Owen Confirmed

Yahoo News Alert:

WASHINGTON (AP) The Senate on Wednesday confirmed Priscilla Owen as a federal appellate judge, ending a four-year standoff over one of President Bush's earliest nominees.

I thought she was out of the mainstream and a radical extremist???

New Addition to the BlogRoll

Tough Talk with Col. David Hunt looks like it's going to be a daily stop for me...and it looks good enough for me to recommend to you as well... From the Colonel's bio:

Colonel David Hunt brings over 29 years of military experience including extensive operational experience in Special Operations, Counter Terrorism and Intelligence Operations.

Most recently, Colonel Hunt served as Tactical Advisor in Bosnia where he facilitated all national intelligence matters for the Commander in Chief. Prior to this, he served as counter terrorism coordinator to the Summer Olympic Games in Seoul, Korea. In this capacity, Colonel Hunt planned, choreographed and implemented the first United States national response for an Olympic event in Korea in conjunction with Korean National Intelligence and the Korean Crisis Response Agency.

He has served as a security advisor for the Federal Bureau of Investigation as well as state and local police officials.

A graduate of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, Colonel Hunt holds a Master's degree in English from Norwich University.

He is a New York Times Best Selling Author of the book, "They Just Don't Get It--How Washington Is Still Compromising Your Safety--and What You Can Do About It."

And you may have seen him a few times on FOX News...

McInerney Strikes Back at Foley

Previously on WMD, I discussed the Eason-like statements of Union head Linda Foley and how she trumpeted journalists being targetted, without evidence, and also a number of other black helicopter theories...Here is an update:
Well, Gen. Thomas McInerney of Fox News strikes back: (emphasis by me)

Retired Air Force General Thomas McInerney, a Fox News military consultant, was "frankly astonished."

"It may be legitimate to investigate whether there may or may not have been an incident in which U.S. troops have targeted journalists, but there is no question at this point that major media figures are targeting the men and women of the United States military in Iraq, repeatedly and with no evidence," he said.

Not to mention using our honored dead not to lift up their service, but to embarrass the Bush Administration (see--Ted Koppel on Nightline as well as CBS News)

Also in this article, one of Foley's friends and fellow journalism leader, Richard Roth, says, in regards to her statement-'huh?':

Richard J. Roth, an old friend of Foley's, is senior associate dean at Northwestern University's journalism school, where Foley is on the board of advisers. Roth said that her statement is "a real puzzler."

"It's beyond my ken that citizen soldiers, my brothers and others in uniform, would target journalists, men and women armed with little more than a pencil. Could it be true? Well, I suppose it could be, but it doesn't square with the rest of what I read."

Ouch....even your buddies are saying you are nuts, Linda....do us a favor and resign...

Slowly, But Surely...

...I am coming around to the position that Ramesh Ponnuru and a few other Cornerites have been stating:

ED GILLESPIE ON THE DEAL [Ramesh Ponnuru]

Here's the take of the former RNC chairman, now a lobbyist who's been working for the National Republican Senatorial Committee on the issue: "I think the deal’s fine. It’s a deal that gets our judges an up-or-down vote. I would rather have had the vote today on the constitutional option and be done with it." He notes that DeWine and Graham both say that they are willing to change the rules if necessary in the future: "I’m glad they’ve been clear that they just holstered their weapons, they haven’t surrendered them.”

"I think the Democrats have made clear that philosophical disagreement does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance. I think the question is what did Reid get?”

Whichever party "won" from the deal, it's pretty clear that the Republicans have lost the spin war over it. But ultimately that may not matter all that much.

Was this deal a Rovian conspiracy after all?

Sure, we're losing the media spin battle, but who expected a victory there? I sure didn't. Constitutional Option or not, the media was going to flame the GOP no matter what...

DeWine and Graham haven't given away the Option, as Ramesh points out.

I'm going to have to think on this one some more...I smell an MVCA column out of this...

Mark's Remarks

I could not disagree more with Ed Gillespie. We have surrendered our weapons. Think about it....If the Dims decide to fillibuster again, and we say, hey now, we will change the rules--they will invoke the "extraordinary circumstances" caveat in the deal (which is undefined). The media will then say Republicans are reneging. And the spin will continue to go downhill.

Either we stand for principles or we don't. If we don't stand for principles and the doctrine of Constitutionalism, then let's just appoint any token liberal to the bench and who cares what happens.

Freedom of Speech

...means that sometimes we have to let people we don't like to have their say even if we don't like it.

As a followup to this bit that Mark posted on, I point out another Republican airhead who hasn't read the Constitution. (HT to Gut Rumbles - with whom I agree completely on this issue - via the puppy blender)

Peace is Hopeless if Palestinian Aim is Total Victory

I found very little to argue with in this editorial by Barry Rubin in the Daily Star. Here is the key paragraph:

Many observers, drawing analogies from other issues without properly examining the specifics of the Arab-Israel case, conclude that it is a normal conflict and, consequently, can be easily settled if only the right formula is found. In fact, though, for much of the Palestinian side the question has remained one of total victory, in which only Israel's extinction and replacement by a Palestinian Arab, and perhaps Islamic, state extending between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea is the acceptable solution.

He goes on to say that not all Palestinians think this way, but that enough of them do that peace is not really something that one should expect in the region.

I wonder if the same concept should be applied to the rest of the War on Islamofascism. Quite frankly, you can't negotiate peace with someone who wants to behead you...

The Liberia and al Qaeda Connection

Voice of America reports:

Officials of the U.N. appointed Sierra Leone war crimes tribunal say exiled former Liberian leader is deeply involved with al Qaeda, and believes West Africa can be turned into another Afghanistan.

Briefing a closed session of the Security Council Tuesday, chief court investigator Alan White said he had turned up evidence of Mr. Taylor's active involvement in several efforts to create turmoil in the region, including last January's attempt to assassinate Guinean President Lansana Conte.

"In November, we started learning about a plot that Charles Taylor and others in the region were trying to engage in destabilizing the region. In particular Guinea… We reported it in November, and we reported it in December in January it went down exactly the way our sources had reported it was going to occur, and that is on January 19th the assassination attempt on president Conte," he said.

Mr. White said those sources have advised him that another attempt on President Conte's life is being planned.

Question: Are we looking for OBL on the right continent???

Taylor is yet another one of those dictators that needed the Saddam treatment long before he got it... Is he still a player for al Qaeda? Who knows, but it seems clear that the groundwork for operations in Africa was laid under his watch and with his supervision.

11:00AM Update

I cross-posted this over at The Jawa Report and it illicited an interesting comment from one of the regulars...

Their M.O. is revealed time and time again with every area of the world they try to take over and impose sharia law on. Ignorance is the key. Get 'em while they don't know any better, where the illiteracy rate is high and the government is shaky, take over by force and then move in and start the indoctrination process to create armies for Allah. They're like the Borg.

True enough. Their perspective does seem to be "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated." ...or beheaded...whichever comes first.

Backlash

NRO's K-Lo:

OHIO REPUBLICANS [K. J. Lopez]
From the Hotline:

May 24, 2005 - The Cincinnati Enquirer (5/24, Wilkinson) reports, "Today, congressional candidate Pat DeWine will become the second Republican to hit the TV airwaves, with a 30-second spot in which he ties himself to two formidable Republican names -- Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The ad, which will start airing on all Cincinnati broadcast TV stations, also points to the now-Hamilton County commissioner's record on Cincinnati City Council, where he successfully led an effort to roll back the city's portion of the property tax." The ad "describes DeWine as a 'Ronald Reagan conservative' who will go to Congress and vote to 'make the Bush tax cuts permanent.'" Republican candidate Jean Schmidt "beat DeWine to the airwaves by about a week, spending $30,000 for a TV ad that is no longer being shown on broadcast stations but is still on cable."

Republicans don't need another DeWine right now, thank you. You all have another Voinovich up your sleeve too?

And this is pretty much why I haven't really gotten behind him as a candidate.

Of course, the only real alternative, Bob McEwen has his own problems...he was one of those caught up in the House check kiting scandal when he was in the first time...

Embedded Journalism Attacked

Check out this press release:

Reporters embedded with the military run the risk of losing their objectivity. That's the view of Fred Brock, a former New York Times editor and reporter, now a Kansas State University journalism professor.

"I think (losing objectiveness) is a danger," said Brock, the R.M. Seaton Professional Journalism Chair at K-State's A.Q. Miller School of Journalism and Mass Communications. "You are dressing with them, you are eating with them, so it's human nature to become very defensive of the group. It's not a good spot for a reporter to be in. I wouldn't want to say they lose objectivity, but they run the risk of it happening. It's hard to spend so much time with a group, then turn around and write bad stuff about them."

Brock recently led a group of K-State journalism students as they were transformed into embedded reporters in a simulated battle exercise through the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth.

"Despite 40 years in the news business, I have never been an embedded reporter," Brock said. "My only experience with embedded reporting was with the students in the war games at Fort Leavenworth. However, I think people would like to hear someone with broad experience in the press comment on this."

You see, the journalism establishment wants to control the "story" so getting it from actual field work is bad. The establishment would rather journalists stay embedded in the newsrooms...

Brock said he is skeptical of the process of embedded journalism as a whole.

"I might stress that in the long run, this could be bad for the military," he said. "There needs to be checks and balances, tension if you will, in our system of government. That tension is important between reporters and the military, and I think that could get lost with this.

"I just want people to start thinking about these issues," he said. "Americans are sometimes not very good at long-term thinking. They tend to think about what's good in the short term. The present notion is that it works now. But is it good for the long run?"

Yes, it is good for the long term. The American media's story of Iraq changed DRAMATICALLY once the embedded reporters left...and it wasn't an improvement.

Mark's Remarks

I love the part about "losing objectivity". This is a classic cop-out. What he really means is that reporters will ACTUALLY SEE the good being done, AND WILL ACTUALLY SEE the truth that the vast majority of our military are not Lyndie Englands; and MAY EVEN ACTUALLY REPORT THAT. Egads! A story based on direct testimony and eyewitness accounts! In the MSM?!? With like evidence of a first person nature? God Forbid!

And listen to this delusional rant:

There needs to be checks and balances, tension if you will, in our system of government. That tension is important between reporters and the military, and I think that could get lost with this.

When has the media been part of the government? Or is he revealing the hidden truth--that the media have been puppets of the Lefties in government? Just asking....

Terrorists: Zarqawi Injured; Wants Muslim Prayers

From the SITE Institute:

A statement issued today, May 24, 2005, by al-Qaeda in Iraq requests prayers for the injured Sheikh Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and promotes encouragement amongst the group’s members.

The message does not provide details of where Zarqawi was struck; only stating that it was “from an injury he suffered for the sake of Allah.” From this affliction, al-Qaeda in Iraq is must derive “honor and causes us to surround our enemy tighter and is an encouragement for us to increase the intensity of attacks upon them (our enemy).”

The statement provides a seeming elegy for Zarqawi, expounding on what he has done for the Iraqi insurgency in that he “taught us that our faith of Tawhid is a priceless thing, and we must sacrifice for [our belief]. Our Sheikh established a generation, and brought it up in the faith of Ibrahim. He taught us to despise the devil, and to believe in Allah….” Al-Qaeda in Iraq concludes with a prayer to Allah to heal Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

I'm more interested in hearing them let us know that this bastard is dead...

Update

Seems Mark beat me to the punch on this one...how rare is that!??? :)

Owen Cleared for Confirmation Vote

Yahoo News Alert:

WASHINGTON (AP) The Senate has voted to end debate on judgeship candidate Priscilla Owen, clearing the Texan for likely confirmation and culminating a wrenching fight over Democratic efforts to block some of President Bush's nominees.

This would have happened anyway...

Zarqawi Wounded, Urges Prayers?

Take this with a grain of salt....How many times have we heard the same about UBL, etc.? Could be more smoke and mirrors...However, I hope it is true.

Update: Interesting Analysis from TerrorismUnveiled

Kerry Signs SF-180 FORM--SO WHAT?!?

Read the entire gist from Michelle Malkin to understand why this really won't answer any questions, and be sure to check out her links as well.

Traitorous? Nope, Just Stupid and Insensitive

Bill Maher is at it again....Yep, that same liberal who praised terrorists' courage in hitting the WTC and Pentagon has stepped in it again.

``More people joined the Michael Jackson fan club,'' Maher said. ``We've done picked all the low-lying Lynndie England fruit, and now we need warm bodies.''

Army Reserve Pfc. England was accused of abusing prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

So, a member of Congress raises awareness of Maher's remark on the HBO echo chamber "Real Time with Bill Maher." The fit begins to hit the shan...then Bill Maher, with typical liberal hypocrisy and arrogance and mock offense, issues this statement:

``Anyone who knows anything about my views and has watched my show knows that I have nothing but the highest regard for the men and women serving this country around the world,'' Maher said in the statement.

Is that why you said they were the bottom fruit, Bill? Is that why you compared them all to Lynndie England? Is that why you consistently malign and ridicule their mission in Iraq? is that why you continue to have people like Sullivan and others on the show who think abuse is typical?

I disagree with Congressman Bacchus. Keep this clown on the air. Showcase him. Showcase the bile and hatred of modern liberalism. Maybe more and more Americans who lean left will take the example of this writer from the San Francisco Chronicle:(emphasis added by me)

Leaving the left
I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives -- people who once championed solidarity
I'm leaving the left -- more precisely, the American cultural left and what it has become during our time together.

I choose this day for my departure because I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives -- people who once championed solidarity with oppressed populations everywhere -- reciting all the ways Iraq's democratic experiment might yet implode.
My estrangement hasn't happened overnight. Out of the corner of my eye I watched what was coming for more than three decades, yet refused to truly see. Now it's all too obvious. Leading voices in America's "peace" movement are actually cheering against self-determination for a long-suffering Third World country because they hate George W. Bush more than they love freedom.
Like many others who came of age politically in the 1960s, I became adept at not taking the measure of the left's mounting incoherence. To face it directly posed the danger that I would have to describe it accurately, first to myself and then to others. That could only give aid and comfort to Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and all the other Usual Suspects the left so regularly employs to keep from seeing its own reflection in the mirror.
Now, I find myself in a swirling metamorphosis. Think Kafka, without the bug. Think Kuhnian paradigm shift, without the buzz. Every anomaly that didn't fit my perceptual set is suddenly back, all the more glaring for so long ignored. The insistent inner voice I learned to suppress now has my rapt attention. "Something strange -- something approaching pathological -- something entirely of its own making -- has the left in its grip," the voice whispers. "How did this happen?" The Iraqi election is my tipping point. The time has come to walk in a different direction -- just as I did many years before.

I grew up in a northwest Ohio town where conservative was a polite term for reactionary. When Martin Luther King Jr. spoke of Mississippi "sweltering in the heat of oppression," he could have been describing my community, where blacks knew to keep their heads down, and animosity toward Catholics and Jews was unapologetic. Liberal and conservative, like left and right, wouldn't be part of my lexicon for a while, but when King proclaimed, "I have a dream," I instinctively cast my lot with those I later found out were liberals (then synonymous with "the left" and "progressive thought").
The people on the other side were dedicated to preserving my hometown's backward-looking status quo. This was all that my 10-year-old psyche needed to know. The knowledge carried me for a long time. Mythologies are helpful that way.

I began my activist career championing the 1968 presidential candidacies of Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy, because both promised to end America's misadventure in Vietnam. I marched for peace and farm worker justice, lobbied for women's right to choose and environmental protections, signed up with George McGovern in 1972 and got elected as the youngest delegate ever to a Democratic convention.

Eventually I joined the staff of U.S. Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, D-Ohio. In short, I became a card-carrying liberal, although I never actually got a card. (Bookkeeping has never been the left's strong suit.) All my commitments centered on belief in equal opportunity, due process, respect for the dignity of the individual and solidarity with people in trouble. To my mind, Americans who had joined the resistance to Franco's fascist dystopia captured the progressive spirit at its finest.
A turning point came at a dinner party on the day Ronald Reagan famously described the Soviet Union as the pre-eminent source of evil in the modern world. The general tenor of the evening was that Reagan's use of the word "evil" had moved the world closer to annihilation. There was a palpable sense that we might not make it to dessert.

When I casually offered that the surviving relatives of the more than 20 million people murdered on orders of Joseph Stalin might not find "evil'" too strong a word, the room took on a collective bemused smile of the sort you might expect if someone had casually mentioned taking up child molestation for sport.

My progressive companions had a point. It was rude to bring a word like "gulag" to the dinner table.
I look back on that experience as the beginning of my departure from a left already well on its way to losing its bearings. Two decades later, I watched with astonishment as leading left intellectuals launched a telethon- like body count of civilian deaths caused by American soldiers in Afghanistan. Their premise was straightforward, almost giddily so: When the number of civilian Afghani deaths surpassed the carnage of Sept. 11, the war would be unjust, irrespective of other considerations.
Stated simply: The force wielded by democracies in self-defense was declared morally equivalent to the nihilistic aggression perpetuated by Muslim fanatics.

Susan Sontag cleared her throat for the "courage" of the al Qaeda pilots. Norman Mailer pronounced the dead of Sept. 11 comparable to "automobile statistics." The events of that day were likely premeditated by the White House, Gore Vidal insinuated. Noam Chomsky insisted that al Qaeda at its most atrocious generated no terror greater than American foreign policy on a mediocre day.
All of this came back to me as I watched the left's anemic, smirking response to Iraq's election in January. Didn't many of these same people stand up in the sixties for self-rule for oppressed people and against fascism in any guise? Yes, and to their lasting credit. But many had since made clear that they had also changed their minds about the virtues of King's call for equal of opportunity.
These days the postmodern left demands that government and private institutions guarantee equality of outcomes. Any racial or gender "disparities" are to be considered evidence of culpable bias, regardless of factors such as personal motivation, training, and skill. This goal is neither liberal nor progressive; but it is what the left has chosen. In a very real sense it may be the last card held by a movement increasingly ensnared in resentful questing for group-specific rights and the subordination of citizenship to group identity. There's a word for this: pathetic.
I smile when friends tell me I've "moved right." I laugh out loud at what now passes for progressive on the main lines of the cultural left.

In the name of "diversity," the University of Arizona has forbidden discrimination based on "individual style." The University of Connecticut has banned "inappropriately directed laughter." Brown University, sensing unacceptable gray areas, warns that harassment "may be intentional or unintentional and still constitute harassment." (Yes, we're talking "subconscious harassment" here. We're watching your thoughts ...).

Wait, it gets better. When actor Bill Cosby called on black parents to explain to their kids why they are not likely to get into medical school speaking English like "Why you ain't" and "Where you is," Jesse Jackson countered that the time was not yet right to "level the playing field." Why not? Because "drunk people can't do that ... illiterate people can't do that."

When self-styled pragmatic feminist Camille Paglia mocked young coeds who believe "I should be able to get drunk at a fraternity party and go upstairs to a guy's room without anything happening," Susan Estrich spoke up for gender- focused feminists who "would argue that so long as women are powerless relative to men, viewing 'yes' as a sign of true consent is misguided."

I'll admit my politics have shifted in recent years, as have America's political landscape and cultural horizon. Who would have guessed that the U.S. senator with today's best voting record on human rights would be not Ted Kennedy or Barbara Boxer but Kansas Republican Sam Brownback?

He is also by most measures one of the most conservative senators. Brownback speaks openly about how his horror at the genocide in the Sudan is shaped by his Christian faith, as King did when he insisted on justice for "all of God's children."

My larger point is rather simple. Just as a body needs different medicines at different times for different reasons, this also holds for the body politic.

In the sixties, America correctly focused on bringing down walls that prevented equal access and due process. It was time to walk the Founders' talk -- and we did. With barriers to opportunity no longer written into law, today the body politic is crying for different remedies.

America must now focus on creating healthy, self-actualizing individuals committed to taking responsibility for their lives, developing their talents, honing their skills and intellects, fostering emotional and moral intelligence, all in all contributing to the advancement of the human condition.
At the heart of authentic liberalism lies the recognition, in the words of John Gardner, "that the ever renewing society will be a free society (whose] capacity for renewal depends on the individuals who make it up." A continuously renewing society, Gardner believed, is one that seeks to "foster innovative, versatile, and self-renewing men and women and give them room to breathe."

One aspect of my politics hasn't changed a bit. I became a liberal in the first place to break from the repressive group orthodoxies of my reactionary hometown.

This past January, my liberalism was in full throttle when I bid the cultural left goodbye to escape a new version of that oppressiveness. I departed with new clarity about the brilliance of liberal democracy and the value system it entails; the quest for freedom as an intrinsically human affair; and the dangers of demands for conformity and adherence to any point of view through silence, fear, or coercion.
True, it took a while to see what was right before my eyes. A certain misplaced loyalty kept me from grasping that a view of individuals as morally capable of and responsible for making the principle decisions that shape their lives is decisively at odds with the contemporary left's entrance-level view of people as passive and helpless victims of powerful external forces, hence political wards who require the continuous shepherding of caretaker elites.
Leftists who no longer speak of the duties of citizens, but only of the rights of clients, cannot be expected to grasp the importance (not least to our survival) of fostering in the Middle East the crucial developmental advances that gave rise to our own capacity for pluralism, self-reflection, and equality. A left averse to making common cause with competent, self- determining individuals -- people who guide their lives on the basis of received values, everyday moral understandings, traditional wisdom, and plain common sense -- is a faction that deserves the marginalization it has pursued with such tenacity for so many years.

All of which is why I have come to believe, and gladly join with others who have discovered for themselves, that the single most important thing a genuinely liberal person can do now is walk away from the house the left has built. The renewal of any tradition that deserves the name "progressive" becomes more likely with each step in a better direction.

Also, check out his interview with Rush Limbaugh, here.

NOON UPDATE

If this is the lower level fruit, Mr. Maher, then you are nothing more than disposed of fertilizer. Mr. Maher, if this person is the lowest level fruit, this nation should be so lucky.

Traitors to the Constitution

John McCain, Snowe, Chaffee, Graham, DeWine, among others--you are found guilty of betraying the intent of the Founders in the writing of the Constitution, betraying the American electorate to whom you promised to get judges confirmed, and you have betrayed the trust of your President. And for what? 3 judges? Invites to all the cool DC intellectual parties you weren't allowed to enter? Props from Lefties?

To John McCain--sir, you were courageous in Vietnam, an inspiration. However, your performance as a Republican and a Senator are disgraceful. It is one thing to oppose things on conscience, it is another to bow to the power of pure ego. If you honestly think you can run for President now, you better quit hitting whatever bong you've been toking.

To Snow and Chaffee--have fun winning re-election. Remember, we are the elephant, we NEVER forget....Traitorous dogs!

Graham--your speech invoking "our troops dying" was disgraceful and pandering. Your attempts at grandstanding to get your vile name into the talk for 08 are ludicrous. Blocking a fine Arab American and another for political hate is NOT what our troops are dying for. You should be ashamed of yourself, and I hope you are voted out real soon.

To Mike DeWine--Gee, Mikey, waffling again, eh? Figured you could show some "maverick" stones after Voinovich did his Bolton thing, eh? Well, Mikey, you may have doomed not only your own reelection hopes, but also the election hopes of your son, Pat....How does it feel to be a traitor? How does it feel to plunge the knife?

And, lastly, to Sen. Frist and Sen. Hagel--ANY chance of winning the 08 Prez nomination just went through the crapper. Hagel, you are a spineless waffler who added to Republican misunderstanding and fears about the vote. Frist, you showed you do not have the ability to get solid trustworthy support from members of your own party, so how can we expect you to be leader of the free world?


Somewhere, HillRod is making her own choices for the china in the White House in 08....Thanks, McCain, you ***clown....

Matt's Chat

12:00PM - "Traitors to the Constitution" may be a bit over the top rhetoric, but Republicans who overwhelmingly came out for President Bush have every right to feel betrayed.

Mark's argument about the Constitution is a valid one...nowhere in the Constitution do you see anything that resembles a Founding Father okie-day to the filibustering of judicial nominees. In fact, you can't find filibusters in the Constitution at all. The few instances wherein a supermajority was intended are all spelled out and the confirmation of judicial nominees isn't one of them. That Democrats continue to get away with this is a direct result of the liberal infiltration of our educational system which has destroyed our history books in favor of political correctness and liberal ideology.

I've seen mixed reactions from the conservative blogosphere about this compromise. Most think it is a win for the Democrats, but there are a few who don't think this deal is all that bad. I think this compromise did nothing but delay the inevitible...but the timing has been put off until we need a Supreme Court nominee and the most deliberative body in the world's "maverick caucus" can get some moree press. Better to get it out of the way now.

12:40PM UPDATE - The solution: recess appointments.

Moderates

Since when is Robert "KKK" Byrd a "moderate"???

He hasn't been moderate about ANYTHING in his life...

Religion of Peace Update

Moderate Muslims don't seem all that interested in defending the Religion of Peace as a religion of peace and attack those who do.

From the Washington Times:

Though met by modest crowds, the recent first-ever Free Muslims March Against Terrorism could be considered a success in one key respect: It further exposed the unwillingness of most major Muslim groups to condemn the radicals that have come to dominate their religion.

It also further cemented the growing reputation of organizer Kamal Nawash, head of the Free Muslims Coalition (FMC), as one of the only genuine moderate leaders of a national Islamic organization.

While I don't expect every Muslim to go to rallies like this one, it would be nice to hear condemnation of terrorist attacks whenever and wherever they happen. At worst, it would be seen as a good public relations move; at best, such action would deter further attacks.

Do I expect it to happen? Not with these people calling the shots for the Religion of Peace...

Groups like Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) have a track record of condemning — but only targets like the Fox television show "24," which they blasted earlier this year for having terrorists who were Muslims.

Never mind that CAIR officials have refused to condemn Hamas and Hezbollah when asked to do so by The Washington Post and others, describing questions about the terrorist groups as a "game." And MPAC maintains, for example, that the Hezbollah murder of 241 Americans in Lebanon in 1983 was not a terrorist attack.

These people don't understand the problem they face...but do they really want peace? I don't think so...

Although not shy about badmouthing Mr. Nawash and FMC, CAIR and MPAC largely stayed silent regarding the rally. But CAIR was careful to refer people seeking comment about the rally to Hussein Ibish, former communications director at the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), who used to work in the same office as Mr. Nawash years ago.

Mr. Ibish has been on a tear of late, writing two rambling smear pieces on his former co-worker. In one, he labeled Mr. Nawash "unsavory" and called his efforts to condemn radical Islam in the same breath as terrorism "appalling." This is a marked contrast to how he responds to fellow Muslims who call for "jihad" and "Death to America."

Appearing on CNN in August 2002, Mr. Ibish was asked about a 1991 fund-raising letter from suspected (and indicted) terrorist Sami al-Arian that read, in part, "Jihad is our path! Victory to Islam! Death to Israel and victory to Islam! Revolution, revolution until victory! Rolling, rolling to Jerusalem!"

His response? " 'Death to Israel' does not necessarily mean violence. Jihad can mean a lot of things," he explained. Without explanation, Mr. Ibish abruptly — and bizarrely — switched the topic. "I'll tell you who is advocating violence. It is Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, who advocated torturing people."

These are the kinds of people that are their spokesmen. And the message isn't one of peace, no matter how you define it.

[The Muslim-American Society (MAS)] is the most ardent advocate of the United States forging closer ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, the worldwide Islamist organization that has served as the theological inspiration for many of today's leading terrorists. Muslim Brotherhood's main goal is to create Islamic states around the world.

The kinds of Islamic states that Muslim Brotherhood and MAS would create, ironically, would be most inhospitable to someone like Mr. Ibish, who loves both wine and women. Though he does not shower praise on Islamist organizations, Mr. Ibish rarely criticizes them. Targets of his wrath, in fact, are almost always the enemies of the Islamists whom he should consider his enemies.

Were Mr. Ibish to change course and attack rabid Islamists rather than defend them, his stock among Muslim leaders would plummet. Such is the culture of conformity that punishes the likes of Mr. Nawash, while Mr. Ibish and other secular defenders of venomous Islamists thrive.

Read that last paragraph again. That tells me all I need to know...

Norman's Best Work Yet

...can be found here. Genius. That's all I can say...

SCOTUS Watch

Two Yahoo News Alerts:

WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a case testing the legality of requiring parental notification for abortions.

...and...

WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by Mexican citizen on death row who says he was improperly denied help from his consulate in violation of international law.

Two cases to keep our eyes on...

"Judicial Activism" Should Be Off Limits

To paraphrase The Corner's K-Lo...not as a practice, but rather as a criticism.

Of course, the People are too stupid to have an opinion on what is not appropriate for a judge to do... Utter nonsense...

Tin Foil Hat Brigade Update

Any guess as to which political persuasion these folks belong to? Weird. Very, very weird...

Poker News

As most of the locals know, I'm a BIG poker playing fanatic. And the locals will tell you that I laugh everytime Phil Hellmuth loses...except this time.

BNN's Sammy Larbi reports on a charity tournament that was to be hosted by Hellmuth has been cancelled in Texas because of some anti-gambling rabble rousers. You heard me right, I said "rabble rousers." Anybody care to venture a guess which political party these idiots belong to? If I had to guess, I'd say it ain't the one with the donkey...

Limited government used to be something that Republicans fought for...even in Texas...

Carter's Boy Chavez Wants Iranian Nukes

In a move that should settle once and for all just whose side Jimmy Carter is really on, Hugo Chavez is getting close to the Mad Mullahs in Iran and wants nuclear technology... Get the story from al-Reuters.

MAD Ain't What It Used To Be...

Excellent piece by Cliff May in which he says that Mutually Assured Destruction is a policy that no longer applies to America's enemies because they don't care about living post-conflict.

I was reminded of this the other day when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice issued a warning to North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il, whose regime has been building nuclear weapons and test-firing missiles that could deliver them. The United States, Dr. Rice said, can "deter whatever the North Koreans are up to."

While admiring her icy resolve, I wondered: Can we, really? Or, more to the point, what reason do we have to believe that deterrence is a strategy that can influence the decision-making calculus of someone like Kim?

Is it not possible that Kim might decide to risk – or even sacrifice – his life in order to have the honor of seriously damaging those he sees as enemies? Or might he figure that whatever Americans may threaten, they would never retaliate against innocent North Koreans who are not responsible for Kim's actions or even for keeping him in power?

Perhaps, the CIA has provided Dr. Rice with reliable intelligence concluding that Kim adores being tyrant-in-chief and would do nothing to seriously jeopardize his job. Similar motivations appear to explain why Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi gave up his Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) programs after seeing Saddam Hussein dragged from a spider hole.

Speaking of Saddam, deterrence clearly did not work where he was concerned. He could have held on to his power and palaces had he only cooperated as he promised at the end of the Gulf War in 1991, had he simply complied with UN Security Council Resolutions demanding he disclose what he had done with his WMD.

Why was his behavior not altered by the credible threat of force? Was he counting on his European friends – some of whom, we now know, he was lavishly rewarding -- to leash the American dogs? Did he miscalculate, believing that if American leaders were convinced that he still had a stockpile of WMD they'd be too cowardly to send troops into battle with him? Did his own scientists trick him into believing he had a daunting WMD capability and was he shocked to see his military machine sputter and stall? Or had he becomes so jaded that he no longer cared about his palaces and privileges and wanted only to lead one last guerilla war?

I'm not entirely sure that MAD worked as a strategy anyway, but that's another debate...

Cliff's point is one well worth considering. And it looks to me like the liberals and mavericks are still fighting the Cold War...I'd say the last war, but I'm not real sure that works as an analogy.

Read the whole thing.

MSM Union Jackal Unhinged!!!!!

Linda Foley, head of the Newspaper Guild, made some Eason Jordan like comments and further showed the echo chamber that the MSM continues to fool itself with. She showed that it is all about blaming everyone but those who shape and report the story, the journalists themselves.
The video of this vile spittle can be found here.
The transcript can be found here. Here are Looney Linda's comments, with my biting and evenhanded commentary:

The other thing, ah, I would just like to mention, the other trend that I think needs to be reversed, ah, that isn't talked about very much, is the targeting of journalists.

Linda, Linda, I need to caution you. You are entering Eason Jordan, Mary Mapes, Newsweek fever swamp territory. And I am sensing a partisan attack coming. I thought this was about reforming the media, not reaffirming inaccuracy.

Journalists have become, and this is a problem of the Republicans, Frank, (halting laugh) journalists have become a target particularly from the right side of the political spectrum, ah, journalists are blamed, ah, for many ills, that they just report on.

No, No, No. Linda, you are a target for reporting fabricated ills, or spun ills, or your own skewed views of life, not based on facts but based on your own warped views of reality. See: the National Guard Files, Andrew Sullivan's post election rants of heterophobe despair, Newsweak, et. al. No one disputes that journalists report on social and other ills. However, when the stormy weather is portrayed as being an administration's fault, then we have a problem. When isolated incidents create a nageative and false picture of our troops for the sake of making you feel big and getting Peabody awards, then there is a problem. When news stories kill people, then there is a problem. I can see you just don't get it, Linda. But what am I doing, thinking you would? You are affiliated with the AFL-CIO.

However, if you think her current comments are about as bad as Ted Koppel's hair, wait, it gets worse....

Ah, and I think what we have we have to be careful of in the media reform movement, is that we don't fall into that trap.

What is happening in the media is not the fault of individual journalists. Yes, there are some bad individual journalists in the mainstream media. There are also some very good individual journalists in the mainstream media, and it's probably, on balance just like any other profession.

Uhhh, no Linda, there is not balance as in every other profession. Just ask Terry Moran, he can see the bias.

There is, Hugh, I agree with you, a deep anti-military bias in the media. One that begins from the premise that the military must be lying, and that American projection of power around the world must be wrong. I think that that is a hangover from Vietnam, and I think it's very dangerous.

Now, back to Linda's rant....

But what's wrong is that there is a systematic corporate, ah, corporate, ahm, dissolution of what we know is credible reporting and journalism. And that what's really wrong and that's what we need to focus on, and that's what we have to fight.

Dear God!!! Linda Foley's channelling Tim Robbins!!! (Team America Reference)
Seriously, the black helicopter is waiting, Linda....But just when you thought she couldn't get any more looney, the BS meter goes through the roof:

Journalists, by the way, are just being targeted, ah, verbally or, ah, or, ah, politically. They're also being targeted for real. Um…in places like Iraq. Ahn and, ah, what outrages me as a representative of journalists is that there's not more outrage about the number, and the brutality, and the cavalier nature of the U.S. military toward the killing of journalists in Iraq. I think it's just a scandal.

And it's not just US journalists, either, by the way. They target and kill, ah, journalists from other countries, particularly Arab countries like Al -, like Arab news services like Al-Jazeera, for example. They actually target them and blow up their studios, ah, with impunity … and, ah, this is all part of a culture that it's okay to blame the individual journalists and it just takes the heat off these media, ah, conglomerates who are actually at the heart of the problem.

OK, Linda, didn't you get the memo? Eason had no evidence. The only incidence of targetting the media was when Bubba boy launched a cruise missile that hit a Yugoslav media outlet and killed 16 makeup artists. That was in 1999, not today. So, could you be talking about the false reports of Eason Jordan, or do you have a reliable unnamed source like newsweak? The US is not targetting media people, there are no dedicated satellites to target al-Jazeera or Newsweak. Although, given the aid and comfort they have given to the enemy, maybe they should. That last sentence was just borne of anger. It is just as stupid as saying the Army is targetting journalists. Then, she goes ahead and blaems the "EVIL CORPORATIONS TRILATERAL COMMISSION DARTH HALLIBURTON CORPORATIONS!" Dear God, someone get this woman a straitjacket, we got a live one here....

The rest of this goes on with the rhetoric of more people's voices being heard..(however, these are the same people who WANT to see blogs regulated, who want the Fairness Doctrine Reinstated), yet they are talking about free speech. What they really mean, is free, unfettered, unchecked, unregulated, liberal hatescreed from the MSM. They want to shape the world in their own reality, rather than observe and report. And this is their so-called leader, with baseless allegations going beyond Eason Jordan?

Of course, maybe I am wrong. Maybe she was talking about Bill Clinton and Wes Clark the whole time...though I doubt it.

How's this for a Gesture?

The CFO of PepsiCo should step down. Seems she likened the US to the middle finger, at graduation for Columbia business school. She must have thought she was speaking at the Columbia school of journalism. Now, she claims she was trying to show how "indispensable" we are and also how that finger can be misused. This is blatant CYA. This woman, in the article cited, says:

Following my remarks to the graduating class of Columbia University's Business School in New York City, I have come to realize that my words and examples about America unintentionally depicted our country negatively and hurt people.
Over the years I've witnessed and advised others how a thoughtless gesture or comment can hurt good, caring people. Regrettably, I've proven my own point. Please accept my sincere apologies.

The best gesture, ma'am, would be your immediate letter of resignation.

Aristotle: "The basis of a democratic state is liberty."

Patrick Henry has been quoted as saying, "Give me liberty, or give me death." Well, that sounds pretty serious, doesn't it? What is liberty that it should be worth the life of a patriot?

Dictionary.com's relevant definition:

a. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
b. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
c. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See Synonyms at freedom.

Okay, so this is a good thing, this liberty?

Yes, but as with all things, moderation:

But what is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint.

- Edmund Burke

Alright, so there shouldn't be anarchy in a civilized society, but surely liberty itself stems from some government control…

Liberty has never come from Government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it… The history of liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it.

- Woodrow Wilson

Alright, well, surely there is no place for religion in a society that cherishes liberty…

The Americans combine the notions of religion and liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other.

- Alexis de Tocqueville

Hmm…this liberty is a strange thing. Surely, those who embrace such a thing would be willing to allow the Government to do what they have to do to protect the country.

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
- Benjamin Franklin

Isn't that at odds with what is in the Constitution?

Section 9, Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

I think Franklin was issuing a word of caution about going to far. But what's too far? Going too far would be to continue detentions after the period of rebellion or invasion. Generally, speaking, we're talking about war, here. And I don't think Franklin would have a problem with the Patriot Act, mainly because there are controls on what the government can do and when, but I haven't been able to reach him for comment.

With Liberty, there is an implied responsibility to do the right things for the right reasons.

Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.
- George Bernard Shaw

Well, that's a bit pessimistic isn't it? Yeah, but like most pieces of conventional wisdom, there is some truth to it.

So if liberty is such a drag, why is worth fighting for? Because we are slaves without it. But with freedom comes responsibility.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

- Thomas Jefferson