More on the Miss Piggy of the ATL

A Lawmaker Confronts the Long Arm of the Law

By Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts
Thursday, March 30, 2006; Page C03

Not being recognized is apparently something of an issue for Rep. Cynthia McKinney , as a Capitol Police officer discovered yesterday.

In 1998, the outspoken Georgia Democrat wrote a scathing letter to President Bill Clinton accusing White House guards of racism after they failed to recognize her when she arrived for an event. For years, the Hill newspaper reported in 2002, Capitol Police kept a photo of her posted in a basement office to warn security officers against committing any other such embarrassment.

Maybe it's time to change the photo. The police department is investigating a bizarre scuffle yesterday morning between McKinney and an officer who tried to stop her at a congressional office building checkpoint after apparently failing to realize she was a member of Congress.

McKinney allegedly "stabbed" the officer with her cellphone when he grabbed her, said a police source who requested anonymity because the investigation had just begun; the officer, whom the source did not identify, is considering whether to file criminal charges. The source said the officer was not seriously injured.

In a statement issued last night, McKinney said she regretted the "unfortunate confrontation."

"I know that Capitol Hill Police are securing our safety, that of thousands of others, and I appreciate the work that they do. I deeply regret that the incident occurred," McKinney said.

Having commented on this yesterday, I can't resist just calling Ms. McKinney the ATL's own Miss Piggy. Her behavior has been so reminiscent of H-town's Miss Piggy. Sheila Jackson Lee's behavior and Cynthia McKinney's behavior so closely parallel that it becomes stereo-typical. They are both prima donnas of the worst sort. They purport to be advocates for the common people and the poor people, yet they behave like the elitist of elites. Demanding special treatment and privilages that none of their contstituents could even dream of. They are the most disgusting kind of hypocrites.

Oh well, enough McKinney bashing for today (she certainly rates it for all of her anti-American rhetoric) at least she has apologized. She probably got wind of all the laughter at her expense. WWOW (wicked witch of the west) Pelosi probably got wind of the mass e-mail Sean Spicer (a spokesman for the House GOP leadership) sent out chortling over the irony of the incident happening on the same day the Democrats unveiled their national security agenda. "Not exactly a show of support for law enforcement," he wrote.

Full Story: Miss Piggy of the ATL Apologizes

What do you think?

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

Inappropriate Action By School's Principal

Opinions split over red, white and green
Mexican flags divisive topic as principal shows his support for student protests

By JENNIFER RADCLIFFE
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

Reagan High School Principal Robert Pambello was ordered to remove a Mexican flag Wednesday morning that he had hoisted below the U.S. and Texas flags that typically fly in front of his school — a symbol he agreed to fly to show support for his predominantly Hispanic student body.

At nearby Hamilton Middle School, a child was asked to wipe off Mexican and U.S. flags painted on his face. Hundreds of other students carried Mexican flags during walkouts Wednesday — acts of protest that they vow to continue until Congress rejects legislation that would further restrict immigration.

"There's no other way to be heard ... It's not the best way or the right way, but it's our way," Reagan freshman Jose Lopez, 14, said of the effort.

The Mexican flag has become a lightning rod in the immigration debate that's consumed the city and the nation this week. Students say the flag represents their pride in the contributions Mexicans make to this country. Critics, though, said watching young Hispanics in the streets with the red, green and white flags is more than they can stand. These youngsters are in the United States and should — at the least — carry the U.S. flag, they argue.

"The whole thing just makes my blood boil," said Bruce R. Wing, a 52-year-old Missouri City resident. "I want them all out of here."

Wing said the Houston Independent School District should fire Pambello.

HISD leaders said no decision has been made about possible discipline against the principal, who declined interview requests Wednesday.

"It is appropriate to fly the flags of the United States and Texas over schools in the Houston Independent School District, since we are a public entity of the state," HISD spokesman Terry Abbott said. "It would not be appropriate for the school district to advocate allegiance to a country other than the United States. Therefore, it is not appropriate to permit use of school district flagpoles for the purpose of flying flags representing other countries."

Raul Ramos, a professor of Texas history at the University of Houston, said most Mexican-Americans see no contradiction in flying the Mexican flag alongside those of Texas and the United States.

"Most students at Reagan High School have relatives or ancestors from Mexico," said Ramos. "The flag represents Mexican heritage as much if not more than citizenship."

Historical research

Ramos noted that there is a long Texas history of both flags flying. He has found Mexican and Texas flags interwined during Mexican Independence Day parades in such cities as Laredo, El Paso and San Antonio dating to 1910.

Calling HISD's decision a reaction to cultural anxiety, he said, "it's important for the school to make efforts to identify with the student body," not vice versa. "The school, after all, reflects the ethnic identity of the students sitting in its classrooms."

No Mr. Ramos, it is important for students to identify with the country in which they reside and from who's generosity they benefit. If Mexico is such a great nation and deserved of celebration, why then are there 12 million illegal immigrants in America. I have relatives in Scotland and Sweden, is it then appropriate for me to demand the school fly those two flags? I, too, am proud of my heritage, but it in no way grants me permission to flaunt it in spite of my American heritage and citizenship.

If Mexico was capable of supporting these people, then they would be there. As it cannot, and they are not, they owe their allegience to America, not Mexico.

The principal of this school should be severly sanctioned for his totally inappropriate actions and apparent encouragement of the student walkout. My understanding of the duties of a principal is that he is to promote education not social policy. His Hispanic student are already suffering severely in their bid to be educated. This principal's actions do nothing to ameliorate the situation.

Full Story: Disrespect and Ingratitude By Students/Principal

What do you think?

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

I Guess Georgia Has Its Own Miss Piggy

Report: McKinney Punches Cop

Web Editor: Michael King
Last Modified: 3/30/2006 9:18:03 AM

According to sources on Capitol Hill, U.S. Representative Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) punched a Capitol police officer on Wednesday afternoon after he mistakenly pursued her for failing to pass through a metal detector.

Members of Congress are not required to pass through metal detectors.

Sources say that the officer was at a position in the Longworth House Office Building, and neither recognized McKinney, nor saw her credentials as she went around the metal detector.

The officer called out, “Ma’am, Ma’am,” and walked after her in an attempt to stop her. When he caught McKinney, he grabbed her by the arm.

Witnesses say McKinney pulled her arm away, and with her cell phone in hand, punched the officer in the chest.

McKinney’s office has not responded to requests for comment.

According to the Drudge Report, the entire incident is on tape.

Drudge continues, "The cop is pressing charges, and the USCP (United States Capitol Police) are waiting until Congress adjourns to arrest her, a source claims."

No charges have been filed. Capitol Police spokeswoman Sgt. Kimberly Schneider says that senior officials have been made aware of the incident and are investigating.

Another prima donna Democrat...who'da thunkit? It would appear that Houston is not the only city with a Miss Piggy. Is it my imagingation or do these African-American woman, Congressmembers, actually believe that they are royalty? Rather than understanding a guard's desire to conscientiously execute his duties to provide security for the very body in which Ms. McKinney works, instead of being greatful that there are people working to provide for her safety, she behaves like a spoiled brat. I guess that's not entirely fair, all members of Congress seem at time to act like a privillaged class rather than employees of the American people.

A quick look at the picture tells me the guard was well within his rights to stop Ms McKinney. I too failed to recognize her with her new hairstyle. Ingratitude seems to be a standard trait in these prima donna Congresswomen.

Same person? 5 seconds at a quick walk, you tell me.

Seems Miss Piggy is alive and well in the A-T just as much as in H-Town.

Full Story: Yes Virginia, There Is A Miss Piggy

What do you think?

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

Once More, For Liberals Opinion Is Fact

Bush Wanted War

By Richard Cohen
Thursday, March 30, 2006; 12:00 AM

It is my firm belief that if, say, a few dozen people simultaneously did an Internet search for the words "Bush lied," computers all over the country would crash and the energy grid would buckle, producing a rolling blackout that would begin somewhere around Terre Haute, Ind., and end in Barnstable, Mass. So common is the statement "Bush lied" that it seems sometimes that I am the only blue-state person who does not think it is true. Then, last week, the indomitable Helen Thomas changed all that with a single question. She asked George Bush why he wanted "to go to war" from the moment he "stepped into the White House," and the president said, "You know, I didn't want war." With that, the last blue-state skeptic folded.

I would not go so far as to say that Bush wanted war from Day One in the White House, but there was plenty of evidence he had Saddam on his mind and in his sights from the very moment he got the news of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. We have it from Richard Clarke, formerly the White House's chief anti-terrorism official, that within a day of the attacks Bush was inquiring if Saddam might have had a hand in them. When told no -- "But, Mr. President, al-Qaeda did this," Clarke told him -- it became instantly clear that this was not the answer Bush wanted. "'Look into Iraq, Saddam,' the president said testily," Clarke writes in his book, "Against All Enemies."

Similarly, Bob Woodward says in his book, "Plan of Attack," that not only was Bush fixated on Iraq, but by Thanksgiving of 2001, he already had told Don Rumsfeld to prepare a plan for the invasion of that country. "Let's get started on this," the president said, cautioning the defense secretary not to tell anyone. Rumsfeld said that eventually he would have to take CIA Director George Tenet into his confidence. "'Fine."' Woodward quotes Bush as saying -- "but not now."

As for myself, I was told by a European intelligence official that after flying to Washington right after the 9/11 attacks, he was stunned to discover that talk had already turned to Iraq. This was particularly true at the Pentagon, where Paul Wolfowitz was obsessed with Iraq, and that seems to have been true of the White House as well. And now we know from various British accounts that close aides to Prime Minister Tony Blair recognized early on that Bush was going to go to war -- and that Blair, his poodle at obedient heel, would follow along. More recently we learned -- again from British sources -- that even though Bush went back to the United Nations for yet another resolution condemning Iraq, he was determined to make war almost no matter what.

Sorry Richard, I don't believe you. As a constant and unrelenting critic of the White House and President Bush, excuse me if I doubt your claim that you were the only dissenting voice among your Leftist peers. It just doesn't have the ring of truth. You lack credibility.

You have no proof and very little evidence, other that anecdotal (Clarke is hardly an unbiased unimpeachable source, nor are aides to the Prime Minister that would call Blair a "poodle at obedient heel." If those are your words, it is even worse for your case.) to support your claim. For you, as is true for most Liberals, what you want to be true becomes truth. As Dennis Miller puts it you believe your guesswork to be fact.

The fact remains, that President Bush has a great deal more credibility than do those on the Left who so often mistake opinion for fact. Further as a member of the MSM your credibility suffers even further questioning.

Full Story: Only A Liberal Would Be Willing To Believe Bush Wanted War

What do you think?

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

Details? Details? Don't Need No Stinkin' Details

Democrats Detail Security Policy
Bin Laden, Iraq and Domestic Safety Identified as Midterm Issues

By Chris Cillizza and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, March 30, 2006; Page A12

Emboldened by President Bush's declining approval ratings, Democrats unveiled a national security platform yesterday for the midterm elections that stresses renewed focus on capturing Osama bin Laden, reducing the U.S. presence in Iraq and stepped up protection at home.

The new strategy, which comes after months of deliberations and several false starts, aims to neutralize the advantage Republicans have held on national security and terrorism issues, that Democrats acknowledge were critical in the GOP's midterm gains in 2002 and in Bush's reelection victory over Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004.

Flanked by former secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright and retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark, Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi vowed that Democrats could do a better job of defending the country than the administration has done since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Declaring that the administration's "dangerous incompetence has made America less safe," Reid said, "We are uniting behind a national security agenda that is tough and smart, an agenda that will provide the real security President Bush has promised, but failed to deliver."

Republicans immediately attacked the Democratic plan, with Vice President Cheney arguing that Democrats' "behavior has been totally inconsistent with what they're now promising they're going to do."

Many of the items in the Democratic statement echo themes Kerry advanced in the 2004 presidential campaign, but party strategists believe that they are now in position to capitalize on public disenchantment with the war in Iraq and with declining confidence in Bush as a wartime leader.

Among the proposals in the "Real Security" plan: eliminate bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist network, implement in full the recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission, and work to make 2006 a year of "significant transition" in Iraq.

On terrorism, the Democrats call for doubling the size of U.S. Special Forces and eliminating terrorist breeding grounds by "combating the economic, social and political conditions that allow extremism to thrive."

Democrats have been badly divided over Iraq. The new strategy urges Iraqis to assume responsibility for their own security, recommends "responsible redeployment" of U.S. forces without specifying a timetable and blames the administration for poor planning and manipulating prewar intelligence.

The statement contains language -- voiced by Pelosi, Reid and others yesterday -- that the Democrats' security agenda will be both "tough and smart" in contrast to the "dangerous incompetence" the Bush administration has shown -- language that has been tested by the Democrats in anticipation of the fall campaign.

Albright decried the Bush administration's "rank incompetence" on such issues as the Iraq war and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Albright called for a security plan based on "facts not fantasy."

Ummm...this is the same Madeleine Albright who was primarily responsible for the UN's failure to act in Rwanda, who actively prevented peacekeepers from moving in to stop the mass killing of about 800,000 Rwandans in 1994, and who played the key role in blocking any strong action by the UN, adamantly refusing to accept publicly that a full-fledged, Convention-defined genocide was in fact taking place,isn't it? The same Madeleine Albright who led us into the war in Yugoslavia in response to non-existent massacres and mass rapes, on the side of the Muslims? The same Muslims we are now fighting?

Ya wanna talk about "dangerous incompetence?" I give you eight years of the Clinton Administration. Because of the neglect of the Clinton Administration, Osama bin Laden (the same bin Laden they say "We are now going to eliminate, trust us, honest.") was allowed to flee to Afghanistan from Somalia. The same Administration that was offered Osama bin Laden (the same bin Laden they say "Honest, this time we're going to get him.") on a silver platter and refused to act.

Democrats have honed the art of showering the public with "Glowing Ambiguities" to a fine art. All of their proposals are long on words and short on facts and methods.

Telling the American people "Trust us, we're going to thus and so, but we'll tell you how after you elect us (and after we figure out how), especially when you have been actively working against American security and interests for the past five years is not going to carry much weight with the American voters.

What possible evidence can the Democrats offer that this is the time to trust them with national security. They have worked against national security for the past 40 years. They have worked against the military for the past 40 years. They would have had us surrender to the Soviet Union had the American people not had the wisdom to elect Ronald Reagan. Their neglect during the Clinton years was directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks, but now they ask for our trust.

NOT BLOODY LIKELY!

Full Story: Democrats, Hawks-In Their Imaginations

What do you think?

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

Sorry George, Not So Easy An Answer

Guard the Borders -- And Face Facts, Too

By George F. Will
Thursday, March 30, 2006; Page A23

America, the only developed nation that shares a long -- 2,000-mile -- border with a Third World nation, could seal that border. East Germany showed how: walls, barbed wire, machine gun-toting border guards in towers, mine fields, large, irritable dogs. And we have modern technologies that East Germany never had: sophisticated sensors, unmanned surveillance drones, etc.

It is a melancholy fact that many of these may have to be employed along the U.S.-Mexican border. The alternatives are dangerous and disagreeable conditions for Americans residing near the border, and vigilantism. It is, however, important that Americans feel melancholy about taking such measures to frustrate immigration that usually is an entrepreneurial act: taking risks to get to America to do work most Americans spurn. As the debate about immigration policy boils, augmented border control must not be the entire agenda, lest other thorny problems be ignored, and lest America turn a scowling face to the south and, to some extent, to many immigrants already here.

To control belongs at the top of the agenda, for four reasons. First, control of borders is an essential attribute of sovereignty. Second, conditions along the border mock the rule of law. Third, large rallies by immigrants, many of them here illegally, protesting more stringent control of immigration reveal that many immigrants have, alas, assimilated: They have acquired the entitlement mentality created by America's welfare state, asserting an entitlement to exemption from the laws of the society they invited themselves into. Fourth, giving Americans a sense that borders are controlled is a prerequisite for calm consideration of what policy that control should serve.

Of the nation's illegal immigrants -- estimated to be at least 11 million, a cohort larger than the combined populations of 12 states -- 60 percent have been here at least five years. Most have roots in their communities. Their children born here are U.S. citizens. We are not going to take the draconian police measures necessary to deport 11 million people. They would fill 200,000 buses in a caravan stretching bumper-to-bumper from San Diego to Alaska -- where, by the way, 26,000 Latinos live. And there are no plausible incentives to get the 11 million to board the buses.

Facts, a conservative (John Adams) said, are stubborn things, and regarding immigration, true conservatives take their bearings from facts such as those in the preceding paragraph. Conservatives should want, as the president proposes, a guest worker program to supply what the U.S. economy demands -- immigrant labor for entry-level jobs. Conservatives should favor a policy of encouraging unlimited immigration by educated people with math, engineering, technology or science skills that America's education system is not sufficiently supplying.

As you Say Mr. Will, facts are stubborn things. The most glaring fact is that these illegals have shown little if any inclination to follow the current laws. The real dilemma is what do you do if these immigrants refuse to educate themselves in the English language? What do you do if they refuse to pursue American citizenship? Are you then going to ship them out? We haven't done this in the past, are we now going to change with this new law? I seriously doubt it.

This is a problem with no easy solution. The American economy is greatly dependent on foreign labor. Anyone who tries to deny this is whistling in the dark. I don't know what the solution is, but I suspect that merely passing a new law which, in essence, says "This time were really, really serious. No really, we mean it this time. We were only joking last time but this time we really, really mean it, no kidding," is not going to solve the problem.

If you can't or won't enforce the current laws, then your new laws have no credibility with lawbreakers.

Full Story: Difficult Problem, Hard Answers

What do you think?

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

Missing the Point Part II

Judges Back Court Review of Eavesdropping

By PETE YOST
The Associated Press
Wednesday, March 29, 2006; 9:46 AM

WASHINGTON -- Five federal judges gave a boost Tuesday to legislation that would bring court scrutiny to the Bush administration's domestic spying program.

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing chaired by Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the judges reacted favorably to his proposal that would require the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to conduct regular reviews of the four-year-old program.

The existence of the warrantless surveillance by the National Security Agency was revealed by The New York Times three months ago.

The judges stressed that they were not offering their views on the NSA operation, which they said they knew nothing about.

But they said the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has operated capably for 28 years and is fully able to protect civil liberties and give the administration all the speed and flexibility it needs to execute the war on terror.

The administration contends the president has inherent war powers under the Constitution to order eavesdropping without warrants.

"I am very wary of inherent authority" claimed by presidents, testified U.S. Magistrate Judge Allan Kornblum. "It sounds very much like King George."

Before word of the warrantless surveillance leaked publicly, the Bush administration revealed it to just eight members of Congress and to the presiding judge on the surveillance court.

The hearing Tuesday focused on Specter's bill. A rival approach, drafted by Senate Judiciary Committee member Mike DeWine of Ohio and three other Republicans, would allow the government to conduct warrantless surveillance for up to 45 days before seeking court or congressional approval.

I wonder if Mr. Yost of the Pest..uh,,Post or Mr. Lichtblau of the New York Lies...er Times even attended the committee meeting yesterday.

Pete, just for your edification, since you apparently didn't hear Judge Kornblum entire statement, he went on to state:

"If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now. "I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute."

Hmmm. Kind of puts a different light on the matter doesn't it Pete? Especially because the other four judges concurred with his opinion.

See what happens when you don't pay close attention Pete? If you want to be a good reporter, you must remember to tell the whole story, not just the part that you agree with. If you do that, it is called an "E-d-i-t-o-r-i-a-l." Editorials are where you put your opinion, not news stories.

I highly recommend that you and your twin Mr. Lichtblau attend a remedial journalism school so that you can learn to report the whole truth, not just portions of it.

Full Story: Failing Journalism Class

What do you think?

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

Talk About Missing the Point

Judges on Secretive Panel Speak Out on Spy Program

By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: March 29, 2006

WASHINGTON, March 28 — Five former judges on the nation's most secretive court, including one who resigned in apparent protest over President Bush's domestic eavesdropping, urged Congress on Tuesday to give the court a formal role in overseeing the surveillance program.

In a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the secretive court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order. They also suggested that the program could imperil criminal prosecutions that grew out of the wiretaps.

Judge Harold A. Baker, a sitting federal judge in Illinois who served on the intelligence court until last year, said the president was bound by the law "like everyone else." If a law like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is duly enacted by Congress and considered constitutional, Judge Baker said, "the president ignores it at the president's peril."

Judge Baker and three other judges who served on the intelligence court testified at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in support of a proposal by Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, to give the court formal oversight of the National Security Agency's eavesdropping program. Committee members also heard parts of a letter in support of the proposal from a fifth judge, James Robertson, who left the court last December, days after the eavesdropping program was disclosed.

The intelligence court, created by Congress in 1978, meets in a tightly guarded, windowless office at the Justice Department. The court produces no public findings except for a single tally to Congress each year on the number of warrants it has issued — more than 1,600 in 2004. Even its roster of judges serving seven-year terms was, for a time, considered secret.

But Mr. Bush's decision effectively to bypass the court in permitting eavesdropping without warrants has raised the court's profile. That was underscored by the appearance on Tuesday of the four former FISA judges: Judge Baker; Judge Stanley S. Brotman, who left the panel in 2004; Judge John F. Keenan, who left in 2001; and Judge William H. Stafford Jr., who left in 2003. All four sit on the federal judiciary.

At a hearing lasting more than three hours, the former FISA judges discussed in detail their views on the standards of proof required by the court, its relations with the Justice Department, and the constitutional, balance-of-power issues at the heart of the debate over the N.S.A. program. The agency monitored the international communications of people inside the United States believed to be linked to Al Qaeda.

Seems Mr. Lichtblau missed the most important portion of the panel of judges testimony. Really Eric, you need to wait to write your article until the whole hearing is over. Truly a shoddy piece of work on your part, or perhaps you have an agenda in mind.

The fact is that the five judge panel unequivocally stated that the President was within his rights to authorize unwarranted monitoring. Judge Allan Kornblum said:

"If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now. "I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute."

A statement with which all five judges agreed. The only caveat they offered to that statement was that the President would ignore established law on domestic/international spying "at his own peril" should such action prove to be not in the interest of national security.

Seems Mr. Lichtblau needs a lesson in listening with an unbiased ear.

Full Story: More Slanted Coverage From New York Lies...Times

What do you think?

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

No Recusal for Scalia

Scalia's Recusal Sought in Key Detainee Case
Retired Officers Say Justice's Impartiality Is in Question After Remarks on Combatants

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 28, 2006; Page A06

On the eve of oral argument in a key Supreme Court case on the rights of alleged terrorists, a group of retired U.S. generals and admirals has asked Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself, arguing that his recent public comments on the subject make it impossible for him to appear impartial.

In a letter delivered to the court late yesterday, a lawyer for the retired officers cited news reports of Scalia's March 8 remarks to an audience at the University of Freiburg in Switzerland. Scalia reportedly said it was "crazy" to suggest that combatants captured fighting the United States should receive a "full jury trial," and dismissed suggestions that the Geneva Conventions might apply to detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Scalia's remarks "give rise to the unfortunate appearance that, even before briefing was complete, he had already made up his mind" about issues in the case, the lawyer, David H. Remes, wrote. Noting that Scalia reportedly had discussed the rights of accused terrorists in the context of his son Matthew's recent tour as an Army officer in Iraq, Remes wrote that this creates an appearance of "personal bias arising from his son's military service."

The case to be heard today -- Hamdan v. Rumsfeld , No. 05-184 -- is one of the most important terrorism-related cases to reach the court. It is a challenge by Osama bin Laden's former chauffeur, now being held at Guantanamo Bay, to the legality of the military commission that seeks to try him for war crimes. Military trials for terrorist suspects are a centerpiece of the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policy, but they have been criticized by human rights activists, especially in Europe.

The retired officers are Brig. Gen. David M. Brahms, Brig Gen. James P. Cullen, Vice Adm. Lee F. Gunn, Rear Adm. John D. Hutson and Rear Adm. Donald J. Guter. They have filed a friend of the court brief in the case opposing the military commissions, on the grounds that denying Geneva Conventions protections to detainees at Guantanamo Bay could result in their denial to U.S. troops by their captors abroad. Scalia's speech was first reported by Newsweek's Web site on Sunday.

Newsweek quoted Scalia as describing European reaction to Guantanamo Bay as "hypocritical."

Talk about a red-herring...There is absolutely no reason for Scalia to recuse himself, this is just wishful thinking by those on the pro-al Qaeda Left to get Scalia off the case because they believe that his doing so will help their allies in the terrorist organizations. Scalia's opinion was well know prior to his speech from his dissents on the prior Rasul and Hamdi court cases. Even more absurd is the argument put forward by the officers listed above that U.S. troops might not receive the protections of the Geneva Conventions. When and by whom have American POW's ever been accorded those protections? Not one of Americas enemies have ever abided by those conventions, NOT ONE.

Now we are to believe that if only we treat the prisoners in Gitmo according to the Geneva Conventions, American POW's will suddenly be treated properly. These officers are either lying through their teeth, or are suffering from brain damage and alzheimer's disease.

Full Story: A Ludicrous Claim

What do you think?

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

Good News for Political Bloggers

FEC Rules Exempt Blogs From Internet Political Limits

By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 28, 2006; Page A03

In a unanimous vote yesterday, the Federal Election Commission left unregulated almost all political activity on the Internet except for paid political advertisements. Campaigns buying such ads will have to use money raised under the limits of current federal campaign law.

Perhaps most important, the commission effectively granted media exemptions to bloggers and other activists using the Web to allow them to praise and criticize politicians, just as newspapers can, without fear of federal interference.

The rules "totally exempt individuals who engage in political activity on the Internet from the restrictions of the campaign finance laws. The exemption for individual Internet activity in the final rules is categorical and unqualified," said FEC Chairman Michael E. Toner. The regulation "protects Internet activities by individuals in all forms, including e-mailing, linking, blogging, or hosting a Web site," he said.

The 6 to 0 vote was widely expected after the FEC released the proposed rules last week. That followed months of discussions and widespread concern -- which turned out to be unfounded -- among many political activists that the commission would impose significant restrictions on Internet campaign activity. The vote drew praise from most ideological quarters, as well as from several watchdog groups.

Conservative blogger Mike Krempasky wrote: "This is a tremendous win for speech." Liberal blogger Duncan Black, writing under the pseudonym Artios, said: "This could have been an utter disaster, but it appears to have all worked out in the end."

This is a victory for America...and for me! It is only reasonable that bloggers should have the protection accorded those in the MSM. Most of us write better and do better research than reporters in the corporate media.

If a hack operation like the New York Lies...err...Times, with all the errors and misinformation they spew can be protected, then surely bloggers rate the same protections.

Full Story: EQUAL PROTECTION Under the Law

What do you think?

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

Andrew Card Resigns?!

C-span has just reported that Andrew Card has resigned as White House Chief of Staff. If this is true, it is a good thing. I have never been a big supporter of Mr. Card. The American Spectator reports that Harriet Miers was Cards pick, not Karl Rove's or Laura Bush's. Further they say that he "shouted down" all oppostition to her. Not a sterling recommendation. I have never believed him to be a very bright bulb.

Josh Bolten former deputy chief of staff and current head of OMB is the heir apparent..developing...

What do you think?

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

An Unacceptable Excuse for Expedience

Tougher Enforcement May Jeopardize Support
GOP, Democrats Both Stand to Lose

By Michael A. Fletcher and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 28, 2006; Page A04

Both Republicans and Democrats risk alienating coveted supporters as they attempt to find the right balance between toughening enforcement and expanding legal opportunities for millions of low-skill foreign workers to take jobs in the United States.

As the Senate begins debate on revamping the nation's immigration laws, the issue poses multiple challenges for both political parties, while offering no clearly expedient solution. Two huge electoral prizes, the Southwest and Florida, are potentially up for grabs, as are millions of Hispanic votes elsewhere. But also in play are the votes of angry residents in border states and beyond who feel overwhelmed by the rising tide of illegal immigration.

"In some ways, the rhetoric of this debate is as important politically as the policy that eventually emerges," said Roberto Suro, director of the Pew Hispanic Center, a Washington research organization. "If there is an impression that the leadership of one party or another is really harsh and punitive, you open up possibilities."

A sudden spate of rallies on the streets of Phoenix, Los Angeles, Detroit and elsewhere -- all in protest of a possible federal crackdown on illegal workers -- suggests that immigration may be an issue that galvanizes this increasingly vital, but difficult to reach voting bloc.

Immigration has mobilized Hispanic voters in the past, most notably in California after the 1994 passage of Proposition 187, a voter initiative to cut off public services for illegal immigrants. Enactment of the law was blocked by the courts, but the fact that then-Republican Gov. Pete Wilson supported the measure swung California's huge Hispanic vote firmly into the Democratic camp for years.

At the same time, however, lawmakers face the potential ire of voters who want more done to crack down on the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants now in the country. The problem led Democratic governors in both Arizona and New Mexico to declare states of emergency in counties along the border with Mexico to combat illegal immigration. Talking points circulating among Democrats on Capitol Hill stress, "if you do not seem credible on enforcement, you may lose credibility which will jeopardize other components of immigration reform."

Tougher enforcement is an idea that resonates among frustrated voters, particularly in parts of the country where public services including schools and hospitals are strained by the influx of new residents. In 2004, Arizona voters ratified a ballot initiative similar to 187, despite the opposition of Gov. Janet Napolitano, a popular Democrat, and Sen. John McCain, a popular Republican.

Views on immigration break into two camps. At one end are law-and-order types, mostly conservative Republicans, who want to tighten border security and step up enforcement against illegal workers. The business community, the Roman Catholic Church, many Republicans and most Democrats occupy the other camp -- joined, notably, by President Bush. Although they generally support tougher enforcement, they also want to change federal law to allow illegal workers to gain legal status so they can continue to fill many low-skill jobs that they believe would otherwise go vacant. Moreover, they say, welcoming outsiders is a core American ideal.

"Each generation of immigrants brings a renewal to our national character and adds vitality to our culture," Bush said in a speech yesterday. "Newcomers have a special way of appreciating the opportunities of America, and when they seize those opportunities, our whole nation benefits."

But Bush's position has split Republicans. Former White House aide David Frum, writing on the Web site of the National Review, said of the president's proposal: "His version of immigration reform can only pass Congress with Democratic votes, and there is zero possibility that the Democrats will help him -- but every likelihood that they will egg him on to incite a Republican civil war on the issue that most bitterly divides the president's party."

The competing camps on overhauling immigration laws do not break down along the usual ideological or regional lines. In Arizona, for instance, the two Republican senators -- Jon Kyl and McCain -- both consider themselves conservatives. But McCain champions a bill that includes the guest-worker program Bush has outlined, which would allow participants to apply for legal residency without returning to their home countries. The bill also would substantially increase the number of green cards, granting permanent U.S. residency to low-skill workers.

Kyl, meanwhile, supports a guest-worker program but would provide no avenue for citizenship and would force workers to go home for a year before reapplying. He also wants to build fences in urban areas, hire more border control agents and crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants, to get a handle on illegal immigration.

Kyl's view is that the current economic pressures for immigrant labor could subside in the future, costing legal American workers jobs. "Get ready for a real tough time when American workers come to your office and say, 'How did you let this happen?' " he admonished colleagues on the Judiciary Committee as they debated the bill yesterday.

Many advocates believe that any successful legislation would have to bridge both camps. "I don't believe this is a zero-sum issue for us," said Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee. "It is absolutely possible for us to be pro-immigrant and pro-law enforcement."

Brent A. Wilkes, national executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens, an advocacy group, said a balanced approach is the only one that would be accepted by much of the Hispanic community.

"The average Latino immigrant cannot understand why if they work hard and play by the rules, they can't be treated like previous immigrants and be given a legal avenue to come here." Members of both parties believe that at the root of the immigration debate is a fear among voters that illegal immigration is a piece of a bigger, more threatening force: a loss of control over national security as a result of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. What "motivates most Americans is the border insecurity problem that we have," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), who is trying to thread the needle between the two camps.

Are these people kidding? "The average Latino immigrant cannot understand why if they work hard and play by the rules" where in the "rules" is entering the country illegally? If the very act which brought you here was a violation of the laws, every subsequent action you take is "ILLEGAL." That means against the law. If they cannot see this, then how can we trust them to understand and obey our other laws?

One of the favorite statements of those like La Raza and LULAC is that somehow we should be sympathetic to illegal aliens because they have risked their lives to get here. Excuse me, am I also supposed to be sympathetic to a burglar because he has risked his life to break into my house and steal from me? Am I supposed to be sympathetic to a murderer because he has risked his life to kill someone? Forgive me if I do not find this to be a compelling argument.

If we legalize crime, our national crime rate drops to zero, this does not solve the problem.

Full Story: Illegals Are Here ILLEGALLY

What do you think?

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

Once Again, Life As the Left Would Have It

St. Paul City Office Boots Easter Bunny

Associated Press
Last update: March 24, 2006 – 3:43 AM

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) - A small Easter display was removed from the City Hall lobby on Wednesday out of concern that it would offend non-Christians.

The display - a cloth Easter bunny, pastel-colored eggs and a sign with the words "Happy Easter'' - was put up by a City Council secretary. They were not purchased with city money.

Tyrone Terrill, the city's human rights director, asked that the decorations be removed. Terrill said no citizen had complained to him.

Council Member Dave Thune called it a shame.

"This has just gone too far," he said. "We can't celebrate spring with bunnies and fake grass?''

The council president, Kathy Lantry, said the removal wasn't about political correctness.

"As government, we have a different responsibility about advancing the cause of religion, which we are not going to do,'' she said.

Life as the Left would allow you to live it: Godless, Joyless, Fearladen, Hateful. No thanks! Don't have any fun, don't celebrate holidays, don't dare be caught offending anyone's sensibilities. Once more I am moved to ask how these lifeless people continue to get up and face the day every morning. Sounds like a horrible existance to me.

Full Story: Liberals Hating Freedom

What do you think?

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

Inmates In Control of the Asylum Story

Teen-repellent shop siren silenced by human rights fears

AFP
Mar 24 12:56 PM US/Eastern

A high-tech alarm audible only to youngsters which has dramatically cut loutish behaviour outside a British shop must be switched off over fears it infringes human rights, police said.

The Mosquito emits an irritating high-pitched pulse that most people aged under 20 can hear but almost nobody over 30 can.

The Spar grocery shop on Caerlon Road in Newport, South Wales said anti-social behaviour had plunged by 84 percent outside the premises since it was installed earlier this year.

However, human rights concerns have swatted The Mosquito -- and stung the shop's furious managers in the process.

"It's absolutely disgusting," a spokesman for the shop said.

"These louts can infringe on our rights to run a profitable shop for the community yet we can't dare infringe on their right to loiter and make life a misery for our shoppers," the BBC quoted him as saying.

Once more we see the wonders of living in a society in which the Left is allowed to run rampant. Anywhere Liberals are allowed to rule, freedom is gradually constricted. The rights of those who contribute to the growth and prosperity of the country are secondary to the imagined rights of loiterers and trouble makers. In Leftist-land whiners, in the guise as "human rights" advocates, will always advocate against the capitalists. Remember they are socialists.

Full Story: Liberals Once More Tearing Society Down

What do you think?

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

Advice From Clinton's Foreign Policy Doyenne

Good versus evil isn't a strategy
Bush's worldview fails to see that in the Middle East, power politics is the key.

By Madeleine Albright
March 24, 2006
LA Times

THE BUSH administration's newly unveiled National Security Strategy might well be subtitled "The Irony of Iran." Three years after the invasion of Iraq and the invention of the phrase "axis of evil," the administration now highlights the threat posed by Iran — whose radical government has been vastly strengthened by the invasion of Iraq. This is more tragedy than strategy, and it reflects the Manichean approach this administration has taken to the world.

It is sometimes convenient, for purposes of rhetorical effect, for national leaders to talk of a globe neatly divided into good and bad. It is quite another, however, to base the policies of the world's most powerful nation upon that fiction. The administration's penchant for painting its perceived adversaries with the same sweeping brush has led to a series of unintended consequences.

For years, the president has acted as if Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein's followers and Iran's mullahs were parts of the same problem. Yet, in the 1980s, Hussein's Iraq and Iran fought a brutal war. In the 1990s, Al Qaeda's allies murdered a group of Iranian diplomats. For years, Osama bin Laden ridiculed Hussein, who persecuted Sunni and Shiite religious leaders alike. When Al Qaeda struck the U.S. on 9/11, Iran condemned the attacks and later participated constructively in talks on Afghanistan. The top leaders in the new Iraq — chosen in elections that George W. Bush called "a magic moment in the history of liberty" — are friends of Iran. When the U.S. invaded Iraq, Bush may have thought he was striking a blow for good over evil, but the forces unleashed were considerably more complex.

The administration is now divided between those who understand this complexity and those who do not. On one side, there are ideologues, such as the vice president, who apparently see Iraq as a useful precedent for Iran. Meanwhile, officials on the front lines in Iraq know they cannot succeed in assembling a workable government in that country without the tacit blessing of Iran; hence, last week's long-overdue announcement of plans for a U.S.-Iranian dialogue on Iraq — a dialogue that if properly executed might also lead to progress on other issues.

Although this is not an administration known for taking advice, I offer three suggestions. The first is to understand that although we all want to "end tyranny in this world," that is a fantasy unless we begin to solve hard problems. Iraq is increasingly a gang war that can be solved in one of two ways: by one side imposing its will or by all the legitimate players having a piece of the power. The U.S. is no longer able to control events in Iraq, but it can be useful as a referee.

Second, the Bush administration should disavow any plan for regime change in Iran — not because the regime should not be changed but because U.S. endorsement of that goal only makes it less likely. In today's warped political environment, nothing strengthens a radical government more than Washington's overt antagonism. It also is common sense to presume that Iran will be less willing to cooperate in Iraq and to compromise on nuclear issues if it is being threatened with destruction. As for Iran's choleric and anti-Semitic new president, he will be swallowed up by internal rivals if he is not unwittingly propped up by external foes.

Third, the administration must stop playing solitaire while Middle East and Persian Gulf leaders play poker. Bush's "march of freedom" is not the big story in the Muslim world, where Shiite Muslims suddenly have more power than they have had in 1,000 years; it is not the big story in Lebanon, where Iran is filling the vacuum left by Syria; it is not the story among Palestinians, who voted — in Western eyes — freely, and wrongly; it is not even the big story in Iraq, where the top three factions in the recent elections were all supported by decidedly undemocratic militias.

Just what President Bush needs, advice from Madeleine Half-bright, whose genius gave us a North Korea with a full blown nuclear weapons program.

By all means, we should listen to her.

This is the same woman who gave us the ill-considered and unwarranted interference in Yugoslavia, including the "humanitarian" bombings. Nevermind that all of the propaganda concerning mass killings and rapes turned out to be untrue.

By all means, we should listen to her.

Through her brilliance, USA, France, and Belgium knew what was happening in Rwanda but actively prevented peacekeepers from moving in to stop the mass killing of about 800,000 Rwandans in 1994. She played the key role in blocking any strong action by the UN, adamantly refusing to accept publicly that a full-fledged, Convention-defined genocide was in fact taking place.

By all means, we should listen to her.

Such a brilliant leader on foreign policy, her opinions should be carefully listened to, and the President should carefully do the exact opposite.

Full Story: Madeleine Albright's Halfbright Advice

What do you think?

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

Three Rescued Peace Activists-Complete Ingrates

Three Abducted Peace Activists Rescued in Iraq

By John Ward Anderson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, March 24, 2006; Page A01

BAGHDAD, March 23 -- British and U.S. troops rescued three kidnapped Christian peace activists early Thursday in a military operation that was based on information provided by two men detained only three hours earlier by U.S. forces, according to a U.S. military official.

The freed captives -- Norman Kember, 74, of London, and James Loney, 41, and Harmeet Singh Sooden, 32, both of Canada -- were members of Christian Peacemaker Teams, a Chicago- and Toronto-based group that advocates nonviolence and is opposed to the war in Iraq. They were kidnapped in Baghdad on Nov. 26 along with a fourth member of their group, Tom Fox of Clear Brook, Va.

Concern about the well-being of the three abductees intensified after Fox's body was discovered on a trash-strewn street in Baghdad two weeks ago, shot multiple times with his hands bound.

The freeing of the hostages came during a day in which at least 44 people were killed and scores wounded in a rash of car bombings, suicide bombings and roadside explosions, many of which targeted Iraqi police units in and around Baghdad.

Circumstances of the rescue operation, which was spearheaded by the British, were being closely held.

Doug Pritchard, co-director of Christian Peacemaker Teams, said in a televised news conference in Toronto that no shots were fired and no captors were present at the time of the rescue. He declined to divulge the source of his information. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw later confirmed the absence of gunfire.

Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said at a regular briefing in Baghdad that the men had been abducted by a "kidnapping cell" and were in a house in western Baghdad. That information came from two men detained about three hours before the operation who provided "actionable intelligence about the location" of the house, he said.

The captives "were bound, they were together, there were no kidnappers in the area," Lynch told reporters.

British Defense Secretary John Reid said the 5 a.m. operation had been "several" weeks in the planning. A statement by the British Embassy in Baghdad said the raid was the culmination "of work over the last few months by the U.K., Canadian and U.S. embassies and special police teams, in coordination with Iraqi security forces."

The statements left many questions unanswered. It was unclear whether the kidnappers -- who claimed to belong to a little-known group called the Swords of Righteousness Brigade -- had been tipped off about the raid, had been paid to leave or simply left the men unguarded. The group had accused the men of being Western spies and had threatened to kill them unless all Iraqi prisoners were released.

British officials refused to answer questions about the raid. It could not be learned whether any of the abductors was arrested or whether a ransom was paid.

Pritchard said he did not know whether the freeing of the men came after any negotiations.

"We are convinced the reason they've been alive so long is because of their commitment to bring peace and justice to Iraq," he said.

All four of the men were "motivated by a passion for justice and peace, to live out a nonviolent alternative in a nation racked by armed conflict."

News for you Liberals, these men were not "freed," they were rescued by the heroic actions of the very troops they so hate. Only the arrogance of the Left can lead to such ingratitude. Apparently in their minds, they were owed this rescue and it was not even worthy of a simple "thanks."

This is so typical of the Leftist Mental-ity. These losers, who placed themselves in danger by their own ego-centric actions and were kidnapped by terrorists, didn't even have the class to thank their rescuers. Instead they blasted America, the effort to free the Iraqi people, and praised the very people who violated their rights.

These jerks are not motivated by "a passion for justice and peace," if they were, they would be supporting this war rather than providing fodder for our terrorist enemies. President Bush and this military action is what has been motivated by a passion for justice and peace.

Full Story: Military Hating Activists Rescued by Military

What do you think?

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

Troops Risk Lives to Save Anti-war Protestors

Canadian, British Aid Workers Freed in Iraq

By John Ward Anderson and Debbi Wilgoren
Washington Post Staff WritersThursday
March 23, 2006; 6:15 AM

BAGHDAD, March 23 -- Three Christian peace activists kidnapped last year in Iraq were freed Thursday in an early morning military operation, the British Embassy in Iraq announced.

The announcement came two weeks after their colleague and fellow hostage, Tom Fox of Virginia, was shot to death and left on a Baghdad street.

The three men rescued Thursday -- two Canadians and a Briton -- were freed in a planned rescue operation by multi-national forces, a British Embassy spokesman said.

The spokesman said there were no immediate indications that any of the hostages had been injured during their liberation. All underwent a medical check-up afterwards "only as a precaution," he said.

The three men -- Norman Kember, 74, of London; and James Loney, 41, and Harmeet Singh Sooden, 32, both of Canada -- were kidnapped along with Fox on Nov. 26. They were members of the Christian Peacemakers Teams, a group that is opposed to the war in Iraq and which has criticized the treatment of detainees in U.S. and Iraqi jails.

The hostages were last seen in a silent, 25-second video that aired March 7 on the al-Jazeera satellite network. A message delivered with the video, from the group that claimed to have kidnapped them -- the previously unknown Swords of Righteousness Brigades -- threatened that they would be killed unless all Iraqi prisoners were released from Iraqi and U.S. prisons.

Fox, 54, of Clear Brook Virginia, was not pictured in the video, raising an alarm about his well-being. His body, shot several times and bound at the hands, was found two days later on a trash-strewn Baghdad street.

Few details were immediately available about how the men were released, or whether anyone, including the captors, was injured during the raid. The Associated Press quoted Iraqi police Lt. Col. Falah al-Mohammedawi saying it was believed the operation took place in Mishahda, 20 miles north of Baghdad. Other news reports claimed the operation occurred in Baghdad.

The trio "have been released as a result of a multinational force operation which took place earlier today," British foreign secretary Jack Straw said in a televised statement. "It followed weeks and weeks of very careful work by our military and coalition personnel in Iraq, and many civilians as well.

Imagine that, soldiers willing to risk their lives to rescue people who were in Iraq to protest what those soldier were doing. What is really bad is that these people were in Iraq, uninvited, working against our military and the efforts of coalition forces and instead of allowing them to pay the price for their actions, actions which they took with full knowledge of the risk, our troop were forced to risk their lives attempting to rescue these idiots.

This is typical of Liberals. They are not willing to pay the price for their actions. They do not believe in people being responsible for their own actions. So the military was forced to risk soldier's lives to save these jerks. I am really tired of these whiney Liberals expecting other people to carry their water. It's time for these people to suffer the consequences of their action, up to and including death.

It is not the proper use of the military to save the bacon of a group of irresponsible morons who have arrogated the right to work against Western Interest and the interests of the Iraqi people to themselves. Let 'em burn next time.

Full Story: Irresponsible Protestors Rescued by Protested

What do you think?

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

SOUPY SALES AND RUSS FEINGOLD SEPARATED AT BIRTH?

Were Russ Feingold and Soupy Sales twins separated at birth or is Russ the first successful cloning using Soupy's DNA?

YOU DECIDE:

What do you think?

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

Iraq, More Good Than Bad

Bush Still Upbeat on Outcome In Iraq
On Third Anniversary Of Invasion, President Foresees 'Victory'

By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 20, 2006; Page A01

President Bush and Vice President Cheney hailed the progress being made by Iraqi leaders to form a unity government yesterday, as the administration tried to dispel a growing perception that a continuing wave of sectarian violence has pushed Iraq into a full-fledged civil war.

Bush, speaking on the third anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, assured Americans that his administration is pursuing a strategy "that will lead to victory in Iraq," an outcome about which polls show the public is increasingly skeptical.

Cheney, meanwhile, dismissed assertions made by former Iraqi prime minister Ayad Allawi that the nation is in the throes of civil war. He said Iraq is holding together as a new constitutional democracy even as terrorists are desperately trying to cause its dissolution.

"What we've seen is a serious effort by them to foment civil war, but I don't think they've been successful," Cheney said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

The upbeat appraisals by Bush and Cheney came as other voices struck a more ominous note. Allawi contradicted Bush's progress report, saying the country is edging toward "the point of no return."

"We are losing a day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more," Allawi said on BBC's "Sunday AM" program. "If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."

Three years after U.S.-led forces quickly swept through Iraq, the country remains in the grips of a bloody insurgency. The war and its aftermath have left dead more than 2,300 U.S. troops and at least 30,000 Iraqis. Negotiations to form a unity government to lead Iraq have been deadlocked since parliamentary elections in December.

The anniversary was marked by protests around the country and around the world, as thousands of antiwar demonstrators gathered in cities from London to Tokyo. In New York, a crowd of about 200 people marched down Fifth Avenue to protest the war. Demonstrators also marched through storm-ravaged New Orleans, saying the slow pace of recovery there illustrates the cost of the war in Iraq.

Meanwhile, a growing majority of Americans believe the effort is not worth the cost, both financially and in lives lost. A Washington Post-ABC News pollthis month found that two-thirds of Americans questioned whether the United States has a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq.

As the administration offered optimistic appraisals of the war's progress, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), a frequent administration critic who is weighing a run for president in 2008, echoed Allawi's assessment, saying that Iraq is already in the midst of a "low-grade civil war."

"I think it's important that we stop this talk about we're not going to leave until we achieve victory," Hagel said on ABC's "This Week." "Well, what is victory? We achieved victory: Saddam's gone, the Iraqis have a constitution, they had an election, it's now up to them."

Hagel said a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be a mistake. But he added that the Bush administration should work harder to achieve a political settlement in Iraq by engaging other Middle Eastern countries in a negotiated solution.

Despite Americans' growing pessimism, the Bush administration is continuing to press ahead with its strategy, saying that it is steadily moving toward success. Bush is scheduled to deliver a speech in Cleveland today, which is part of a continuing administration effort to rebuild the eroding public support for the war by having the president speak regularly to specific elements of the war strategy.

Bush, who spoke on the White House South Lawn after returning from a weekend at Camp David, said that he is encouraged by Iraq's continuing steps toward democracy, and that he is urging Iraqi leaders "to work hard to get this government up and running." Bush said he spoke by phone yesterday to Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, who he said remains encouraged by the political progress being made in Iraq.

Sectarian violence intensified after last month's bombing of the Golden Mosque, a revered Shiite religious site in Samarra. Hundreds of Iraqis have been killed in brutal attacks, counterattacks and kidnappings since the mosque bombing.

Although a growing majority of Americans have come to believe that the U.S. invasion was an error and that the nation is headed toward civil war, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the U.S. military commander in Iraq, brushed aside the idea on "Fox News Sunday." "I personally don't believe one, that we're there now; two, that civil war is imminent; and three, that it is inevitable and it will happen," he said.

Meanwhile, Cheney said that Iraq is progressing toward establishing a functioning democracy. He pointed out that Iraq has gone from the brutal rule of Hussein to negotiations to form a government in three years. In addition, he said, the United States is making substantial progress in training Iraqi security forces, who he said are leading about half the missions in Iraq.

Cheney also dismissed a statement by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), who said the war in Iraq should never have been fought: "I would not look to Ted Kennedy for guidance and leadership on how we ought to manage national security. . . . I think what Senator Kennedy reflects is sort of the pre-9/11 mentality about how we ought to deal with the world and that part of the world."

As usual the Washington Post, as well as most of the rest of the MSM, is myopic in viewing the current polls.

The latest Fox News Opinion Dynamics Poll demonstrates why historic perspective is so important, and why Democrats and Liberals don't want Americans to remember history. While the President's approval numbers are quite low (39%), Congress' numbers are even lower (29%). Even more interesting are the results pertaining to how Americans perceive the world post Saddam, and the hisorical poll numbers to the same questions in January of 2005.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The Iraqi people are better off today because of the military action taken in Iraq by the U.S.-led coalition. Is that strongly or just somewhat (agree/disagree)?

SCALE: 1. Strongly agree 2. Somewhat agree 3. Somewhat disagree
4. Strongly disagree 5. (Don’t know)

On March 14-15 of this year, 59% of Americans either strongly agreed (39%) or agreed (20%). While this is down from July of last year (64%, 43%, 21%, respectively), in January of 2005 the numbers were virtually identical at (59%, 40%, 19%, respectively). Very Interesting.

On another question: Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The United States and the world are safer today without Saddam Hussein in power. Is that strongly or just somewhat (agree/disagree)?

The results have barely wavered over the past 2 years with 74% in agreement (56% strongly agree, 18% agree). Even the number of those who are willing to state that they strongly agree have not been at a higher level since February of 2004.

The American citizens may have differences and doubts about the President and Congress, they may disagree on who should be in charge, but they overwhelmingly agree that what has been done in Iraq is good for us and good for the world.

As for Chuck Hagel, he is an opportunistic coward, his medals not withstanding, who believes that his political career and his presidential ambitions will be better served by pandering to the press and the RINO (Republican in name only) faction. The very idea that we should tell our enemies in Iraq that they don't need to worry, we'll be leaving shortly, should frighten the American people to no end. For us to essentially throw our hands up in defeat would be to invite no end of terrorist attacks. Clearly Hagel is not qualified to be Commander in Chief.

That Dick Cheney took issue with Ted "the Lady Killer" Kennedy should surprise no one. Why would anyone look to a man who fled the scene of an accident in panic to lead us in a time of crisis. Ted "the Lady Killer" has as much credibility in securing America as Alger Hiss (or Pat "Leaky" Leahy) does in keeping our national secrets.

Full Story: No Time To Throw In the Towel

What do you think?

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

Is This A Religion Worth Americans Dying For?

Man faces death over Christianity

By Sayed Salahuddin in Kabul
Herald Sun
19mar06

A MAN detained by police for converting from Islam to Christianity could face the death penalty if he refused to become a Muslim again, an Afghani judge said today.

Islamic sharia law proposes the death sentence for Muslims who abandon the religion. Afghanistan's new constitution says "no law can be contrary to the sacred religion of Islam".
Supreme Court judge Ansarullah Mawlavizada said the suspect, Abdur Rahman, was arrested after members of his family informed police of his conversion.

He would be charged with abandoning Islam, Mr Mawlavizada said.

"The prosecutor says he should be executed on the basis of the constitution," Mr Mawlavizada said, who added that Mr Rahman could come back to Islam.

"If he does not ... he will be punished," he said.

It is news such as this which makes it very difficult for me to accept Islam as "the Religion of Peace." From what I have observed so far, Islam is a bigoted, homicidal religion bent on world domination. Wherever Islam in it fundamentalist form arises, there is no acceptance and little tolerance for Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, or any other form of worship other than radical Islam.

Perhaps it is time for the Western world to re-evaluate our assessment of Islam. We have seen a plethora of examples of its intolerance to criticism in the riot-riddled response to the Danish press' publication of a few cartoons about Islam. We have seen the general level of intolerance aimed at Israel, by the surrounding Islamist states.

Today in Saudi Arabia (our so-called ally) there is zero tolerance of any discussions about Christianity, and even carrying a copy of the Bible into Saudi Arabia can be an exceptionally dangerous and frightening experience.

Why should we in the West open our arms to a faith which preaches hatred and intolerance rather than the love and acceptance which Christ taught. Christ admonished us to "turn the other cheek" if someone struck us, Mohammed would put them to death.

"Convert or die" may sound like a nifty choice to the Arabs, but I don't think it'll fly around these parts. Christians believe in everyone's freedom to choose their own path, even if that path leads to their eventual damnation.

I choose freedom, not subjegation.

Full Story: Afghanistan's Convert Or Die Decision

What do you think?

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

A Doubtful Quest for Senator Mary

Budget Vote Revives Bid for Arctic Oil Drilling

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 18, 2006; Page A05

A last-minute deal to secure the vote of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) on a $2.8 trillion budget plan has given new life to the Republican drive to open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

The budget blueprint for fiscal 2007, which will begin in October, includes a $10 billion Gulf Coast restoration fund that would be financed from the leasing of arctic refuge drilling rights, revenue from new drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf of the Gulf of Mexico and further sales of the broadcast spectrum. With that provision in hand, Landrieu cast the only Democratic vote for the budget resolution, which squeaked through Thursday night, 51 to 49.

"It's not easy being alone on anything. I don't relish this position," Landrieu said. "But, at times, it's necessary."

Republicans, who have been trying to open up the refuge for well over a decade, hope that by explicitly linking oil drilling to Gulf Coast restoration, they can prompt some Democrats to drop their opposition. Under the Senate plan, the funds from oil leases could be used for coastal restoration projects in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama that have long been sought by environmentalists. The fund could also be tapped to rebuild levees damaged last year by hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

But it is not clear whether the political equation has shifted at all since December, when moderate Republicans -- led by Rep. Charles Bass (R-N.H.) -- forced their leaders to take arctic drilling out of a 2006 budget-cutting measure to secure their votes. Bass has warned House budget writers that nothing has changed.

"We are all aware of last year's effort and outcome, and I don't see any reason why this year would be different," Bass told the House Budget Committee last m