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

Never Trust National Security to a Liberal

325,000 Names on Terrorism List
Rights Groups Say Database May Include Innocent People

By Walter Pincus and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, February 15, 2006; Page A01

The National Counterterrorism Center maintains a central repository of 325,000 names of international terrorism suspects or people who allegedly aid them, a number that has more than quadrupled since the fall of 2003, according to counterterrorism officials.

The list kept by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) -- created in 2004 to be the primary U.S. terrorism intelligence agency -- contains a far greater number of international terrorism suspects and associated names in a single government database than has previously been disclosed. Because the same person may appear under different spellings or aliases, the true number of people is estimated to be more than 200,000, according to NCTC officials.

U.S. citizens make up "only a very, very small fraction" of that number, said an administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of his agency's policies. "The vast majority are non-U.S. persons and do not live in the U.S.," he added. An NCTC official refused to say how many on the list -- put together from reports supplied by the CIA, the FBI, the National Security Agency (NSA) and other agencies -- are U.S. citizens.

The NSA is a key provider of information for the NCTC database, although officials refused to say how many names on the list are linked to the agency's controversial domestic eavesdropping effort. Under the program, the NSA has conducted wiretaps on an unknown number of U.S. citizens without warrants.

The government has been trying to streamline what counterterrorism officials say are more than 26 terrorism-related databases compiled by agencies throughout the intelligence and law enforcement communities. Names from the NCTC list are provided to the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), which in turn provides names for watch lists maintained by the Transportation Security Administration and other agencies.

Civil liberties advocates and privacy experts said they were troubled by the size of the NCTC database, and they said it further heightens their concerns that such government terrorism lists include the names of large numbers of innocent people. Timothy Sparapani, legislative counsel for privacy rights at the American Civil Liberties Union, called the numbers "shocking but, unfortunately, not surprising."

"We have lists that are having baby lists at this point; they're spawning faster than rabbits," Sparapani said. "If we have over 300,000 known terrorists who want to do this country harm, we've got a much bigger problem than deciding which names go on which list. But I highly doubt that is the case."

That, Mr. Sparapani is precisely the problem. You in the ACLU and others of your ilk never have understood, nor believed in, the size of the problem. That is why Liberals can never be trusted with the security and safety of the American people and their nation. You are so set on your Liberal agenda, that you don't take the time to understand what is necessary to maintain the safety of the people.

You Liberals are clueless. You still adhere to the Neville Chamberlain philosophy of National Defense..."Peace for our times." That is why you oppose the NSA program. Well that and you absolute hatred of all things Conservative. You, your Democrat vassals, and their propaganda wing, the MSM ( and folks like Walter Pinko) must never again be trusted to secure our nation.

Full Story: More Terrorists Than ACLU/Liberals Can Comprehend

What do you think?

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

Disconsolate Democrats Robbed of Another Political Weapon?

Congressional Probe of NSA Spying Is in Doubt
White House Sways Some GOP Lawmakers

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 15, 2006; Page A03

Congress appeared ready to launch an investigation into the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program last week, but an all-out White House lobbying campaign has dramatically slowed the effort and may kill it, key Republican and Democratic sources said yesterday.

The Senate intelligence committee is scheduled to vote tomorrow on a Democratic-sponsored motion to start an inquiry into the recently revealed program in which the National Security Agency eavesdrops on an undisclosed number of phone calls and e-mails involving U.S. residents without obtaining warrants from a secret court. Two committee Democrats said the panel -- made up of eight Republicans and seven Democrats -- was clearly leaning in favor of the motion last week but now is closely divided and possibly inclined against it.

They attributed the shift to last week's closed briefings given by top administration officials to the full House and Senate intelligence committees, and to private appeals to wavering GOP senators by officials, including Vice President Cheney. "It's been a full-court press," said a top Senate Republican aide who asked to speak only on background -- as did several others for this story -- because of the classified nature of the intelligence committees' work.

Lawmakers cite senators such as Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) to illustrate the administration's success in cooling congressional zeal for an investigation. On Dec. 20, she was among two Republicans and two Democrats who signed a letter expressing "our profound concern about recent revelations that the United States Government may have engaged in domestic electronic surveillance without appropriate legal authority." The letter urged the Senate's intelligence and judiciary committees to "jointly undertake an inquiry into the facts and law surrounding these allegations."

In an interview yesterday, Snowe said, "I'm not sure it's going to be essential or necessary" to conduct an inquiry "if we can address the legislative standpoint" that would provide oversight of the surveillance program. "We're learning a lot and we're going to learn more," she said.

She cited last week's briefings before the full House and Senate intelligence committees by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and former NSA director Michael V. Hayden.

"The administration has obviously gotten the message that they need to be more forthcoming," Snowe said.

Good for Olympia Snowe! Seems she is not beyond reason, unlike her shrill Democrat colleagues. The real investigation Congress needs to pursue is who leaked the story to the New York Lies and whether or not the newspaper compromised national security.

This has never been much of a story except among the extreme radical Liberals in the Democrat Party and a few equally wrong hard-headed, unrelenting, Conservatives like George Will and Pat Buchanan.

What we are seeing is those less courageous Republican members of Congress and some Democrats members who are not quite so far gone, awakening to the mood of the public. The people of America understand and accept the minor, temporary, sacrifice of their rights as a necessity in the war against terrorists. In this the people of this nation are far ahead of the Liberal Democrats in Congress and around the nation.

Full Story: Lessening Momentum for NSA Monitoring Probe

What do you think?

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

The Pest Boys: Always Looking to Stir Up a Story

Cheney's Response A Concern In GOP
Public Statement On Shooting Urged

By Jim VandeHei and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, February 15, 2006; Page A01

Vice President Cheney's slow and unapologetic public response to the accidental shooting of a 78-year-old Texas lawyer is turning the quail-hunting mishap into a political liability for the Bush administration and is prompting senior White House officials to press Cheney to publicly address the issue as early as today, several prominent Republicans said yesterday.

The Republicans said Cheney should have immediately disclosed the shooting Saturday night to avoid even the suggestion of a coverup and should have offered a public apology for his role in accidentally shooting Harry Whittington, a GOP lawyer from Austin. Whittington was hospitalized Saturday night in Corpus Christi, Tex., and was moved back into the intensive-care unit after suffering an abnormal heart rhythm yesterday morning.

"I cannot believe he does not look back and say this should have been handled differently," said Vin Weber, a former Republican congressman from Minnesota who is close to the White House. Weber said Cheney "made it a much bigger issue than it needed to be."

Marlin Fitzwater, a former Republican White House spokesman, told Editor & Publisher magazine that Cheney "ignored his responsibility to the American people."

The episode is turning into a defining moment for Cheney, a vice president who has operated with enormous clout to shape White House policy while avoiding public scrutiny over the past five years.

President Bush has allowed Cheney to become perhaps the most powerful vice president in history and has provided him with unparalleled autonomy. Early in Bush's first term, Cheney developed the administration's energy policy, largely behind closed doors, and then heavily influenced Iraq policy after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

No evidence has emerged to suggest that the shooting was anything more than a hunting accident, but the spectacle of the vice president wounding a prominent Republican at an exclusive Texas ranch has become the punch line for politicians and comedians alike, and has penetrated the popular culture through late-night television. Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said he referred to Cheney as the "shooter in chief" in a meeting with members of Congress yesterday morning. It has also raised anew criticism of Cheney's operating style.

Cheney has avoided public comment on the shooting other than to release two short statements. One stated that he would be issued a warning for not paying a $7 hunting fee in Texas; the other, released by his office yesterday, detailed when he learned of Whittington's worsening condition and said his "thoughts and prayers are with Mr. Whittington and his family."

Whittington suffered an irregular heartbeat yesterday after a shotgun pellet in his chest traveled to his heart, according to hospital officials in Corpus Christi.

Some current and former White House officials said Cheney's refusal to address the issue or accept any blame has the potential to become a political problem for Bush because it reinforces the image of a secretive and above-the-law White House. Top White House aides are pressuring Cheney to discuss the incident as early as today, according to people familiar with the matter.

Cheney, a former House member, White House chief of staff and corporate executive, is dismissive of the national media and unfazed by criticism and unflattering publicity. Bush picked Cheney as vice president in large part because of his lack of political ambitions and his ability to keep confidences.

"If I read Dick Cheney right, he's got to be just devastated" by the shooting incident, said Robert H. Michel, a former House Republican leader from Illinois and a longtime friend. But Michel said he is mystified that the vice president has not come out in public to express his feelings.

Dick Cheney is right, it's about time someone puts the press in their proper place. There is no Constitutional right for them to be informed about anything. Their hyperventilating is making them look like the southbound end of a northbound horse. If they want to know something, they'll make it up just as they always have. Somebody must have mistakenly told VandeHei and Baker that we care about their feelings.

This is a case of the press not having anything much to report on. When life gets too boring for them, they will stoke the fires of their political base with inflammatory coverage and artificial outrage at their being ignored. Personally, I think that more Conservative politicians should ignore them. I have never witnessed a member of the MainStream Manure...er Media make any positive contribution to the betterment of this nation. They seem to me to be more like long strands of seaweed clinging to the legs of a diver, dragging the Public dialogue down into the muck and mire.

Good on Dick Cheney!

Full Story: Indignant Washington Pest on a Tear

What do you think?

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

To Howard Kurtz: You're Really Not That Important

Monumental Misfire

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 14, 2006; 8:12 AM

I could say the White House shot itself in the foot, but that would be in terrible taste, wouldn't it?

The Scott McClellan briefing was truly something to behold. The guy is still picking buckshot out of his backside.

Seriously: What were they thinking? The vice president of the United States shoots a man--accidentally, to be sure, this was no Aaron Burr situation--and White House officials wait a whole day and don't tell the press? Did they think it wouldn't get out? No one would care? It would remain secret as a matter of national security?

Instead, they had the ranch owner call a reporter for the Corpus Christi Caller-Times?

This is going to ricochet for days (forgive me), all because the administration essentially thumbed its nose at the national press.

McClellan seemed to be slightly distancing himself from the mishandling of the matter by directing many of the questions to Cheney's office.

Now imagine you're the veep's PR wizard and he has this little incident and shoots a fellow quail hunter. Imagine that you summon the press, your boss reads a statement, expresses deep regret over the incident involving his friend and takes responsibility for the mishap. Wouldn't that have generated a bit of sympathy for the errant sharpshooter, made him seem more of a human being and avoided all the exasperated questions about "when did the vice president tell the president that he had shot someone?"

Gee Howard, you think your vanity is showing? Did it ever occur to you that the first thought in the Vice-President's head and those of his staff wasn't "I need to tell the press?" Do you think maybe their first concern was "Is Jack Whittington alright?", "Is it serious?", "What can we do for him?" Naw, your first thought (you in the press) is "Can we get some more light on the body for the picture?" Believe it or not Howard, you in the press are not the most important people on Earth, the Sun doesn't rise and set with your presence. For most people your not even on the top ten list. I know that hurts your feelings, but it is the unfortunate truth.

Now add to the fact that you in the press are not that important to the fact that the Vice-President has little motivation to deal with a press which has been out to get him from the day he was nominated and you get a real low motivation to announce what has happened. Knowing the reaction of your fellow yellow journalists like Eugene Robinson and their propensity to take cheap shots whenever they are given the chance, and the level of genuine hatred of all things Republican in the Press and the political Left, I fully understand the reluctance on the part of the Vice President to announce this accident. I don't endorse it, because it was inevitable that it would lead to the type of pitiful spectical we witnessed at yesterdays press briefing, but I do understand it.

Full Story: Kurtz's Confusion

What do you think?

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

Eugene Robinson: "I Hate Dick Cheney, See How Much I Hate Dick Cheney"

Col. Jessep Goes A-Hunting

By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, February 14, 2006; Page A15

I told you people Dick Cheney was dangerous.

Let's all wish a full and speedy recovery for Harry Whittington, the man Cheney accidentally shot on Saturday while they were out in the Texas boonies hunting quail. As for the trigger-happy vice president, let's hope he takes this unfortunate episode as a hint to pack up his shotgun and go home. Lord knows he's done enough.

The man is out of control.

Then again, out-of-control is the way this whole administration operates: Ready, fire, aim. Global war on terrorism, global war on poultry, what's the difference? You see something moving, shoot it.

Sorry, Harry, my bad.

It's been clear for some time that Cheney came to office with a revanchist agenda, and he has pushed so hard in his campaign to assert autocratic powers for the White House that even his allies on Capitol Hill have begun pushing back. No wonder, given the way he treats them. On electronic spying, Cheney has essentially told Congress that if any members would like to discuss checks and balances, they're welcome to talk to the hand.

His uncompromising drill-and-guzzle position on energy makes a lot of oil industry executives sound like tree-huggers. When the subject turns to measures that could actually begin to lead this country toward energy independence, such as conservation and alternative fuels, Cheney begins checking his watch and barely tries to stifle his yawns. But let someone raise the prospect of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which couldn't even begin to slake America's energy thirst, and he lights up with such glee that it's impossible not to think of Mr. Burns on "The Simpsons."

Conservation sounds like one of those sissified foreign ideas. Drilling, now that's what America is all about -- at least the America that spends its weekends on a 50,000-acre ranch in south Texas with a bunch of fellow millionaires, shooting at quail.

Typically, Cheney's office didn't bother to tell anyone for more than 18 hours that the vice president of the United States had shot someone. A vice presidential shooting doesn't happen every day, and I, for one, would appreciate being informed whenever the man who's just a heartbeat away from the presidency peppers a 78-year-old attorney with birdshot. But Cheney apparently is taking his cues from Jack Nicholson's character in "A Few Good Men," the ultrapatriotic Col. Nathan Jessep: "You can't handle the truth."

Cheney seems to believe that we want to know far too much about what our government is up to. He doesn't have to tell us who came to the White House and engineered the administration's "Happy Days" energy policy; he doesn't have to tell us whom the National Security Agency is spying on or how it's doing it; he doesn't have to tell us anything about the conduct of the war on terrorism that this administration is waging in our names. Anyone who leaks information to try to keep us informed, such as the unnamed whistle-blowers who told of the secret CIA prisons and the unauthorized domestic surveillance, will be hunted down. (No shotguns involved, one hopes.) Of course, at times when public opinion is trending perilously the wrong way, Cheney apparently is happy to play the Washington game and leak information that bolsters his argument and tears down his opponents. According to press reports last week, Cheney's former aide Scooter Libby now says it was his "superiors" who instructed him to do the kind of leaking that has him facing trial on federal charges.

Okay Eugene, let's talk about whose truly dangerous. Let's talk about the purveyors of hatred on the Left both in the Democrat Party and in the Media, yellow rags like the Washington Post. Let's talk about Al Goreda whose little visit to the Middle East and whose anti-America hate speech to the Arabs is guaranteed to stir up additional anti-American sentiment. We've seen the results of statements and actions of people like Al Goreda in the riots and building burnings of the last couple of years by the Arab people. Who is a greater threat to America, Dick Cheney wanting to drill in the Alaskan Tundra, or Al Goreda and people like yourself undermining the War on Terror, undermining American foreign policy, and undermining our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? How about those in the Main-Stream Media who reveal top secret information to our enemies just to help promote the sales of a book their about to release? Or maybe those who spread stories about torture of Arab prisoners in "secret CIA prisons" of which even now they have failed to give proof or even any evidence.

It is they who seek to undermine the activities of our government for political reasons who are the true threat to America. It is they who are the real danger.

I can handle Dead-Eye Dick accidently shooting an close friend and feeling so embarrassed and so harrassed that he is reluctant to reveal the story. I can understand that reluctance given the constant barrage of attacks he has been subjected to by those, like yourself, who hate him just for being in office, even if I don't excuse it. Even a man of great personal inner strength and of naturally good humor can feel harried after such a constant barrage of hate and vilification by those whose only goal is to be in charge of everything, whose only motivation is hatred. Your column is not even amusing, just vile.

How petty and small you are Eugene in your cheap attack, laced as it is with ennuendo, lies and hatred.

Full Story: Eugene Robinson: "I'm a Loser"

What do you think?

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

Gore's Unhinged, Untrue, Attack On America

Gore Laments U.S. 'Abuses' Against Arabs

Feb 12 9:08 PM US/Eastern
By JIM KRANE
Associated Press Writer

JIDDAH, Saudi Arabia

Former Vice President Al Gore told a mainly Saudi audience on Sunday that the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment.

Gore said Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. The former vice president said the Bush administration was playing into al-Qaida's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.

"The thoughtless way in which visas are now handled, that is a mistake," Gore said during the Jiddah Economic Forum. "The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States."

Gore told the largely Saudi audience, many of them educated at U.S. universities, that Arabs in the United States had been "indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable."

"Unfortunately there have been terrible abuses and it's wrong," Gore said. "I do want you to know that it does not represent the desires or wishes or feelings of the majority of the citizens of my country."

On Iran, Gore complained of "endemic hyper-corruption" among Tehran's religious and political elite and asked Arabs to take a stand against Iran's nuclear program.

Iran says its program is for peaceful purposes but the United States and other Western countries suspect Tehran is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

"Is it only for the West to say this is dangerous?" Gore asked. "We should have more people in this region saying this is dangerous."

Several audience members criticized the United States for what they described as "unconditional" U.S. support for Israel, saying U.S. diplomats helped Israel flout U.N. resolutions that they enforced when the measures targeted Arabs.

Gore refused to be drawn into questions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"We can't solve that long conflict in exchanges here," Gore said.

The Moron speaks. I love it. I want Gore-head to talk more and more. Everytime the idiot speaks I become more greatful that he lost the 2000 election. I believe he has cracked. He has finally realized that his chances of fulfilling his life long dream of ruling America is slipping away. I hope he will run in 2008. The more he and Kerry and Hillary speak out, the better. The more the American people hear these irrational tirades like "held in conditions that were just unforgivable." and "there have been terrible abuses and it's wrong" and know that they are lies told by those like Gore, whose ambition exceeds their obligation to tell the truth, the more likely they are to vote Republican.

Full Story: The Insane Ranting of Al Gore

What do you think?

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

Discovered: Eight Rooms With a View...Towards History

Archaeologists Find Massive Tomb in Greece

Feb 12 7:28 PM US/Eastern
By COSTAS KANTOURIS
Associated Press Writer

THESSALONIKI, Greece

Archaeologists have unearthed a massive tomb in the northern Greek town of Pella, capital of the ancient kingdom of Macedonia and birthplace of Alexander the Great.

The eight-chambered tomb dates to the Hellenistic Age between the fourth and second century B.C., and is the largest of its kind ever found in Greece. The biggest multichambered tombs until now contained three chambers.

The 678-square-foot tomb hewn out of rock was discovered by a farmer plowing his field on the eastern edge of the ancient cemetery of Pella, some 370 miles north of Athens, archaeologists said.

"This is the largest and most monumental tomb of its kind ever found in Greece," said Maria Akamati, who led the excavations.

Archaeologists believe the tomb _ filled with dozens of votive clay pots and idols, copper coins and jewelry _ will shed light on the culture of Macedonia in the period that followed Alexander's conquest of Asia.

Alexander's empire, which stretched from Greece to Asia, broke into separate kingdoms upon his death in 323 B.C., as his generals battled over the remains of the ancient world's greatest empire.

Similar tombs from the same era have been discovered on Crete, Cyprus and Egypt, which was ruled by a Greek dynasty founded by Ptolemy, Alexander's general.

The tomb's size suggests it belonged to a a wealthy Macedonian family, Akamati said.

I am always amazed when something like this occurs. Just when you think that there are no new discoveries to be made, especially in a heavily occupied country like Greece. This is a really exciting thing (if you are as interested in archeology as I am). It will be interesting to see what new artwork and statuary they find. They may even find some scrolls and stuff like that.

Well...I care even if you don't and this is my blog. So there!

Full Story: What's A Grecian Urn?

What do you think?

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

Daschle Questions? Daschle? Who Cares?

Spying Necessary, Democrats Say
But Harman, Daschle Question President's Legal Reach

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 13, 2006; Page A03

Two key Democrats yesterday called the NSA domestic surveillance program necessary for fighting terrorism but questioned whether President Bush had the legal authority to order it done without getting congressional approval.

Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) said Republicans are trying to create a political issue over Democrats' concern on the constitutional questions raised by the spying program.

At the same time, the Republican chairmen of the Senate and House intelligence committees -- Sen. Pat Roberts (Kan.) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (Mich.), who attended secret National Security Agency briefings -- said they supported Bush's right to undertake the program without new congressional authorization. They added that Democrats briefed on the program, who included Harman and Daschle, could have taken steps if they believed the program was illegal. All four appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Roberts said he could not remember Democrats raising questions about the program during briefings that, beginning in 2002, were given to the "Gang of Eight." That group was made up of the House speaker and minority leader, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, and the chairmen and ranking Democrats of the House and Senate intelligence committees.

At the briefings, Roberts said, "Those that did the briefing would say, 'Do you have questions? Do you have concerns?' " Hoekstra said if Democrats thought Bush was violating the law, "it was their responsibility to use every tool possible to get the president to stop it."

Harman countered that John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), vice chairman of the Senate intelligence panel, had voiced his concerns to Vice President Cheney in a classified letter in July 2003, but "if he had shared that letter publicly, I think he would have been in violation of the Espionage Act, the disclosure of classified information."

Harman said the briefings she received concerned "the operational details of the program," which she supported. "However," she added, "the briefings were not about the legal underpinnings of the program."

She said it was not until Bush publicly spoke about the program, after it was revealed in the New York Times in December, that she was free to discuss it with House staff and constitutional lawyers.

Daschle said he wants the program to continue but maintained that the warrantless wiretapping of calls that came into the United States or calls made overseas, even those involving suspected terrorist sources, violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Looks like the Democrats have seen the writing on the wall. The American people support the NSA Al Qaeda communications monitoring program. Note the sea-change they have made. The Democrats were all set to use the "domestic spying" by the NSA as a campaign issue, but they found out that the American people approve of it. Now they are for it but they want the President to get their permission. Anyone who says Democrats can't tap dance just isn't paying attention. Fred Astair would be green with envy at the fancy Democrat footwork we have been seeing of late.

Democrats have been moving from issue to issue like a pin ball looking for something to use against Republicans. They are trying to keep 10 or 15 balls in the air, but none of them will float. Instead of coming up with real ideas for dealing with the problems America faces-hint: they have none-they continues to try to tear down the Republicans.

Full Story: Harman and Has Been Want Congressional Control of NSA Program

What do you think?

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

More Much Ado About Nothing

Bush-Abramoff Photo Authentic

Associated Press
Monday, February 13, 2006; Page A04

The White House acknowledged yesterday the authenticity of the first photograph made public that shows President Bush and embattled lobbyist Jack Abramoff, while stressing it does not mean the two had a personal relationship.

The photo, published by the New York Times and Time magazine, shows Bush shaking hands with an Abramoff client, chairman Raul Garza of the Kickapoo Indian tribe in Texas. Abramoff's bearded face appears in the background, small and slightly blurry.

White House spokesman Allen Abney said the photo was taken in 2001, when the president dropped by a meeting of about two dozen state legislators to thank them for supporting tax relief.

Originally, the White House said it had no record of Abramoff's attendance at the meeting.

"We now know that Mr. Abramoff attended this meeting," Abney said. "The president has taken tens of thousands of pictures. This does not mean he has a personal relationship with each individual that is in those pictures."

Ooh what a scoop for the Post, Abramoff was at the White House, Oh My God! Impeach Now! Abramoff visited the White House, "Danger, Danger, Will Robinson!"

What a big nothing. The White House is right, the President meets with thousands of people every year. Here is the notorious photo...

As you can see quite clearly...err, ahem, obviously President Bush and Abramoff are really close buddies...I mean, they're in the same room, after all. These pictures from Time Magazine are the dagger at the heart of the White House. Proof positive that the President has his picture taken with people:

Note how the Post so cleverly entitles this "the 2001 meeting with Abramoff." Here's the third photo:

You know if you chose to you could play "where's Waldo"...err, "where's Jack" with these photos. Yep it's obvious to me that President Bush is corrupt. He's shaking hands with an Indian tribal chairman and that chairman is an "Abramoff client."

Full Story: Bush/Abramoff Pictures Proves Post's Anti-Bush Agenda

What do you think?

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

Dead-Eye Dick Meets Lonesome Dove-Err, Quail

Cheney Shoots Fellow Hunter in Texas Accident
Companion in Intensive Care With Upper-Body Wounds

By Shailagh Murray and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, February 13, 2006; Page A01

Vice President Cheney accidentally sprayed a companion with birdshot while hunting quail on a private Texas ranch, injuring the man in the face, neck and chest, the vice president's office confirmed yesterday after a Texas newspaper reported the incident.

The shooting occurred late Saturday afternoon while Cheney was hunting with Harry Whittington, 78, a prominent Austin lawyer, on the Armstrong Ranch in south Texas. Hearing a covey of birds, Cheney shot at one, not realizing that Whittington had startled the quail and that he was in the line of fire.

Whittington was treated on the scene by Cheney's traveling medical detail before being taken by helicopter to a Corpus Christi hospital. He was in the intensive care unit at Christus Spohn Health System and listed in stable condition yesterday evening.

Katharine Armstrong, the ranch's owner, saw what happened Saturday and told reporters yesterday that Cheney was using a 28-gauge shotgun, which shoots fewer pellets and has a smaller shot pattern than a 12-gauge shotgun, making it harder to hit the target. Whittington was about 30 yards away when he was hit in the cheek, neck and chest, she said.

According to Armstrong's account, she was watching from a car while Cheney, Whittington and another hunter got out of the vehicle to shoot at a covey of quail. Whittington shot a bird and as he went to retrieve it, Cheney and the third hunter discovered a second covey.

Whittington "came up from behind the vice president and the other hunter and didn't signal them or indicate to them or announce himself," Armstrong said, according to the Associated Press.

It was Armstrong's decision to alert the news media. Cheney's office made no public announcement, deciding to defer to Armstrong because the incident had taken place on her property. Armstrong called the Corpus Christi Caller-Times, and when a reporter from the paper called the White House, the vice president's office confirmed the account.

Honestly Mr. Vice-President, I believe in tort reform too, but I don't think that shooting individual lawyers one by one is the solution (although it does sound like fun).

Actually it doesn't sound like Mrs. Armstrong is terribly upset about this event which is a good thing because it indicates that it isn't very serious. Accidents do happen, especially when you do not remain cautious when you are doing dangerous things. In industry you are taught that all accidents are preventable, and in this case it sounds like Mr. Whittington should have sounded off as he was approaching. It also sounds like Cheney, who apparently was somewhat blinded by the sun when he fired. All Gun owners should know that you never ever fire when you are not dead sure what you are going to hit, and you never fire in reaction to sound. I blame the Vice-President for this lapse.

Seriously, I'm glad Mr. Whittington is going to be all right.

Full Story: Dead-Eye Dick Takes Aim at Tort Reform

What do you think?

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

Congress: Researching WMD Manufacturing Techniques NOT a Threat

Patriot Act Compromise Clears Way for Senate Vote

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 10, 2006; Page A01

Efforts to extend the USA Patriot Act cleared a major hurdle yesterday when the White House and key senators agreed to revisions that are virtually certain to secure Senate passage and likely to win House approval, congressional leaders said.

The law -- passed in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks and scheduled to lapse in key areas last year -- makes it easier for federal agents to secretly tap phones, obtain library and bank records, and search the homes of suspected terrorists. Several Democrats said the compromise announced yesterday lacks important civil liberties safeguards, and even the Republican negotiators said they had to yield to the administration on several points.

But with virtually all 55 GOP senators now on board, and Democrats joining them, the plan appears to have enough support to overcome the Senate filibuster that has thwarted a four-year renewal of the statute for months. Senators said they think the White House will be able to coax the Republican-controlled House to agree as well, even though House leaders have complained that senators' demands had weakened the measure.

"It was a bipartisan group of us that really believed we could do better . . . to protect civil liberties even as we gave law enforcement important tools to conduct terrorism investigations," Sen. John E. Sununu (R-N.H.) told reporters. He said that he and his fellow negotiators had to make more concessions to the administration than they wanted to, but that Congress will monitor the law's application over the coming years and perhaps revise it.

Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), one of several Democrats who agreed to back the compromise yesterday, said "it falls far short" of the bill that was passed by the Senate last year but rejected by the House. "But if you measure it against the original Patriot Act . . . we've made progress" toward "protecting basic civil liberties at a time when we are dealing with the war on terrorism," Durbin said.

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) called the compromise "a step in the right direction."

The proposal would restrict federal agents' access to library records, one of the Patriot Act's most contentious provisions. A form of secret subpoena known as a National Security Letter could no longer be used to obtain records from libraries that function "in their traditional capacity, including providing basic Internet access," Sununu and others said in a statement. But libraries that are "Internet service providers" would remain subject to the letters, Durbin said.

Well, I'm glad that's settled, now Durbin can go check out "Debbie Does Congress" without the FBI finding out. Of all the things in the world I would pick to worry about, I have to admit that my library records becoming public, let alone known to the FBI, hasn't been one of them. Not even in my wildest dream. I guess the paranoia of some knows no bounds. It has never occurred to me to be concerned with what the federal government thought about the fact that I might wish to read "Portnoy's Complaint" or "The Communist Manifesto" or even, God forbid, Al Gore's "Earth In the Balance." I guess maybe Reid didn't want anyone to find out that his reading list includes his auto-biography "Curious Harry Goes to Washington" and Dr. Seuss' "The Rat in the Senate." Never mind that terrorists might be accessing unsecured information that might enable them to strike at us in some unforseen manner or to manufacture some deadle device to use on the American people, our library records are safe.

Full Story: At Last My Library Records are Safe

What do you think?

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

Novel Thinking: Lower Taxes = Higher Revenues

Cheney Says New Unit Will Prove Tax Cuts Boost Revenue

By Nell Henderson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 11, 2006; Page A11

Vice President Cheney said Thursday night that the verdict is in before the Bush administration's new tax analysis shop has even opened for business: Tax cuts boost federal government revenue.

That assertion won applause from his audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference, but it is a long-standing source of debate among many economists and tax experts at a time of rising federal budget deficits.
Cheney touted President Bush's recently announced proposal to create a tax analysis division as a move toward providing more evidence for the administration's side of the argument.

"The president's tax policies have strengthened the economy, as we knew they would," Cheney told the conference, according to a text posted on the White House's Web site. "And despite forecasts to the contrary, the tax cuts have translated into higher federal revenues."

Cheney said some forecasters have underestimated the degree to which tax cuts would stimulate economic growth and tax revenue.

"It's time to reexamine our assumptions and to consider using more dynamic analysis to measure the true impact of tax cuts on the American economy," Cheney said, explaining why Bush has proposed the new Treasury Department division. "The evidence is in, it's time for everyone to admit that sensible tax cuts increase economic growth and add to the federal treasury."

Bush's proposal, unveiled in his budget plan last week, comes as he is pushing Congress to make permanent the recent tax cuts that are scheduled to expire in coming years. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted last month that the budget deficit would swell to $337 billion this year and that the red ink would end in 2012 only if the tax cuts were allowed to expire.

Treasury officials said yesterday that the president's proposed Division on Dynamic Analysis -- with a handful of employees and a $513,000 budget -- would go beyond the government's old "static" methods of analyzing proposed changes in tax policy only in terms of their direct effects on certain affected taxpayers. Instead, "dynamic" analysis looks at how tax changes cause consumers and businesses to behave differently in ways that affect the overall economy's growth.

For example, a tax break to encourage business investment might lower some individual companies' tax bills -- looking like a hit to Treasury revenue under a static analysis. But if that tax cut caused businesses to buy more equipment, hire more workers and increase profits, that might contribute to stronger overall economic growth -- causing the employees and companies to pay more in income, sales and other taxes over time.

Astounding! How dare he tell the truth? How dare he state what any objective observer of revenue history knows? In every situation since Congress passed JFK's tax-cut, without exception, everytime Congress has cut taxes, revenues have increased. The fact that Treasury officials are still not sure of this speaks volumes about the state of our education system and the quality of critical thinking required to obtain an economics degree.

Full Story: Stating the Obvious

What do you think?

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

Maryland Lt. Governor Apologizes for Telling Truth

Steele Apologizes for Holocaust Remarks
Compared Stem Cell Research to Nazi Medical Experiments

By Robert Barnes and Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, February 11, 2006; Page B01

Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele profusely apologized yesterday for comments linking stem cell research to Nazi experimentation, but the offhand analogy could undermine what had been a concerted effort by the Republican to run for the U.S. Senate as a moderate "bridge" between Democrats and Republicans in his left-leaning state.

Steele issued apologies in a radio interview and in phone conversations with Jewish leaders in Baltimore and Washington, and then continued to express regret throughout a series of stops in Prince George's County.

"I offended members of the Jewish community and members of the Maryland community," Steele said outside a Prince George's nursing home. "It was a remark that was an improper inference, because I never specifically said Holocaust. . . . And it did not reflect my attitude and my belief, and I am really sorry about the whole thing."

Besides offending those Steele was trying to befriend, some politicians and political observers said his remarks appeared to hurt him in several ways: putting him on the wrong side of a popular issue, reinforcing a worry among even some Republicans that he can be an accident-prone candidate in a high-profile race, and signaling to swing voters that he is more conservative than the almost-nonpartisan image he has cultivated.

"Some people could think he's not moderate . . . but a hard-right Republican," said University of Maryland Prof. Ronald Walters, who has been closely following Steele's campaign.

Keith Haller, who conducts polls for Maryland media and others, said his recent surveys show that Steele has "risen above the cacophony of partisan battles" in the state. "His popularity has been steadily soaring, so he certainly didn't need to engage on this issue, in such an awkward way."

In an appearance Thursday before the Baltimore Jewish Council, Steele responded to a question about stem cell research by saying he was "cautious" about the idea of "tinkering around with life," and added:

"Look, you of all folks know what happens when people decide they want to experiment on human beings, when they want to take your life and use it as a tool," Steele said, according to a recording of the event. "I know that as well from my community and our experience with slavery."

Jewish leaders, for the most part, accepted Steele's apology. Ron Halber, executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, said he considered it an exercise of bad judgment by a good man.

"He understands his remarks were offensive," Halber said. "People in the Jewish community are upset about them. What was behind the words were not the feelings of a hatemonger, though."

His Democratic opponents were glad Steele apologized but sharp in their criticism.

"Michael Steele does not have the right to compare the lifesaving potential of stem cell research to the barbarity of the Holocaust," said Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin, one of several Democrats running to replace retiring Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes (D). "His remarks were offensive to the millions of Americans who stand to benefit [from] this research, as well as to Holocaust survivors and their families."

What Steele said was the truth. Representative Cardin is wrong as are those who are criticizing Steele's words. The Nazis carried out horrendous medical experiments on the Jews in the death camps. In spite of the fact that medical science would probably be advanced by the results of those experiment and "millions of Americans [would] stand to benefit", we as a society have rejected using that data because of the immorality of the Nazi doctors' methods. Millions of Americans believe equally strongly that fetal stem cell research represents that same level of barbarism. That millions or even tens of Americans suffer from diseases that might be cured were we to do the appropriate medical research is tragic, but it does not justify doing the unjustifiable. If it did, we would be using the Nazi doctors' lab books right now. The fact that we are not speaks volumes. The fact that Jews are outraged at Steele's statement and not at the idea of American scientists doing the same thing to unborn children that the Nazis did to the Jewish people also speaks volumes.

Illness and the need for treatment is no more justification for the murder of millions of unborn babies than is convenience sufficient justification for abortion. This is not a matter of where we are presently, it is a matter of where this will eventually take us. What if 20 years down the road we discover that if only we kill 3 year olds, adults could live disease free for 175 years? Would people like Representative Cardin then seek to justify that?

Full Story: Immorality is Immorality

What do you think?

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

Some Small Sign of Sanity...Finally?

Warning Urged for ADHD Drugs
Panel Cites Risks, Fears of Overuse

By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 10, 2006; Page A01

Several drugs widely used to treat attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder should carry a prominent "black box" warning because of reports that they may have caused sudden deaths or serious complications, a federal expert advisory panel recommended yesterday.

The proposal to require a warning on medications such as Adderall and Ritalin took the Food and Drug Administration, pharmaceutical companies and advocates by surprise. The panel voted 8 to 7 to call for the labeling change after reviewing reports of several dozen patients who suffered cardiac arrest, toxic reactions or sudden death while using the medications.

Members of the board said the recommendation was driven as much by worries that the drugs are being overused in the United States as by the possible side effects: About 10 percent of 10-year-old American boys are taking such medications, and there have been recent sharp increases in the number of adults taking them.

"On the surface, it is hard to believe," said Curt Furberg, professor of public health sciences at North Carolina's Wake Forest University Medical School, who voted for the black-box warning. "What is also interesting is this condition is not really recognized in other countries -- you wonder what we are treating. I am sure there are patients who need these drugs, but it is not 10 percent of all 10-year-old boys."

FDA officials, who convened the panel to discuss how best to assess the risks of the drugs, said they would weigh the recommendation. The panel called for warning labels on methylphenidate drugs, sold under the brand names Ritalin, Concerta, Methylin and Metadate, and on the amphetamines Adderall and Adderall XR.

The FDA usually follows the advice of advisory panels but is not required to do so. How the agency will act in this case is especially uncertain because the recommendation clearly went further than the agency had thought necessary.

"The committee plainly wanted to tell us that certain things ought to be in labeling in a more forceful way," said Robert Temple, director of the FDA's Office of Medical Policy. Asked whether the panel's action surprised him, he said, "I don't know if taken aback is quite the word . . . it does not astonish me, but it wasn't the primary matter for what we went to them for."

Yesterday's action came 16 months after the FDA called for black-box warnings on several antidepressant drugs, including Prozac, Paxil and Zoloft, because of indications that they triggered suicidal thinking in some patients.

It is time for this obscenity to end. Imagine that, the drugs are over-prescribed when they are allowing teachers principals to determine whether a child is truly hyperactive or not. ADHD may actually be a syndrome, I doubt it, but it may be. But it is highly unlikely to affect 10% of all boys. What is really happening here is lazy teachers who are unwilling to spend the time necessary dealing with adolescent boys. What is being called hyper-activity is normal male adolescence. Boys are competitive, boys are active, boys are strong-willed, BOYS ARE NOT GIRLS. We have invested far too much effort in this society emasculating males. Tamed, hermaphroditic, effete, boys are not the norm. Boys fight, boys play army, boys like rough and tumble games and the only way you are going to change that is by destroying that which makes them boys.

Full Story: Drugging Little Boys

What do you think?

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

CIA Still Backing and Filling?

Ex-CIA Official Faults Use of Data on Iraq
Intelligence 'Misused' to Justify War, He Says

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 10, 2006; Page A01

The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Paul R. Pillar, who was the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, acknowledges the U.S. intelligence agencies' mistakes in concluding that Hussein's government possessed weapons of mass destruction. But he said those misjudgments did not drive the administration's decision to invade.

"Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war," Pillar wrote in the upcoming issue of the journal Foreign Affairs. Instead, he asserted, the administration "went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq."

"It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between [Bush] policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized," Pillar wrote.

Pillar's critique is one of the most severe indictments of White House actions by a former Bush official since Richard C. Clarke, a former National Security Council staff member, went public with his criticism of the administration's handling of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and its failure to deal with the terrorist threat beforehand.

It is also the first time that such a senior intelligence officer has so directly and publicly condemned the administration's handling of intelligence.

Pillar, retired after 28 years at the CIA, was an influential behind-the-scenes player and was considered the agency's leading counterterrorism analyst. By the end of his career, he was responsible for coordinating assessments on Iraq from all 15 agencies in the intelligence community. He is now a professor in security studies at Georgetown University.

White House officials did not respond to a request to comment for this article. They have vehemently denied accusations that the administration manipulated intelligence to generate public support for the war.

"Our statements about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein were based on the aggregation of intelligence from a number of sources and represented the collective view of the intelligence community," national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley said in a White House briefing in November. "Those judgments were shared by Republicans and Democrats alike."

Republicans and Democrats in Congress continue to argue over whether, or how, to investigate accusations the administration manipulated prewar intelligence.

Yesterday, the Senate Republican Policy Committee issued a statement to counter what it described as "the continuing Iraq pre-war intelligence myths," including charges that Bush " 'misused' intelligence to justify the war." Writing that it was perfectly reasonable for the president to rely on the intelligence he was given, the paper concluded, "it is actually the critics who are misleading the American people."

In his article, Pillar said he believes that the "politicization" of intelligence on Iraq occurred "subtly" and in many forms, but almost never resulted from a policymaker directly asking an analyst to reshape his or her results. "Such attempts are rare," he writes, "and when they do occur . . . are almost always unsuccessful."

I have seen nothing so far to dissuade me from my original assessment that there is a concerted and continuing effort from within and without the CIA to damage the Bush Administration and the Iraq war effort. The facts remain unchallenged; Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction and provided no record of their destruction or decommissioning. Saddam's people continued to play a "shell game" with their facilities while the UN inspection teams searched for weapons. Large shipments of something in long convoys were sent to Syria shortly before the war began. We also know that there are a lot of political appointees in high places within the CIA, a great many of whom were placed there by Bill Clinton. I believe it was their "screw up" and they are attempting to cover up there own failures, failures which have been occurring since before the fall of the former Soviet Union (remember how well they predicted that one). I also continue to believe that they were behind this whole Valerie Plame non-event. Besides, Walter Pincus is the worst kind of political hack and has had an anti-Bush agenda since the beginning of his administration.

Full Story: Pincus in CIA Fanatasy Land

What do you think?

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

More Ado About Nothing

Libby Testified He Was Told To Leak Data About Iraq

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 10, 2006; Page A08

Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff testified that his bosses instructed him to leak information to reporters from a high-level intelligence report that suggested Iraq was trying to obtain weapons of mass destruction, according to court records in the CIA leak case.

Cheney was one of the "superiors" I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby said had authorized him to make the disclosures, according to sources familiar with the investigation into Libby's discussions with reporters about CIA operative Valerie Plame.

But it is unclear whether Cheney instructed his former top aide to release classified information, because parts of the National Intelligence Estimate were previously declassified.

The disclosure in a legal document written by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald demonstrates one way in which Cheney was involved in responding to public allegations by Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, that the administration had exaggerated questionable intelligence to justify war with Iraq.

In a letter written in January and released in court papers filed by Libby's defense Monday, Fitzgerald wrote that Libby testified that his "superiors" authorized him to disclose information from the National Intelligence Estimate to reporters in the summer of 2003.

The National Journal first reported on its Web site yesterday that Cheney had provided the authorization.

The intelligence estimate is a classified report prepared by intelligence officers for high-level government officials, and some parts are regularly declassified in a summary and available to the public.

Honestly Carol, is this the best you can come up with? Vice President Cheney might have "leaked" some information from a report which might or might not have been "classified." I don't see any mention of Valerie Plame in this article except what you bring into it. I see no mention of her or "revealing" her well known non-secret, her non-covert identitity in any of the sources you mention except from Teddy "Lady Killer" Kennedy and Larry Johnson, who by your own admission is a critic of the administration. You apparently can't help yourself in expressing your own opinion (not very good reporting) when you mention "the administration's campaign against Wilson," a well known Liberal conspiracy theory that is not backed up by any facts. This in spite of the fact that your own report says the material "leaked" dealt with Iraq and their attempt to obtain WMD. Biased reporting is not good reporting.

Full Story: Post Continues Anti-Bush Administration Campaign

What do you think?

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

Are There Any Moderate Muslims?

God save us from the voices of reason

Feb 10, 2006
by Charles Krauthammer
TownHall.com

WASHINGTON -- As much of the Islamic world erupts in a studied frenzy over the Danish Muhammad cartoons, there are voices of reason being heard on both sides. Some Islamic leaders and organizations, while endorsing the demonstrators' sense of grievance and sharing their outrage, speak out against using violence as a vehicle of expression. Their Western counterparts -- intellectuals, including most of the major newspapers in the United States -- are similarly balanced: While, of course, endorsing the principle of free expression, they criticize the Danish newspaper for abusing that right by publishing offensive cartoons, and declare themselves opposed, in the name of religious sensitivity, to doing the same.

God save us from the voices of reason.

What passes for moderation in the Islamic community -- ``I share your rage but don't torch that embassy'' -- is nothing of the sort. It is simply a cynical way to endorse the goals of the mob without endorsing its means. It is fraudulent because, while pretending to uphold the principle of religious sensitivity, it is only interested in this instance of religious insensitivity.

Have any of these ``moderates'' ever protested the grotesque caricatures of Christians and, most especially, Jews that are broadcast throughout the Middle East on a daily basis? The sermons on Palestinian TV that refer to Jews as the sons of pigs and monkeys? The Syrian prime-time TV series that shows rabbis slaughtering a gentile boy in order to ritually consume his blood? The 41-part (!) series on Egyptian TV based on that anti-Semitic czarist forgery (and inspiration of the Nazis), ``The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,'' showing the Jews to be engaged in a century-old conspiracy to control the world?

A true Muslim moderate is one who protests desecrations of all faiths. Those who don't are not moderates but hypocrites, opportunists and agents for the rioters, using merely different means to advance the same goal: to impose upon the West, with its traditions of freedom of speech, a set of taboos that is exclusive to the Islamic faith. These are not defenders of religion, but Muslim supremacists trying to force their dictates upon the liberal West.

And these ``moderates'' are aided and abetted by Western ``moderates" who publish pictures of the Virgin Mary covered with elephant dung, and celebrate the ``Piss Christ'' (a crucifix sitting in a jar of urine) as art deserving public subsidy, but are seized with a sudden religious sensitivity when the subject is Muhammad.

Had they not been so hypocritical, one might defend their refusal to republish these cartoons on the grounds that news value can sometimes be trumped by good taste and sensitivity. After all, on grounds of basic decency, American newspapers generally -- and correctly -- do not publish the pictures of dead bodies, whatever their news value.

I agree Charles, I have seen very little in the way of moderate Muslims since this whole business began thirty or so years ago (more if you take into account the struggles the Israelis have had with them). If this same kind of behavior was seen in the Judeo-Christian world, there would be a steady stream of Christian and Jewish leaders speaking out very publicly, without regard to their own safety, decrying such behavior. Now since the Muslim religion apparently loudly proclaims martyrdom as a great achievement with great reward, I would expect that, were there any Muslim leaders who did not truly agree with what is occurring, there would be streams of Imam's and Ayatolah's in the public eye decrying what is occuring in loud persistent voices. This leads me to believe that all of the negatives we have heard about what Muslims truly believe, that they want world dominion and do not respect or accept other religions, is true and that they cannot be reasoned with.

Do not tell me it is the press just not covering them either, they would be incapable of suppressing a large anti-terror/uprising response.

Full Story: Deafening Silence from Moderate Islam

What do you think?

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

Obama, Belatedly Marching in Lock-Step with Dems

Obama: 'I think his feelings got bruised'

February 8, 2006
BY LYNN SWEET SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

"The perception in our office was that this was a very innocuous boilerplate letter," said Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Tuesday, the day after Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) wrote a ferocious response to a letter he received from the freshman senator.

McCain accused Obama of "self-interested partisan posturing" and "disingenuousness" as he questioned how sincerely Obama wanted to negotiate a bipartisan deal for tougher ethics and lobbying laws. Triggering the McCain reaction -- the seemingly "innocuous" letter Obama sent. More on that below.

There's a lot of ground to cover in today's column, in the wake of McCain's smackdown of Obama, who is the lead Democratic Senate spokesman on the ethics/lobbying crackdown drive.

What's new

Obama and McCain talked Tuesday afternoon, after trading phone calls. "We agreed to move on," McCain told Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC's "Hardball."

Matthews called McCain's letter "brilliantly angry." McCain said his vociferous reply to Obama was "a little straight talk," the signature phrase from his 2000 presidential campaign.

Obama told me, "I think his feelings got bruised. And we had that conversation and I think that we both agreed that we are going to move forward."

Today: Obama and McCain both will testify this afternoon at a Senate Committee on Rules and Administration hearing to "examine procedures to make the legislative process more transparent."

Obama is proposing creation of a nine-member congressional "Ethics Commission," with subpoena power to probe ethics allegations. Four commissioners would be former federal judges, four former members of Congress and the ninth a sort of wild-card pick. This new group would not supplant the House and Senate ethics committees but could kick-start these sleepy panels, which have not done much of a job of enforcing ethics laws already on the books.

Interesting concepts: Individuals could file complaints; anyone deliberately falsely accusing another could be slapped with a $10,000 fine and no complaints could be filed three months before an election.

Obama says McCain 'misunderstood' letter

McCain was provoked for several reasons, including Obama's statement in his letter, "I know you have expressed an interest in creating a task force to further study and discuss these matters."

However, McCain was not the senator proposing a task force.

In January, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) suggested a bipartisan task force -- outside the regular committee structure -- to write new ethics and lobbying rules. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) opposed a task force on the grounds that it could "only slow the process while providing senators with political cover."

On "Hardball," McCain said, "There was reference in the letter to a task force," though "frankly we had committed to moving forward with the committee process."

The bottom line, Obama said, is that McCain "misunderstood the letter. I think there was confusion over the reference to a task force. We were specifically referring to the proposal that Bill Frist had had, to set up a formal task force to do this."

Obama said he was not talking about the small "working group" McCain invited him to join, which would be made up of GOP and Democratic senators committed to negotiating legislation with teeth that could pass the Senate

Does anybody really not know what's going on here? It's patently obvious, Obama got off the Plantation when he made his overtures to McCain to pursue a bi-partisan solution to the ethics problem, and his slavemaster "Boss Reid" reined him in. Democrats can't afford to have any "uppity negroes" thinking for themselves. Remember, it was the Democrats and members of their party like "Grand Kleagle" Byrd who fought against desegregation it was Republicans who fought for it.

This is a definite example of the lie that Democrats want to do anything in a bi-partisan manner. Republicans should have learned the lesson when President Bush allowed "Lady-Killer" Kennedy to write the "No Child Left Behind" education bill, and then couldn't wait to begin his attacking him. The President kept his original campaign promise to try to lessen the partisan bickering in the Capitol, but the Democrats would have none of that. That is because their nature is that of a back-stabber. Shame on you John McCain for being gullible enough to get sucked in again.

Full Story: Democrats in Charge of the Plantation

What do you think?

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

What Moderate Muslims?

Controversy May Affect U.S. Efforts
Outreach to Muslims, Diplomacy in Middle East Are at Stake

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 8, 2006; Page A16

The outrage over cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad poses a challenge for the United States at a time when the Bush administration is investing greater resources to reach out to the Muslim world, U.S. officials said yesterday.

President Bush's proposed budget, announced Monday, would significantly boost cultural exchanges in the Muslim world and would eliminate English-language Voice of America broadcasts to most of the world in order to bolster programming in the Middle East.

The controversy could also have broader foreign policy repercussions, such as weakening European resolve against a Hamas-led Palestinian government as a way of calming restless Muslim minorities. The Bush administration has supported Israeli efforts to isolate the Palestinian government since Hamas, formally known as the Islamic Resistance Movement, swept Palestinian legislative elections. But the real test about whether European leaders will maintain a hard line will come when the makeup of the new government becomes clear.

Although few U.S. news organizations have published or broadcast the images, some of the violence has turned toward American facilities, including the consulate in Surabaya, Indonesia. At least three people were killed Monday outside Bagram air base in Afghanistan.

"We're starting to see the American flag popping up with the Danish flag in protests," said a U.S. official who has been watching the situation. "This could be the beginning of a long misunderstanding between the West and East."

Even before violence erupted, U.S. officials monitoring Iranian media out of Dubai had begun to detect a nascent campaign to expose a perceived hypocrisy of American culture. The campaign would focus on gun violence, such as the killings at Columbine High School in Colorado, in a nation that is fighting a war against Islamic extremism and terrorism.

The furor over cartoons published in a Danish newspaper thus appears to be tailor-made for a government seeking to exploit cultural and religious divides. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme religious leader, yesterday belittled the Western concept of freedom of speech and said a "Zionist conspiracy" is to blame for the dispute.

"This is while in accordance with this freedom of speech, denial of Holocaust has been banned, but sacrilege against the sanctities of 1.5 billion Muslims has been allowed," he said, according to Iran's official Islamic Republic News Agency. "The reaction of the Muslim world was in time, and they should have reacted this way."

U.S. officials said it is no accident that the worst violence has occurred in Iran -- which is smarting over a decision Saturday by the International Atomic Energy Agency to report the impasse over Tehran's nuclear program to the U.N. Security Council -- and in Syria, also under U.S. pressure. U.S. officials also blame Syrian operatives for fostering the attack on the Danish Embassy in Beirut.

You know, I keep hearing the call for "moderate Muslims," presumably the largest portion, to stand up and decry this violence, just as I heard the vain call for "moderate Muslims" to stand up and decry the vilence of 9-11, I'm still waiting on both.

It begs the question, "Are there any "moderate Muslims" or are they all insane, barbarous, thugs, incapable of reasoned discourse?"

I am also beginning to rethink my criticism of those Iraq War critics who were implying that the whole exercise is futile and doomed to failure; that arabs are incapable of living in a democratic society. Perhaps they are correct and we who were so optimistic are wrong. Perhaps the correct procedure for dealing with the arabs is to completely withdraw from the Middle East and let them kill each other with the caveat that any terrorist attack on American interests will result in the complete annihilation of the arab people beginning with Mecca. Just glass the whole place over and then punch through the glass and suck out the oil...just a thought mind you.

If they are going to behave like barbarians, then treat them as barbarians. If there are a majority of "moderate Muslims" then they need to find the guts to risk standing up and yelling "Stop!" Afterall, it they are truly of "the faith" then they would go to Heaven if they were assassinated.

Time to tell the arabs, "Put up or shut up."

Full Story: Pandemonium in Paradise

What do you think?

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

Full Disclosure is the Way to Go on Lobbying and Campaign Reform

Boehner Suggests New Tack on Lobbying
Emphasis Would Be on Disclosure

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 4, 2006; Page A04

House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) has begun shifting his party toward an alternative lobbying reform package that stresses disclosure of lobbying contacts rather than the virtual ban on gifts and privately funded trips proposed last month by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.).

In an interview yesterday, Boehner emphasized that he has no plan to change lobbying rules and will not draft one until he can reach a broad consensus with House Republicans, possibly at a retreat on Maryland's Eastern Shore next week. But he was quick to say the proposals that Hastert and House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.) put forward are not the Republican Conference's plan.

"We don't have a package," he said. "There are some ideas that the speaker and Mr. Dreier have put out. They are very good ideas. I know Mr. Dreier is working in a bipartisan way to refine those proposals, and until then it's a work in progress."

The lobbying plan is probably the first hurdle Boehner faces as he seeks to bring together a fractured Republican Conference and cope with a growing congressional corruption scandal. As a sign of the abrupt shift in leadership since Boehner was elected Thursday to succeed indicted Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) as majority leader, House leadership aides who helped draft Hastert's initial response said it will have to be pulled back.

"This is something we refer to as a false start," a senior aide said, acknowledging that Hastert and other leaders had backed the Republicans into a no-win situation. The leaders can either push forward with a plan most Republicans oppose, or they can scrap it and read that they backed off the toughest reform proposals.

"This is the problem the rank and file has with the leadership," the aide said. "They feel they don't get listened to. They get these knee-jerk reactions they don't like, but now that it's been rolled out, if we don't do it, we'll get criticism all over again. That makes them even angrier because they see it as self-inflicted."

Boehner's upset victory over acting Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) sprang in large part from Republicans' fears that they had to distance themselves from DeLay's leadership if they are to survive the midterm elections in November. The corruption scandals have already led Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.) to plead guilty to bribery charges and resign, forced Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio) to give up his committee chairmanship, and snared a guilty plea from former lobbyist Jack Abramoff -- and Republicans are scared.

In the closed-door electoral conclave Thursday, Rep. Mark Edward Souder (R-Ind.) summed up that trepidation when first he told the conference he feared retribution for what he was about to say, then continued: "Duke Cunningham, Jack Abramoff, and the ongoing and disgusting saga of abuse of power and public trust are not just made up by the Democrats," according to a transcript of the speech released by Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.). "Our entire philosophy is at risk because the American people, and even a large percentage of our own supporters think we have been corrupted."

That is not how Blunt saw it.

"The five or six people that will talk to the media about what bad shape we're in are not reflective of 225 of their colleagues," Blunt told the Associated Press yesterday.

"I don't want to say the media is to blame but . . . if you can find a story that focused on anything but change, you come and show it to me," he said.

The old leadership team's response to the scandal is already in for some changes.

It is not panic time, it is simply time for action; it is time for them to do what is right. Everybody up there knows the difference between right and wrong, they simply need to do what they know it correct. For my money (no pun intended) the answer is and always has been a full disclosure policy. All lobbying and campaigning activity needs to be fully documented on an open forum. The public must have easy access to the information. Who is acting, how much money is being expended, what it is being spent on (trips, gifts, campaign contributions). Every penny, everywhere, everybody must be disclosed, with draconian consequences for non-compliance.

Full Story: Sunlight is the Best Disinfectant

What do you think?

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

Maliciously Manipulating Information for Political Gain

On Capitol Hill, Playing WikiPolitics
Partisanship Tests Web Site's Policies

By Yuki Noguchi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 4, 2006; Page A01

This is what passes for an extreme makeover in Washington: A summer intern for seven-term Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.) altered the congressman's profile on the Wikipedia Web site to remove an old promise that he would limit his service to four terms.

Someone doctored Sen. Robert C. Byrd's (D-W.Va.) profile on the site to list his age as 180. (He is 88.) An erroneous entry for Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) claimed that he "was voted the most annoying senator by his peers in Congress."

Last week, Wikipedia temporarily blocked certain Capitol Hill Web addresses from altering any entries in the otherwise wide-open forum. Wikipedia is a vast, growing information database written and maintained solely by volunteers. In December, the database received 4.7 million edits from viewers, of which a relatively small number -- "a couple of thousand," according to founder Jimmy Wales -- constituted vandalism.

As the site becomes one of the most heavily visited spots on the Internet, it's testing the limits of collective smarts and integrity. But when it comes to Washington, where intrigue and passions run high, keeping such a public record is a particular challenge. Not only is there the obvious temptation to tinker with an opponent's bio, there's the whole subjective nature of political truth itself.

When the Wikipedia entry for Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) noted that he had criticized the president, for example, someone modified it to say that Reid had "rightfully" criticized the president. Someone also recast the state legislative record of Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.), changing a passage reading, "one of her final, failed bills would have made it much more difficult for same-sex parents to see their children in the hospital during an emergency" to the less inflammatory, "Musgrave spent much of her time on social issues, particularly authoring bills to protect children and the traditional definition of marriage, as well as gun owner's rights."

A popular change in recent weeks has been deleting mentions of former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) from politicians' profiles. Politically motivated edits aren't just coming from Capitol Hill; some comments are being traced back to other parts of political Washington, including the Justice Department, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Navy and Marines.

There is no lower endeavor than manipulating history for political gain. I would expect it from Liberals because historically the Left has rewritten events to promote their socialist agenda. I offer the standing jokes of the 60's and 70's about Soviet versions of historical events, but it appears that some of us on the Right have learned this lesson as well. I am embarrassed every time a Conservative emulates the actions of the Left. The history should be inviolate. A person who engages in this kind of malicious activity doesn't do his side any favors. The truth invariably comes out and the deceiver only smears his own party. Those who do these things are the lowest most contemptible of people. They only prove that their beliefs are so lacking of merit that they have to lie to persuade people. This activity is not funny, it is not clever, it is not useful. It is immature, stupid, and ineffective.

Full Story: Incapable of Persuasion, They Lie

What do you think?

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

Liberals Never Understand Economics

Senate Passes $70 Billion in Tax Cuts Over 5 Years

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 3, 2006; Page A06

One day after Congress gave final approval to a contentious measure to reduce the deficit by nearly $40 billion through 2010, the Senate last night easily approved a $70 billion tax-cutting measure that would more than wipe out all those savings.

The five-year measure, passed on a bipartisan 66 to 31 vote, would extend a variety of popular tax breaks, such as business tax credits for research and development, while blunting the growing impact of the alternative minimum tax, a parallel tax system established to hit the rich but increasingly pinching the middle class. Senators loaded up the measure yesterday with new tax breaks for coal-mining safety equipment and new spending on military equipment and veterans' health care.

A final package must still be negotiated with the House, which in December dropped the provision on the alternate minimum tax in favor of a two-year extension of President Bush's dividend and capital gains tax cuts of 2003, which expire in 2008. Those negotiations will be hard fought. On a 73 to 24 vote, the Senate approved a nonbinding resolution last night saying the provision should be given priority over extending investors' tax breaks.

But with final Senate passage, some tax measure is likely to pass Congress in the coming weeks.

The Senate's timing highlighted the budget implications of the measure. Just hours before passage, the White House requested an additional $70 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year and $18 billion for hurricane relief and Gulf Coast reconstruction. White House officials say those requests are likely to push the federal budget deficit back over $400 billion this year.

The deficit for fiscal 2005 had fallen to $318 billion, from $413 billion the previous year, giving Republicans hope that a four-year-long tide of red ink was finally receding.

In light of such numbers, fiscal hawks, such as Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio), said this week that the tax cuts are neither affordable nor necessary, since the economy is expanding at a healthy pace.

Jonathan, you really don't understand economics, do you? The extended tax cuts do not "more than wipe out all those savings" ($40 billion just passed). It amplifies those cuts. Tax cuts always increase federal revenues by bolstering the economy just as they have over the last four years. For us to achieve a balanced budget you need substantial reductions in increases of spending at the same time (the $40 billion is not an actual cut, merely a reduction of the built in increases). As a socialist I don't expect you to understand, but that is how the system works.

Full Story: Tax Cuts Extended

What do you think?

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

Dress Code Anyone?

Activist Cindy Sheehan Arrested at Capitol

Feb 01 2:50 AM US/Eastern
By LAURIE KELLMAN
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON -- Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a fallen soldier in Iraq who reinvigorated the anti-war movement, was arrested and removed from the House gallery Tuesday night just before President Bush's State of the Union address, a police spokeswoman said.

Sheehan, who was invited to attend the speech by Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D- Calif., was charged with demonstrating in the Capitol building, said Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider. The charge was later changed to unlawful conduct, Schneider said. Both charges are misdemeanors.

Sheehan was taken in handcuffs from the Capitol to police headquarters a few blocks away. Her case was processed as Bush spoke.

Schneider said Sheehan had worn a T-shirt with an anti-war slogan to the speech and covered it up until she took her seat. Police warned her that such displays were not allowed, but she did not respond, the spokeswoman said.

Police handcuffed Sheehan and removed her from the gallery before Bush arrived. Sheehan was to be released on her own recognizance, Schneider said.

This contemptible publicity whore is a disgrace to her family...excuse me, ex-family (she is getting another divorce) and especially to the memory of her son, who fell heroically trying to rescue his fellow soldiers from an ambush in Sadr City. It is typical of Liberals to be contemptuous of the proprieties and dignity of the Capitol Building and these traditions of our government like the State of the Union Speech. They care nothing for this nation, or its people, they only care about their own agenda. They are the enemy within. They offer nothing but irrational hatred and anger at the world because they have empty lives. Lynn Wolsey, the California Representative who gave her the ticket should be censured by the House for misconduct and embarassing the House of Representatives.

Full Story: An Unsympathetic Media Whore

What do you think?

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

Chicago: Orwell's 1984?

Daley: Cameras will make us safer

January 31, 2006
BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter Advertisement

Mayor Daley on Monday embraced a radical plan to require every licensed Chicago business open more than 12 hours a day to install indoor and outdoor cameras.

"Block clubs, community organizations want cameras. ... They can't walk down the street. ... Their kids have to go around a corner away from the gang-bangers. You can't walk to church. You can't get on the CTA. ... Cameras really prevent much crime. Cameras also solve a lot of crime. The terrorist attacks in London were solved by cameras. The whole incident was solved by cameras," Daley said.

Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce President Jerry Roper estimated that 12,000 businesses -- maybe more -- are open for more than 12 hours a day and, therefore, would be covered by the sweeping camera mandate. That includes roughly 7,000 restaurants, more than 100 hotels and scores of retail establishments.

"Are there enough cameras in production to do what they're asking us to do?" Roper said.

Businesses will close earlier?

If the mayor's endorsement translates into City Council approval of the ordinance championed by Ald. Ray Suarez (31st), business leaders will demand tax breaks and a phase-in similar to the sprinkler ordinance that gives older high-rises 12 years to comply, Roper said.

And he predicted the requirement would ultimately translate into fewer hours and lower wages.

"Some places will take a look at the cost and say, 'We'll only be open for one shift or a shift and a half. They'll take a look at their last two hours and say, 'I'm not making that much anyway. I'll just close earlier.' Employees will lose that money," Roper said.

Two years ago, with help from a $5.1 million federal homeland security grant, the city announced plans to install 250 cameras at locations thought to be at high risk of a terrorist attack, link them and 2,000 existing cameras to the 911 center and equip them all with software capable of spotting "suspicious and unusual behavior."

City Hall is now finalizing a contract for "Operation Virtual Shield," Daley's Big Brother plan to link 1,000 miles of "sometimes stand-alone fiber" into a unified "homeland security grid" -- complete with sensors to monitor the city's water supply and detect chemical and biological weapons.

Even today the psychotic denizens of Democraticunderground.com are declaiming capitol police and the Bush administration for the arrest of publicity whore Cindy Sheehan for wearing a T-shirt with an anti-war slogan. They declare it proof of 1984. Problem is it is the Democrats who will bring us 1984; it is the Mayor Daley's who seek to monitor our every move. Now don't get me wrong, under the benevolent governments that we now have, the liklihood of abuse of these cameras is slight and they will probably help with crime and controlling terror. It is the risk that they pose should someone less scrupulous, someone like Hillary Clinton, be in control. These cameras would then hold the potential of being used to control or blackmail individuals, like the FBI files which "mysteriously" appeared in the White House. 1984 is purely about the Left and their vision of society.

Full Story: Big Brother is Watching

What do you think?

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