kerry. He had given money to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-N.Y.) political action committee in 2002 and gave to Kerry's presidential campaign in 2003.

Where do I start with this one? Wilson was known as a partisan Democrat well before his trip to Niger. He also is on the record as having been anti-war prior to his trip. So your wrong on both of those counts. His claims that Iraq was not attempting to obtain yellow-cake have not been validated, in fact the evidence substantially supports the opposite conclusion. His self-rightious indignation rings hollow considering the public display he and his wife have put on through this whole affair. I do wish reporters would at least make an attempt to be unbiased.

Full Story: Pincus and Milbank side with Wilson

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Terry, The Difference Is Called "Intent"

Let the Rule of Law Prevail

By Terry M. Neal
washingtonpost.com Staff WriterTuesday
October 25, 2005; 6:00 AM

In the 1990s, "rule of law" was hot.

In the 2000s, not so much.

Republicans, who impeached and tried to remove a president who lied about his private sex life, have now decided that the whole "rule of law" thing really isn't all it's cut out to be.

Some Republicans -- anticipating the possible indictment of top White House aides -- are launching a preemptive public relations strike that is stunning in its audacity.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-Tex.) outlined the strategy on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, when moderator Tim Russert asked her whether White House spokesman Scott McClellan's previous denials that anyone in the administration had anything to do with the leak of covert operative Valerie Plame's name to the media lacked credibility.

"Tim, you know, I think we have to remember something here," Hutchinson admonished. "An indictment of any kind is not a guilty verdict, and I do think we have in this country the right to go to court and have due process and be innocent until proven guilty. And secondly, I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars. So they go to something that trips someone up because they said something in the first grand jury and then maybe they found new information or they forgot something and they tried to correct that in a second grand jury.

"I think we should be very careful here, especially as we are dealing with something very public and people's lives in the public arena. I do not think we should prejudge. I think it is unfair to drag people through the newspapers week after week after week, and let's just see what the charges are. Let's tone down the rhetoric and let's make sure that if there are indictments that we don't prejudge."

So now perjury is a "technicality"?

If caution, judiciousness, respect for people's lives in the public arena are good enough for White House officials such as Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, why were they not for President Clinton?

If people should only be sent to jail for a basic criminal charge that sparked an investigation in the first place, why did Martha Stewart go to jail?

Today's strategy differs quite remarkably from the 1990s, when Republicans sought to hold Clinton, Vice President Gore, first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and their aides and advisers to the strict letter of the law, in Whitewater, Travelgate, the Chinese campaign finance scandal, and of course, the Lewinsky imbroglio.

"Rule of law!" was the rallying cry.

Poor Terry Neal, here he is a big name journalist and he doesn't even know the difference between intentional lying ("I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.", "I can't recall that, Senator.") and simple inability to recall what you said from one grand jury appearance, to another months later without having a lawyer with you to refresh your memory. Senate hearing permit the witness to consult with their lawyer at any time on any question. In grand jury hearings, you are not allowed to have a lawyer. If someone (Libby, Rove, whomever, actually committed intentional perjury, then the prosecutor should stick it to them, but if it is merely a lapse of memory then it would be a miscarriage of justice to indict them.

Full Story: Misunderstanding Perjury

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Washington Post's Glenn Kessler: Editorial Disguised As News

CIA Leak Linked to Dispute Over Iraq Policy
As Grand Jury Term Nears End, Officials' Critique of Administration Gains Attention

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 25, 2005; Page A03

The alleged leaking of a CIA operative's name had its roots in a clash over Iraq policy between White House insiders and their rivals in the permanent bureaucracy of Washington, especially in the State Department and the CIA.

As the investigation into the leak reaches its expected climax this week with the expiration of the grand jury's term, the internal disputes have been further amplified by a recent string of speeches and interviews criticizing the administration's handling of Iraq, including by former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, the former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and State Department diplomats, and other officials involved in the early efforts to stabilize Iraq.

Scowcroft, a close friend of former president George H.W. Bush, revealed in interviews with the New Yorker a deep disdain for the administration's foreign policy, according to an article published this week. He said he had once considered Vice President Cheney "a good friend," but "Dick Cheney I don't know anymore." When Scowcroft was asked whether he could name the issues on which he agreed with President Bush, he replied "Afghanistan." He then paused for 12 seconds before adding only, "I think we're doing well on Europe."

A top State Department official involved in Iraq policy, former ambassador Robin Raphel, said the administration was "not prepared" when it invaded Iraq, but did so anyway in part because of "clear political pressure, election driven and calendar driven," according to an oral history interview posted on the Web site of the congressionally funded U.S. Institute of Peace.

The unusual on-the-record bashing comes at a difficult period for the White House, which this week is also bracing for the 2,000th military fatality in the Iraq conflict. While the internal conflicts were not a secret even during the planning for war, the intensity of the feelings more than two years later is striking.

A special counsel is investigating how the undercover status of Valerie Plame -- the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV -- was revealed to reporters in July 2003. The CIA had sent Wilson to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium. Wilson said he found little evidence to support the allegations and later emerged as an administration critic after Bush referred to the Niger connection in the 2003 State of the Union address.

Here we have a case of the Washington Post stating allegations as facts once more. Scowcroft was a critic of the Iraq policy from the start. Scowcroft statement that we had peace for fifty years was not only incorrect (war in 1990) but also a result of a terrible concept, peace at any price (any body remember Neville Chamberlain?). As for Wilkerson, he has no credibility at all nor does Raphel. Finally, we know that Wilson was lying, did virtually nothing in his alleged attempt to find out about yellow-cake, and that most other sources stick by their claims that Iraq was seeking to obtain the ore.

Full Story: Wilson Yellow-cake

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Astros Face Big Problems: Lidge Is Broken

After last night's loss big challenges ahead
Time to have a pitcher's pow-wow

Will Malven
Houston Conservative

The Astros came close last night, but once more their pitching failed them down the stretch. Faced with 45 degree temperatures and a constant drizzle some problems are to be expected, but the difficulties facing the Astros run deeper. Roger Clemmens is dealing with back and hamstring problems and was forced to stop pitching in the 3rd inning on Saturday. Worse, Brad "Lights Out" Lidge is broken.

I first understood this in his game 3 appearance at Minute Maid Park. In game 3 Lidge surrendered 1 earned run on 1 hit and 1 base on balls, a less than spectacular outing. It was the first run he had surrendered since September 30th and the first earned run he had given up in the playoffs. He was forced to throw a lot of pitches and just seemed off his game. In game 4, Brad survived again, but only after surrendering 2 more hits. For a pitcher who usually dominates batters, it was a less than auspicious appearance. I had began to worry and felt that he was thinking too much. His surrendering of the run in game 3 seemed to have broken his self-confidence. The air of invincibility was replaced with feet of clay.

Already rndered mortal, in game 5 he surrendered that crushing walk-off homerun to Pujols and got the loss. Garner wisely rested him in game 6 and the Astros were able to win the pennant. It was at that point that I concluded that Lidge's mental strength was broken and I felt that Garner should get him some counseling. I felt that he needed sit down with Garner, Roger Clemmens, and Hickey and talk out his problems (I know this sounds touchy-feely, but we are talking about a young pitcher).

Fast forward to last night. The Astros battle back after losing the lead to tie the game, in comes Lidge and wham Scott Podsednik puts the "lights out" with another walk-off homerun.

Are the Astros done for? Not necessarily, but they are on the ropes and they need some intensive care. They need to get with Wheeler, who had problems himself last night, and Lidge and the rest of them and spend time working on their mental game.

I haven't given up yet, but I am worried. Houston has a great team and fantastic pitching. They just have to get their minds in the right place and go for broke. No sense in worrying about losing, just do it.

LET'S GO ASTROS! ***** LET'S GO ASTROS!*****LET'S GO ASTROS!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Design Flaws Destroyed Levees in New Orleans

Investigators Link Levee Failures to Design Flaws
Three Teams of Engineers Find Weakened Soil, Navigation Canal Contributed to La. Collapses

By Joby Warrick and Michael Grunwald
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, October 24, 2005; Page A01

NEW ORLEANS -- Within a space of 15 hours on Aug. 29, three massive, concrete floodwalls in separate parts of the city suddenly fractured and burst under the weight of surging waters from Hurricane Katrina. The breaches unleashed a wall of water that swept entire buildings from their foundations and transformed what might have been a routine hurricane into the costliest storm in U.S. history.

Today, exactly eight weeks after the storm, all three breaches are looking less like acts of God and more like failures of engineering that could have been anticipated and very likely prevented.

Investigators in recent days have assembled evidence implicating design flaws in the failures of two floodwalls near Lake Pontchartrain that collapsed when weakened soils beneath them became saturated and began to slide. They also have confirmed that a little-used navigation canal helped amplify and intensify Katrina's initial surge, contributing to a third floodwall collapse on the east side of town. The walls and navigation canal were built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the agency responsible for defending the city against hurricane-related flooding.

The preliminary findings -- based on physical evidence, Corps documents and hydrodynamic models run through a Louisiana State University supercomputer -- are the work of three teams of engineers and forensic experts conducting separate probes. The investigations are shedding light not only on the cause of the failures but also the scale of the rebuilding effort: The discovery of major flaws in the design of the city's levees and floodwalls could add billions of dollars to the cost of New Orleans' recovery.

Investigators already have rejected the initial explanation offered by Corps officials in the hurricane's aftermath that massive storm surges had overtopped and overwhelmed floodwalls on the 17th Street and London Avenue canals on the north side of town. The new findings for the first time point to a human role in all three of the major floodwall failures that left about 100,000 homes underwater and caused most of Louisiana's approximately 1,000 hurricane deaths.

Obviously this is President Bush's fault. While he was governor of Texas he slipped over to New Orleans and made the Corps of Engineers construct the levees using faulty designs because he knew that Katrina would strike New Orleans in 2005. Excuse me let me get my tin-foil hat. This should shut the Bush critics up, but it won't. There is nothing so small, no conspiracy too absurd for the Bush haters to buy into and pass along.

Full Story: Levees Poorly Designed

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Brazil Rejects Gun Confiscation Law

Brazilians Reject Measure To Ban Sale of Firearms
Issue Defeated Decisively in National Vote
By Monte Reel
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, October 24, 2005

BUENOS AIRES, Oct. 23 -- Brazilian voters on Sunday decisively rejected a proposal to outlaw the sale of firearms and ammunition following an aggressive campaign by opponents who argued it would leave citizens defenseless against armed criminals.

With more than 92 percent of the ballots counted, 64 percent of Brazilian voters opposed the ban, which its backers hoped would help Brazil shed its label as one of the world's most dangerous countries. More people are killed by firearms in Brazil than anywhere else; about 36,000 gun fatalities were reported by the government last year.

The referendum marked the first time a country has put a gun ban to a nationwide vote. The defeat disheartened gun control proponents, who had argued that powerful lobbyists for the international gun industry unfairly influenced government policy. They had also argued that a popular vote could have allowed an anti-gun majority to set a precedent for other countries.

"This closes the issue now, but maybe the next generation will be able to have this discussion again," said Rubens Cesar Fernandes, director of Viva Rio, a civic group that helped coordinate the anti-gun campaign. "I hope the whole world will be able to deal with this again."

In the weeks before the election, supporters and opponents launched extensive media campaigns to try to sway opinion among the 122 million people expected to cast ballots. Voting was mandatory for voting-age Brazilians and optional for those over 70.

Existing laws in Brazil require gun buyers to be at least 25, not have a criminal record and pass psychological and gun-handling tests. The ban would have prohibited the sale of all guns and ammunition to anyone except police, security personnel and licensed target shooters, but would have allowed those who already legally owned firearms to keep them.

This is good news for Brazilians and the world's gun owners. Only a fool will support this kind of gun control in light of the results from this kind of legislation in Australia and Britain. Gun ownership is not the problem, criminal activit is. It would be interesting to know exactly how many of those 36,000 fatalities were the result of self-defense and how many were crime related. If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Full Story: Brazilian Gun Rights

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Taliban Corpses Burned for Hygienic Reasons: Get Oveer It

Stench Prompted U.S. Troops to Burn Corpses
The desecration of Taliban dead prompts outrage in Afghanistan

Posted Friday, Oct. 21, 2005
There simply wasn't enough room on the rocky hilltop above Gonbaz village in southern Afghanistan for the U.S. platoon and the corpses of the two Taliban fighters. The Taliban men had been killed in a firefight 24 hours earlier, and in the 90 degree heat, their bodies had become an unbearable presence, soldiers who were present have told TIME. Nor was the U.S. Army unit about to leave — the hilltop commanded a strategic view of the village below where other Taliban were suspected to be hiding.

Earlier, Lt. Eric Nelson, the leader of B Company, I-508 platoon leader had sent word down to Gonbaz asking the villagers to pick up the bodies and bury them according to Muslim ritual. But the villagers refused — probably because the dead fighters weren't locals but Pakistanis, surmised one U.S. army officer.

It was then that Lt. Nelson took the decision that could jeopardize his service career. "We decided to burn the bodies," one soldier recounts, "because they were bloated and they stank." News of this cremation may have remained on these scorching hills of southern Afghanistan, had the gruesome act not been recorded on film by an Australian photojournalist, Stephen Dupont. Instead, when the footage aired on Australian TV on Wednesday, it unleashed world outrage. A Pentagon spokesman described the incident as "repugnant" and said that the army was launching a criminal investigation into the alleged desecration of the corpses, which is in violation of the Geneva Convention on human rights.

Fueling the furor was the fact that the TV report showed that after the bodies were torched, a U.S. Psychological-Operations team descended on Gonbaz in Humvees with their loudspeakers booming: "Taliban, you are cowardly dogs. You are too scared to come down and retrieve the bodies. This just proves you are the lady-boys we always believed you to be."

Muslims traditionally bury their dead, and as one Kabul cleric Mohammed Omar told newsmen, "The burning of these bodies is an offense against Muslims every where. Bodies are burned only in Hell." But as one U.S. officer in Kandahar pointed out, the Taliban and al Qaeda never show any qualms about defiling the bodies of dead Afghan or American soldiers. Afghan President Hamid Karzai, anxious to quell any new wave of protests against the U.S. troops in Afghanistan of the sort that followed allegations of Koran desecration at Guantanamo, publicly condemned the burnings. A statement from the U.S. military command for Afghanistan said, "Under no circumstances does U.S. Central Command condone the desecration, abuse or inappropriate treatment of enemy combatants."

WAAA! WAAA! WAAA! Get over it. Folks, we are at war. War is not a pretty business. The whining muslims were given every chance to prevent this from occurring but refused because these Taliban "were Pakistanis." Well tough. If you don't care enough to prevent this from happening even when asked to, it's too late to whine now. If the rank and file Afghani doesn't want us in country, then we should leave and let them deal with the Taliban rebels. It is past time for us to hold the muslims responsible for their choices. Give 'em back their nation and let them do whatever they want. If they attack us again, nuke 'em, no excuses. Maybe we should teach them how to bathe, then they would understand about "stench."

Original Post: Whiney Afghans

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Rely On the British to Lead the Charge Toward Political Correctness

Ad Guru Resigns Over Comments About Women

By JILL LAWLESS
Associated Press Writer
Sun Oct 23, 6:17 AM ET

LONDON - One of the world's most flamboyant advertising gurus has left his job after reportedly telling an audience that women made poor executives because motherhood made them "wimp out."

Marketing giant WPP Group PLC said Friday it had accepted the resignation of Neil French — a one-time debt collector, trainee matador and rock-band agent who served as the group's worldwide creative director.

The firm, which is based in London and New York, told Britain's Press Association news agency that French had offered his resignation, and it had been accepted. WPP could not immediately be reached for comment by The Associated Press.

French made the contentious remarks during an industry discussion in Toronto on Oct. 6. According to a report in the city's Globe and Mail newspaper, French said women did not make it to the top because "they're crap."

Nancy Vonk, a Toronto-based creative director at WPP subsidiary Ogilvy & Mather who attended the event, said French described women as "a group that will inevitably wimp out and go 'suckle something.'"

The comments sparked outrage among many women in the advertising industry.

Vonk wrote on the advertising industry Web site http://www.ihaveanidea.org — sponsor of the Oct. 6 event — that "my jaded jaw hit the floor" at French's comments.

"If our greatest leaders are busy quietly persuading girls they're just not cut out for this gig, how far is this group going to get — the brave ones who soldier on in spite of the discouragement?" she wrote.

British-born French, 61, known for his ever-present cigar, worked as a debt collector, trained as a matador and was agent to the heavy metal band Judas Priest before going into advertising.

Okay, he's a rude and boorish jerk, but the basis of what he said is true, most of those women who choose to have children will abandon their careers for some period of time. Why should corporation be forced to pay the price for the decisions of an individual. It is wrong to have separate standards for separate groups of employees performing the same tasks. Should a grossly obese person be hired as a fireman even though he chooses to over eat? Should a Sumo wrestler be hired as a ballet dancer? Parenthood is a choice, so is a career. It is not unreasonable to expect a person to live with the consequences of their choices.

Full Story: Wimpy Women?

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Security v. Whales: I Choose Security

Navy Moves Forward on Sonar Facility Despite Concerns About Whales

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 23, 2005; Page A09

The Navy is moving ahead with plans to build a 500-square-mile sonar training range off the coast of North Carolina, officials said last week. The project has sparked fierce opposition from environmentalists, who say some of the world's most endangered whales and sea turtles pass through the area.

Planning for the $99 million range has been underway for almost 10 years, but environmental challenges and concern that the sound waves from sonar may harm protected marine mammals have held up the process. The Navy published its draft environmental impact statement Friday and plans to begin a series of public hearings on the proposal next month.

The proposed site, about 50 miles off North Carolina, was selected to provide the Atlantic fleet with training in the use of sonar in coastal areas, where the Navy believes the greatest submarine threats now exist. The global spread of quiet and relatively low-cost diesel submarines has alarmed the Navy and convinced officials that its sailors need more training in detecting hostile subs in canyons and ocean beds closer to shore.

But animal researchers and environmentalists have grown increasingly alarmed over the Navy's plans and the potentially damaging effects of active sonar -- which sends out very loud blasts of underwater sound.

Whales and other marine mammals have very sensitive hearing, and a growing body of research has shown that sonar can disorient and sometimes kill them. The Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmentalist group, sued the Navy last week over its use of mid-frequency sonar, the type that would be deployed at the new sonar range. The group claimed that the sonar threatened endangered animals, in violation of several federal environmental laws.

I think whales are really cool animals and I would hate to see them needlessly destroyed, but I believe that national security is the first order of business for our government. Environmentalist groups are the Chicken Littles of our society. Everything they see that is man-made is going to destroy the world.

Full Story: Go Navy!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Democrats: New Faces, Same Old Song?

Young Democrats Sharpen Tactics Against Old Rivals

New Breed on Hill Works Aggressively To Snap GOP Grip

By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff WriterSunday
October 23, 2005

With the Capitol all but deserted last Monday night, the Democratic "30-Something Working Group" seized the House floor and took aim at their Republican adversaries.

As C-SPAN cameras beamed their performance around the country, Rep. Timothy J. Ryan, 32, of Ohio and Rep. Kendrick Meek, 39, of Florida recited a litany of GOP misdeeds -- mismanaging Hurricane Katrina and neglecting education and health care, for example -- and offered the Democrats' alternatives.

Their conversation even veered to religion, a subject many Democrats are afraid to touch. Ryan described the problems of the poor as a moral obligation and asked of Meek: "Where is the Christian Coalition when you are cutting poverty programs? They are fighting over Supreme Court justices."

The two newcomers -- who have served a combined six years in the House -- are part of a new generation of Democrats who are working to try to topple the GOP. Their fresh ideas, modern media skills and aggressive political tactics have inspired a party that has drifted for much of the past decade -- wedded to old notions and seemingly incapable of capitalizing on White House and congressional Republican miscues.

As part of the new approach, House and Senate Democrats are devising an alternative agenda of key policies. Ryan is pushing proposals aimed at drastically reducing the number of abortions over the coming decade by offering support and services to pregnant women. Others are crafting a plan for reducing U.S. dependence on imported oil by using more domestic agricultural products, an approach that would have significant appeal to Midwestern voters.

Democrats with fresh ideas? I'd like to hear this. Democrats haven't had a new idea since Roosevelts socialist revolution in the 30's. If by fresh ideas they simply mean cloning Republican ideas, then at least their making a move in the right direction. If their simply going to float the same worn out threadbare ideas of their party with new cosmetics, new catch words, then they are whistling in the dark.

Full Story: "New Democrats?"

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Rummy, Let's Not Go Overboard On This

Rumsfeld Wants Speedy Probe of Body-Burning Allegations

Associated Press
Sunday, October 23, 2005; Page A20

VILNIUS, Lithuania, Oct. 22 -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Saturday that he wanted U.S. commanders in Afghanistan to expedite their investigation of allegations that U.S. soldiers burned the remains of Taliban fighters they had killed, and then used the scene for propaganda purposes.

Investigators should proceed with a "sense of urgency," Rumsfeld said, in light of the potential for damage to U.S. interests from a backlash in the Muslim world.

Rumsfeld said Pentagon lawyers had advised him to be careful about what he says because his remarks about specifics of the case could complicate the proceedings.

Rumsfeld made it clear that he was worried by the allegations, whatever their merit.

"The reality is that charges of that type are harmful," he said. "They don't represent the overwhelmingly positive behavior of the men and women in uniform who do such a wonderful job. It's always disappointing when there are charges like that. It's particularly disappointing when they're true. That needs to be determined, but one hates to see the adverse effect of it, if it is true."

The defense secretary cited as an example the riots in Afghanistan this year that some people linked to anger over reports that a copy of the Koran was flushed down a toilet by U.S. military personnel in the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. U.S. investigators said they found no evidence of such an incident, but confirmed other examples of Koran abuse.

Rumsfeld was in the Lithuanian capital to attend meetings of NATO defense ministers beginning Sunday.

This is an unfortunate incident, but from what the officer on site says, they were left with little other choice. The corpses were bloated and decomposing and the locals refused to come pick them up for burial. There is too much time spent worrying about how we have treated these corpses and not enough about how the terrorists treat their victims. I fully understand the delicacy in dealing with muslims and the challenges we face, but it is past time for the muslims to acknowledge their responsibilty for what is going on. It is unreasonable for us to expect our soldiers to put up with decomposing bodies where they are living.

Original Post: Burned Corpses

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Never Say Die Left: Beating A Dead Agenda

California Group Steps Into Vacuum on the Left

By Thomas B. Edsall and Chris Cillizza
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Washington Post

During last year's campaign, two big new groups -- America Coming Together and the Media Fund -- captured the imagination of such mega-donors as international financier George Soros and insurance magnate Peter Lewis. Exclusive Hollywood fundraisers drew movie stars and producers.

In the aftermath of defeat, however, many of these deep-pocketed donors have picked up their marbles and gone home. ACT and the Media Fund, which were originally billed as long-term projects, are in hibernation with uncertain futures after their billionaire benefactors stopped writing checks

Last week a new organization was launched, aiming to build the liberal cause with supporters who have thinner wallets but longer attention spans. The New Progressive Coalition said it will try to create a "marketplace of ideas" in which donors of all sizes can be connected with "progressive innovators and organizations" crafting long-term ideas to rebuild the left.

The group got going with a grant of nearly $1 million from Andrew and Deborah Rappaport, a Silicon Valley couple who in the 2003-2004 election cycle gave at least $4.7 million to liberal causes.

This is just hysterical. Those true believers on the Left just don't get it. The only thing "progressive" about the agenda for these groups is their progress towards failure. The socialist agenda the Left promotes has been tried and rejected by the governments of the world. This is not about "funding, think tanks, and infrastructure," it is about the out-dated ideas they offer.

Full Story: Liberal Losers

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

This Is Good News for The Kids

Evacuees Begin to Put Down Roots
New Schools, Jobs Lessen Pull Back Home to New Orleans

By John Pomfret
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 22, 2005; Page A08

AUSTIN -- Tyler Smith, a stocky 8-year-old with enormous feet, returned home from school one day this week with the results of a geography quiz. "I got an A," the third-grader boasted as he presented the results of his handiwork to his grandmother, Dolores. "I really like my school," he added. "I like Austin, too."

His 10-year-old brother, Deron, seconded that emotion. "I have a girlfriend already," he announced before retreating to a place on the floor near his father's bed to resume a marathon phone call with his new sweetheart, Ambry.

As thousands of families victimized by Katrina begin the agonizing process of deciding where to piece together their broken lives, to return home or to try their luck in a new community far from the familiar, the sentiments expressed by children such as the Smith boys are bound to figure mightily.

Interviews with a dozen families and individuals in Texas in recent weeks reveal a battle being waged across cultural and experiential fault lines that will help determine the fate of New Orleans and other areas destroyed by Katrina. In the Smith family, the key factor is generational, with the young lobbying to stay, the elderly angling to return, and Ryan Smith, the 37-year-old father and a federal government employee, stuck in between.

For weeks, New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin has been urging New Orleans residents to come home. But in Texas, many of the 400,000 evacuees are leaving shelter for apartments and houses and putting down roots.

In Austin, the local school district started with about 1,000 children from Katrina-affected zones. Today, more than 700 remain.

"My feeling is that most of them want to stay," said Dora Fabelo, the principal of Katherine Cook Elementary School in Austin, which has 25 children, including the Smith brothers, from Katrina-affected areas. "We have experience taking in children like these. We took in Liberian refugees last year and before that kids from Bosnia and Kosovo. Like them, these kids have gone through hell, but, unlike them, they're neighbors. They are our kids."

It is an ill wind that blows no good. This may be an opportunity for these kids to escape the really questionable future they would have had back in the projects in New Orleans. God Bless them. I hope they prosper.

Full Story: Hope for Evacuees

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Hatchet-Job By Democrat D.A./Judge Having Intended Effect

DeLay Seeks New Judge for Texas Trial
Republican's Attorneys Allege Bias, Citing Contributions to Democratic Causes

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 22, 2005; Page A04

AUSTIN, Oct. 21 -- Former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) appeared in court for the first time Friday to answer the money-laundering and conspiracy charges against him, but the presiding judge quickly adjourned the proceedings after DeLay's attorneys accused him of bias and asked him to withdraw.

DeLay did not speak during the brief session, in which the lawyers posted a bond for his appearance and explained the grounds for alleging that the judge's record of campaign contributions to Democrats and liberal organizations demonstrated "a personal bias" against DeLay.

But afterward DeLay told reporters on the nearby grounds of the Texas Capitol that he committed no wrongdoing and expects to be exonerated. Referring to the 2002 state election campaign at the center of the probe that gave rise to two indictments against him, DeLay said: "I have been charged for defeating Democrats. I have been charged for advancing the Republican agenda."

District Judge Bob Perkins, an elected Democrat in largely Democratic Travis County, expressed concern in court that allegations of bias are arising here whenever a Republican is on trial. But he said the issue of who presides over DeLay's trial should be decided by the region's chief administrative judge, an appointed Republican.

The session marked a shift to the courts of a local prosecutor's two-year probe of actions taken by DeLay and his political associates before the historic 2002 state election, when Republicans gained control of the Texas House for the first time in 130 years.

DeLay's staff disclosed that he flew to Houston on Thursday morning on a corporate jet owned by R.J. Reynolds, a longtime contributor that has flown him to Puerto Rico and other destinations; they said the jet was "used in compliance with regulations." The company, which has also given $17,000 to DeLay's legal defense fund, did not have a comment Friday.

DeLay was indicted on Sept. 28 and Oct. 3 on charges of conspiring to inject illegal corporate funds into that 2002 campaign, and of laundering some of those funds through an arm of the Republican Party in Washington to conceal their corporate origin.

DeLay and his attorneys have chosen to take a highly combative public stance against the charges, depicting them as the fruits of a partisan campaign to undermine his influence and besmirch the Republican Party.

But the indictments have already taken a toll on his political standing: A tracking poll in the Houston area, including his congressional district, by SurveyUSA on Oct. 10 for the first time showed that a plurality now supports his resignation from Congress. Also, a recent nationwide tracking poll by National Journal's Hotline similarly showed that after the indictments, DeLay not only became better known but also more disliked, attracting a 44 percent unfavorable rating and a 15 percent favorable rating.

This is a really disgusting political assassination attempt by an out-of-control prosecutor on a political vendetta. This judge needs to recuse himself immediately. His "concern" about charges of bias anytime a Republican comes before him is a red-herring. This is not just any Republican, but a member of the Republican leadership who is being targeted for just that reason. He is a target because he is effective. DeLay has done nothing illegal or anything which Democrats haven't done repeatedly. As the truth comes out, the Democrats will discover themselves on a path to self-destruction.

Full Story: DeLay v. Judge

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Illegals At Halliburton? Yeah, So Illegals At Local Grocer's Too

Suspected Illegal Workers Found at Halliburton Job Site

By Griff Witte
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 22, 2005

Federal agents have identified 10 suspected illegal immigrants working at a naval base near New Orleans where the Halliburton Co. subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root is leading hurricane reconstruction, according to a spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

A spokesman for the base said last night that 13 workers were barred from the base this week for lack of proper work papers, and that they were employees of Texas-based BMS Catastrophe. Officials of the company could not be reached yesterday for comment.

A KBR spokeswoman said the firm will look into any allegations that its subcontractors have violated the law or the company's code of conduct. She could not immediately say whether BMS was working for KBR.

Immigration and Customs spokeswoman Jamie E. Zuieback said yesterday that agents were called in Thursday by base security personnel and found that 10 workers lacked proper documentation. The workers have not been taken into custody, Zuieback said. She said the investigation is ongoing, but would not comment on its scope.

Work at the base has been a source of dispute in recent weeks because dozens of unionized electricians, many of them local residents who had their homes destroyed during Hurricane Katrina, claim they were let go by another Halliburton subcontractor, Alabama-based BE&K, in favor of lower wage workers. That came after the Bush administration suspended the Davis-Bacon Act, a law that guarantees the prevailing local wage for workers operating under federal contracts.

Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), who has been following the case closely, said the discovery of illegal immigrants at the naval base confirms that Gulf Coast workers looking for livable wages are getting left out of the federally funded reconstruction.

"I don't think there's any question that there's a pretty significant sucking sound there," he said. "If you were paying prevailing wages, you would be hiring skilled electricians."

What a cheap political hatchet-job Dorgan. I suppose next your going to tell us how surprised you are by this. Hey dullard, there are 11 million illegals in the United States and your disturbed by these. Maybe if idiots like you would get off your respective posteriors and do something about illegal immigration, there wouldn't be "a pretty significant sucking sound" would there? Man, you Dumb-o-crats are such transparent hypocrites. Do you really think that Americans are so stupid as to not see your own hypocrisy? What a jerk.

Full Story: Idiots on the march

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Harriett Miers: The More We Look The Worse She Gets

Miers Backed Race, Sex Set-Asides
She Made Diversity A Texas Bar Goal

By Jo Becker and Sylvia Moreno
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, October 22, 2005; Page A01

As president of the State Bar of Texas, Harriet Miers wrote that "our legal community must reflect our population as a whole," and under her leadership the organization embraced racial and gender set-asides and set numerical targets to achieve that goal.

The Supreme Court nominee's words and actions from the early 1990s, when she held key leadership positions as president-elect and president of the state bar, provide the first window into her personal views on affirmative action, an area in which the Supreme Court is closely divided and where Miers could tip the court's balance.

Her tenure at the bar association also could provide new fodder for conservatives opposed to her nomination, as President Bush seeks to quell a rebellion on the right over his selection of Miers.

To some conservatives, the types of policies pursued by the Texas bar association amount to reverse discrimination. One of the chief complaints on the right against Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales was that he clashed with conservatives who wanted to take a harder line against affirmative action.

White House spokesman Jim Dyke said that Miers's actions on the bar do not indicate a view on how Miers might rule on the big question before the Supreme Court, which is how far government can go to promote diversity.

"The best I can tell, this was a private-sector initiative to increase diversity, which is not the same thing as a government mandate of quotas," he said.

Miers, the first female president of the Texas bar, vowed in her first interview with the Texas Law Journal as president to "be inclusive of women and minorities."

During her tenure, she championed the cause of increasing the number of female and minority lawyers in the bar's own leadership ranks and in law firms across the state, writing that "we are strongest capitalizing on the benefits of our diversity."

Miers was a believer in mentoring programs, but during her tenure she and the board of directors went further, passing a resolution urging Texas law firms to set a goal of hiring one qualified minority lawyer for every 10 new associates. The directors also reiterated support for a policy of setting aside a specific number of seats on the board for women and minorities.

Although Miers was not the author of either policy, she never objected to them, according to tapes of the meetings, and numerous board members who served with her said she fully supported both efforts.

This latest is most disturbing. It appears from this information that this truly is the "O'Conner seat." This is turning out to be a bad, bad nomination. This woman is not the best, most qualified to sit on the bench, not even close. If she fails to withdraw her name from consideration, and President Bush lacks the will to reconsider, it is up to the Republicans in the Senate to vote her down. She does not belong on the SCOTUS. President Bush appears to have followed the Cheney for Vice-President path. Sometimes what appears to be a good decision at first turns out to be a mistake. President Bush, this is a mistake.

Full Story: Miers Mistake

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Too Many In The White House Projecting Rove Downfall

A Palpable Silence at the White House
Few Ready to Face Effects of Leak Case
By Jim VandeHei and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, October 21, 2005

At 7:30 each morning, President Bush's senior staff gathers to discuss the important issues of the day -- Middle East peace, the Harriet Miers nomination, the latest hurricane bearing down on the coast. Everything, that is, except the issue on everyone's mind.

With special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald driving his CIA leak investigation toward an apparent conclusion, the White House now confronts the looming prospect that no one in the building is eager to address: a Bush presidency without Karl Rove. In a capital consumed by scandal speculation, most White House senior officials are no more privy than outsiders to the prosecutor's intentions. But the surreal silence in the Roosevelt Room each morning belies the nervous discussions racing elsewhere around the West Wing.

Out of the hushed hallway encounters and one-on-one conversations, several scenarios have begun to emerge if Rove or vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis Libby is indicted and forced out. Senior GOP officials are developing a public relations strategy to defend those accused of crimes and, more importantly, shield Bush from further damage, according to Republicans familiar with the plans. And to help steady a shaken White House, they say, the president might bring in trusted advisers such as budget director Joshua B. Bolten, lobbyist Ed Gillespie or party chairman Ken Mehlman.

These tentative discussions come at a time when White House senior officials are exploring staff changes to address broader structural problems that have bedeviled Bush's second term, according to Republicans who said they could speak candidly about internal deliberations only if they are not named. But it remains unclear whether Bush agrees that changes are needed and the uncertainty has unsettled his team.

"People are very demoralized and unhappy," a former administration official said. "The leak investigation is [part of it], but things were not happy before this took preeminence. It's just been a rough year. A lot has gotten done, but nothing is easy."

Bush implicitly acknowledged the distractions in answer to a reporter's question during a Rose Garden appearance with visiting Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas yesterday, while reassuring the public that he remained focused on the pressing matters of state facing his White House.

Karl Rove may or may not be subject to indictment, only time will tell. What is useless is listening to people "in the know" who are so confident of their guess work that they refuse to allow their names to be used. The more I hear about this case, the less likely I believe it is that anyone in the White House will face charges. Novak early on stated that it was "no political hack." Well if you believe Novak, then it lets out Rove, Libby, and most anyone high in the White House hierarchy. Much more believable is that the source is someone in the press or in the C.I.A. itself.

Full Story: Waiting on Fitzgerald

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Democrat Press Stymied in DeLay Booking Photo

DeLay Booked in Houston on Money-Laundering, Conspiracy Charges
By R. Jeffrey Smith and Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, October 21, 2005

AUSTIN, Oct. 20 -- Former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) surrendered Thursday to the county sheriff's office in Houston, and was then photographed, fingerprinted and released, three weeks after becoming the sole member of the House leadership in Washington to be indicted in at least 50 years.

The booking of one of the nation's most powerful politicians was forced by an arrest warrant issued Wednesday by a district court here in the state's capital, in preparation for DeLay's eventual trial on felony criminal charges of money laundering and conspiracy related to the allegedly illegal use of corporate funds in the 2002 state election.

DeLay flew to Texas in a private jet and was accompanied by two U.S. Capitol Police officers.

DeLay, 58, and his attorneys have said the charges are ill-founded and politically motivated. DeLay's congressional office in Washington released a statement in the afternoon saying that the former leader "looks forward to his inevitable exoneration of these ridiculous charges."

The statement asserted that "this is going to end up as an embarrassing episode for . . . national Democrats" and the Travis County district attorney overseeing the state election probe, Ronnie Earle.

Poor MSM, all of their glorious plans to parade unflattering pictures of Tom DeLay on their front pages and broadcast lead-ins. Notice too, you never hear the fact that even though they howled about the rule change that would have allowed DeLay to remain as Majority Leader, the Democrats have no such rule and no such requirement that their leaders step down when indicted.

Full Story: No Dejected DeLay Photo

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Coburn Amendment Exposes Democrat Hypocrisy

For a Senate Foe of Pork Barrel Spending, Two Bridges Too Far

By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 21, 2005; Page A08

Republicans in Congress say they are serious about cutting spending, but they learned yesterday to keep their hands off the "Bridge to Nowhere."

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), a staunch opponent of pork barrel spending, tried to block $453 million for two Alaska bridges that had been tucked into the recent highway bill. Coburn wanted to redirect the money to the Interstate 10 bridge across Lake Pontchartrain, a major thoroughfare that was severely damaged during Hurricane Katrina.

Sen. Ted Stevens, the veteran Alaska Republican, was dramatic in his response. "I don't kid people," Stevens roared. "If the Senate decides to discriminate against our state . . . I will resign from this body."

Coburn's measure, offered as an amendment to the 2006 transportation appropriations bill, failed 82 to 15. The Senate also narrowly defeated spending an additional $3.1 billion on emergency heating-bill assistance for low-income people, a major priority for many Democrats, who said they would try to attach the increase to other bills this fall.

Although the Coburn amendment lost, it struck a chord among lawmakers as they face increasing belt-tightening pressure. Katrina and the war in Iraq have created billions in unexpected expenses, and Republicans as well Democrats would like to trim other programs to offset the cost. But yesterday's debate showed even an obscure budget item has its patrons.

Notably missing from this story is that Liberal Democrat Senator Patty Murray threatened to block any and all funding requests and legislation of anyone backing the Coburn amendment. Seems that Pork-Barrel Spending is more important to Ms. Murray than is the rebuilding of New Orleans. Seems Ms. Murray is choosing the Pork over the Poor.

Full Story: Patty "Pork" Murray

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Penalize Criminals, Not Gun Manufacturers

Houses Passes Ban on Gun Industry Lawsuits
Bush Vows to Sign Bill That Contradicts D.C. Law; Opponents Call for Action
By Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 21, 2005; Page A07

The House yesterday voted to shield companies that make and sell firearms from lawsuits by the victims of shootings, sending the legislation to the White House and handing the nation's gun lobby a paramount victory it has sought for years.

The House's 283 to 144 vote, less than three months after the Senate approved identical legislation, delighted President Bush, who portrayed it as part of the administration's drive to "stem frivolous lawsuits" and said he will sign it into law. Leading proponents of gun control immediately vowed to challenge the law's constitutionality.

Congress's decision has particular relevance for the District, the only place in the country with a law that explicitly allows victims of crimes involving semiautomatic weapons to bring legal claims. In April, the D.C. Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the city's 15-year-old law, and the Supreme Court this month declined to hear the case.

Supporters and opponents of the legislation said the law would halt pending District government litigation trying to win compensation from gun manufacturers for medical costs and other expenses associated with shootings and several claims by local victims and their families. The pending suits include a federal lawsuit brought against Bushmaster Firearms Inc. by the relatives of Pascal Charlot, a victim of the 2002 rash of local sniper shootings.

The truth about the opponents of this legislation is that they are not particularly concerned about those "poor victims," they are seeking a backdoor path to destroy the gun industry by bankrupting the manufacturers. It is part of their agenda to take away all citizens guns. This was a great victory for those of us who believe in the Constitution.

Full Story: Stopping Gun Suits

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Miers: The Contriversy That Shouldn't Have Been

After the Home Run, a White House Balk?
Handling of Miers Nomination Cannot Stand Up to Ease of Roberts Approval
By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 21, 2005

Two months after engineering a nearly flawless confirmation process for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the Bush administration's bid to add Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court has been so riddled with errors, stumbles and embarrassing revelations that some lawmakers and other observers find it hard to believe it emanates from the same White House.

At one key juncture after another, Miers has faltered where Roberts glided. Her courtesy calls on the Judiciary Committee's top two senators prompted conflicting tales of curious comments that she may or may not have made. Her answers to the committee's questionnaire included a misinterpretation of constitutional law and were deemed so inadequate that the panel asked her to redo it. She revealed one day that her D.C. law license had been temporarily suspended -- and said the next day that the same thing had happened in Texas -- because of unpaid dues.

Most glaring of all, say activists in both parties, the White House failed to foresee the outcry from conservative activists who are leading the opposition while liberals mostly stand on the sidelines in amazement.

"I'm sort of astonished by it," said George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who has followed the nominations closely. "It's like a completely different team at the White House is handling it."

Several conservative activists who avidly backed Roberts are keeping silent or offering tepid public endorsements of Miers, using private channels to express their dismay to the White House. Yesterday, in one of the twice-weekly conference calls involving conservative leaders and organized by liaisons to the White House, several participants said Miers should stop paying visits to senators because they do more harm than good. Details of the call, first reported by NationalReview.com, were confirmed by a participant who said no one spoke in favor of continuing the visits.

I believe that this is what happens when politics trumps ideology. President Bush's famous stubborn streak is now working to his detriment. His loyalty to those around him is his blind spot. This is one time when the President needs to rethink and recall his choice. I am afraid that the hearings are going to be unfortunately and unnecessarily messy. Some of the information coming out of the Senate Judiciary Committee indicate that the answers she supplied to the questionaire are less than would be expected (read "dumb").

Full Story: The Miers Mire

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Anti-American Environmentalists Sue Navy Over Whales

Group Sues Navy to Limit Sonar It Says Harms Marine Life
By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 20, 2005

Loud blasts of sound from the sonar systems of Navy ships are killing and disorienting whales and other marine mammals and should be far more strictly limited, an environmental group argued in a federal lawsuit filed yesterday.

The suit, filed in California by the Natural Resources Defense Council, charges that routine use of mid-frequency sonar in Navy training and testing is illegal under federal law and is needlessly harmful.

The group sued the Navy over its use of low-frequency sonar in 2002 and negotiated a settlement limiting its use. The new suit calls on the Navy to make changes to its far more extensive use of mid-frequency sonar, as well.

"Military sonar needlessly threatens whole populations of whales and other marine animals," said Joel Reynolds, a senior attorney at NRDC. "In violation of our environmental laws, the Navy refuses to take basic precautions that could spare these majestic creatures."

Lt. William Marks, a Navy spokesman, disputed NRDC's assertions, saying that "the Navy complies with the law. We recognize that active sonar testing and training must be accomplished in an environmentally sound manner."

The suit does not ask the Navy to stop using sonar -- which tracks submarines -- but to limit its use in testing and training, and to be more careful about where and when it gets turned on. Certain whale species are known to be especially sensitive to sonar noise, and their habitats and migration patterns are often known and can be avoided, the group said.

We need to take these anti-American, anti-defense idiots out in our submarines and dump them into the ocean. They can team up with the whales and build themselves their own cities. This might even help solve the "global warming problem" by decreasing the amount of hot air coming out of California.

Full Story: Nut-job Environmentalists

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Judge on DeLay Case Another Democrat Political Hack

Judge has had political cases before
By R.G. RATCLIFFE
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau

AUSTIN - Bob Perkins, the wired-on-soft-drinks judge who will hear the criminal case against U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, is no stranger to prosecutions involving politicians.

Perkins, who ordered DeLay's arrest Wednesday, in the past has been involved in the prosecutions of U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Texas House Speaker Gib Lewis. Perkins said he approaches cases involving politicians like any other in his criminal courtroom.

"My approach to this would not be any different than any other," Perkins said. "You've just got to play by the book and do what the law says. That's the only way you can assure that you are doing the right thing."

In 1993, Perkins administered the grand jury that indicted Hutchison, a Republican, on ethics charges.

Perkins removed himself from trying the case because he had given $300 to her Democratic opponent. He may face a similar appearance of conflict in the prosecution of DeLay, R-Sugar Land.

But Perkins also has presided over the prosecution of a major Democratic politician. When then-House Speaker Lewis failed to show up in court in 1991 on a misdemeanor ethics charge, Perkins had him jailed.

"Gib Lewis was a leading Democrat of the state at the time," said Austin criminal defense lawyer David Sheppard. "I don't know how more apolitical you can get. I'll just tell you, he's a really good judge."

Lewis sees it differently.

"He's always been a very liberal judge, and he likes show business," Lewis said.

He said Perkins worked with Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle in an attempt to drive him from office because he was a conservative. Lewis said DeLay should expect the same.

"I don't think he's going to get a fair trial at all," Lewis said.

This is the problem in having a politically motivated investigation. We don't need the injection of politics into the justice system. Perkins must recuse himself or face serious questions. When politics enters the judicial arena, Liberty is put at risk. The framers of the Constitution knew this and sought to avoid it.

Full Story: Political Judge

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Gutless Republican RINOs an Embarassment for Party

Rice Declines to Give Senators Timeline for Iraq Withdrawal
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 20, 2005

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice faced testy criticism yesterday from both Republican and Democratic senators for what they called a vague and troubled strategy in Iraq and for the administration's refusal to offer a concrete timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Rice avoided answering questions about whether American troops would still be in Iraq in five or 10 years, noting only that insurgents would continue to kill innocents for "a long time." In a new effort to stabilize Iraq, she said, the United States will deploy civilian-military teams throughout Iraq next month to foster nation-building, from courts and social services to sewage treatment.

The give-and-take underscored shifting opinion about the war on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee appealed for greater candor and more concrete information. "We have to level with the American people," said George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio).

Voinovich read the letter from a father whose son died in Iraq. "In the spirit of helping you gauge public opinion, it's important to tell you that we do not consider the American mission in Iraq noble at all," the father wrote. The father asked Congress to end funding for the "misguided effort that does not speak well for America."

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) told Rice that the American public is "sick at heart at the spin and false expectations. They want the truth, and they deserve it." Putting up a chart, Boxer cited Vice President Cheney's comment in May that the Iraqi insurgency is in its "last throes," then showed the spike in violent attacks since then.

Voinovich, Lugar, and Chafee are both stupid and wrong. For the U.S. to state a withdrawal plan would be to invite failure in Iraq. The terrorists are applauding their positions. It is time for Republicans to get rid of these Democrat wannabes. I would rather them switch parties and the Republican Party be returned to the minority party in Congress than to have these idiots running interference for the Democrat Party. I'll start the paper work. Let's at least move Chafee, Voinovich, Snowe, and Collins to the party they appear to prefer. History has proven time and again, the more unapologetically Conservative the Republican Party is, the more successful they are in the elective process. America is a Conservative Nation.

Full Story (if you can stomach it): Cowardly Republicans

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

ASTROS WIN IT!

Yeah baby!

Forty three years I've been waiting on this. We won! We won! We won!

Woohoo!

Bye Bye St. Louis.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Earle Will Go Down In This: It Is Obvious He Badgered the Jurists

DeLay's lawyer lacking evidence of DA misconduct
But as DeGuerin seeks grand jury records, experts call Earle's role strange, not wrong
By JANET ELLIOTT
Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau

AUSTIN - U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay's chief lawyer says he has no evidence that Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle participated in grand jury deliberations, despite having made that allegation in motions to dismiss DeLay's indictments.

But Houston attorney Dick DeGuerin said there have been enough public comments by grand jurors in news media reports to raise suspicions that Earle may have violated laws in his efforts to indict one of the most powerful Republican politicians in the nation.

DeGuerin is seeking access to grand jury records to develop possible evidence of misconduct on Earle's part. He has subpoenaed records from two of his assistant district attorneys related to their dealings with three grand juries that investigated DeLay.

Members of a grand jury that no-billed DeLay have told reporters that Earle was angry with them. DeGuerin also has focused on media reports that Earle's office telephoned former members of the first grand jury to indict DeLay, asking them if they might have returned other charges, and then presented the results of the poll to a third grand jury, which issued new indictments.

It's dangerous for all of us for a district attorney to have a political agenda in pursuing his job. DA's are far too powerful to be trusted in a situation like this. There needs to be an investigation of Ronnie Earle's conduct. To me he is a criminal in charge of the investigation.

Full Story: DeGuerrin Investigates Earle

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Poor Peter Baker Still Believes That Conservatives are Robots

The Conservative Machine's Unexpected Turn
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer

For four years, the White House believed it would need an army to install President Bush's choices on the Supreme Court, and it set about building one. Political committees were formed, millions of dollars raised, coalitions of allied groups assembled, action plans mapped out, media campaigns scripted.

Yet now, as the president struggles to sell the nomination of Harriet Miers, much of Bush's army is refusing to leave the barracks -- and part of it is even going over to the insurgency.

The apparatus constructed largely by Bush strategist Karl Rove and deployed effectively on behalf of recently confirmed Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has splintered over Miers and broken free from its commander. Conservative organizations that generated millions of e-mail messages on behalf of Roberts have silenced their servers. Airwaves that sizzled with commercials demanding a Senate vote just weeks ago carry no such ads into living rooms now. The followers of these groups are not flooding their senators with supportive telephone calls and letters.

The split seems to be evolving into one of the most profound schisms in years within a conservative movement whose unity has buoyed Bush through his most difficult moments and earned the envy of the political left. While conservative groups have disagreed over policies in the past, rarely have they turned against a president so normally aligned with them on such a central, legacy-building priority.

"I don't know of anybody that is right now planning to go all out, whereas I know that had a different kind of nominee been selected, that people were prepared to go full tilt," said Paul M. Weyrich, founder of the Free Congress Foundation, who so far has declined to support Miers.

"They are still fully armed, loaded for bear, but they're not about to fire on behalf of someone whose qualifications they're still questioning," added Janet M. LaRue, chief counsel of Concerned Women for America, another group that has withheld its backing.

Yes Peter as a member of that "apparatus" I can confirm we are incapable of thinking for ourselves, we need a "commander" to keep us on topic. What an idiot! Baker you know less than nothing about conservatives or how they think. It completely escapes me how you can keep you job. Your acumen in understanding the world of politics is pitiful. Where did you get your journalism degree, Joe's E-mail University? My cat would be a better reporter.

Full Story (If you care): Idiot Reporter

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Hey Chuck, Maybe New York Should Lower Taxes

Panel's Tax Plans Meet With Criticism

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 19, 2005; Page A04

A presidential advisory panel agreed to propose at least two broad changes to the federal income tax when it makes its final report to President Bush by Nov. 1, prompting protests from public officials and interest groups.

The first plan would simplify the current system by eliminating the deduction for state and local taxes, among other tax benefits. The second and more far-reaching proposal would move the tax code toward a modified tax on consumption.

The President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform has been meeting all year, often in public session as it did yesterday in Washington. Its task is to present the president with a menu of options for altering the federal income tax.

Bush has not committed to accepting or rejecting anything the panel offers. But if its preliminary judgments are any guide, the panel will have a hard time getting its decisions through Congress.

The suggestion that the state and local tax deduction might be tampered with rankled Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.). Given New York's relatively high taxes, the loss of the deduction would disproportionately hurt New Yorkers, compared with residents of states that have lower taxes.

Of course it would never occur to Senator Chucky, in fact it's heresy to him, but much of that disproportionate burden could be relived if New York stopped being a socialist welfare state. The elimination of all deductions combined with a national sales tax would be the best fairest system. Time to move on this.

Full Story: Schumer Whines

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Shame On You Talent, Santorum, and Chambliss

Senate Plan to Cut Food Stamps Dies
Associated Press
Wednesday, October 19, 2005; Page A06

Senate Republicans have dropped plans to cut the popular food stamp program, as the chamber's leaders scrambled to assemble a $35 billion spending cut measure to implement the budget plan it adopted in April.

After protests from Agriculture Committee members Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and James M. Talent (R-Mo.), panel Chairman Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) dropped more than $500 million in food stamp cuts from a farm and food subsidy measure coming to a committee vote today. The cuts could have meant a loss of benefits for 300,000 working families benefiting from more generous eligibility rules in some states.

The development on food stamps illustrates the political sensitivity of the upcoming debate over the spending cut bill, which would spread the $35 billion in cuts over five years. Various House and Senate committees are conducting behind-the-scenes talks to devise spending cut plans to implement the budget.

The conservative-dominated House plans to up the ante to $50 billion in cuts as it votes as early as tomorrow to revise the budget. The Senate has no such plans.

This is just wrong. Santorum is proving himself more and more to be an unreliable "conservative" if you could even call him one at all. Jim Talent, I don't know anything about, but this is not very impressive. Saxby Chambliss should not have been swayed on this. It is time for the Congress to understand that this is my money, our money, not the governments.

Original Post: Food Stamp Cuts

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Prediction: It's Miller

Miller's Lawyer Says Aide May Face 'Problem' in Probe
Attorney for Reporter Cites Possibility of Conflicting Testimony
By Walter Pincus and Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff WritersMonday
October 17, 2005

Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, has "a problem" in the investigation of the leak of a CIA operative's identity if his testimony conflicts with information given to the grand jury by New York Times reporter Judith Miller, her lawyer said yesterday.
Robert S. Bennett, speaking on the ABC program "This Week" on the day the Times disclosed new information about three conversations Miller had with Libby about the CIA employment of a White House critic's wife, said that "much would depend upon what Mr. Libby said to the grand jury.

"If he said that he had not talked to Judy about these things or didn't talk about the wife, then he's got a problem," Bennett said, referring to CIA operative Valerie Plame, the woman at the center of the leak investigation. Miller told prosecutors that "to the best of her recollection she did not know of" Plame's employment at the CIA "before she spoke to Mr. Libby," he said.

Bennett would not speculate whether Libby was trying to steer Miller's eventual testimony -- an action that could be considered an attempt to obstruct justice, through an alleged suggestion by his lawyer and language in a personal letter sent to her last month that encouraged her to testify.

But he did call Libby's reference to part of the Sept. 15 letter to Miller "very troubling."

"Our reaction when we got that letter, both Judy's and mine, is that was a very stupid thing to put in a letter because it just complicated the situation," Bennett said.

The details of Miller's exchanges with Libby come as special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald appears to be winding up his 22-month investigation of whether any government official leaked Plame's name to retaliate for criticism of the administration by Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. The grand jury's term will expire Oct. 28.

Everything points to Judy Miller being the source of the leak. Sorry Liberals, it's not going to be Rove or Libby, it's going to be Miller. I can't wait to hear all of those Lefty's who have been so complementary of Fitzgerald because they were so sure it was going to be Rove and Libby start screaming "bloody murder" about how biased and terrible he is when his report comes out and Miller is the only one indicted or at least named. Heh, Heh, Heh, the Dems are going to go ballistic. What I really love is that if it by some remote chance turns out to be Rove, my reaction will simply be "Throw the bum out," but if it is Miller they are gonna howl.

Full Story: Miller's Red Herring

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Fair Is Fair, Arrest the Company's Owner

Driver faces 23 counts in bus deaths
Undocumented worker charged with negligence in fire that killed senior evacuees
By TERRI LANGFORD and JAMES PINKERTON
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle


The driver of the bus that erupted into flames last month, killing 23 Bellaire nursing home residents as they were transported out of Hurricane Rita's path, now faces criminal charges for each of the passengers' deaths.

Juan Robles Gutierrez, 37, currently in federal custody in Texas, was charged late Friday by the Dallas County Sheriff's Department with 23 counts of negligent homicide. Each count carries a maximum penalty of up to two years in a state jail facility and $10,000 fine.

The charges were forwarded to Dallas County District Attorney Bill Hill, who will present the case before a grand jury within the month, said Rachel Horton, Hill's spokeswoman.

"We believe the evidence collected thus far indicates that the bus driver, Juan Gutierrez Robles, contributed to the deaths of 23 of the persons who were aboard the bus that was under his control," Dallas County Sheriff Lupe Valdez said, after making the charges public Monday.

As news of the charges emerged and a third lawsuit in the matter was filed Monday, a broader investigation in Houston appeared to be under way. Sandra Mendoza, a spokeswoman for the Mexican consulate in McAllen, said she understands that Robles will be testifying before a federal grand jury in Houston on Wednesday.

The nature of Robles' purported testimony wasn't immediately clear. Last Friday, Robles, who was being detained near San Antonio for his illegal immigration status, was transferred from Immigration & Customs Enforcement custody into the hands of the U.S. Marshal's Service. A spokesman for the marshal's service said the matter was sealed and he could not provide any more information about Robles' status or if he had an attorney.

Nancy Herrera, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's office in Houston, declined to discuss the matter.

"We do not comment nor do we confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation," she said.

Robles, an illegal immigrant, was at the wheel of the 1998 bus leased to his employer, Global Limo of Pharr, Texas, when it caught fire south of Dallas on Sept. 23. The company had been hired by Brighton Gardens of Bellaire, a nursing home facility to move its residents to safety.

Robles had a Mexican commercial driver's license which is valid on U.S. roads under the North American Free Trade Agreement and recognized in Texas. He waded across the Rio Grande last January and soon afterward began working for Global Limo.

Global Limo attorney Mark Cooper did not return a phone call on Monday to the Houston Chronicle. A recording for the phone number listed for Global Limo indicated the phone service was disconnected.

The owners of the fly-by-night companies need to be held responsible. They are the ones who put these dangerous vehicles on the road. To punish the driver and let the owner off is unacceptable. This owner is a criminal and needs to be put in jail.

Full Story: Unequal Justice?

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Pinch Me, I've Got to be Dreaming: Sheila Jackson Lee?

Jackson Lee proposes stronger border security
Congresswoman wants 100,000 spaces added at detention sites
By EDWARD HEGSTROM
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee joined the border security debate Monday by offering her own proposal to beef up Rio Grande patrols and add 100,000 spaces at detention centers.

The Houston Democrat, best known for supporting immigrants, says a recent tour of the border left her convinced the federal government is not doing enough to secure the borders from drug runners and terrorists.

"This government, the federal government, has failed," she said at a press conference attended by T.J. Bonner, the head of the National Border Patrol Council.

Jackson Lee is not the first Democrat to criticize the Bush administration on the national security issue. Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, both Democrats, declared states of emergency earlier this year because of drug-related violence on their respective borders.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, offered his own proposal last week, which would spend $9.7 million to put sheriff's deputies to work stopping the flow of drugs across the Rio Grande.

But Jackson Lee said patrolling the border needs to be left to the federal government, which can provide the proper training for officers, leaving local police available to look for "child molesters and bank robbers."

Her bill, called the Rapid Response Border Protection Act, calls on the government to train enough new recruits so that 1,000 Border Patrol agents could be mobilized to respond during an emergency on a particular stretch of the border. She also proposes equipping the agents with better helicopters, boats, trucks, computers, radios and night-vision goggles.

The addition of 100,000 detention beds would allow the government to hold and then deport more illegal immigrants. Currently, some illegal immigrants from countries other than Mexico are released because the government doesn't have anywhere to detain them.

This is the same Sheila Jackson Lee that wanted to block access to Texas for the "Minutemen" border patrol? I don't believe it. I guess she has finally heard from her constituents. Now, if she'll just give up her two block limousine ride to work in D.C...

Full Story: Jackson Lee on Illegals

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Based on the Previous Story, Lets Start With Refugees Payments

Congress to consider sweeping budget cuts
GOP pushes for reductions to pay for storm cleanup
By BENNETT ROTH
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - The bill for hurricanes Katrina and Rita is expected to reach Capitol Hill this week as House Republicans move to cut tens of billions of dollars from a wide range of federal programs to pay for the massive storm cleanup.

The budget vote, expected by Thursday, is a victory for conservative lawmakers who have pressed the White House and GOP congressional leadership to embrace painful cuts rather than add $100 billion or more to the deficit.

"The politically easy thing to do is to impose the costs on those who do not vote and those not born. There is not a free ride unless you plan to check out soon and leave the bill to your kids," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Dallas.

Hensarling is a member of the House Budget Committee as well as the Republican Study Group, a group of fiscal conservatives that recently released a package of suggested cuts, including highway projects and NASA's man to the moon program, as a way to pay for Katrina costs.

While the GOP leadership has not adapted all of the study committee recommendations, House Budget committee Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, last week proposed reductions that included increasing planned cuts in entitlement programs from $35 billion to $50 billion over five years. Those mandatory programs include food stamps, Medicaid and student loans.

Nussle also proposed a 2 percent across-the-board reduction in discretionary spending that would generate another $16.8 billion savings next year.

The first thing to remember is that, as usual, these are not actual cuts in spending, just reductions in the increase in spending. Federal spending is slated to go up 6.2% next year, all of these proposed "cuts" ad up to less than a 1.0% cutback, meaning that spending will still go up 5.2%. With inflation less than 4.0%, I believe we could afford to cut another 1.2% across the board.

Full Story: Reason for Hope

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Your Tax Dollars at Work!

Evacuees binge on Cape:
Spend fed cash on booze, strippers
By Maggie Mulvihill and Dave Wedge
Boston Herald
Tuesday, October 18, 2005

BOURNE – Hurricane Katrina evacuees hastily handed $2,000 in federal relief money last month have been living it up on Cape Cod, blowing cash on booze and strippers, a Herald investigation has found.

Herald reporters witnessed blatant public drinking at a Falmouth strip mall by Katrina victims living at taxpayer expense at Camp Edwards on Otis Air Force Base. And strippers at Zachary's nightclub in Mashpee, a few miles from the Bourne base, report giving lap dances to several evacuees.

"They were tipping me $5 a pop," said a Zachary's dancer named Angel. ``I told them I felt bad taking their money. But I still took it."

Another dancer said a large group from the military base was in Zachary's recently and she gave lap dances to several of the victims.

"Some spend good money, but others don't," she said.

An assistant club manager, who gave his name only as Michael, acknowledged yesterday that the strip joint is popular with people from Camp Edwards.

"It's no different for someone who lives at Camp Edwards or is stationed at Camp Edwards. As long as they have the proper ID they can go in," he said.

On Oct. 5, the Herald observed a virtual parade of evacuees from a bus stop in the Wal-Mart parking lot in Falmouth to nearby liquor stores. Some emerged and openly swilled from brown-bagged containers, while others poured booze into jugs or plastic cups and casually sipped drinks at the Wal-Mart bus stop.

This is what happens when you give people money they don't earn. It is time to send these people back to New Orleans and put them to work rebuilding the city. It is inexcusable for President Bush and Congress to throw hundreds of billions of our tax money at the refugees just so they appear to be compassionate. Real compassion must include discipline. This behavior and the actions of our government are obscene. Instead of contractors paying people from out of state to clean up and rebuild the city, ship these people back down there and let them earn their keep.

Full Story: Indolent Refugees

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Watch Out for that Pea Soup!

First day of school for aspiring Vatican exorcists
By Philip Pullella Fri Oct 14

ROME (Reuters) - It was the first day of school, so some students were understandably nervous. But then again, they were not taking just any course, but one run by a Vatican university to teach aspiring demonologists and exorcists.

"There is no doubt that the devil is intervening more in the life of man these days," Father Paolo Scarafoni told the students, most of them priests who want to learn how to tackle the demon if they should ever encounter him.

"Not all of you will become exorcists but it is indispensable that every priest knows how to discern between demonic possession and psychological problems," he said.

The four-month course, called "Exorcism and the Prayer of Liberation," is being offered for the second year by Pontifical Regina Apostolorum University on Rome's outskirts.

The about 120 students from around the world will hear lectures on topics such as the pastoral, spiritual, theological, liturgical, medical, legal and criminological aspects of Satanism and demonic possession.

One planned lecture is called: "Problems related to exorcism and correlated issues."

Ah me, where is Flip Wilson when you need him? "The Devil made me do it!" This is good stuff. I couldn't make up a joke like this. Is this coming out on DVD any time soon?

Full Story: I Warship Satin

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Go Gingrich! Newt in '08!

Newt Gingrich Considers Run for President
Fri Oct 14, 8:29 AM ET

MOBILE, Ala. - Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Thursday he might run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 — unless some candidates promote his ideas.

"There are circumstances where I will run," Gingrich told a news conference before a speech at the University of Mobile.

Earlier this year, in an interview with The Associated Press, Gingrich said, "Anything seems possible."

Asked under what circumstances he would enter the race, Gingrich, 62, said he plans to continue traveling the United States talking about the issues.

"My hope is that five or six candidates are going to jump up, steal all of my ideas, and I will be able to relax and go golf," he said.

The former Georgia congressman said if nobody picks up on the ideas and the country thinks they are significant, a campaign is possible. But he added that's "so far down the road and so much less important than my two grandchildren."

I hope Newt runs in '08. He is certainly the most qualified candidate in the field in both parties. He has greater knowledge about original intent, U.S. government and its history, and how government is supposed to function. Even if he fails in his bid, he will stir the pot and drive the debate.

Original Post: A Run for Gingrich?

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Iraqis Defy Democrats, Choose to Vote

White House says Iraq vote will defy insurgency
By Tabassum Zakaria

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House said on Friday that whether Iraqis vote for or against the new constitution, the act of casting a ballot will push democracy forward and defy the insurgency.

The Bush administration, which has rejected calls by critics to set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq, has presented Saturday's referendum on a new constitution as a historic milestone and evidence that political progress has been made since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.

"The Iraqi people time and time again defied the terrorists," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

"I think we're going to get a good vote, a big turnout and we certainly hope and expect the constitution will be approved," Vice President Dick Cheney said in an interview with Fox television. "It's vital to get a constitution in place and follow that with national elections in December."

The American public has become increasingly worried about the war in Iraq, where 1,960 U.S. troops have died and another 15,063 have been wounded.

Polls this week showed fewer than 30 percent of Americans believed the country was on the right track amid violence in Iraq, high gas prices and growing budget deficits.

Insurgents have mounted attacks leading up to the vote, including an attack on one of Iraq's main Sunni Arab political parties after it called for a "Yes" vote in Saturday's referendum.

Most Sunni political groups oppose the constitution and have called on Iraqis to either boycott or vote "No," arguing that the charter hands too much power to Shi'ites and Kurds and divides Iraq.

McClellan called the vote a hopeful moment for the entire region and said there were more than 6,000 polling places open and more than 15 million Iraqis registered to vote.

Another disappointment approaching for the Left. A successful vote tomorrow by the Iraqi people will be a setback not just for the terrorists, but for their supporters in the Democrat Party and on the Left. We are slowly achieving an Earth-shattering occurence in the geo-political world. Successful establishment of a democracy by the Iraqi people will have far reaching effects throughout the Middle East and the world in general. My prayers are with them.

Full Story: Iraqis Defiant

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

More Disappointing News for Democrats

Federal Deficit Below Last Year's Record
By ANDREW TAYLOR
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The federal deficit hit $319 billion for the budget year just ended, down from last year's record red ink though a surge in Katrina-driven spending threatens to drive it up again.

The improvement from the record $413 billion recorded in the 2004 budget year, which the Treasury Department reported on Friday, is largely due to a surge in federal revenues from an improving economy.

The figures were released three days before Congress returns from a recess and commences a struggle to cut $35 billion from federal benefit programs over the next five years to help defray hurricane recovery costs. Friday's deficit figures underscored that even if lawmakers agree to such savings, they would have a barely visible effect on the overall red ink figure.

Despite the improvement from last year's budget gap, the 2005 shortfall was still the third-highest ever recorded. The government's 2005 budget year ended on Sept. 30.

Because hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit in August and September, only about $4 billion of the $62 billion in emergency aid provided for the storms was actually spent in fiscal 2005, according to a senior Treasury official. Congressional analysts figure another $30 billion of those funds will be spent in the budget year that began Oct. 1, though more spending is likely to be approved in coming weeks.

Oh dear me, how unfortunate for the Democrats and their advocacy group, the Main Stream Media. This must be giving them ulcers. Of course they have always got their "yeah, but" for this, as in "Yeah, but wait till next year!" Ever the sirens of negativity, they can't wait till the next negative story. What a miserable way to live your life. I'd rather be dead than live my life locked in a miasma of negative hopes and dreams, hoping for the death of our troops, hoping for the failure of our economy, hoping for the destruction of our nation just so they can win the next election (which they won't for that very reason).

Full Story: Decreasing Deficit

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

40% of Evacuees "Won't Return" to New Orleans

Evacuees shun going home
By Susan Page
USA TODAY

Hurricane Katrina has swept away more than New Orleans buildings: Nearly four in 10 city residents who sought help from the Red Cross say they don't plan to move back, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll finds. (Related: Poll results)

That astounding migration of an estimated 50,000 households could change the face of the city they're leaving behind - and the places where they relocate.

USA TODAY, with the cooperation of the American Red Cross, conducted a telephone poll of 1,510 of the 470,000 people from Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama who registered for help after the storm. Half were reached by cellphone in the first comprehensive survey of hurricane victims.

Nearly seven weeks later, the most devastating natural disaster in U.S. history continues to roil their lives.

Among New Orleans residents, 39% say they definitely or probably won't move back. The Red Cross registered more than 132,000 of the city's 180,000 households, which translates to about 50,000 households planning to relocate. (Related: Five lessons from Katrina)

"That would be unprecedented ... in the quickness of it, the bigness of it, and the fact that these people are very rooted" in New Orleans, says William Frey, a demographer at the University of Michigan. "You might be able to have a viable economy there, and tourism. But the pulse of that city would change dramatically."

Overall, blacks are twice as likely as whites to say they won't return. Those with higher and lower incomes are more likely to say they'll relocate than those in the middle. And those under age 30 are much more likely to plan to move than their elders.

Are you surprised at this? For all the affected shock and sneering about Barbara Bush's comments in the Astrodome in August, it would appear that she was correct. I wonder how much of this reaction has to do with the grotesque "open checkbook" policy of the Congress and the President. At $250 Billion, the government is spending roughly half a million dollars per New Orleans resident. Free housing, all of the aid they are getting, and discovering the world outside of New Orleans have combined to improve their lot in life substantially.

Full Story: Paradise Found

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

MSM, Ever a Source of Optimism

There's Little Future Here
By Sam Howe Verhovek Times Staff Writer

NEW ORLEANS — Six weeks after the flood, on the first day they could come back to look at their homes, some residents of the Lower 9th Ward managed small moments of victory Wednesday, recovering bits of their pre-hurricane lives.

A favorite piece of china. A photo album stored on a high closet shelf. In one home, a battery-operated clock, still ticking, still telling correct time.

But in most of the low-lying, poverty-stricken neighborhood — one devastated by Katrina and smacked again weeks later by Rita — there were scenes of near-total loss. Hardly anybody who came home to the Lower 9th Ward seemed to think these homes could ever be lived in again.

City officials concede as much: They called it a "look and leave" operation. For the first time, those who fled could come back, but only to look for valuables, and certainly not to stay — not in a place where many houses were almost fully consumed by floodwaters.

"It is important for people to see their home," Mayor C. Ray Nagin said, "and move forward with the process of building a new future."

That idea did not sit well with 74-year-old Mayola Osirio, who came home to 823 Charbonnet St. after weeks of refuge with friends in Texas and northern Mississippi.

"Oh Lord, oh Lord," said Osirio, a retired city parking-enforcement dispatcher, looking at the ruins of her beige clapboard house. "I don't see nowhere of starting all over again."

It took 40 minutes just to get in the front door. Osirio's friend Chester Heidelberg, a 76-year-old retired molasses plant worker, sprayed WD-40 lubricant into the lock and fiddled patiently with the key.

Leave it to the LA Times to be a beacon of hope in the people's time of need. I guess to the grim Liberals out on the Left Coast, the glass is alway half-empty. Looks like to me that New Orleans presents a golden opportunity to rebuild in a way to correct the errors of the past, resulting in a better more prosperous city. Man, it must really be miserable to be a Liberal and live life in such a grim manner.

Full Story: New Orleans Hope

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Hope Continues to Blossom In Iraq

Iraq shuts down as early voting starts
By Alastair Macdonald

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq prepared to seal itself off from the outside world and clamp down on movement around the country to ward off threats from insurgents bent on wrecking Saturday's referendum on a new constitution.

Announcing the measures on Thursday, as the first Iraqis cast early ballots in hospitals and prisons, Interior Minister Bayan Jabor said frontiers would be closed from midnight until Sunday. Businesses were closed for a four-day public holiday and private vehicles will be banned from Friday night.

An explosion damaged the offices of a Sunni Arab political group in the restive city of Falluja, west of Baghdad, after the Iraqi Islamic Party broke ranks on Wednesday and agreed to back the constitution as part of a U.S.-brokered deal to foster national unity and curb sectarian and ethnic feuding.

A White House spokesman greeted the deal as "positive" and said it would encourage more Iraqis to participate in politics. Washington is keen to see a strong government in Baghdad that can defend itself and allow American troops to start leaving.

At Baghdad's Yarmouk hospital, often the theater for the human misery left by guerrilla attacks in the capital, doctors as well as patients were able to vote on Thursday at a polling station set up in the building, one of some 6,000 across Iraq.

"There's been high turnout. People feel good about this new change and about the deal the political parties reached. God willing the voting will go well," said one member of staff, who gave his name simply as Hussein, after casting his ballot.

Bad news for Democrats, good news for the people of Iraq. Iraq will succeed in becoming a stable democracy if Americans just stay the course. It is time for the American people to look beyond the next days headlines, and envision what the success of the Iraqi people could mean to us and the world. Their success will be another blow against the haters in the world, both in the rest of the world and here in America.

Full Story: Iraqi Democracy

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Tragic Accident but Do We Need An Overzealous Prosecutor

Bus driver who hit girl on bike up for murder
The DA's office says it is seeking the stiffer penalty because kids need extra protection
By RUTH RENDON
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

A Pasadena school district bus driver was charged with murder Monday in connection with the death of a 9-year-old student run over on her way to school in August.

Jerry Michael Cook, 41, was charged following a probable cause hearing before state District Judge Marc Carter. Cook also was charged with negligent homicide, said Warren Diepraam, an assistant Harris County district attorney.

Ruth Young, a fourth-grader at Frazier Elementary School, was run over the morning of Aug. 18 in just the second week of school. The youngster was riding her bike and was a block from her school when she was hit by the bus driven by Cook.

The girl was pronounced dead at the scene at the intersection of Hughes and Sageburrow.

Diepraam said he chose to seek a murder charge and not just the criminal negligent homicide because the law provides extra protection for children.

"The conduct in this case was pretty egregious in my opinion," he said. "Number one, he was a school bus driver. He has all that extra training. They have giant doors on the right-hand side of the bus. He should have seen her. They have mirrors on the front of the bus and basically there is no blind spot."

Following the accident, however, Houston police investigator M.W. Gartman told the Houston Chronicle that Cook had a "limited vision. He would have had to see her through the windows in his door. He probably never realized she was there until he heard the bike under the bus."

Cook's attorney Robert Fickman said his client would plead not guilty at the time of trial.

"We simply believe it was a tragic accident," Fickman said.

"This event, albeit tragic, was nothing more than an accident. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and sometimes an accident is just an accident. That's what this was," he said. "This was an accident, and charging him with a crime does not change the fact that it was simply a tragic accident. Ultimately, that's what we think a jury will find it to be."

I don't know all of the particulars, but this sure sounds like excessive charges. From the information in this article it sounds like an unfortunate accident. Maybe there was some negligence involved and if so then Cook ought to be punished, but if he was distracted or blinded by glare, I don't think that he can be held culpable. Odds are he will suffer from guilt and remorse over this for a long time. Just a sad story.

Full Story: Tragic Accident

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

The Worm Turns: DeLay Subpoenas Earle

DeLay lawyers subpoena district attorney
Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Lawyers for indicted Rep. Tom DeLay today subpoenaed the prosecuting Texas district attorney in an effort to show he acted improperly with grand jurors.

The subpoena for Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, filed in Austin, asked that the prosecutor and two of his assistants appear in court to explain their conduct.

The lawyers previously had filed a motion asking for dismissal of the conspiracy and money-laundering charges against DeLay, who stepped aside as House majority leader because of the indictment.

Dick DeGuerin, DeLay's attorney, also asked that grand jurors be released from their secrecy oath so they could answer questions about the prosecutor's conduct.

DeGuerin wants Earle to answer 12 questions about conversations he had with grand jurors, including whether the prosecutor became angry when a grand jury decided against an indictment of DeLay and why the decision was not publicly released.

He also wants to know the details of Earle's conversation with William Gibson, foreman of a grand jury that indicted DeLay on conspiracy charges and whose term has since ended.

"If you did nothing improper, you should not be concerned about answering these questions," DeGuerin said in his letter to Earle.

The Left has picked a fight with a guy who will not lay down for it and they are getting ready find that out...in spades. Earle is a light weight when it comes to politics as a contact sport. Trumped up charges by the D.A. of the Democrat Controlled Travis County are just a bump in the road. If these charges had substance to them, Earle would not have had to use seven (that's 7 for you liberals)grand juries and further browbeat them into indicting DeLay.

Full Story: DeGuerin Subpoena to Earle's KB3, CHECK!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Comic Relief From Arizona: McCain in '08

McCain Considers '08 Presidential Run
The Associated Press
Monday, October 10, 2005; 10:13 PM

NEW YORK -- Arizona Sen. John McCain is considering a 2008 run for president but says it's unlikely he'd take the No. 2 spot.

In an appearance Sunday at a fund-raiser for a local New York candidate, the Republican seemed to humorously rule out ever accepting a vice presidential post.

"I spent all those years in a North Vietnamese prison camp, kept in the dark, fed scraps, why the hell would I want to do that all over again?" he said, the New York Daily News reported in Monday editions.

McCain, who ran for president in 2000, was re-elected to a six-year Senate term in 2004.

He told the newspaper that he was seriously considering a 2008 bid. As he has before, McCain said he will wait until after the 2006 election to decide about his political future.

The Staten Island fund-raiser brought in $200 per person for Borough President James Molinaro, who is running for re-election.

You go guy! We need a little comic relief for the '08 Presidential Election. McCain hasn't got a ghost of a chance. The only Republicans who will support him are RINOs. He is far too Liberal and far to self-important and self-absorbed to mount a real challenge to any true conservative. All we need is a little Napoleon wannabe.

Original Story: McCain '08

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Former Prostitute in Chief. Clinton Cashing in on Presidency

And now, just in time for Christmas shopping.

It's the " Bill Clinton Collection, Selections From the Clinton Music Room" CD, with the former president's apparently favorite tunes, 11 of them, for only $15.95.

The CD, said to be the "first in a series" -- we're told of four -- "of collectible CDs" is tilted heavily to jazz, with Miles Davis ("My Funny Valentine"), John Coltrane and Johnny Hartman ("My One and Only Love"), Zoot Sims ("Summertime") and the incomparable Russian alto sax man Igor Butman ("Nostalgie") who plays at Le Club in Moscow.

Vocals include "Chelsea Morning," by Judy Collins , "Take My Hand, Precious Lord," by Mahalia Jackson and "I Wish I Knew (How It Would Feel to Be Free)" by Nina Simone . Proceeds go to the Clinton Foundation.

Don't be fooled by the fine art on the cover by artist Jay Wolf Schlossberg-Cohen that has Clinton, in shades, playing the sax. The 42nd president is not playing on any of the selections. The CD is for sale at http://clintonmuseumstore.com/ .

And no, we know what you're thinking, but there will be no Loop contest about tunes that should have been included but weren't, such as Marvin Gaye 's "Let's Get It On" or "Sexual Healing," or Mitch Ryder 's "Devil With a Blue Dress On." Certain standards need to be upheld.

This is so low class that even a long time Clinton basher like me is having a hard time believing it. The Clinton's used to call Bill's women accusers "trailer trash." What could be trashier than a former President of the United States cashing in on his resultant celebrity. The Clinton's are the epitome of money grubbing, nouveau riche, "trailer trash." The man truly has no shame. Color me disgusted...again.

Original Post: Selling the Presidency

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

DeLay Fights Back Against Earle's Persecution

DeLay leads own defense with potent offense
Former House leader begins fight in the court of public opinion
By SAMANTHA LEVINE
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - As far as Tom DeLay is concerned, there is only one person suited to the job of defending him outside the courtroom against the criminal indictments that have suddenly thrown his future into doubt: himself.

"He believes this requires a personal defense," spokesman Kevin Madden said. "We go out and make sure he has the proper venues to do that."

Since DeLay was indicted on conspiracy and money-laundering charges in Travis County, he has appeared before the jury of public opinion with a relentless offensive of radio and television appearances, e-mail messages and a Web site that appears to be mostly funded with campaign donations.

He has even used old-fashioned political props — "I Stand With Tom" buttons and hand fans printed with the message "I am a Tom DeLay fan."

Campaign's goals

The goal of all of this, Madden said, is to ensure that DeLay's constituents in the Houston area's 22nd District, as well as Republicans in Congress and across the country, see that the charges are baseless and "made by somebody who always targets his political enemies with his prosecutorial power," a reference to Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, a Democrat.

DeLay's lawyers already have filed a motion to dismiss the indictment.

Earle has said he is going only by the facts of the case and points out he has prosecuted more Democrats than Republicans on charges related to their public service.

The success of DeLay's campaign depends in large part on forces beyond his control — a judge in Travis County who will decide whether his case comes to trial; the House Ethics Committee, which may investigate DeLay's overseas travel; and a federal probe of lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who went on two of the trips, to determine whether he improperly influenced the Sugar Land Republican.

DeLay is going to beat this deal quite handily. Earle is on a witch hunt and needs to be slapped down hard. Imagine allowing a film crew to have access to the investigation, and having to desperately seek a seventh grand jury to get an indictment.

Full Story: DeLay v. Earle

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Count Me As One of the Frustrated Conservatives

HARRIET MIERS
She knows how to keep a secret
But nominee's closely guarded style frustrates those who wonder about her beliefs
By KIM COBB
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

DALLAS - When Harriet Miers was cutting her law teeth here in the 1970s, the only available role models nearby were tight-lipped male attorneys from dark-suited firms who preached the importance of discretion.

She endured the "hello, little lady" treatment from Dallas' more hidebound attorneys and judges, confidently staking her claim to power in a world where women were still a novelty.

And she kept her mouth firmly shut.

"That's one of the reasons clients like her, particularly a client like George Bush," said Houston attorney and longtime Miers friend Chip Babcock. "When he tells Harriet Miers something, he knows they can pull all her teeth out and she's not going to reveal a secret."

But the trait also is why Bush's nomination of Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court is driving people crazy at both ends of the political spectrum. Her career has been a series of public successes, but her private life, which encircles many of her opinions, has been her most protected client.

Her evangelical Christianity is frightening to some who fear that it would imbue a conservative approach to hot-button issues such as abortion and gay rights.

She is not committed or conservative enough for others. Power players on the right, having expected Bush to nominate someone with bonafide conservative credentials, feel betrayed. They say that Miers is a cipher, and they resent Bush's admonition to trust his choice because "I know her heart."

This is, after all, a woman who donated $1,000 to Democrat Al Gore's presidential campaign in 1988.

The next year, she was elected to the Dallas City Council for a two-year term. And she met George W. Bush.

Miers barely left a ripple in the local political landscape during her single council term.

Her ascent in legal circles, however, was swift and smooth — the first woman hired at the firm now known as Locke Liddell & Sapp became its first female president in 1996, already having served as president of the Dallas Bar Association and State Bar of Texas.

Then-Gov. Bush appointed Miers as chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission in 1995. And she followed Bush to Washington in 2001 as assistant to the president and staff secretary and has served as his government lawyer since February.

She is unquestionably dedicated to Bush. But her heart remains in Dallas with her fragile mother, Sally, ultra-loyal friends and the evangelical church life that centers her.

This is an unnecessary mess. It should never have come to this point. President Bush has been ill-served by Harriet Miers simply by her not having said, "No Thanks, Mr. President." She obviously allowed her ego to overcome her good sense. I think that it's likely she will be confirmed in the end. Bush will get his choice, short of some revelation, but the American people will be short-changed in the process. Nominees should have an established record for all to see, and then the Nation along with the Senate can debate and decide if the candidate is acceptable and therefore, in which direction the country is going to go.

Full Story: Miers Mire

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Gene Green, Sheila Jackson Lee, Ron Paul Vote Against Oil Industry

House passes bill to aid refineries
Senate foes of the measure threaten to block it with filibusters
By DAVID IVANOVICH
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - A bill designed to jump-start construction of new refineries squeaked through the House on Friday by the narrowest of margins.

By a vote of 212-210, the Republican-controlled House approved a bill that proponents say will help broaden the nation's refining capacity and eventually ease pressure on gasoline prices.

But the measure passed only after what was supposed to be a five-minute vote was extended by 40 minutes, to grant former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, and other GOP leaders time to persuade enough reluctant Northeast Republicans to support the legislation.

The Republicans' delaying tactics as they scrambled for votes were met with chants of "shame, shame, shame" from House Democrats.

No Democrats voted for the bill, while 13 Republicans crossed party lines to oppose it.

Acting Majority Leader Roy Blunt, R-Mo., conceded after the vote that Republicans shouldn't have tried to push the legislation through so quickly.

"Even a bill designed to cut gas prices probably needed more time," Blunt said.

The bill's troubles in the House do not bode well for its prospects in the Senate, where opponents have already threatened filibusters.

Known as the Gasoline for America's Security, or GAS Act, the bill intends to coordinate the permitting process for new refineries, compensate oil companies for delays in refinery construction projects and make price gouging a federal offense.

"We use 21 million barrels of oil a day, and only have the refining capacity for 16 million on a good day," House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton, R-Ennis, said during the debate. "And after Katrina and Rita, we haven't had many good days."

Indeed, about 12 percent of the nation's refining capacity remains shut down because of the storms.

President Bush hailed the vote, saying the bill would "help address the cost of gasoline, diesel fuels and jet fuels."

Democrats argued the bill does nothing to help consumers and cast the legislation as a give-away to the energy companies.

Michigan's John Dingell, the ranking Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, called the bill "a poorly thought out and poorly vetted effort to pass Republican and industry wish lists."

Democrats got support from Northeast Republicans such as Rep. Sherwood Boehlert of New York, who distributed a letter to his colleagues before the vote arguing the bill would burden taxpayers, interfere with state's prerogatives and give undue aid to oil companies.

Rep. Gene Green, D-Houston, whose district includes many of the refineries along the Houston Ship Channel, initially was one of three Democrats who voted for the bill.

But as the vote erupted into an emotional, partisan showdown, all three switched their votes. Green said he didn't want to be the "Lone Ranger" among Democrats backing the bill. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Houston, argued refiners need tax incentives to add capacity, but not relief from environmental regulations.

All Houston-area Republicans supported the bill except for Rep. Ron Paul, R-Lake Jackson, who walked off the floor without voting. Paul's spokesman Jeff Deist said his boss had mixed feelings about the bill but was particularly dismayed by the partisan nature of the vote.

The bill attempts to streamline the permitting process for new refineries as well as for significant expansions of existing facilities.

The bill would require the president to identify sites on federal land — including three closed military installations — that could be used for new refineries.

The Energy Department would be the lead federal agency for finding new sites for plants, although state governors would have the power to either encourage construction or veto projects.

Boy Gene Green showed his backbone-"didn't want to be the 'Lone Ranger' among Democrats"-There are the words of a man of principle. What a coward! We in Houston need better congresmen than these. We need people of vision and courage. We need Conservative Republicans to represent us. The Democrat claims that this bill did nothing for the average citizen is a lie. There is only one means of permanently lowing the price of gasoline, and building new capacity is it.

Full Story: Gene Green Betrays Houston

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Bush Did It! Ahh...Err...Global Warming! Ahh...Er...Haliburton!

Weather cycle seen reaching limit in dry Amazon
By Peter Blackburn

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil (Reuters) - Drought in the Amazon rain forest, normally one of the world's wettest regions, shows the weather cycle is swinging to one extreme rather than signaling climate change, local meteorologists said Thursday.

Water levels on two major Amazon tributaries -- Madeira and Solimoes -- dropped to record- and 38-year lows respectively, creating long delays in river traffic, the main form of regional transport.

Dry weather also fanned huge forest fires, notably in the remote western state of Acre.

But weather forecasters added that elsewhere in continental sized Brazil, seasonal spring rains had started in the south and were spreading northwards through Brazil's major coffee belt and gradually into soybean areas in the center-west.

"The Amazon drought shows extreme climate variability, not climatic change," said Jose Marengo, researcher at the Weather Forecasting and Climatic Studies Center (CPTEC), part of the National Institute of Space Research (INPE).

Marengo said that normal rains were forecast for the south Amazon -- the states of Acre, Rondonia, southern part of Para state and northern part of Mato Grosso state.

"Rain is forecast in Acre in the next couple of weeks," he said, adding that the region is normally dry between June and September and wettest in December and January.

But we are a bit worried that there could be less rain than usual at the mouth of the Amazon, around Belem, he said, noting that extreme climatic events were occurring more frequently, "We could be seeing the first symptoms of changing cycles."

Meteorologists discounted a link between unusually severe hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico and drought in the Amazon.

Dry weather in the Amazon is linked to warmer ocean surface temperatures in the Pacific and to low sunspot activity, said Expedito Rebello, head of applied meteorology at the government's National Institute of Meteorology in Brasilia.

"It's a phenomenal drought and could be linked to a warmer Pacific and little sunspot activity," Rebello said, noting extremely low water levels in the Amazon.

I'm waiting...come on all you knee-jerk global warming Chicken Littles...Let's here the rant. Bobby Jr.? Albert? Come on, you can do it. Let me help you...K...Y...O...T...O...now don't be shy. Kyoto! There I knew you could do it! Global Warming! Yes! There you go! Bush did it! Ha! Success!...Cretins. Don't forget Mars...

Full Story: Those Dry Amazon Nights

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

You Act Like Your Surprised. Clintonian Corruption Exposed

Former FBI Director Decries Clinton Morals
By DEVLIN BARRETT
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Louis Freeh, the FBI director appointed by President Clinton, says his relationship with his boss fell apart because Clinton's "closets were full of skeletons."

Clinton's spokesman said Freeh's account was "a total work of fiction."

Freeh's relationship with Clinton soured due to friction over investigations aimed at the president or his immediate circle, and disagreement over the probe into a 1996 bombing in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 Americans.

In the past, Freeh has strongly criticized the Clinton administration's response to the bombing of Khobar Towers, and has praised President Bush.

In his upcoming book, "My FBI," Freeh says Clinton failed to pressure Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to let the FBI question suspects the kingdom had in custody.

" Bill Clinton raised the subject only to tell the crown prince that he understood the Saudis' reluctance to cooperate and then he hit Abdullah up for a contribution to the Clinton library," Freeh writes.

Jay Carson, Clinton's spokesman, said Freeh "wasn't even present for the meetings he describes. President Clinton repeatedly pressed the Saudis for cooperation on the Khobar Towers investigation and his pressure led to the eventual indictments."

Carson said Freeh's claims about the library "are more untruths in a book that clearly has many."

Freeh discussed the bad blood with Clinton in an interview to be aired Sunday on CBS' "60 Minutes."

"We were preoccupied in eight years with multiple investigations," Freeh said in the interview, according to excerpts released Thursday.

Know the truth, and the truth shall set you Freeh! How long did Bill and Hillary think they could cover all of this up. The most corrupt administration in the last hundred years is about to be exposed. Democrats alway could out corrupt the Republicans. After all when your entire party is sociopathic, anything goes.

Full Story: Freeh Spills It.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Rove to Make Fourth Appearance Before Fitzgerald's Leakey Inquisition

Legal Experts: Rove's New Testimony Risky
By PETE YOST
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Presidential aide Karl Rove's upcoming fourth appearance before a federal grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA officer's identity is a risky legal move because it opens him up to making statements that are inconsistent with what he previously has said, legal experts say.

Rove offered in July to return to the grand jury and Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald accepted last Friday, lawyers familiar with the investigation said Thursday, speaking only on condition of anonymity.

The grand jury normally meets on Fridays and was also scheduled to convene next week, but it was unclear when Rove would testify again.

"In a normal criminal investigation, most defense lawyers are extremely cautious about their clients testifying even once before a grand jury and are generally loathe to let them testify more than once," said former federal prosecutor E. Lawrence Barcella Jr. "This is a classic example of what happens when there's a large political overlay to a criminal investigation."

At the same time, it may be risky for Rove not to testify, since Fitzgerald warned Rove that prosecutors can no longer guarantee he won't be indicted. The warning came in a letter accepting Rove's offer to testify one more time.

Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor, said it was unusual for a witness to be called back to a grand jury four times and that the prosecutor's legally required warning to Rove before this next appearance is "an ominous sign" for the presidential adviser.

What I want to know is what kind of incompetent Fitzgerald is that he can't control the information leaking out of his court room. That grand jury has more leaks than a New Orleans levee. Everytime someone testifies, the substance of what they testified to is on the next news broadcast.

Full Story: Rove Goes Again

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

A Swedish Joke: Nobel Peace Prize Awarded For Failure

IAEA, Agency Chief Win Nobel Peace Prize
By GEORGE JAHN
Associated Press Writer

VIENNA, Austria - Mohamed ElBaradei and his International Atomic Energy agency won the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday, leaving the chief U.N. nuclear inspector strengthened in a job he nearly lost because of a dispute with the United States over Iran and Iraq.

ElBaradei suggested winning the world's most prestigious award vindicated his methods and goals — using diplomacy rather than confrontation and defusing tensions in multilateral negotiations that strive for consensus.

He also suggested the conflict with Washington was over, saying Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "wished me well" in a congratulatory phone call.

The Bush administration has bristled at ElBaradei's positions on the nuclear threat posed by Iran and Iraq and unsuccessfully lobbied to block his appointment to a third and final four-year term this year. The endorsement by the Nobel committee was viewed as a major boost to the 63-year-old Egyptian and his mandate to curb nuclear proliferation.

ElBaradei (pronounced ehl-BEHR'-uh-day) and the IAEA locked horns with Washington in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war by challenging U.S. claims that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. More recently, ElBaradei's refusal to back U.S. assertions that Iran has a covert nuclear weapons program hardened opposition to him within the Bush administration.

After the award was announced, ElBaradei refrained from criticizing the United States in comments to Associated Press Television News and two other media outlets.

"I don't see it as a critique of the U.S.," he said Friday. "We had disagreement before the Iraq war, honest disagreement. We could have been wrong, they could have been right."

Instead, he said, the honor was "a message: 'Hey guys, you need to get your act together you need to work together in multinational institutions.'"

The award also was a signal "going to the Arab world, going to the Western world that we ... have a lot in common and we need to work together to survive," ElBaradei said.

Whoops, did I miss something here, did Iran finally agree to stop work on a nuclear plant? Did they abandon their plans to build a nuclear arsenal? This is the typical unimportant elitist Left-wing moon-bat Swedish clap-trap. The Nobel political prizes have been a joke for some considerable time. My favorite commentary came int the Cal Berkley satire of Bergman films, "The Dove" in which Max von Sedow mentions that he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for Nuclear Physics. God save us from my ancestors.

Full Story: ElBaradei-Nobel

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Bush Speaks Out...Finally

Bush Plans to Take on Iraq War Critics
By TOM RAUM
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush is stepping up his defense of his Iraq policy as he faces declining public support for the war and a crucial test in Iraq with the Oct. 15 constitutional referendum.

Aides said Bush would take on war critics directly in a speech on Iraq and the broader war on terrorism on Thursday before the National Endowment for Democracy.

Bush got briefed Wednesday on Iraq by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. David Petraeus and said he was pleased with the progress in the training of Iraqi troops.

"The Iraqis are showing more and more capability of taking the fight to the enemy," the president told reporters. "As they become more capable, we will be able to bring folks home."

He did not offer a timetable.

Bush also said he expected insurgents to try to derail next week's vote on a new constitution.

"We fully understand they intend to disrupt the constitutional process, or will try to do so, as well as stop the progress of democracy," Bush said. "Part of the way the Pentagon and the folks on the ground are going to deal with it is to stay on the offense, and that's what's taking place."

Senate Democrats assailed the administration's strategy in Iraq and prodded the president to change it. "We will not accept staying the course," said Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

In a letter to Bush, Senate Democrats said continuing along the same path in Iraq "could lead to a full blown civil war."

"He has to tell the American people what the plan is," said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del.

It's about time for the administration to fight back! They have been far too relaxed about allowing the idiots on the Left like Joe (the Plagiarizer) Biden to lash out without any response. The American need to know the truth, and it is obvious that they cannot rely on the Left-wing MSM for that.

Full Story: Bush On Iraq

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Afghanistan Progressing Towards Stability

NATO head says optimistic about Afghan consensus
By Sayed Salahuddin
Thu Oct 6, 6:01 AM ET

KABUL (Reuters) - NATO's chief said on Thursday he was optimistic about a consensus to resolve differences over alliance plans to take over counter-insurgency operations in Afghanistan as well as peacekeeping after expanding into the violent south.

The United States, which has about two-thirds of the foreign troops in Afghanistan and is looking to cut its commitment given pressures in Iraq, has been trying to get European allies to take on more of the burden of the war against Islamic militants.

But NATO allies France, Germany and Spain last month rejected the U.S. call, insisting NATO should stick to peacekeeping rather than become involved in the counter-insurgency work of the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom.

NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said after a three-day visit to Afghanistan the alliance planned to station several thousand more troops in the country as part of an expansion into the insurgent-troubled south.

This could bring its numbers up from 12,500 to perhaps 15,000, he said.

But he said NATO still had to clarify its command structure when its peacekeeping force, known as the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), eventually takes over all foreign forces in the country.

"The situation, at the end of the day, of course it will be one operation in one country led by NATO," he told a joint news conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

"But we are not in that stage. We are in the stage that we have an ISAF operation, we are in the stage that we have Operation Enduring Freedom, a coalition operation.

"As NATO expands in the south ... we have to find more synergy between the two and we have to find a command structure that doesn't bring them into conflict with each other -- that's the key (to) what we are going to discuss now."

"I am optimistic we can reach a strong consensus on the elements."

Building a stable free state where there has been none in the past is not an easy task, but things appear to be progressing step by step. This is very encouraging. People who fought over disagreements, are now settling them by negotiation.

Full Story: Afghan Progress

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Excellent Beginning for Roberts

High Court Clashes Over Assisted Suicide
By GINA HOLLAND
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - New Chief Justice John Roberts stepped forward Wednesday as an aggressive defender of federal authority to block doctor-assisted suicide, as the Supreme Court clashed over an Oregon law that lets doctors help terminally ill patients end their lives.

The justices will decide if the federal government, not states, has the final say on the life-or-death issue.

It was a wrenching debate for a court touched personally by illness. Roberts replaced William H. Rehnquist, who died a month ago after battling cancer for nearly a year. Three justices have had cancer and a fourth has a spouse who counsels children with untreatable cancer.

The outcome is hard to predict, in part because of the uncertain status of retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who seemed ready to support Oregon's law. Her replacement may be confirmed before the ruling is handed down, possibly months from now.

Roberts repeatedly raised concerns that a single exception for Oregon would allow other states to create a patchwork of rules.

"If one state can say it's legal for doctors to prescribe morphine to make people feel better, or to prescribe steroids for bodybuilding, doesn't that undermine the uniformity of the federal law and make enforcement impossible?" he asked.

The Supreme Court eight years ago concluded that the dying have no constitutional right to doctor-assisted suicide. O'Connor provided a key fifth vote in that decision, which left room for state-by-state experimentation.

The new case is a turf battle of sorts, started by former Attorney General John Ashcroft, a favorite among the president's conservative religious supporters. Hastening someone's death is an improper use of medication and violates federal drug laws, Ashcroft reasoned in 2001, an opposite conclusion from the one reached by Attorney General Janet Reno in the Clinton administration.

This is a good sign that Roberts will be a strong advocate the right to life for the unborn. I am very encouraged by this development. I am encouraged in spite of the fact that, in truth, I believe in the right of an adult who is of sound mind, to make the choice to terminate his life in the face of extreme circumstances.

Full Story: Robert Strong Start

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

McCain Leads Cowardly Republicans in Idiot Vote

Senate Approves Detainee Treatment Rules
by LIZ SIDOTI
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Senate faces a confrontation with the House over a $440 billion military spending bill that, despite White House opposition, would impose restrictions on the treatment of terrorism suspects.

Delivering a rare wartime slap at Pentagon authority and President Bush, the GOP-controlled Senate voted 90-9 on Wednesday to back an amendment that would prohibit the use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" against anyone in U.S. government custody, regardless of where they are held.

Sponsored by Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., the proposal also would require all service members to follow procedures in the Army Field Manual when they detain and interrogate terrorism suspects.

"This amendment strives to establish uniform standards for the interrogation of prisoners and detainees as a means for helping ensure our service men and women are well trained, well briefed, knowledgeable of their legal, professional and moral duties and obligations," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.

The Senate was expected to vote on the overall spending bill by week's end. The House-approved version of it does not include the detainee provision. It is unclear how much support the measure has in the GOP-run House.

However, Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense, who supports the measure, could prove a powerful ally when House and Senate negotiators meet to reconcile differences in their bills.

And the House could face immense pressure after such a mandate by the Senate. All but nine Republicans voted in favor of the legislation.

Sen. Ted Stevens (news, bio, voting record), R-Alaska, said he was concerned that McCain's legislation could inadvertently endanger the lives of people who work in classified roles, and he hoped to fix the potential problems in the final bill.

John McCain is a fool. His concerns about how American prisoners of war might be treated by their captors would be understandable, if anyone besides people in Western cultures abided by the Geneva Convention Restrictions. Evil people don't abide by the rules, never have, never will. How we treat non-combatants or POWs has no effect on how Americans will be treated. As a former POW in North Vietnam, McCain knows this (or should) better than anyone. None of the treatment he received during his imprisonment was in accordance with the Convention rules. These restrictions merely endanger the lives of American soldiers by crippling our ability to obtain intelligence. Remember, we're not discussing torture here, merely mistreatment.

Full Story: Weakening Ourselves

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Earle Backfills by Bringing Money Laundering Charges as His Conspiracy Charges Die

Texas Prosecutor Cites New Input on DeLay
Earle Doesn't Respond to Lawmaker's Attack
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 5, 2005

The Texas prosecutor overseeing an investigation of former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) fired back yesterday at criticism by DeLay's lawyers that he brought a new indictment against the powerful legislator on Monday to fix a legal flaw in the first indictment of DeLay last week.

Travis Country District Attorney Ronnie Earle said in a written statement released late yesterday that the new indictment charging DeLay with the criminal felonies of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering was based on new information that "came to the attention of the District Attorney's Office" last weekend.

The statement did not elaborate on whether the new information consisted of testimony, documents or insight, explaining that "because of the laws protecting grand jury secrecy, no other comments can be made."

But the statement was Earle's most detailed account of why the money laundering charges leveled against DeLay on Monday by one grand jury were not issued earlier, during the three-month tenure of a different grand jury that on its final day, Sept. 28, issued a lesser charge of conspiracy to violate the Texas election laws.

Dick DeGuerin pretty much has it right when he says that the new information Earle recieved over the weekend was that the conspiracy charges would not hold up. This conspiracy is going to explode in the Democrats faces, and they are just now beginning to realize it. Look for panic to ensue as they stampede to separate themselves from Ronnie Earle.

Full Story: Earle Imploding

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

This We Don't Need!

High Hurricane Activity Foreseen in Oct.
Mon Oct 3, 9:18 PM ET
Associated Press

FORT COLLINS, Colo. - Hurricane researcher William Gray on Monday forecast two hurricanes, one of them one major, for the rest of October — nearly double the long-term average for the month.

Gray and fellow researcher Philip Klotzbach of Colorado State University said the likelihood of a major hurricane crossing the U.S. coastline is 15 percent, more than double the long-term average of 6 percent.

"Unfortunately, the very active season we have seen to this point is not yet over," Gray said.

Gray and Klotzbach said the likelihood of a named storm hitting the U.S. coast in October is 49 percent, compared with an average of 29 percent from 1950 to 2000. The probability of a hurricane making landfall in the U.S. is 21 percent, compared with the long-term average of 15 percent, they said.

Through the end of September, the 2005 season has had nine hurricanes, five of them major, and 17 named storms. The 50-year average is 5.9 hurricanes, 2.3 of them major, and 9.6 named storms for an entire season.

Three of this year's major hurricanes — Dennis, Katrina and Rita — made landfall. Ophelia hit the North Carolina coast as a Category 1 hurricane although its eye remained just offshore.

Gray and Klotzbach said factors behind this year's active season include warmer-than-average Atlantic Ocean surface temperatures and lower-than-normal sea level pressures, lower-than-average vertical wind shears and moister conditions in the lower and middle atmosphere.

They said they do not attribute the active season to human-induced global warming. Instead, they cited "long-period natural climate alterations that historical and paleo-climate records show to have occurred many times in the past."

Well hopefully they will avoid the Gulf Coast. We've seen enough of that for this year. Nothing to do but wait and see...

Original Post: October Hurricanes

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Roy Moore to Seek Alabama Governorship

Ousted Ala. Justice to Run for Governor
By PHILLIP RAWLS
Mon Oct 3,11:40 PM ET

GADSDEN, Ala. - Roy Moore, who became a hero to the religious right after being ousted as Alabama's chief justice for refusing to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from the courthouse, announced Monday that he is running for governor in 2006.

Moore's candidacy could set up a showdown with Gov. Bob Riley, a fellow Republican, and turn the Ten Commandments dispute into a central campaign issue in this Bible Belt state.

Two Democrats, Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley and former Gov. Don Siegelman, are already running. The Republican and Democratic primaries are June 6.

Moore, 58, said that if elected, he has no plans to relocate the Ten Commandments monument from its new home at a church in Gadsden.

"But I'll tell you what I will do. I will defend the right of every citizen of this state — including judges, coaches, teachers, city, county and state officials — to acknowledge God as the sovereign source of law, liberty and government," he said.

In 2000, Alabama voters elected Moore as chief justice of the state Supreme Court, and the next summer he had a 5,300-pound granite monument of the Ten Commandments installed in the rotunda of the state judicial building. A federal judge ordered Moore to remove it as an unconstitutional endorsement of religion, but Moore refused.

Moore is a hero to conservatives and southerners. He ought to be a shoo-in for governor. Maybe he'll figure out a way to put the 10 Commandments on the Capitol Building.

Full Story: 10 Commandments for Governor

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Not Much to Choose From Here-A Liberal and a Loser

Hackett to Challenge DeWine for Senate
By DAVID HAMMER
Associated Press Writer
Mon Oct 3,10:26 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Paul Hackett, the Iraq War veteran from Cincinnati who was hailed by national Democrats for his narrow loss this summer in a heavily Republican House district, has decided to challenge Mike DeWine for U.S. Senate in 2006.

Spokesman David Woodruff, who served as Hackett's campaign manager in his special election campaign for the 2nd District House seat against Jean Schmidt, confirmed Hackett's run Monday evening. Hackett had spent the last month hinting at a run against Ohio's senior senator, who is in his second six-year term.

Hackett was flying back Monday evening from Washington after meeting with Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada and the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, Woodruff said.

Reid's spokeswoman, Tessa Hefen, would not confirm or deny the meeting Monday, but Woodruff later said Reid gave Hackett the confidence to run.

"He found overwhelming support from the leaders of the Democratic Party, campaign organizations and staff," Woodruff said.

DeWine campaign manager Matt Carle said DeWine has a a good record as a senator and "we look forward to presenting that record to the voters next year."

Liberals live in denial. Hackett would not have polled half as well had he told the truth about himself. He ran his campaign in state using ads which implied that George Bush endorsed him. If he had told the people in that Ohio district that he hated Bush and that he was anti-war, he would have been drummed out of the election. Dream on Liberals.

Full Story: DeWhine or Hackett Who Cares?

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Cheney Responds to Rangel in Kind-Well Done Dick!

Cheney: N.Y.'s Rangel Is 'Losing It'
By DEVLIN BARRETT
Associated Press Writer
Mon Oct 3,11:41 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney contended Monday that Rep. Charles Rangel, the dean of New York's congressional delegation, is "losing it" — striking back after months of verbal attacks from the Harlem lawmaker.

Rangel had criticized Cheney in recent interviews, saying the vice president, who has a history of heart trouble, might be too sick to perform his job.

"I would like to believe he's sick rather than just mean and evil," Rangel said last Friday on NY1, the New York City-based all-news channel.

In an interview with nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh, the 64-year-old Cheney suggested it was the 75-year-old Rangel who may not be up to the demands of his job.

"I'm frankly surprised at his comments. It almost struck me — they were so out of line, it almost struck me that there was some — Charlie was having some problem," said Cheney.

"Charlie is losing it, I guess."

Cheney added to his criticism later in the day in an interview with conservative radio talk show host Sean Hannity.

"I don't know what I did to offend him, but he's gotten pretty nasty lately.... I think Charlie is a lot older than I am, and it shows," said the vice president.

Rangel is an odious little man, petty and vindictive. He is neither witty nor amusing, just pitiable. I agree that as the Democrats continue to flounder and lose ground, they get more and more desperate and sound more and more harsh. They have no agenda other than to insult people, and in this Rangel fits right in.

Full Story: Rangel Losing It

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Miers Choice Brings Conservative Division to a Head

GOP, Democrats Conflicted Over Miers
By JESSE J. HOLLAND
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush's decision to make White House counsel Harriet Miers his second Supreme Court nominee is causing some strange friction on Capitol Hill, with some Republicans unsure about her conservative credentials and some Democrats seemingly supporting her.

The mixed signals create some uncertainty about how Miers will be received in the Senate as the Judiciary Committee prepares for another round of confirmation hearings before the end of the year.

Bush portrayed Miers, who never has been a judge, as a strict constructionist, someone who "will strictly interpret our Constitution and laws."

"She will not legislate from the bench," the president said as the 60-year-old former private attorney stood with him in the Oval Office.

"If confirmed, I recognize that I will have a tremendous responsibility to keep our judicial system strong and to help ensure that the courts meet their obligations to strictly apply the laws and the Constitution," said Miers, who has worked on previous judicial nominations with many of the same senators who now will judge her candidacy.

She immediately began visiting senators in the Capitol, meeting with Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, all of whom had words of praise for her.

In a round of television interviews Tuesday, White House counselor Dan Bartlett sought to reassure conservatives who have expressed concern that Miers might not be conservative enough for their tastes because she had no strong record on hot-button issues like abortion and gay rights.

"She shares President Bush's judicial outlook and that is that justices shouldn't be creating law from the bench, they should be strictly interpret the Constitution," Bartlett said on CBS' "The Early Show."

This has probably been more divisive within the Conservative ranks than any other single move by this President. It has raised the doubts and suspicions that have always haunted Conservatives about Bush.


Full Story: Miers Stirs Decent

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Democrat Earle's Persecution of DeLay Continues

DeLay Indicted on Money Laundering Charge
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Associated Press

AUSTIN, Texas — A Texas grand jury on Monday re-indicted Rep. Tom DeLay (search) on charges of conspiring to launder money and money laundering (search) after the former majority leader attacked last week's indictment on technical grounds.

The new indictment, handed up by a grand jury seated Monday, contained two counts. The money laundering charge carries a penalty of up to life in prison. Last week, DeLay was charged with conspiracy to violate campaign-finance laws.

Defense lawyers asked a judge Monday to throw out the first indictment, arguing that the charge of conspiring to violate campaign finance laws was based on a statute that did not take effect until 2003 — a year after the alleged acts.

The new indictment from District Attorney Ronnie Earle (search), coming just hours after the new grand jurors were sworn in, outraged DeLay.

"Ronnie Earle has stooped to a new low with his brand of prosecutorial abuse," DeLay said in a statement. "He is trying to pull the legal equivalent of a 'do-over' since he knows very well that the charges he brought against me last week are totally manufactured and illegitimate. This is an abomination of justice."

Grand jury number seven? Earle looks more and more desperate, resembling someone more concerned about looking the fool for bringing baseless charges than he is about seeking justice. Having failed with number six, Earle was forced to seat a seventh grand jury just to indict a second time on what is essentially the same charge.

Full Story: Second DeLay Indictment

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Oil Exploration on the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts: It's About Time!

Plan for Coastal Drilling Emerges
By Richard Simon and Kenneth R. Weiss
LA Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON — Citing hurricane damage to the oil and gas industry in the Gulf of Mexico, key lawmakers are trying to relax a decades-old federal ban on new drilling off California and the Atlantic Seaboard and to encourage energy prospecting in the Rocky Mountains.

Congressional proposals also aim to waive some air pollution rules to encourage expansion of oil refineries and to authorize oil drilling beneath Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

"Mother Nature proved just how vulnerable America is to supply disruption," said House Resources Committee Chairman Richard W. Pombo (R-Tracy). "We must do more to increase and to diversify domestic supplies."

The legislation, likely to be voted on soon in the House, comes as oil- and natural-gas-dependent manufacturers have urged Congress to reopen the "85% of all federally controlled coastal waters [that] are currently off-limits to energy production."

"The nation is paying the price for concentrating so much of its energy infrastructure in a small geographic area," wrote the American Gas Assn. and more than 100 other petrochemical companies and manufacturers. "As we go about the business of recovering from Hurricane Katrina … Congress has an opportunity to reduce the nation's vulnerability to sudden energy shocks by expanding our sources and supplies of energy — especially in our coastal waters."

Yet opponents in Congress point to the 191,000 barrels of oil that have gushed into the gulf from ruptured pipelines and hurricane-battered oil facilities as a reminder of the difficult-to-contain disasters that can accompany offshore production. Spills brought about by Hurricane Katrina amount to about 80% of the oil that despoiled Alaskan waters when the Exxon Valdez tanker ran aground in 1989.

Some lawmakers, including Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), worry that hasty federal policy changes could expose fragile coastal environments, fisheries and beach-dependent tourism to disaster risks. "It keeps getting more threatening all the time," Martinez said.

Others are incensed at what they consider raw opportunism to exploit high gas prices and hurricane damage.

"This just looks like the oil and gas industry are shamelessly using the tragedy of Katrina and Rita to try and push their special-interest agenda through Congress," said Rep. Lois Capps, a Santa Barbara Democrat who represents a district that experienced a devastating oil platform blowout in 1969. "We need to address our energy needs, but we don't need to jeopardize our environment and economy to do it, and we shouldn't use a national tragedy as cover for bad policy."

WAAA! WAAA! Man I am tired of this BS of allowing the Gulf Oil Producing States to polute their coasts but Florida and California are too "pristine" to chance exploration. You guys consume a huge amount of oil and gas, suppose we just cut off the supplies to those states with proven reserves which choose not to explore for oil? Why don't we just let the folks in Kalifornia and Florida start walking to work? I guarantee you they'd change their tune.

Full Story: Exploration on the Coasts

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

I'm A Sucker for Space and Science News

Scientists Discover 10th Planet's Moon
By ALICIA CHANG
AP Science Writer

LOS ANGELES - The astronomers who claim to have discovered the 10th planet in the solar system have another intriguing announcement: It has a moon.

While observing the new, so-called planet from Hawaii last month, a team of astronomers led by Michael Brown of the California Institute of Technology spotted a faint object trailing next to it. Because it was moving, astronomers ruled it was a moon and not a background star, which is stationary.

The moon discovery is important because it can help scientists determine the new planet's mass. In July, Brown announced the discovery of an icy, rocky object larger than Pluto in the Kuiper Belt, a disc of icy bodies beyond Neptune. Brown labeled the object a planet and nicknamed it Xena after the lead character in the former TV series "Xena: Warrior Princess." The moon was nicknamed Gabrielle, after Xena's faithful traveling sidekick.

By determining the moon's distance and orbit around Xena, scientists can calculate how heavy Xena is. For example, the faster a moon goes around a planet, the more massive a planet is.

But the discovery of the moon is not likely to quell debate about what exactly makes a planet. The problem is there is no official definition for a planet and setting standards like size limits potentially invites other objects to take the "planet" label.

Possessing a moon is not a criteria of planethood since Mercury and Venus are moonless planets. Brown said he expected to find a moon orbiting Xena because many Kuiper Belt objects are paired with moons.

This is just a cool thing. As long as we have been looking at the solar system, to discover a new orbiting body, no matter how small, is just neat. The more we explore, the more we find out how little we really know and how much more there is to discover.

Full Story: New Moon

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

DeLay Speaks Out: Charges Are Politically Motivated and Baseless

DeLay Vows Return to House Leadership Role
By HOPE YEN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Tom DeLay is vowing a quick return to his powerful role as House majority leader despite a criminal indictment, putting him at odds with some moderate Republicans who say his tarnished image could hurt the party.

A defiant DeLay, R-Texas, on Sunday dismissed the criminal conspiracy charges against him as "over the top" and said he can do his job even without the title. He pledged to continue his close partnership with House Speaker Dennis Hastert to aggressively push an agenda of lower gasoline prices and tax cuts in the coming weeks.

Under House Republican rules, DeLay had to step aside as floor leader because of the indictment.

The criminal charges are "so frivolous, so over-the-top, so embarrassing to the judiciary that we ought to be able to get it out of here pretty quickly," DeLay told "Fox News Sunday." "It will be over and be over very, very soon. And I think I will go back to be majority leader."

DeLay said he and Hastert, R-Ill., will continue to plot GOP strategy. "The speaker and I have been leading the House for, what, eight years now. It's because we get along together, we think the same. We are simpatico."

But moderate Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut saw a liability for his fellow Republicans. "We got elected basically by saying we would live by a higher moral standard, and I don't think recently we have," he said on CNN's "Late Edition."

Shays said he has not been not comfortable with DeLay as a House leader, citing "continual acts that border and go sometimes beyond the ethical edge. They may not be illegal, but he's always pushing that ethical edge to the limit."

Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., the House Rules Committee chairman initially recommended to take over many of DeLay's duties, said on CBS' "Face the Nation" that DeLay "knows he's not going to run things."

Sorry David, DeLay will be back and will be running things. There is substantial reason the believe that this indictment will be dropped in the long run. Conspiracy is the last gasp resort of a D.A. who hasn't got enough evidence to indict on any other charge.

Full Story: DeLay Defense

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Rolling the Supreme Court Dice

High Court Nominee Has Never Been a Judge
By DEB RIECHMANN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court on Monday, turning to a lawyer who has never been a judge to replace Sandra Day O'Connor and help reshape the nation's judiciary.

"She has devoted her life to the rule of law and the cause of justice," Bush said as his first Supreme Court pick, Chief Justice John Roberts, took the bench for the first time just a few blocks from the White House.

If confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate, Miers, 60, would join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second woman on the nation's highest court and the third to serve there. Miers was the first woman to serve as president of the Texas State Bar and the Dallas Bar Association.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist outlined a timetable calling for confirmation by Thanksgiving — a tight timetable by recent standards that allowed less than eight weeks for lawmakers to review her record, hold hearings and vote. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made no commitment, saying he wanted a thorough confirmation proceeding.

O'Connor has been the court's majority maker in dozens of controversial cases in recent years, casting deciding votes that upheld the 1973 ruling that established the constitutional right to an abortion, sustaining affirmative action programs and limiting the application of the death penalty.

Within hours of Bush's announcement in the Oval Office, Miers travelled to the Capitol to begin courtesy calls on the senators who will vote on her nomination.

Am I happy about this? In a word NO! This is a betrayal. Anyone that Reid is comfortable with, worries me extensively. She may be great, or she may be another Souter, the point is why should we have to guess at all. Why isn't she a hard core originalist.

Full Story: Harriet Meirs

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Liberal Hollywood Exporting Film Industry Jobs

Filmmakers Are Swept Away by Romania
By John Horn
Times Staff Writer

Along the route to MediaPro Studios, packs of feral dogs wander unpaved streets, children as young as 7 beg for handouts, and some government buildings still bear the bullet scars of the 1989 revolution. But for a growing cadre of Hollywood producers, the drive is becoming as familiar as a trip to the Universal Studios back lot.

Poverty is visible almost everywhere in Romania, where the average gross monthly salary is $339 and horse-drawn carts are affordable transportation. Although economists see a struggling nation, movie producers see an opportunity.

And when the film business began offering steady employment with the promise of good money, onetime medical student Ionut Lupulescu was just one of many who signed on.

Lupulescu's summer job as a low-level video assistant on 2003's "Cold Mountain" turned into a full-time career that paid him $11,000 in 2004. This year, the 24-year-old worked on "Catacombs," a low-budget thriller put together by Los Angeles' Twisted Pictures, which found the economics of the Romanian movie industry equally seductive. By traveling 6,500 miles, producer Greg Hoffman of Twisted Pictures was able to fill two sound stages with tunnels so intricate that even the "Catacombs" construction crew — a few dozen carpenters eager to work for $20 a day — would get lost in them.

Those tunnels are a visible testament to a profound and seemingly irreversible shift in the American movie business. The film industry has increasingly become a gypsy caravan with producers scouring the globe in search of countries with sufficient infrastructure to accommodate movie crews, yet undeveloped enough to offer Third World wages.

Until just a few years back, Hollywood's flight to distant lands was a modest exodus at most. In 1990, a mere 44 American movies were filmed in foreign lands for economic savings.

By the end of the decade, the figure had more than doubled, and now production abroad has become a way of life. In one recent week, 20th Century Fox films were in various stages of production in the Czech Republic, Canada, Hungary, Morocco, the Dominican Republic, France and Britain.

For the big studios, making movies overseas is no different than Nike stitching shoes in Vietnam.

As long as the finished product looks the same, it doesn't really matter where the goods were manufactured, which is part of Romania's appeal.

The watershed moment in Hollywood's march east came with "Cold Mountain," a Civil War story set in the hills of North Carolina but filmed in Romania. It was the first major mainstream American movie to be shot here.

"Without the savings that Romania offered, 'Cold Mountain' absolutely would not have gotten made," said producer Albert Berger. He estimated that the country's affordable labor trimmed more than $20 million from the film's budget, which he said would have exceeded $100 million had the movie been shot entirely in the United States.

Funny you don't hear all of those Liberals in Hollywood complaining about the exporting of jobs in the film industry. They have no problem whining about "manufacturing jobs" going overseas. They readily lament the misery supposedly caused by the "Bush Economy" sending jobs "overseas." During the campaign the Left couldn't beat that drum enough. Strange how silent they are on this issue.

Full Story: Film Industry Hypocrisy

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

A Brazillian Hero, Poor but Wealthy

This Illiterate Brazilian's Home Speaks Volumes
By Henry Chu
LA Times Staff Writer

SAO GONCALO, Brazil — Carlos Leite can barely read a word, but books revolutionized his life.

Two years ago, he was doing construction work for a man who was about to toss out six thick, red encyclopedias. Leite asked whether he could have them instead. Thus a dream was born.

Within days, he hit the pavement, knocking on doors, begging people for more unwanted books. No contribution was too small, too big or too arcane. Skeptical members of Leite's cycling club were dragooned into helping him collect donations.

His collection quickly multiplied. The original six volumes turned into 100, then 1,000. Soon, his humble home was bursting with 5,000 books of all types — worn classics, chemistry textbooks, dog-eared thrillers.

To Leite, though, nearly all the books are mysteries. Born into a poor family, he dropped out of school after third grade and, at 51, is practically illiterate.

But books, he knows, are the gateway to a life of greater possibility and more promise than his own. It might be too late for me, a working man, he reasoned, but not for others.

So bloomed the passion that has consumed Leite's free time over the last two years: transforming his home into a public library, free and open to all in this poverty-stricken neighborhood outside Rio de Janeiro. The streets here are unpaved and unweeded, daily life is a struggle and even a single book is an enormous luxury that can cost up to half a week's wages.

Rather than whining and moping about the lack of government money, this guy saw a need and did something about it. This is how America is supposed to work. We have become fat off of the government pork barrel. This guy had virtually nothing but a house, a thought, and some initiative. He's not asking for money for himself, he's seeking to improve the future for his town. He probably won't ever get wealthy in a material sense, but he has wealth beyond measure. This is the antithesis of the ideal that liberals promote. This is freedom in action.

Full Story: Brazillian's Initiative

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

New Assault Targets Al Qaeda in Western Iraq

U.S. Military Launches Offensive in Iraq
Sat Oct 1, 4:51 AM ET
Associated Press

BAGHDAD, Iraq - About 1,000 U.S. service members launched an offensive in western Iraq near the Syrian border on Saturday aimed insurgents from this country's most feared militant group, Al-Qaida in Iraq, the military said.

The operation against "a known terrorist sanctuary" began early Saturday in the town of Sadah in the western province of Anbar, about eight miles from the Iraq-Syrian border, the U.S. military said in a statement.

U.S. Marines, soldiers and sailors from Regimental Combat Team-2 took part in the offensive, named "Operation Iron Fist."

It is aimed at rooting out Al-Qaida in Iraq insurgents and disrupting their support systems in and around the town, the military said.

In recent months, the statement said, the insurgents have established a base in Sadah and used it to launch attacks against Iraqi civilians and U.S. and Iraqi in the area.

The offensive also was aimed at stopping foreign insurgents from entering the country from Syria and at improving security in the area before Iraq's Oct. 15 national referendum on the country's draft constitution, the military said.

God's Speed you guys, kick butt and take names. It's about time that we take the Syrians to task for their part in the "insurection" in Iraq. The Syrian and Iranian governments should live in mortal fear of American bombs 24/7 until they change their activities.

Original Post: New Offensive

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below