Monday, July 18, 2005

What's in the news?

Just gonna run through the news this morning. (All stories from the Washington TImes)

In Israel Ariel Sharon is ready to take military action against Palestinian militants in retaliation for bombing Jewish settlements. Of course the hoity toity politicians will whine about "breaking the peace". I for one am glad to see that Israel won't be bullied. And it amazes me that there is so very little pressure on the Palestinian leadership to reign in their people. Until that happens what's the point in making demands of Israel? It's no secret that a lots of Palestinian people and leaders think that peace=no Israel. But no.....Islam is a relgion of peace.....

From the can we please move along department comes more news on the Valerie Plame "leak"
Time magazine correspondent Matt Cooper yesterday named a second Bush administration official as a source for stories that identified Valerie Plame as an agent of the CIA, although he conceded that neither source mentioned her by name or said she had been a "cover agent."
In a first-person article in this week's editions of the magazine, Mr. Cooper writes that he told a federal grand jury investigating the leak that he asked Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, whether the vice president played any role in arranging Joseph C. Wilson IV's trip to Niger, as Mr. Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador to Gabon and then to Sao Tome and Principe, had suggested in an op-ed essay in the New York Times.
"On background, I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger. Libby replied, 'Yeah, I've heard that too,' or words to that effect," Mr. Cooper writes. The magazine is available on newsstands today.
All together now.....YAWN. So they found another guy who had "heard that too" news flash...not a crime. It's clear that the Bush administration was not trying to out a spy in retaliation for anything. The two "sources" didn't even know the covert agent's name. The agent in question was not in any danger at all, in fact her neighbors were aware of who she worked for. This is such an old non-story that the established media's vendetta against the administration is becoming embarassingly obvious. Is this another brilliant tactical move by Karl Rove? I don't know, but the backlash on the Democrats could be considerable. Their leadership has all come out with screedy calls for Karl Rove to resign, and Harry Reid even proposed legislation to that effect. When everything is said and done this might look like as much of a witch hunt as the Rathergate scandal.

Shame on you Dick Durbin. Today a report is out that fails to substantiate claims made in a letter that Minority Whip Dick Durbin read on the senate floor before comparing Gitmo to Stalin's gulags, Nazi death camps, Pol Pot, or Japanese internment.
Military investigators did not substantiate major charges of prisoner abuse contained in one FBI agent's e-mail that was read on the Senate floor by Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin as an example of U.S.-sanctioned torture at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The unnamed FBI agent wrote that she saw one al Qaeda suspect lying in his own excrement, that he had pulled out his own hair and that he had no food and water. The female agent also said he was shackled to the floor and subjected to loud rock music and to extreme temperatures.
Mr. Durbin, of Illinois and the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, read the e-mail June 14 in a speech attacking the Bush administration. He then likened Guantanamo interrogation techniques to the Nazis, Josef Stalin's prisoner gulag, Pol Pot and the internment of Japanese during World War II. He later issued an apology on the Senate floor.
Irresponsible does not even begin to describe his outrageous behavior. Actually though I am almost glad he said it. Now his blame America first inclinations are our in the open for all to see. And he can't hide behind the "I support the troops" or "don't question my patriotism" nonsense since in the most unpatriotic way ever accused our troops of unproven atrocities. Now why doesn't someone ask him why he made these comparisons? Was it because you were trying to nail something to the President? Were you concerned for our "national image"? Don't let him get away with some cop out "I was misunderstood" appology. Wait, nevermind, that would only happen if he was a Republican.

From the department of blatant predictability. It seems that last week when President Bush met with senate Democrats about the judicial nomination process the Democrats actually took a list of "acceptable" judges in with them. All three judges were hispanic and none of them were conservative. So now the democratic strategy becomes obvious to everyone who is paying attention. The dems in the senate will claim that they were not consulted, or were consulted and then ignored when Bush sends up his nomination. There for they will act surprised that Bush nominated such an extremist to the high court and they have no choice but to fillibuster.
Democrats are floating candidates who they consider acceptable Supreme Court nominees primarily to ensure that they can complain later about not "really" being consulted by President Bush when none are selected, according to conservatives.
They say the three Hispanic judges who Democratic leaders offered Mr. Bush in a private meeting earlier this week to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor are all non-starters.
"It's a cynical tactic intended to set themselves up so that when the president nominates someone they haven't mentioned, they can jump up and down and scream about how they weren't really consulted," said Manuel Miranda, chairman of the Third Branch Conference, which is lobbying to put conservative nominees on the bench.
This whole business of the Democrats wanting to be consulted in the process to preserve "minority rights" is just bogus. If they wanted to be consulted and have their opinions taken in to consideration then they should have to gain the respect of the administration. Just like if you want your own boss to listen to what you say, you have to earn his trust. When Clinton was nominating his judges he consulted Orrin Hatch and they had conversations about who the Republicans did and didn't like. However Hatch had Clinton's respect because he had proven that he could work with the Democrats, who were the majority party, in a non polarizing manner. From today's Democrats we have only seen obstructionism and vitriolic rants against anything the President does or says. Bush would be well within his right to nominate someone and if the Dems throw a fit just say "that's how I know made a good nomination". Of course that won't happen, I can't make any predictions as to how it will come out. There are too many variables, will the Bush nominate someone conservative enough for the Dems to fillibuster, will the Dems fillibuster at all regardless, will the notorious "Gang of 14" honor their pact not to fillibuster or exercise the nuclear option? We'll see.

Finally the good news from Iraq report from Chrenkoff is up. And we can use it too, the insurgent terrorists killed over 170 people just last week, using suicide bombers.