CBS Polling Distorts True Picture of Public Opinion

CBS NEWS POLL
For release: February 27, 2006
6:30 P.M.

PRESIDENT BUSH, THE PORTS, AND IRAQ
February 22-26, 2006

The Bush Administration faces a public overwhelmingly opposed to the agreement to give a Dubai-owned firm operational control over six American ports, and more pessimistic about the situation in Iraq than ever before. This, along with reminders of the massive impact of Hurricane Katrina and negative assessments of how the government and the President have handled it for six months, has brought the President’s approval ratings down to new lows.

George W. Bush now receives the lowest marks of his Presidency, even on fighting terrorism, a measure that has long been his strongest suit. Half of Americans now disapprove of how he is handling that effort, while 43% approve.

A large majority of Republicans still approves of the President’s handling of terrorism, although their approval, like that of all adults, has dropped nine points in the last month, to 78% now. Most Democrats and Independents disapprove.

Bush’s overall job rating has tumbled, too, to an all-time low in this poll. It is now 34%, down from 42% last month. 59% disapprove. The previous low of 35% came last October, one month after Hurricane Katrina, shortly after the withdrawal of Harriet Miers from a Supreme Court nomination and just after U.S. deaths in Iraq reached the 2,000 mark. Not since November 2004 has a majority approved of the President’s overall performance.

Ratings for the President’s handling of the Iraq war have also plummeted, to their all-time low of 30%. And approval of his handling of the economy is also down. So are evaluations of the

national economy. Half say it is in good shape today; last month 57% described it that way.

Just 27% of Americans approve of how President Bush is handling the overall energy situation. 60% disapprove. Those evaluations are lower than those recorded near the start of his Administration. And on the assessment of his handling of the response to Hurricane Katrina, only 32% approve.

THE PORTS DEAL

Just 21% say that the U.S. should let a United Arab Emirates country operate six American ports – 70% say this should not be allowed.

The opposition to the ports deal crosses party lines – 58% of Republicans oppose it, as do more than seven in ten Democrats and Independents. The question text included Bush administration positions – that the U.S. would continue to control security at the ports, that a foreign company from Britain now runs the ports, and that the U.A.E. is an ally of the U.S.

Follow the link below, and you'll see that the polling breakdown, after weighting, breaks the "American people" down as 28% Republican, 37% Democrat, 34% Independent. Now that's what I call typical MSM objective reporting.

Full Story: CBS Poll Bias

What do you think?

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

Leftists Paranoia Motivated by Political Ambition

Coast Guard Saw 'Intelligence Gaps' on Ports

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 28, 2006; Page A04

The U.S. Coast Guard, in charge of reviewing security at ports operated by a Dubai maritime company, warned the Bush administration it could not rule out that the company's assets could be used for terrorist operations, according to a document released yesterday by a Senate committee.

State-owned Dubai Ports World plans to complete its takeover of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O) on Thursday, assuming ownership of operations at six major U.S. ports even as it pledges to hold off on asserting control while the Bush administration reviews the national security implications of the deal. The White House has strongly argued that a preliminary review showed that the sale would pose no threat to national security.

But in a Dec. 13 intelligence assessment of the company and its owners in the United Arab Emirates, the Coast Guard warned: "There are many intelligence gaps, concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations, that preclude" the completion of a thorough threat assessment of the merger.

"The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities," says the document, released by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

"Security measures were thoroughly reviewed, including intelligence matters," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. She did not know whether the White House was briefed on the Coast Guard assessment, but, she said, "I do know that at the end of the day, when the process was completed and the transaction was approved, homeland security questions were resolved."

The Coast Guard document, completed about one month before the ports deal received government approval Jan. 17, was the strongest indication that members of the administration had expressed security concerns over the transaction. Officials from the departments of Treasury, Defense and Homeland Security told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week that the secretive interagency Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which reviewed the DP World deal, was unanimous in its position that no concerns had emerged to trigger the 45-day national security review required by the law that established the panel.

Among those who briefed the Armed Services Committee was Rear Adm. Thomas Gilmour of the Coast Guard, who said the agency had reviewed DP World's track record on port management but did not mention the document.

"Given the red-flag questions that the Coast Guard raised, very serious questions about operations, personnel and foreign influence, how could there not have been the 45-day investigation that's clearly required by law?" asked Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Susan Collins (R-Maine).

Gilmour insisted yesterday he could answer questions on the document only in a secret session to staff members with appropriate security clearances.

Later, the Coast Guard said in a statement that the excerpts of its preliminary evaluation "when taken out of context, do not reflect the full, classified analysis" that eventually concluded "that DP World's acquisition of P&O, in and of itself, does not pose a significant threat to U.S. assets in ports" in the continental United States.

The issue is sure to stoke political concerns that a deal brokered last weekend between the company, the Bush administration and congressional GOP leaders does not go far enough. That deal provided that the company could go forward with its $6.85 billion acquisition of P&O, but it would not assert control over U.S. properties while the administration conducts a 45-day review of the deal's national security implications. Senators from both political parties moved yesterday to immediately stop the deal, pending the review's outcome.

More distortion by anti-Bush administration Democrats and cowardly Liberal Republicans.

Today the Coast Guard spokesman, said very clearly that they are not in the least concerned over this transaction. On the Tony Snow Show this morning, Commander Carter described the United Arab Emirates as "an active and good partner in the war on terror." He said that a lot of information is in the classified report supporting the fact that the UAE is a strong ally. He described it as a purely business transaction, that all employees coming to America had to be thorougly vetted, and that yesterday, today, and in the future the responsibility for port security is the Coast Guard's. Finally he stated that he personally had no problem with this deal going through.

Full Story: Coast Guard Does Not Oppose DPW Deal

What do you think?

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

Racist Liberals Fighting Port Deal on All Fronts

Coast Guard Worries Reanimate Ports Debate

By LIZ SIDOTI
The Associated Press
Tuesday, February 28, 2006; 8:06 AM

WASHINGTON -- Republican congressional leaders had hoped to curtail bipartisan outcries over a United Arab Emirates-based company's pending takeover of some U.S. port operations by brokering an agreement for a new investigation of the deal's potential security risks.

Then came the disclosure that the U.S. Coast Guard had raised concerns weeks ago that, because of U.S. intelligence gaps, it could not determine whether the UAE company, DP World, might support terrorist operations.

Bush administration officials say those concerns were addressed and resolved.

Nevertheless, both Republicans and Democrats seized on the Coast Guard assessment, which was released by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, at a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing Monday, to launch a fresh round of criticism just as the furor over the ports deal appeared on the brink of subsiding.

"I am more convinced than ever that the process was truly flawed," said Collins, the Homeland Security Committee's chairwoman. "I can only conclude that there was a rush to judgment, that there wasn't the kind of painstaking, thorough analysis that needed to be done, despite serious questions being raised and despite the involvement of a wide variety of agencies."

"If this isn't a smoking gun," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said, "it shows that there may be one undetected" by the multi-agency panel that approved DP World's proposed purchase of London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. The panel signed off on the deal without doing a 45-day investigation into security implications, which critics say the law requires.

More fuel could be added to the fire Tuesday when the Senate Commerce Committee holds a hearing to review the DP World deal. Edward H. Bilkey, DP World's chief operating officer, was to testify.

In February, the Commerce Committee vetted the appointment of David C. Sanborn of Virginia, a senior DP World executive, to be the new administrator of the Maritime Administration of the Transportation Department.

The White House appointed Sanborn, who worked as DP World's director of operations for Europe and Latin America, to the post in January, the same month the Treasury Department's Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States approved the DP World takeover.

Two Democrats, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Bill Nelson of Florida, have vowed to block Sanborn's nomination unless he testifies again before the Commerce Committee. "He worked for Dubai Ports World when this deal was rushed through under cover of darkness without sufficient security review," Kerry said in a statement Tuesday. "In the post 9/11 world, we need to know why."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan has said the DP World deal "went through the normal review process and was carefully checked."

"Under the cover of darkness?" Uh, Senator Kerry, I would hardly call a 45 day vetting process "under the cover of darkness." This whole deal was common knowledge in the business community, but I guess as a wealthy socialist you aren't really interested in the business world. Or is it that you are running for President again and are crassly using this as a political issue...no...you'd never do that.

If brains were money, Senator Kerry-Heinz would be living under a bridge, but fortunately for him his gigilo existence keeps him in cognac and khakis. The man hasn't an honest bone in his body. He would lie to his priest if he thought it would get him elected.

Hypocrisy on the Left abounds here. Liberals are lying and twisting facts to suit there own agenda (no surprise there). Susan "RINO" Collins has been caught quoting the Coast Guard out of context, intentionally twisting the statement, to justify her opposition to the port deal.

BBC reports the Coast Guard later released a statement saying: "The excerpts made public earlier today [by Senator Susan Collins], when taken out of context, do not reflect the full, classified analysis performed by the Coast Guard."

The Coast Guard Spokesman Commander Jeff Carter further stated: That their analysis concludes “that DP World's acquisition of P&O, in and of itself, does not pose a significant threat to U.S. assets in [continental United States] ports. "Upon subsequent and further review, the Coast Guard and the entire CFIUS panel believed that this transaction, when taking into account strong security assurances by DP World, does not compromise U.S. security.” [Emphasis added]

Shame on you Senator Collins, that is truly a despicable act. You owe America and the President an apology. In addition your continued presence in the Senate is a blight on any pretense of integrity in the Senate. For that blatant lie, you should immediately resign.

Full Story: Liberals in Full Combat Mode

What do you think?

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

Nightmare of Judicial Rule Again Evident

Court Blocks DOD's New Rules for Workers
Collective Bargaining Hurt, Judge Says

By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 28, 2006; Page A01

A federal judge blocked the Defense Department from implementing much of its new personnel system yesterday, handing the Bush administration a major setback in its efforts to streamline work rules and install pay-for-performance systems in federal workplaces.

In a 77-page decision, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled that the Pentagon's National Security Personnel System (NSPS) fails to ensure collective bargaining rights, does not provide an independent third-party review of labor relations decisions and would leave employees without a fair process for appealing disciplinary actions.

"Taken as a whole, the design of these regulations appears to rest on the mistaken premise that Congress intended flexibility to trump collective bargaining rights," wrote Sullivan, who noted that the new regulations "entirely eviscerate collective bargaining."

The ruling marked the second time in six months that a federal judge has stiff-armed the Bush administration in its ambitious plans to rewrite federal personnel rules to curtail the power of labor unions, more strongly tie pay raises to job performance, and make it easier to hire, promote and discipline federal employees.

The two court decisions mean the new systems at Defense and the Department of Homeland Security -- each more than two years in the making, and affecting nearly 800,000 civilian employees -- appear destined either for lengthy court appeals or time-consuming revisions. Also in limbo are the administration's plans to overhaul federal pay at agencies government-wide.

The American Federation of Government Employees and 12 other unions representing more than 350,000 defense employees sued in November challenging the new system. The unions argued it would gut collective bargaining and that Pentagon officials did not meet their obligation, spelled out in the 2003 law that paved the way for the changes, to consult with employees' representatives in crafting a new labor management system.

"This is a big win," said AFGE President John Gage. "I think the judge very clearly showed in his decision that this was not collective bargaining by anybody's definition."

AFGE Assistant General Counsel Joseph Goldberg said the ruling "eviscerates the core of NSPS, leaving but a hollow shell of provisions that simply cannot stand on their own."

It was unclear yesterday whether the Pentagon would appeal, or how the decision would affect the department's long-term plans to change its pay system, which was not addressed in the lawsuit or the ruling.

"Our attorneys are reviewing Judge Sullivan's decision at this stage to determine what our next steps will be," said Joyce Frank, a Pentagon spokeswoman.

In August, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer ruled against a similar system at the Homeland Security Department, faulting it for undermining employees' rights to collective bargaining. Collyer blocked implementation of new rules on labor relations and employee appeals, which led DHS officials to delay a new pay system as well. Sullivan cited Collyer's ruling throughout his decision. DHS has appealed.

Meanwhile, the administration has urged Congress to consider legislation to replace the 15-grade General Schedule pay system government-wide with one that sets broader pay ranges and relies on more stringent annual job evaluations in handing out raises. Bush officials say such changes are necessary to make agencies more effective, and that new personnel systems at Defense and Homeland Security are essential to making both more nimble in the struggle against terrorism. Unions have contended that the changes are about gutting the power of unions, not improving national security.

Absolutely! Judge Sullivan is right, unions are far more important than taxpayers. We don't need efficiency and effectiveness in our government employees, we need unions. Unions are the backbone of American society, encouraging sloth, inefficiency, and incompetence. They strip employees of any desire to get ahead or any ambition for doing a better job, both evil concepts. Yep Judge Sullivan is correct socialism is the way to go. Why aspire to be great when you can be truly mediocre? We all know the Soviet Union won the Cold War. Let's all join unions then we too can go bankrupt like Germany, France, and the rest of Western Europe.

Judges are the defenders of freedom?!?!?

Full Story: Unions Uber Alles

What do you think?

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

Morning After Pill Being Handled In State Legislatures

Plan B Battles Embroil States
Proposals Mirror Red-Blue Divide

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 27, 2006; Page A01

Filling a void left by the Food and Drug Administration's inability to decide whether to make the "morning-after" pill available without a prescription, nearly every state is or soon will be wrestling with legislation that would expand or restrict access to the drug.

More than 60 bills have been filed in state legislatures already this year, and that follows an already busy 2005 session on emergency contraception. The resulting tug of war is creating an availability map for the pill that looks increasingly similar to the map of "red states" and "blue states" in the past two presidential elections -- with increased access in the blue states and greater restrictions in the red ones.

Many of the state bills intended to expand access give specially trained pharmacists in states including Maryland, New York, Kentucky and Illinois the right to dispense emergency contraception without a prescription. Other bills require pharmacies to stock and distribute the drug, and to ensure that the pill is made available to women who come into emergency rooms after a sexual assault.

But some bills would make it more difficult for many women to get emergency contraception, which is effective for only 72 hours after a woman experiences a contraceptive failure or unprotected sex. Legislation in New Hampshire, for instance, would require parental notification before the drug is dispensed, and more than 20 other states will consider bills that give pharmacies the right not to stock the drug and pharmacists the right not to dispense it, even to women with valid prescriptions.

"The FDA made this a major issue for state legislatures," said Sharon Camp, president of the Guttmacher Institute, a women's health research organization. "For the first seven years Plan B was on the market, this largely didn't happen."

"Basically, every state now has an effort going to either make Plan B more easily available or to slow it down or make sure that pharmacists don't have to dispense if they oppose it," said Edward R. Martin, a lawyer and lobbyist with Americans United for Life, who has helped put together some of the proposed "conscience" clauses.

This is as it should be, as the entire abortion issue should be handled. Keep the courts out of this issue entirely. This issue, just like abortion is a matter of conscience, not judicial fiat. It would be unconscionable for the states or the courts to mandate that a pharmacist must sell the pill if it is against his beliefs. This is merely a question of freedom. The federal and state governments intrude excessively in our lives already. If you don't like the laws in your state, you have the right to move. That is the essence of freedom.

Full Story: Red States/Blue States Decide Pill Issue Independently

What do you think?

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

Port Panic Abates as Reason Returns

Port Deal To Have Broader Review
Dubai Firm Sought U.S. Security Probe

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 27, 2006; Page A01

The Bush administration said yesterday that it has accepted a proposal from a Dubai maritime company to conduct a 45-day review of the national security implications of the company's plans to take control of significant operations at six U.S. ports.

The announcement by Dubai Ports World, brokered by the White House and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), appears to satisfy the demands of many members of Congress, who had threatened to force a security review if the administration would not conduct one. The deal also offered pledges to reassure the United States that the ports deal would not pose any threats to American safety and security.

The administration had approved DP World's $6.85 billion purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O) earlier this month without conducting a security review, after a broad interagency panel that looked at the transaction concluded the takeover of port operations in the United States would not affect the nation's safety.

But last week, members of both political parties erupted in furor, questioning the administration's judgment and promising to delay the deal, if not scuttle it. After President Bush vowed to veto any legislation that would thwart the Dubai company's plans, the most public clash between the Republican Congress and the Bush White House seemed in the offing. But yesterday's announcement may have headed off any showdown.

"We recognize that there are concerns regarding DP World's acquisition of P&O's U.S. terminal operations. Despite having already obtained approval by the federal government, we continue to take voluntary steps to assure people that the security of the U.S. will not be harmed as a result of this acquisition," said Edward H. "Ted" Bilkey, DP World's chief operating officer.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said: "We are pleased that Dubai Ports reached a middle ground with Congress. The transaction was closely scrutinized by the appropriate national security and intelligence officials, and important safeguards are in place. We believe, however, the additional time and investigation at the request of the company will provide Congress with a better understanding of the facts, and that Congress will be comfortable with the transaction moving forward once it does."

Have you recovered from your bout of hysteria yet? Have you awakened to the fact that most of our ports are operated by foreign interests? Are you aware that the United Arab Emirates has been one of the strongest allies of the United States in the war against al Qaeda and international terrorism, one of the first signatories of the shipping container agreement, and a source of intelligence in the war? Have you caught your breath yet? Relax, this company, and the nation, have nothing to hide hear, that is why they have volunteered to delay the take over while the posing and posturing in Congress goes on. Democrats and Republicans alike have to pretend they are concerned with your welfare. They all heard your (and mine, I fear) panicked voices when this was announced and they have moved, motivated by the instinct for self-preservation, to interject themselves in the process.

I have recovered my composure enough to realize that the political effect of this, which so alarmed me, will gradually blow over, and aiding that is the actions Dubai Ports World is now taking. It would be better, as far as I am concerned, for there to be an American company performing this job, but there isn't. Since that is the case I hardly see much difference between DPW running our ports and China COSCO running the a portion of the ports for in Los Angeles. In fact I am more concerned with China than I am with the UAE.

Full Story: Port Takover, Further Investigation

What do you think?

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

Less Than Rigorous Restrictions on Dubai Deal

Arab Co., White House Had Secret Agreement

Feb 22 9:20 PM US/Eastern
By TED BRIDIS
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON

The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.

As part of the $6.8 billion purchase, state-owned Dubai Ports World agreed to reveal records on demand about "foreign operational direction" of its business at U.S. ports, the documents said. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment.

The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.

"They're not lax but they're not draconian," said James Lewis, a former U.S. official who worked on such agreements. If officials had predicted the firestorm of criticism over the deal, Lewis said, "they might have made them sound harder."

The conditions involving the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. were detailed in U.S. documents marked "confidential." Such records are regularly guarded as trade secrets, and it is highly unusual for them to be made public.

The concessions _ described previously by the Homeland Security Department as unprecedented among maritime companies _ reflect the close relationship between the United States and the United Arab Emirates.

The revelations about the negotiated conditions came as the White House acknowledged President Bush was unaware of the pending sale until the deal had already been approved by his administration.

Bush on Tuesday brushed aside objections by leaders in the Senate and House. He pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement, but some lawmakers said they still were determined to capsize it.

Dubai Port's top American executive, chief operating officer Edward H. Bilkey, said the company will do whatever the Bush administration asks to enhance shipping security and ensure the sale goes through. Bilkey said Wednesday he will work in Washington to persuade skeptical lawmakers they should endorse the deal; Senate oversight hearings already are scheduled.

The Bush Administration may not have been blind on this deal, or even dumb, but they were definitely tone deaf. It is surprising to me that Rove did not predict the reception that this deal has gotten, I thought he was supposed to be the canniest political advisor ever. He sure missed this one. This is not the first case of tone deafness for this administration, their TSA edict against "profiling" passengers, screening for those who resembled the hijackers, rather than strip searching little old ladies and five year-old kids is just as "politically correct" and stupid as this deal.

I know this deal makes business sense and that Dubai Ports World is one of only a few international corporations capable of performing the job, but politically tone deaf it remains.

Full Story: Port Deal Contract Needs Better Riders

What do you think?

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

"Chocolate Town" Needs a New Nut

In New Orleans Reelection Bid, Nagin Faces a Crowded Field
Katrina Has Sapped Mayor's Power, But at Least 10 Challengers Want Job

By Linton Weeks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 23, 2006; Page A03

NEW ORLEANS, Feb. 22 -- Mayor C. Ray Nagin walked up to a table full of disgruntled subcontractors at the famous Cafe du Monde here a few days ago. When they asked the mayor what he could do to streamline debris removal in New Orleans and help smaller companies get more of the work, Nagin smiled, threw up his hands and gave them the political version of the golden rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."

And Nagin no longer has the gold. The money for rebuilding is being controlled by the federal government and state officials in Baton Rouge. And that means that many decisions, rulemaking capabilities and opportunities to enact change no longer belong to the mayor of post-Katrina New Orleans.

These days, the mayor has to beg for every single thing. The city is in dire financial straits, and Nagin has to petition the state for financial assistance just to maintain limited services. The mayor is waiting for the federal government to essentially tell him what his city is going to look like, as well as to answer crucial questions such as who will need flood insurance and what sort of temporary housing will be available.

It's a wonder anybody would want the mayor's job. But a host of people do. Nagin will be running for reelection against at least 10 challengers.

One of Nagin's most formidable opponents, Lt. Gov. Mitchell J. Landrieu, announced his candidacy Wednesday, and to many political observers here that means the race is on. It is a sprint, not a marathon. The nonpartisan primary election will be held April 22, with the top two vote-getters facing a runoff in May, if necessary.

Gee, I can't imagine why Nagin might not get re-elected post Katrina. Could it possibly have something to do with these?

I mean really, just because he stranded 100,000 of his own citizens in a flooded town of filth and squalor. Picky, picky, picky. It's not like he flew out of the city and saved his own behind...uh...oh yeah, he did. Well he did it for the good of his citizens, the people needed their leader to be safe and dry.

Riiiight! Good-bye Ray.

Full Story: Replacing One Loser With Another?

What do you think?

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

South Dakota Conservatives: Over-reaching

S.D. Abortion Bill Takes Aim at 'Roe'
Senate Ban Does Not Except Rape, Incest

By Evelyn Nieves
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 23, 2006; Page A01

South Dakota lawmakers yesterday approved the nation's most far-reaching ban on abortion, setting the stage for new legal challenges that its supporters say they hope lead to an overturning of Roe v. Wade .

The measure, which passed the state Senate 23 to 12, makes it a felony for doctors to perform any abortion, except to save the life of a pregnant woman. The proposal still must be signed by Gov. Mike Rounds (R), who opposes abortion

The bill was designed to challenge the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe , which in 1973 recognized a right of women to terminate pregnancies. Its sponsors want to force a reexamination of the ruling by the court, which now includes two justices appointed by President Bush.

"The momentum for a change in the national policy on abortion is going to come in the not-too-distant future," said Rep. Roger W. Hunt, a Republican who sponsored the bill. To his delight, abortion opponents succeeded in defeating all amendments designed to mitigate the ban, including exceptions in the case of rape or incest or the health of the woman. Hunt said that such "special circumstances" would have diluted the bill and its impact on the national scene.

Kate Looby, director of Planned Parenthood of South Dakota, which plans to immediately challenge the ban, said that while she was not surprised, she was still a "little shocked" by the vote. "Clearly, this is a devastating day for the women of South Dakota," she said. "We fully expected this, yet it's still distressing to know that this legislative body cares so little about women, about families, about women who are victims of rape or incest."

National abortion rights organizations said the South Dakota vote has set the stage for a new fight to keep abortion legal at the federal level and in the states. "When you see them have a ban that does not include exceptions for rape or incest or the health of the mother, you understand that elections do matter," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "We will be very active in '06 and in '08 in electing candidates that represent the views of most Americans."

The antiabortion movement has focused primarily in recent years on a state-by-state effort to enact restrictions on access to abortion, including pushes for parental-notification laws and waiting periods before the procedure may be performed. A 1992 Supreme Court decision again affirmed a right to abortion in a Pennsylvania case, known as Planned Parenthood v. Casey , that said states cannot put an "undue burden" on women getting access to abortions.

Not all antiabortion groups agreed with the South Dakota supporters' effort to directly challenge Roe .

Yes it's true, we Conservatives have our extremists too. This new law will be shot down as being far too sweeping in its scope. With no exception for the "health" of the mother and with no exceptions for rape and incest, this law is DOA at the Supreme Court. These extreme Conservatives can, at times, be even more of a pain than Liberals. It is idiots like Representative Roger Hunt who give this Conservative a real posteriorly directed pain. They offer no reasoned proposal, rather they present the most extreme vision from the anti-abortion side. Even I, as anti-abortion as I am, do not agree with nor accept their vision of America.

I understand that, to some degree, this bill is extreme for affective purposes rather than practical purposes, but that very extremism is counter productive to the aim of overturning Roe v. Wade. I too wish to see Roe overturned, because I believe such decisions should fall in the purview of the Legislative branch, not the Judicial branch of government, but this action does little to further that aim.

Full Story: South Dakota Legislature: Cutting Off One's Nose...

What do you think?

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

Bringing State Into Line

Administration Critics Chafe at State Dept. Shuffle
Merger Has Brought Appointees Into Conflict With Longtime Workers, Who Say They Are Sidelined

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 21, 2006; Page A04

A State Department reorganization of analysts involved in preventing the spread of deadly weapons has spawned internal turmoil, with more than half a dozen career employees alleging in interviews that political appointees sought to punish long-term employees whose views they considered suspect.

Senior State Department officials deny that and say an investigation has found that the proper personnel practices were followed. But three officials involved in the reorganization, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly, acknowledge that a merger of two bureaus reduced the influence of employees who were viewed by some political appointees as disloyal to the administration's policies.

"There are a number of disgruntled employees who feel they have been shoved aside for political purposes. That's true," said one of these officials. "But there was rank insubordination on the part of these officers."

About a dozen top experts on nonproliferation have left the department in recent months, with many citing the reorganization as a reason.

The dispute has thrown a spotlight on the tensions that often exist between longtime career employees and the political appointees who come and go with successive administrations. It is also being closely watched within the State Department as another sign that, under Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's leadership, the department will no longer be at war with the rest of the administration.

Rice and her top aides have sought to heal the damaging rifts that existed with the Pentagon and other agencies. Some State Department officials privately acknowledge that they used to be thrilled by the department's reputation as a renegade in President Bush's first term, but they say the message has become clear in the past year that such attitudes are no longer acceptable.

Few people would speak about the controversy for the record, either because they fear retaliation or because they must continue to work with State Department officials in their new jobs.

"The suspicion is we would undermine the policy," said one of the officials who have felt sidelined. "That is what all of us find most offensive. We are here to serve any administration."

Robert Joseph, the undersecretary of state for arms control, who oversaw the reorganization, and Henrietta H. Fore, the undersecretary for management, said in interviews that political motives were not a factor, adding that any change is going to cause distress. Fore said she has listened to employee concerns, reviewed the implementation and determined that "all steps were taken according to the law."

"None of these allegations stand up," Joseph said. "You have got a small group of individuals who are resisting the changes. I am not surprised by that. Change is difficult, but change is absolutely necessary."

The employees who say that they have been targeted once had a back channel to then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and his deputy, Richard L. Armitage, who they said would on occasion ask them to bypass their superior, John R. Bolton, now the ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton, with backing from allies in the Pentagon and the vice president's office, frequently battled the rest of the State Department on policy issues.

But Joseph, who worked for Rice at the White House, is an ideological soul mate of Bolton's and retained much of Bolton's staff -- and now officials say the policy disputes that characterized Powell's State Department have largely faded under Rice's tenure. The back channel that these employees used to alert senior management to their problems with Bolton no longer exists, the career officials said.

Imagine! The very nerve of President Bush wanting the State Department to reflect his administrations policies. How dare he!

What a bunch of looney Leftist claptrap. It has been evident to anyone watching this administration that the State Department has been out of step with the President and his policies from the very beginning. I was glad to see Powell and Armitage go. Powell was a bad fit with this administration, frankly he's a pretty bad fit for the Republican Party, or let's just say he's more of a Giulianni Republican than a Reagan Republican. It always amazes me the sense of entitlement bureaucrats have. After all they remain when the political winds blow in a different direction. Unfortunately their personal biases remain as well. It is well known that career bureaucrats work for their own interests and in support of their own politics. Frequently that means they will work against the interests of the current administration.

One of the biggest problems this nation has is the virtual lock civil service workers have on their jobs. They should never have been unionized and they need to break the unions. We need competency in our government, not just seniority. We need to implement the policies used in private industry, those based on merit not seniority, for hiring, firing, and promotion within our government. I applaud this action by Secretary Rice.

Full Story: The Whines of Change are Blowing

What do you think?

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

No, With Longevity You Get Arrogance

With Longevity on Court, Stevens's Center-Left Influence Has Grown

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 21, 2006; Page A01

One day last summer, an unusual baseball practice took place at Bluemont Park in Arlington. A white-haired gentleman in owlish glasses tossed one pitch after another to a female catcher half his age, trying to hit the strike zone.

They were Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, 85, and his daughter Susan Mullen, 42 -- getting ready for Sept. 14, when Stevens was to throw out the ceremonial first pitch at Wrigley Field, home of his beloved Chicago Cubs.

After weeks of warm-ups with his daughter and others, Stevens took the mound at Wrigley -- and did not blow his big moment. His fastball came in high and only a bit wide of the plate.

"It was a thrill for him, an absolute thrill," Mullen said. "It was more the little boy in him than the Supreme Court justice."

Born in Chicago on April 20, 1920, Stevens has not been a little boy for many years. As of Jan. 9, he is the third-oldest person ever to serve on the high court, trailing only Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and Roger B. Taney. But he shows no sign of retiring and remains almost as vigorous as he was when President Gerald R. Ford, a Republican, appointed him in 1975.

Stevens's remarkable staying power has been good for liberals. At a time of conservative ascendancy on the court, he anchors a four-justice center-left bloc that would probably shrink to three if President Bush could appoint his successor. After the confirmation of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, the liberal radio network Air America began playing "Hang On Stevens," a parody of the 1960s hit "Hang On Sloopy." The song implores: "Just wait until Bush leaves before you resign."

If anything, Stevens's influence has grown in recent years. He has a knack for building coalitions across ideological lines, and he makes shrewd use of his prerogatives as the senior associate justice. It is largely because of him that a court with seven Republican-appointed members, and nominally headed by a conservative, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, produced a string of relatively liberal results in recent cases.

In the past half-decade, the court has upheld affirmative action in higher education; approved a federal campaign finance law; abolished the death penalty for minors and the mentally retarded; rejected key claims of the property-rights movement; and given suspected terrorists held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, access to federal court.

In each of those decisions, Rehnquist dissented, joined by fellow conservatives Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- while Stevens, as the senior justice in the majority, either wrote the court's opinion or picked the justice who did.

"He's a remarkable figure," said Dennis Hutchinson, a law professor and Supreme Court historian at the University of Chicago. "If you looked at his first three or four years on the court, you'd say he was a quirky middle-of-the-roader with no vision and not interested in playing the game. But 30 years later, he's moved into a very influential position. On a court with no true liberals in the '60s sense of the word, he's gotten as much out of the court in terms of left-wing results as anyone could."

Ever the flame of Liberal hope burns bright with denial. All of the decisions Lane cites above were not the result of coalition building by a "four justice Center-Left bloc" with Justice O'Conner being persuaded by Stevens' suave intellectual seduction, they were decisions from a four justice Extreme Left Wing Idealogue bloc and a left of center O'Conner. Not a single one of the four justice bloc he mentions could, under any stretch of imagination, be considered "Center Left." President George Bush is "Center Left," Senator John McCain is "Center Left," Senator Joseph Lieberman is "Center Left," Ruth Bader Ginsberg, John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Steven Breyer are Flaming Liberals, Left of Left. They all four represent what is truly an anathema to the Constitution, Judicial Activists. Justices who believe that they have a mandate from the Government to rewrite the Constitution in their own image. They represent the worst in what is wrong with this nation and the judicial system...rule by judicial fiat.

As for O'Conner, she was a wishy-washy, indeterminate, whatever her hormones told her, justice. If possible she was worse than the other four of that unholy quintet...a person who has no philosophy or basic beliefs. That is the most dangerous of all judicial attitudes because it leads to inconsistent law, such as her opinions which led to the Ten Commandments being allowed at one court house and being banned at another, for the most rivial of reasons.

Rush is right, Lane and the other members of the Left still don't understand that they have lost.

Full Story: Wishin' and Hopin' and Prayin'...

What do you think?

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

Republicans Supporting Hillary?

Special Care for Big Clinton Donors

By Chris Cillizza and Dan Balz
Monday, February 20, 2006; Page A06

Big-dollar political donors are like exotic animals -- both require near-constant attention and delicate treatment from their handlers.

No politician knows this better than Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who -- along with her husband -- has perfected the care and feeding of major contributors.

Witness a series of meetings last week of Clinton's national finance team, the diverse group of donors raising cash for her reelection race this November.

The gathering took place at the Phoenix Park Hotel in Washington last Wednesday, culminating in a dinner at the Georgetown home of Smith and Elizabeth Bagley -- two of the heaviest financial hitters in the party. More than 100 people attended; most were the usual suspects in the Bill and Hillary universe, including Esprit clothing company founder Susie Tompkins Buell and California investment banker John Emerson.

But there were a few surprises among the guests: Texas lawyer Fred Baron, who was the national finance chairman of the 2004 presidential bid of then-North Carolina Sen. John Edwards; Alan Solomont, a major cog in Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry's financial network during his run for the presidency; and Joyce Aboussie, the major-domo of the political universe for former representative Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.).

Who'd of thought that all of these Republicans would be supporting Hillary...what's that, they're not Republicans they're Democrats? But, but they're rich, they must be Republicans. We all know that only Republicans are rich. You mean it's not true that all rich people are Republicans? Their are more rich Democrats than Republicans? What? Nine of the ten richest members of Congress are Democrats, not Republicans? How can that be? We have always been told that the Republican party was the party of the rich and the Democrat party was the party of the working man. Now you're telling me that Democrats are rich? Say it ain't so.

Well, there goes another Liberal lie down the toilet. Funny the MSM never tell the facts about this. The truth is that Republican candidates get far more of their campaign money from small contributers than they do from wealthy contributers, and it's just the opposite with Democrats. That's why people like George Soros have so much influence with the Democrat Party.

Full Story: Rich Democrats Flocking to Hillary

What do you think?

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

National Security is well...National

Lawmakers Deride Assurances on Arab Port Firm

By Will Lester
Associated Press
Monday, February 20, 2006; Page A07

U.S. terms for approving an Arab company's takeover of operations at six major American ports are insufficient to guard against terrorist infiltration, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee said yesterday.

"I'm aware of the conditions, and they relate entirely to how the company carries out its procedures, but it doesn't go to who they hire, or how they hire people," said Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.).

"They're better than nothing, but to me they don't address the underlying conditions, which is how are they going to guard against things like infiltration by al Qaeda or someone else, how are they going to guard against corruption?" King said.

King spoke in response to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff's comments yesterday about conditions of the sale. King said he learned about the government's terms for approving the sale from meetings with senior Bush administration officials.

Chertoff defended the security review of Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates, the company given permission to take over the port operations. Chertoff said the government typically builds in "certain conditions or requirements that the company has to agree to to make sure we address the national security concerns." But Chertoff declined to discuss specifics, saying that information is classified.

"We make sure there are assurances in place, in general, sufficient to satisfy us that the deal is appropriate from a national security standpoint," Chertoff said on ABC's "This Week."

London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. was bought last week by DP World, a state-owned business. Peninsular and Oriental runs major commercial operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

A Miami company, Continental Stevedoring & Terminals Inc., has sued in Florida, challenging the deal. A subsidiary of Eller & Company Inc., Continental says it will become an "involuntary partner" with Dubai's government under the sale.

Stop the presses...I find myself agreeing with Boxer and Schumer? Yep believe it or not, I do not believe this is a good idea. Sometimes a leader needs to care about how the people feel. It may be that there are "sufficient safeguards" built in to this agreement to assure the continuing security of the nation, but (I don't believe I'm saying this) it just doesn't FEEL RIGHT to have mission critical facilities under the control of a foreign power, no matter how benevolent and benign we may believe them to be. It doesn't matter how secure the ports actually are under Dubai control, they shouldn't be. This is stupid, it's bad policy and it's bad politics. Whoever came up with the idea of allowing this to go forward should be fired for lacking any sense of public opinion and awareness of public understanding. It's just too bloody risky for us to place American security in the hands of a Middle Eastern nation. Wake up Mr. President and stop this now.

Full Story: When Expedience is Oblivious to Need

What do you think?

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

Ah Jimmah, Ever the Voice of Naivete and Stupidity

Don't Punish the Palestinians

By Jimmy Carter
Monday, February 20, 2006; Page A21

As the results of the recent Palestinian elections are implemented, it's important to understand how the transition process works and also how important to it are actions by Israel and the United States.

Although Hamas won 74 of the 132 parliamentary seats, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas retains the right to propose and veto legislation, with 88 votes required to override his veto. With nine of its elected members remaining in prison, Hamas has only 65 votes, plus whatever third-party support it can attract. Abbas also has the power to select and remove the prime minister, to issue decrees with the force of law when parliament is not in session, and to declare a state of emergency. As commander in chief, he also retains ultimate influence over the National Security Force and Palestinian intelligence.

After the first session of the new legislature, which was Saturday, the members will elect a speaker, two deputies and a secretary. These legislative officials are not permitted to hold any position in the executive branch, so top Hamas leaders may choose to concentrate their influence in the parliament and propose moderates or technocrats for prime minister and cabinet posts. Three weeks are allotted for the prime minister to form the cabinet, and a majority vote of the parliament is required for final approval.

The role of the prime minister was greatly strengthened while Abbas and Ahmed Qureia served in that position under Yasser Arafat, and Abbas has announced that he will not choose a prime minister who does not recognize Israel or adhere to the basic principles of the "road map." This could result in a stalemated process, but my conversations with representatives of both sides indicate that they wish to avoid such an imbroglio. The spokesman for Hamas claimed, "We want a peaceful unity government." If this is a truthful statement, it needs to be given a chance.

During this time of fluidity in the formation of the new government, it is important that Israel and the United States play positive roles. Any tacit or formal collusion between the two powers to disrupt the process by punishing the Palestinian people could be counterproductive and have devastating consequences.

Unfortunately, these steps are already underway and are well known throughout the Palestinian territories and the world. Israel moved yesterday to withhold funds (about $50 million per month) that the Palestinians earn from customs and tax revenue. Perhaps a greater aggravation by the Israelis is their decision to hinder movement of elected Hamas Palestinian Legislative Council members through any of more than a hundred Israeli checkpoints around and throughout the Palestinian territories. This will present significant obstacles to a government's functioning effectively. Abbas informed me after the election that the Palestinian Authority was $900 million in debt and that he would be unable to meet payrolls during February. Knowing that Hamas would inherit a bankrupt government, U.S. officials have announced that all funding for the new government will be withheld, including what is needed to pay salaries for schoolteachers, nurses, social workers, police and maintenance personnel. So far they have not agreed to bypass the Hamas-led government and let humanitarian funds be channeled to Palestinians through United Nations agencies responsible for refugees, health and other human services.

It' always been about you hasn't it Jimmy? "...but my conversations with representatives of both sides..." Jimmy the savior of the world. This from the idiot who gave us a North Korea armed with Nukes. What we really need now is to follow the advice of the most inept, incompetent, naive president in history, and "world leader" since Neville Chamberlain's "Peace for Our Time."

Jimmy is convinced by the promises of the folks who brought us suicide/homicide bombings. "...so top Hamas leaders may choose to concentrate their influence in the parliament and propose moderates or technocrats for prime minister and cabinet posts..." Riiiight Jimmy! Of course they will, they've talked to you and we all know how highly you hold yourself in esteem. Why we just don't understand the poor people of Hamas. They're just peace loving fuzzballs like you and me. Afterall they've hardly done anything...in the last 24 hours to kill more Israeli women and children. Heck if we had just listened to you back when you were President, Iran might not be subject to the brutal rule of the Shiite Clergy...oh wait, we did follow your directions, whoops! Oh well, no one is perfect, at least you rescued the hostages...oh yeah, that failed. Yeah but at least we still have the Panama Canal, I remember you saved that...uh, Dang! I forgot you gave that up. Nevermind, at least Korea is nuke-free...uh, oh yeah, they're not. Come to think of it, why would any of us listen to you? You're an idiot! Go back to your peanut farm and shut-up! We don't even like you.

Full Editorial: Jimmah Speaks-Morons Listen

What do you think?

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

Is Loyalty to Friends Becoming Blindness for Bush?

Republican malaise

Feb 20, 2006
by Robert Novak

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- When Dick Cheney finally broke his silence by answering questions from Fox's Brit Hume last Wednesday, four days after the hunting accident, many Republicans could hardly believe it. They were stunned that the vice president indicated he had no regrets about the way the incident was handled. Every Republican I contacted had regrets in abundance.

Bush-bashers delighted in exaggerating Cheney's post-accident conduct as a metaphor for everything wrong with George W. Bush's presidency in its sixth year. Nevertheless, there are supporters of the president (and the vice president, as well) who believe the handling of the accident does reflect structural problems in the Bush White House. Those defects were present from the start of this presidency and remain, in the absence of a basic reconstruction after Bush's re-election.

Republican malaise in Washington derives less from anemic poll ratings than from overriding concern about how the Bush team functions. This anxiety is enhanced because Republican criticism of the White House is seen as evidence of disloyalty and consequently discouraged.

A vivid illustration is provided by Vin Weber, a former congressman who has been a major player in Republican politics for the past quarter of a century. While he now is a Washington lobbyist, he has remained deeply engaged in Republican politics (particularly back in his home state of Minnesota). Following the 2004 election, Weber was reported possibly to be coming to the White House as part of a staff reconstruction. In fact, Weber was willing to accept the economic sacrifice for him and his family by returning to public service.

But no call came from the White House because the president decided to stand pat in his staffing for a second term. Because Weber always has been a team player rather than an open-mouthed critic of his own administration, his comments on page one of last Wednesday's Washington Post attracted special attention. Weber specifically criticized Cheney, contending that the disclosure of the accident "should have been handled differently." In character, the White House let out the word that such mild criticism put this faithful Republican out of line.

Actually, as Weber surely would admit, the problems exposed by the Texas shooting were no aberration. But instead, they are systemic. Andrew Card, as Bush's only presidential chief of staff, has had an extraordinarily long tenure in that post of over five years, but has not dominated the presidential office in the manner of Sherman Adams and James Baker. Card always seemed less formidable than Bush political adviser Karl Rove, who with his additional title of deputy chief of staff mixes politics and policy.

Mr. Novak seems to be dead on target with this one. President Bush seems to rely far too heavily on Rove and Card and not enough on himself and the rest of his cabinet and staff. Though Rove is a shrewd actor with adequate political antennae, I don't think he has served the President as well post election as some others might.

Although there have been a number of stretched comparisons between President Bush's administration and that of the late Richard Nixon's, there is one similarity that I have seen, and perhaps it is inevitable when an administration is relentlessly attacked by the press and the disloyal opposition. That similarity is a kind of "circle the wagons mentality," a sort of "Fortress White House." The best way to counteract the attacks by the MSM and the Democrats is for some, counter-intuitive, and for others, second nature, that is to come out swinging. When one is passive in the face of constant assault, even if that assault is composed primarily of lies as has the one which President Bush has faced, the public begins to see that silence as a form of assent to what is being said. In spite of the attempts by those of us who have acted to defend the President-where I agreed with him-against those attacks, even those of somewhat exalted status such as Rush Limbaugh, we cannot come close to the power of the Presidential soapbox in countering those attacks. I do not know if the silence is a result of the Presidents own reluctance to speak out, or if it comes from the advice of Card, Rove, or Cheney (that last certainly follows the code of silence) but it is poor policy to aquiesse to the noise which constantly bombards the people from the Left.

Full Story: Still Time for a Change

What do you think?

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

Lies, Damned Lies, and Environmentalist's "Truths"

Climate change: On the edge
Greenland ice cap breaking up at twice the rate it was five years ago, says scientist Bush tried to gag

By Jim Hansen
Published: 17 February 2006
The Indepentdent

A satellite study of the Greenland ice cap shows that it is melting far faster than scientists had feared - twice as much ice is going into the sea as it was five years ago. The implications for rising sea levels - and climate change - could be dramatic.

Yet, a few weeks ago, when I - a Nasa climate scientist - tried to talk to the media about these issues following a lecture I had given calling for prompt reductions in the emission of greenhouse gases, the Nasa public affairs team - staffed by political appointees from the Bush administration - tried to stop me doing so. I was not happy with that, and I ignored the restrictions. The first line of Nasa's mission is to understand and protect the planet.

This new satellite data is a remarkable advance. We are seeing for the first time the detailed behaviour of the ice streams that are draining the Greenland ice sheet. They show that Greenland seems to be losing at least 200 cubic kilometres of ice a year. It is different from even two years ago, when people still said the ice sheet was in balance.

Hundreds of cubic kilometres sounds like a lot of ice. But this is just the beginning. Once a sheet starts to disintegrate, it can reach a tipping point beyond which break-up is explosively rapid. The issue is how close we are getting to that tipping point. The summer of 2005 broke all records for melting in Greenland. So we may be on the edge.

Our understanding of what is going on is very new. Today's forecasts of sea-level rise use climate models of the ice sheets that say they can only disintegrate over a thousand years or more. But we can now see that the models are almost worthless. They treat the ice sheets like a single block of ice that will slowly melt. But what is happening is much more dynamic.

-------------Snip-----------------

How far can it go? The last time the world was three degrees warmer than today - which is what we expect later this century - sea levels were 25m higher. So that is what we can look forward to if we don't act soon. None of the current climate and ice models predict this. But I prefer the evidence from the Earth's history and my own eyes. I think sea-level rise is going to be the big issue soon, more even than warming itself. [Emphasis added]

I get it Chicken Little, the old I'm right but everyone else is wrong routine. We're all doomed unless we go back to horse drawn carriages right now. Can you imagine the amount of pollution that would result from 150 million households using fireplaces? Or perhaps you want us to use solar panels have you any comprehension at all how much of a heat load you would be adding to the Earth's environment if you used solar energy instead of chemical energy? Maybe you would prefer wind power...say good by to our bird population. Oh yeah, did I mention that there is no solid evidence that global warming is caused by anything other than the Earth's natural cycle? Man made? Come on, you can't really believe that. It that was true, then how do you explain the global warming we are witnessing on Mars? Is that man made pollution to?

God save us from self-deluded experts who see visible only to them. Man made global warming is and always has been a self-generated cause celebre because those who support the theory earn their livings off of it. If you are a scientist who has unshakable faith in your theory, then every effort you make to research it is inherently biased toward proving it correct. Every shred of evidence, even if it is contradictory is seen as proof of it, explained away by further enhancements to it. Record heatwave...global warming, record cold spell...global warming, severe drought...global warming, record rainfall...global warming. That's not science, that's poofery. ABRACADABRA!

By the way, you lied in your headline, President Bush did not attempt to shut you up, the NASA Public Affairs Team did. It never occurred to you that they might have had a legitimate reason...like you're wrong, did it?

Full Story: Global Whining

What do you think?

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

Cheney: Case Closed?

Cheney Shooting Case Is Closed in Texas
Report on Accident Backs Explanations by Vice President and Ranch Owner

By John Pomfret
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 17, 2006; Page A05

CORPUS CHRISTI, Tex., Feb. 16 -- The sheriff's department responsible for investigating Vice President Cheney's shooting of a Texas lawyer has closed its investigation and decided no criminal charges are warranted, according to a report released Thursday.

The Kenedy County Sheriff's Department report largely corroborates the accounts of the shooting given by Cheney and Katharine Armstrong, whose family owns the 50,000-acre ranch where the incident occurred. Cheney shot Harry Whittington, 78, a prominent Austin lawyer, while hunting quail last Saturday afternoon.

The report, written by Chief Deputy Gilbert San Miguel Jr., quotes Cheney and Whittington as saying the shooting was an accident. They said no one was drinking alcohol during the hunt, according to the report. Interviewed in his hospital room in Corpus Christi, Whittington expressed concern only that the incident would hurt hunting's image in Texas, the report said.

"Mr. Whittington did speak of the incident and explained foremost that there was no alcohol during the hunt and everyone was wearing the proper hunting attire of blaze orange," the report said. "Mr. Whittington again reiterated that this incident was just an accident."

Hospital officials have declined to say whether Whittington was given a blood alcohol test when he was admitted.

In his first public comments on the shooting, President Bush said Thursday in Washington that he is satisfied with Cheney's account of what happened. "I thought the vice president handled the issue just fine," he said. "I'm satisfied with the explanation he gave."

Whittington developed an abnormal heart rhythm Tuesday when a birdshot pellet moved in his chest. His condition improved Thursday at Christus Spohn Memorial Hospital, where he was listed in stable condition, hospital officials said. David Blanchard, the hospital's director of emergency services, said he is confident Whittington will continue to recover. "We feel very confident to reasonable medical certainty that there is no other pellet or birdshot that poses a threat to Mr. Whittington," he told reporters.

Cheney discussed the incident publicly for the first time Wednesday in an interview with Fox News, and he took blame for the shooting. Previous statements by Armstrong, who witnessed the shooting, indicated that Whittington may have been to blame.

"You can't blame anybody else," Cheney said. "I'm the guy who pulled the trigger and shot my friend."

The vice president did not release any word of the shooting at the time, deferring to Armstrong, who called reporters in Texas on Sunday morning. Cheney defended his decision, saying his first concern was for Whittington's health.

The sheriff's 2 1/2 -page report says that San Miguel began his investigation at the Armstrong Ranch at 8 a.m. Sunday, 14 1/2 hours after the shooting occurred. Cheney told San Miguel that a hunting party of seven, riding in three vehicles, was looking for quail in a pasture when dogs located a covey. Whittington, interviewed in his hospital room, told San Miguel that he hit two birds in that covey. Then a hunting guide, Bo Hubert, discovered a second covey. Cheney, who had not shot any birds in the first covey, walked 100 yards with Pamela Pitzer Willeford, the U.S. ambassador to Switzerland and Liechtenstein, to try his luck with the second. He carried a 28-gauge Italian-made shotgun.

I guess everything is on the up-and-up on this, but I still have to wonder. Anytime I hear the word "alcohol" and there is a significant delay prior to the investigation, I am concerned. It would not be the first time a cover-up has occurred in a situation like this...eh Teddy? I would hate to cast any aspersions on Deputy San Miguel, Jr., but this is Texas and, as in other states (like Arkansas, for example), lawmakers have been known to "accomodate" the needs of politicians...right Bill? I happen to like Dick Cheney, but I don't quite trust him to be as forthright as I would had this happened to President Bush, even though the same hateful rumors would be circulating about him. Cheney created this whole circus by not being as forthcoming as, perhaps, he should have been, but it doesn't excuse the hateful things those on the Left are saying, nor does it excuse the boorish behavior and childish temper tantrums of those members of the White House press corps.

Full Story: Some Questions Remain

What do you think?

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

Congress-President Compromise on NSA Monitoring, Unwise

Senate Rejects Wiretapping Probe
But Judge Orders Justice Department to Turn Over Documents

By Charles Babington and Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, February 17, 2006; A06

The Bush administration helped derail a Senate bid to investigate a warrantless eavesdropping program yesterday after signaling it would reject Congress's request to have former attorney general John D. Ashcroft and other officials testify about the program's legality. The actions underscored a dramatic and possibly permanent drop in momentum for a congressional inquiry, which had seemed likely two months ago.

Senate Democrats said the Republican-led Congress was abdicating its obligations to oversee a controversial program in which the National Security Agency has monitored perhaps thousands of phone calls and e-mails involving U.S. residents and foreign parties without obtaining warrants from a secret court that handles such matters.

"It is more than apparent to me that the White House has applied heavy pressure in recent days, in recent weeks, to prevent the committee from doing its job," Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), vice chairman of the intelligence committee, said after the panel voted along party lines not to consider his motion for an investigation.

There was one setback, however, to the administration's efforts to keep tight wraps on the NSA operation. Yesterday, a federal judge ordered the Justice Department to turn over its internal documents and legal opinions about the program within 20 days -- or explain its reasons for refusing.

Before yesterday's closed-door meeting of the intelligence panel began, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that the NSA program does not require "congressional authorization" but that the administration is "open to ideas regarding legislation." Committee sources said such comments -- characterized as meaningful by Republicans but empty by Democrats -- apparently persuaded GOP moderates to back away from earlier calls for a congressional investigation into the program.

After the meeting, Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) told reporters: "The administration is now committed to legislation and has agreed to brief more intelligence committee members on the nature of the surveillance program. The details of this agreement will take some time to work out."

Bad choice Mr. President. I do not believe that you should do anything that would weaken the Presidency. Allowing Congress to pass anything other than a resolution endorsing the policy would lessen the sovereignty of the Executive Branch. I do not believe in such "legislation for comity" as this would be. It is clear that the Presidency has the authority to conduct this kind of monitoring, and it is wrong to, in effect, tie the hands of later administrations in pursuing our enemies. Now if the legislation is merely to clarify what is protected under the Fourth Amendment, I might accept that as reasonable, but any presumed authority of Congress to authorize the current actions of the President would be an affront to the independence of the Presidency and a violation of the Constitution.

Full Story: Treading Dangerous Waters

What do you think?

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

A Well Reasoned and Knowledgeable Analysis on Cheney Incident

Lapse a blessing for hunter safety

Phil Bloom
Fort Wayne Indiana
The Journal Gazette

The way Steve Hall sees it, something good can come from Vice President Cheney’s hunting accident.

“We couldn’t have paid the vice president to give us this much publicity,” said Hall, director of the hunter education program in Texas and former president of the International Hunter Education Association. “Because he is a high-visibility figure, it actually elevates the importance and awareness of the hunter education effort that has a long-standing history.”

In peppering his hunting partner with birdshot Saturday, Cheney became the first vice president to shoot someone since Aaron Burr mortally wounded Alexander Hamilton in a pistol duel July 11, 1804.

Burr’s was no accident. Cheney’s was.

From the perspective of someone who has hunted, the explanation Cheney gave Wednesday in an interview with Fox News seems plausible.

That does not absolve him of wrongdoing, and he rightfully took the blame for what happened.

Cheney was wrong not because he inconvenienced the White House press corps or because he didn’t call police immediately. In fact, there is no statutory requirement in Texas – or Indiana – to report a hunting accident. Hospitals, on the other hand, are required to report gunshot victims to law enforcement agencies, which then investigate the circumstances and determine responsibility.

Cheney’s mistake was in violating the cardinal rules of safe hunting that Hall and thousands of other hunter education instructors teach their students – point a gun only in a safe direction, treat every firearm as if it is loaded, and be sure of your target.

“What that carries with it is seeing what is in front and what is beyond the intended target,” Hall said.

The accident report filed by a game warden shows that both Cheney and Whittington were wearing blaze orange clothing – caps and coats or vests – though Texas law does not require it on private land where they were hunting.

Blaze orange serves a purpose. Wearing it makes you stick out like a sore thumb.
So, how could Cheney have not seen his hunting partner?

There is a term in hunter safety education classes that likely played a role. It’s called target fixation and means visually locking onto the intended target.

“Especially in quail hunting, where the hunter is so focused on the bird that it makes everything else blurry,” Hall said. “The bottom line in terms of bird hunting is what we call shooting zones.”

While Cheney is to blame for the shooting, Whittington facilitated the accident by stepping out of the line of hunters to retrieve a downed bird and then rejoining the group without alerting the others.

And that, as they say, "is the truth of it." Cheney is to blame, as he himself has stated in the interview on FOX. No one is denying that. But it does help to understand what is occurring when people hunt, it is not "target fever" as some third party experts have alledged (a third party expert is one who has "heard from someone he knows who is a hunter" and as a result becomes an instant expert), but a well known and normal process in bird hunting. This doesn't alleviate Cheney from responsibility, merely provides a reasoned and logical understanding of how accidents like this one occur.

Therein lies the problem with all of these Liberals who are making wild accusations against the Vice President, they know nothing about guns (except they ought to be outlawed) and they know nothing about hunting (except it ought to be outlawed). Kind of like most of the freedoms Americans enjoy but with which they disapprove.

Full Story: Hunting Safety

What do you think?

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