John G. Roberts in his own words

When President Bush nominated John Roberts to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Roberts testified twice before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2003 and responded to written questions from its members. Here are a few of his exchanges with liberal Democratic Senators Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) and Teddy Kennedy (Mass.).

On the ‘Right to Privacy’
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.): In Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court recognized the constitutional right to privacy. It went on to reaffirm and expand on this right in Eisenstandt v. Baird. Following from these decisions, the Supreme Court then recognized constitutional protections for a woman’s right to choose in Roe v. Wade. (a) Do you believe in and support a constitutional right to privacy? (b) Please explain your understanding of a constitutional right to privacy? (c) Do you believe a constitutional right to privacy encompasses a women’s right to have an abortion?

Roberts: If confirmed as a circuit judge, I would be bound by Supreme Court precedent recognizing the constitutional right to privacy. Nothing in my personal views or beliefs would prevent me from applying that precedent fully and faithfully.

The Supreme Court’s cases have recognized the right to privacy in a variety of contexts. The court explained in Griswold v. Connecticut that the 1st Amendment “has a penumbra where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion.” Even before Griswold, the 1st Amendment had been construed to protect, among other things, the “freedom to associate and privacy of one’s associations.” Griswold further observed that other constitutional amendments—the 3rd, 4th, and 5th, supported by the 9th—similarly created “zones of privacy” protected from “governmental invasions.” The Griswold court held that the state law at issue there—which forbade the use of contraceptives—concerned “a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several constitutional guarantees,” and improperly “sought to achieve its goals by means of having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship.” The court accordingly held the law unconstitutional.

The court in Eisenstadt v. Baird invoked Griswold in striking down, as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, a state law permitting married couples to obtain contraception but forbidding single people to do the same. The court stated in Eisenstadt that “[i]f this right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.”

In Roe v. Wade, the court stated that “[t]he Constitution does not explicitly mention any right to privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, the court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution.” The Roe court further observed “the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage … procreation … contraception … family relationships … and child rearing and education.” The court concluded in Roe that “[t]his right of privacy, whether it be founded in the 14th Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions on state action, as we feel it is, or ...in the 9th Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a women’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”

And in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the court observed that “[i]t is settled now, as it was when the court heard arguments in Roe v. Wade, that the Constitution places limits on a state’s right to interfere with a person’s most basic decisions about family and parenthood.”

Feinstein: In Rust v. Sullivan, even though the question before the Supreme Court involved government funding for family planning services, you argued in a brief as deputy solicitor general that “[w]e should continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.” You further argued that “the court’s conclusions in Roe...find no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.” (a) Mr. Roberts, do you continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided? (b) Do you continue to believe that Roe should be overruled? (c) Do you continue to believe that the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe has no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution? (d) Do you believe that Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land?

Roberts: I do not believe that it is proper to infer a lawyer’s personal views or beliefs from the arguments advanced by that lawyer on behalf of a client. The argument advanced in the Rust brief reflected the existing position of the federal government, as reflected in briefs filed in five previous cases. The Rust brief noted that the views expressed in those briefs continued to be the position of the administration. If that position were accepted, the challenge to the federal program in Rust would fail, which was why the position was noted in that case by the attorneys charged with responsibility to defend the challenged federal program.

Roe is the settled law of the land. If I am confirmed as a circuit judge, I would be bound to follow it. Nothing about my personal beliefs would prevent me from doing so.
—Answers to written questions, Feb. 5, 2003

On Liberal Judicial Activism
Sen. Edward (Teddy) Kennedy (D.-Mass.): . . . .Do you think there has been judicial activism on both sides of the [liberal/conservative] spectrum? . . . And, if so, how would you define that?

Roberts: Well, I do think there has been judicial activism on both sides. I haven’t given any thought to a particular Supreme Court case that I thought exhibited liberal judicial activism. Again, I feel reluctant to criticize pending or binding [Supreme Court opinions].
—Testimony, April 30, 2003

On Advocating Both Sides of an Issue
Kennedy: . . . [Y]ou are talking you would be a non-judicial activist, and we’re trying to find out what these words mean in terms of your own kind of life experience, either by your writings, your statements or your opinions about this, and that I think we are entitled to find out.

Roberts: I guess what I would point to, Senator—I’m obviously not a sitting judge. I don’t have decisions — but I do have a history of litigating cases, and when you talk about the ability to set aside personal views and apply precedent without regard to personal ideology or personal views, that’s something I’ve been able to do in my practice.

My practice has not been ideological in any sense. My clients and their positions are liberal and conservative across the board. I have argued in favor of environmental restrictions and against takings claims. I have argued in favor of affirmative action. I’ve argued in favor of prisoners’ rights under the 8th Amendment. I’ve argued in favor of antitrust enforcement.

At the same time, I’ve represented defendants charged with anti-trust cases. I’ve argued cases against affirmative action. And what I have been able to do in each of those cases is set aside any personal views and discharge the professional obligation of an advocate.

And I would argue you look at cases on both sides. Look at the brief, look at the argument where I was arguing the pro-environmental position. Take a brief and an argument where I was against environmental enforcement on behalf of a client. See if the professional skills applied, the zealous advocacy is any different in either of those cases. I would submit to you that it is not.
Now, that’s not judging, I understand that, but it is the same skill, setting aside personal views, taking the precedents and applying them either as an advocate or as a judge.
—Testimony, April 30, 2003

THE CORRECT ANSWER

Yesterday, staunch U.S. and British ally Australian Prime Minister John Howard was paying a visit to 10 Downing Street to speak to Tony Blair.

In the press conference afterward, he was asked by somebody from the media named Paul if he thought the attacks in London were a result of the war in Iraq. His answer to that question is a masterpiece:

"Can I just say very directly, Paul, on the issue of the policies of my
government and indeed the policies of the British and American governments on
Iraq, that the first point of reference is that once a country allows its
foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it's given the game away, to use
the vernacular. And no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies
determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self-respecting government
of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen. Can I remind
you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in
Iraq. And I remind you that the 11th of September occurred before the operation
in Iraq."

Perhaps when his term down under is over, Prime Minister Howard could come to America, and run for office here in the states. We could use some non-appeasers like him.

God Bless,
Dan'L

TERROR ALERT IN FRANCE

AP and UPI reported that the French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from Run to Hide.

According to the Reuters wire service, the only two higher levels in France are Surrender and Collaborate.

The rise was precipitated by a recent fire which destroyed France's whiteflag factory effectively paralyzing their entire military.

God Bless,
Dan'L

Tired of this HOT weather??

. . . . Hello, . . . . With the end of the long, hot, summer weather hopefully just around the corner; surely, we are all looking forward to ending those juicy BBQ dinners, in favor of tuning up the trusty ol' snowblower.

But, . . . just in case you've worn out your old grill, and need one for the remainder of the season, here is a low cost replacement option for you, available at the following retailers for just one quarter, or less: HyVee, Safeway, Tractor Supply, Superstore, Wal-Mart, and Martha's former favorite, K-Mart and many others. See picture above, models may vary slightly depending on which retailer you choose. Happy summer grilling, . . .

God Bless,
Dan'L

THE LIBERAL DEFINITION OF FREE SPEECH

Those of you who have a few memories of attending school, no doubt, will recall that many things were hung on the walls of classrooms throughout the entire building.

Perhaps the teacher would hang a photo of Martin Luther King.

Or, . . . When I was in school, if they were a history teacher, maybe a picture of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Some teachers lined the walls with pictures of all of the U.S. presidents. And that is where this latest little episode of extremist liberalism brings us.

Our little story, this time, picks up with 26-year-old Jillian Caruso, who formerly worked as a teacher at the Birch Lane Elementary School. She was forced to resign by the principal, Joyce Becker-Seddio. And what was her crime?? She had a picture of George W. Bush hanging on her wall, among all of the other U.S. presidents.

You see, Joyce Becker-Seddio is a Democrat. As a matter of fact, she's married to a Democratic politician, New York Assemblyman Frank Seddio. Naturally, the left hates George W. Bush. They do not believe he is the legitimate president of the United States.

Anyone who would vote for, much less display a picture of President Bush is not to be tolerated against. And so it goes with the liberal definition of free speech: you have the right to free speech until they start to disagree with what you're saying.Imagine if a Republican had become outraged at a picture of President Clinton hanging on a teacher's wall among the 43 presidents. We would never hear the end of it.

But anyone with a single functioning brain cell knows that in order for the display to be historically accurate, all of the presidents must be hanging there. Perhaps it might be useful to let Principal Joyce Becker-Seddio know what you think, if you get a moment:

Principal Joyce Becker-Seddio
Birch Lane Elementary School
E-mail: jbecker@msd.k12.ny.us
(516) 797-6010

Please send her a NICE e-mail (Be Civil – No derogatory remarks, please), and maybe her world can expand, and she can become a bit more tolerant of the conservative point of view, ehh??

God Bless,
Dan’L

London Cops Bag One Terrorist

Apparently NOT following direction from their Apologist Mayor

LONDON (July 22) - Police shot to death a man wearing a thick coat at a subway station and cordoned off a mosque on Friday, a day after the city was hit by a second wave of terror attacks in two weeks.

Passengers said they saw police pursuing a man who appeared to be of Pakistani or Indian descent. Some said police shot him when he tripped.

But one witness told the British Broadcasting Corp. that police ''pushed him onto the floor and unloaded five shots into him.''

Police had no immediate details on the situation at the mosque in east London. But a Muslim leader said it was evacuated following a bomb threat.

One witness told the British Broadcasting Corp. that police ''pushed him onto the floor and unloaded five shots into him.''

''He looked like a cornered fox. He looked pertrified,'' Mark Whitby said, adding that the man appeared to be dead.

Whitby said the man did not appear to be carrying anything but was wearing a thick coat that looked padded.

Another witness said there were at least 20 police officers involved in the chase.

''The next thing I saw was this guy jump over the barriers and the police officers were chasing after him and everyone was just shouting, 'Get out, Get out!''' said Chris Wells, 28.

Subway passenger Briony Coetsee said she heard gunshots shortly after the shouts to get out.

Alistair Drummond, of the London Ambulance Service, said paramedics had been called to the station at 10:10 a.m.

Mohammed Abdul Bari, chairman of the East London Mosque, said the mosque had received a bomb threat by telephone Friday morning.

The bomb squad came and were searching the premises. More than 6,000 people were expected for Friday afternoon prayers but there were only about a dozen people inside at the time of the threat.

Meanwhile, investigators searched Friday for fingerprints, DNA and other forensic evidence from the attacks -- hauntingly reminiscent of suicide bombings only two weeks before.
Jittery commuters - already facing cutbacks in service from the last attack - faced more Underground closures as they adjusted to a renewed threat of terrorism.

''People are worried, but if it's going to happen, it's going to happen isn't it?'' Chidi O'Hanekwu, 23, said Friday morning. Still, he said he found himself being ''a bit more paranoid'' on the ride in.

Authorities said it was too early to determine whether the attacks were carried out by the same organization as the July 7 blasts - or whether they were linked to al-Qaida or the work of unskilled imitators.

Police would not comment on the search for suspects, but witnesses described seeing men fleeing several of the scenes.

The devices in Thursday's attacks were either small or faulty, and authorities said the only reported injured was an asthma attack. But the nearly simultaneous lunch-hour blasts agitated a capital on edge since the July 7 bombings that killed 52 people and four suspected suicide bombers.

Harried passengers streamed in panic from the three Underground stations, some leaving their shoes behind in the scramble. Firefighters and police with bomb-sniffing dogs sealed off nearby city blocks and evacuated rows of restaurants, pubs and offices.

''We can't minimize incidents such as this,'' Prime Minister Tony Blair said Thursday. ''They're done to scare people, to frighten them and make them worried.''

Britain's Press Association news agency quoted unidentified sources as saying detectives were working on the belief that the bombs were not properly primed - a factor that limited the damage.

Two men were detained - one near the scene of one attack and another near Blair's Downing Street residence - but both were later released without charge, police said.

Commuter Abisha Moyo, 28, a business analyst, described hearing a bang and seeing a man lying atop a smoldering knapsack on the floor of his subway carriage at Warren Street station in central London.

''He had his eyes shut and there was a puff of smoke coming from the bag,'' Moyo was quoted as saying by the Daily Mail newspaper. ''Some girls started screaming, the emergency cable was pulled and everyone started running away from him towards the front of the train.''

Other witnesses reported smelling burning rubber and running between the wagons of the moving train to escape the smoke.

On Friday newspapers reflected the city's volatile mood - part defiance, part anxiety.

''Britain will not be beaten,'' vowed a front-page headline in the Daily Express. ''Is this how we must now live?'' asked the Daily Mirror over pictures of the attacks' aftermath. The Independent had a similar photo montage and the words: ''City of Fear.''

Mia Clarkson, 24, defiantly said she refused to change her schedule or commute at all. ''You've got to keep living, don't you?'' she said as she exited the Chancery Lane station after a trip from across town.

The Metropolitan Police appealed for witnesses to return to the scenes to give statements to teams of officers. The force also set up a Web site to receive amateur video and mobile telephone footage of the attacks and their aftermath.

''Clearly, the intention must have been to kill,'' Police Commissioner Ian Blair said. ''You don't do this with any other intention. And I think the important point is that the intention of the terrorists has not been fulfilled.''

This time, he was optimistic about quickly cracking the case. Forensic evidence collected from the crime scenes could provide a ''significant break'' in the latest attacks, he said.

NBC News reported that British authorities told their U.S. counterparts that backpacks and explosives used Thursday were identical to those in the July 7 attacks. And the British Broadcasting Corp. reported ''speculation'' that the devices were so similar they may even have been part of the same batch.

But Michael Clarke, director of the Center for Defense Studies at King's College, London, said Thursday's attacks looked ''very amateurish.''

''It looks like determined imitators who perhaps must have planned this a little while ago ... but it doesn't look quite like the same network behind it,'' Clarke told British Broadcasting Corp. radio.

An armed police unit entered University College hospital near Warren Street shortly after the midday incidents. Sky News TV reported that police were searching for a man with a blue shirt with wires protruding from his pocket. Authorities cordoned off three small rooms in the building, which is near Warren Street, site of one of the attacks.

The incidents paralleled the July 7 blasts, which involved explosions at three Underground stations within a minute of each other starting at 8:50 a.m., followed by a bomb going off on a bus an hour later. All the explosions occurred in the city center.

Thursday's incidents were more spread out and began at about 12:38 p.m. They targeted trains near the Warren Street, Oval and Shepherd's Bush stations. The double-decker bus had its windows blown out on Hackney Road in east London.

07-22-2005 @ 07:16 CDT

Who's to Plame??

Valerie's No Victim!

By Mark Levin (The Great One)
July 18, 2005, 11:23 a.m.

Plame put herself into a political place.

Let's cut through all the clutter: Almost two years ago, I wrote that Joe Wilson had himself to blame for the publicity surrounding his wife, Valerie Plame. I was wrong. Look to Valerie Plame herself. Despite all the hype, it appears that Plame works a desk job at the CIA. That's an admirable and important line of work. But it doesn't make her a covert operative, and it didn’t make her a covert operative when Bob Novak mentioned her in his July 14, 2003, column, or the five years preceding the column’s publication, during which time she hadn’t served overseas as a spy, either. And even if Plame had been a covert operative, as I read the statute, Karl Rove or anyone revealing her identity, would: 1) have had to secure the information from classified information; and 2) intended to use the information to expose her identity. There's no information on the public record to support this, either. The New York Times now reports that a State Department memorandum identifying Plame was circulated on Air Force One and perhaps other places. Ex-Secretary of State Colin Powell was reportedly seen on the plane with the memo in his hand. (Of course, like so much the Times publishes, this had already been reported long ago by both the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal.) Perhaps the document was classified. Who knows at this point? But if Plame wasn't a covert operative who met the five-year foreign-service requirement, identifying her based on the memo should be of no legal consequence. And there are other reasons to conclude that revealing Plame's identity would not be a crime. In a devastating piece about the media's unconscionable hypocrisy, Andy McCarthy explains that the same media that are speculating about Rove's guilt filed papers in federal court insisting that there can be no underlying crime as Plame's identity was already known thanks to revelations having nothing to do with Rove or anyone else at the White House. At this point, I have to wonder: What, exactly, is being investigated? The Left acts as if it doesn't much care as long as someone in this administration is made to look like a criminal. The goal is to damage the president. Indeed, even before the investigation's end, Charles Schumer, Harry Reid, and Joe Wilson himself are demanding Rove's head. And to think it all started with Valerie Plame herself.That's right. Plame started this phony scandal. And so far, she’s gotten away with it. What do I mean? Plame has shown herself to be an extremely capable bureaucratic insider. In fact, we know she's accomplished — she accomplished getting her husband, Joe Wilson, an assignment he desperately wanted: a trip to Niger to investigate a "crazy" report that Saddam Hussein sought yellowcake uranium from Niger (her word, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee, not mine). And she was dogged. She asked not once but twice (the second time in a memo) that her husband get the job. And there's more. The Senate Intelligence Committee investigation also found that a CIA "analyst's notes indicate that a meeting was 'apparently convened by [the former ambassador's] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger issues." Now, Wilson didn't have an intelligence background.

Indeed, the committee revealed that Wilson didn't have a "formal" security clearance, but the CIA gave him an "operational clearance." The fact is that there was little to recommend Wilson for the role, other than his wife’s persistence.Indeed, the committee reported further that some at the CIA "believed that the embassy in Niger had good contacts and would be able to get to the truth of the uranium issue, suggesting a visit from the former ambassador would be redundant...."

Why Wilson?This is the real scandal. Plame lobbied repeatedly for her husband, and she knew full well that he was hostile to the war in Iraq and the administration's foreign policy. She had to know his politics — and there can no longer be any pretense about him being a nonpartisan diplomat who was merely doing his job. By experience and temperament, Wilson was the wrong man to send to Niger. Plame affirmatively stepped into what she knew might become a very public political controversy, given her husband's predilections (and her own) about that "crazy" report of yellowcake uranium.In fact, Wilson was so concerned that his wife's aggressive and clandestine efforts in securing his assignment would become known that he lied about who sent him to Niger to cover her (and his) tracks. So, in his July 6, 2003, New York Times op-ed, he lied to the American people, writing: "It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger?

That's me. In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.”

And in his book, Wilson wrote: “Valerie had nothing to do with the matter. She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip.” Lie upon lie intended to conceal his wife’s role and perpetuate the myth to the American people that he was a mere diplomat approached by the CIA because of his supposed expertise and professionalism. Wilson didn’t want his and his wife’s motivations to spoil the firestorm he was about to unleash against the president — with the help of the New York Times (which, to this day, has not run a correction and, therefore, stands by Wilson’s demonstrable lies).When Wilson returned from Niger, he never got around to filing a written report. After all, why produce a written report that would be circulated to real professionals and policymakers, who would subject it to serious scrutiny. However, Wilson was debriefed by the CIA and his debriefers did take notes. According to the Senate Intelligence Committee, the debriefers’ didn’t share Wilson’s information with, among others, the White House because they concluded Wilson didn't come up with much.
And remember, the crux of Wilson’s op-ed was that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein sought yellowcake uranium from Niger, that he had communicated that fact to the administration, that the administration ignored or rejected his findings, and that President Bush lied to the nation to justify the war when, during his January 2003 State of the Union address, he said that “the British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
Committee ConsiderationsAlso remember that a year later, an independent British commission, which reviewed the intelligence behind the Iraq-Niger uranium claim, concluded that the president’s statement was “well founded,” and the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that “a number of intelligence reports” contained similar information.
Significantly, the Senate Intelligence Committee learned that the debriefers' conclusions differed in several important ways from Wilson's, including respecting yellowcake uranium.

The committee wrote:

"First, the former ambassador described his findings to Committee staff as more
directly related to Iraq and, specifically, as refuting both the possibility
that Niger could have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to
purchase uranium. The intelligence report described how the structure of Niger's
uranium mines would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Niger to sell
uranium to rogue nations, and noted that Nigerian officials denied knowledge of
any deals to sell uranium to any rogue states, but did not refuse the
possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium.Second, the
former ambassador said that he discussed with his CIA contacts which names and
signatures should have appeared on any documentation of a legitimate uranium
transaction. In fact, the intelligence report made no mention of the alleged
Iraq-Niger uranium deal or signatures that should have appeared on any
documentation of such a deal. The only mention of Iraq in the report pertained
to the meeting between the Iraqi delegation and former [Niger] Prime Minister
Mayaki.Third, the former ambassador noted that his CIA contacts told him there
were documents pertaining to the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium transaction and that
the source of the information was the [blacked out] intelligence service." In
fact, the CIA did not provide Wilson with "any information about the source or
details of the original reporting as it would have required sharing classified
information and noted that there were no 'documents' circulating ... at the time
of the former ambassador's trip, only intelligence reports from [blacked out]
intelligence regarding an alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. ...[N]one of the
meeting participants recall telling the former ambassador the source of the
report ...

So, Wilson lied about what he found (or didn’t find) in Niger, he lied about discussing with his CIA debriefers certain documentation and signatures he never saw, and he lied about the CIA telling him of certain classified documents and sources. His New York Times op-ed was fiction, as was information he later leaked to the Washington Post, information he gave to other media outlets, and significant aspects of his book. To this day, despite all this evidence, the media embrace Wilson's story, evidence be damned. The media outlets that were used by Wilson, and published or repeated his lies, are very forgiving. They portray Wilson as he demands to be portrayed, not as he is. And they regurgitate the rhetoric about poor Valerie Plame — a patriot and victim endangered and ruined by politically motivated leaks and a powerful White House bent on discrediting her husband. Even Meet the Press’s Tim Russert, who fancies himself a hard-nosed interrogator, could not have a done a better job of misinforming the public and smearing the White House — cutting and pasting statements and video clips, and throwing softballs to, of all people, Bill Clinton’s (and now George Soros’s) hatchetman, John Podesta.

Plame’s central and aggressive role in promoting her husband, who in turn hoped to damage the credibility of the president in the midst of a war — from her CIA perch — doesn’t even merit a mention. (Also, see Cliff May's excellent reporting about the Plame/Wilson/David Corn connections.)

And in an Alice In Wonderland-like storyline, the same media that demand confidentiality for their sources as a First Amendment right, also demand the identity of Bob Novak’s sources and the names of administration officials who’ve spoken to the media. They cheer the very criminal investigation they once claimed endangered their profession. Meanwhile, who’s under investigation? Not Plame and Wilson, who appear to have hatched this scandal, but those truly victimized by it — administration officials who, it appears, sought to correct Wilson’s lies. Their phone conversations with reporters and e-mails to colleagues are now scrutinized by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and his grand jury as if they’re war criminals. No wonder Plame is the toast of the Washington establishment and appears in publicity shots in Vanity Fair with a big grin. Look what she’s wrought.

— Mark R. Levin is author of the bestselling Men In Black, president of Landmark Legal Foundation, and a radio talk-show host on WABC in New York.

Check out this and more fun pamphlets from the Persian Gulf War

KARL WHO??

Anyone notice how fast the Valerie Plame controversy evaporated from the mainstream media??

Where is the Democratic outrage now??

Apparently they've moved on to more important things. Which just goes to show you how unimportant and manufactured the Rove-bashing was.

By the way, does anyone know why Judith Miller is still in jail??

LITTLE CHUCKY SCHUMER SPEAKS OUT

When you give this topic, just a little intellectually honest thought, one cannot deny the overt support of the mainstream media, for the folks over on the left side of the isle. Look at the way they've dropped the Karl Rove story, and replaced it with the announcement of John G. Roberts, as nominee to the United States Supreme Court.

It didn't take long after Bush's announcement, (I think I said twelve minutes, yesterday, but that was probably being very generous), of his nominee, for the Senate's reigning media whore (See: Schumer, Chas D-NY), to sprint down to the Senate gallery and snatch a microphone and start making demands. Ol' Chucky said he didn't vote for Roberts for the DC Court of Appeals because he didn't answer some questions Chucky wanted answered.

WHAT THIS IS REALLY ABOUT

So what do most of the Democrats and many of the interest groups really care about when it comes a Supreme Court nominee? Is it the rule of law, interpreting the Constitution, not legislating from the bench? How they might have voted on the Kelo Vs. New London, Connecticut disgrace?

As I've said, just yesterday, for the extreme-leftist whack jobs, which I detailed by name, it all comes down to one thing and one thing only: abortion.

Whether for or against it, those on the extreme fringe could care less what Roberts thinks about anything else. Only his opinion on abortion and Roe vs. Wade should be used as the litmus test to confirm or reject his nomination.

As a result, you can expect the leftist members of the Senate Judiciary Committee like Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin and Joe Biden to constantly be angling for his stand on abortion. Roberts' latest statements indicate that he believes Roe Vs. Wade is the settled law of the land, and he would do nothing to overturn it. Doesn't matter one bit what he's said in the past. All that matters is what they think he believes now.

Watch for the small-minded, single issue types when the hearings start.

They'll be there (on the Democrat side of the committee.) And, don't expect to hear any more about Karl Rove, until Schumer, Kennedy, Biden & Co. wake up to the fact that he's being ignored, in favor of appointing those committee attack dogs!

God Bless,
Dan'L

Microsoft sues Google over 'poached' exec

Technology giants square up over R&D employee

By Ken Young

20 Jul 2005

In what looks like a growing row over staff defections, Microsoft has announced that it is suing Google over its bid to hire Redmond's former head of research and development in Beijing.
Microsoft has filed lawsuits against Google and the employee, Dr Kai-Fu Lee, in respect of confidentiality and non-competition agreements.

The software giant claims to have contacted Google on the matter but received no reply.

Google has already named Dr Lee as its intended head of a research and development unit in China, which is due to launch later this year.

Dr Lee was on the team that developed Microsoft's search engine released in January in direct competition to Google.

Microsoft lawyer Tom Burt said in a briefing to journalists yesterday that the company was aware of Dr Lee's move, but did not know the exact nature of his new role until it saw Google's press release.

He added that, although Dr Lee resigned on Monday, he did not negotiate the necessary release from contract that normally occurs.

Burt went on to describe Dr Lee as being among a few executives who had been privy to highly confidential details about Microsoft's business.

A Microsoft spokesman said: "Creating intellectual property is the essence of what we do at Microsoft, and we have a responsibility to our employees and shareholders to protect our intellectual property.

"As a senior executive, Dr Lee has direct knowledge of Microsoft's trade secrets concerning search technologies and China business strategies.

"He has accepted a position focused on the same set of technologies and strategies for a direct competitor in egregious violation of his explicit contractual obligations."

Dr Lee recently moved to the Redmond campus as a corporate vice president. He is renowned for his work in speech recognition technology and was most recently head of Microsoft's natural interactive services division which focuses on ease of use of computers.

Confidentiality and non-competition agreements typically bar 'sensitive' employees from joining competitors for a set period of time, or from hiring other employees, or from disclosing the company's trade secrets.

CONSERVATIVE ALERT:

It took exactly twelve minutes for left-wing groups and liberal Senators to go on the attack against President Bush's conservative nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge John Roberts:
People for the American Way is "extremely disappointed" in the President's selection, saying it's "a constitutional catastrophe." Twelve minutes! That should say something about their strategy.

Alliance for Justice "cannot support Judge Roberts' elevation to the Supreme Court" because President Bush has a "track record of selecting ideologically-driven, divisive candidates for the bench".

The National Abortion Federation "calls upon the Senate to stand up to President Bush's attempt to destroy the fragile balance on the Supreme Court".

Planned Parenthood stated, "The nomination of John G. Roberts raises serious questions and grave concerns for women's health and safety."

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), whose most recent controversial remarks came when he compared American troops to Nazis, called Judge Roberts a "controversial nominee" who guarantees a "controversial nomination process."

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), immediately announced that "I voted against Judge Roberts for the D.C. Court of Appeals because he didn't answer questions [about his views] fully and openly when he appeared before the committee." Nope, it didn't take long after Bush's announcement of his choice for the Senate's reigning media whore to run down to the Senate gallery and grab a microphone and start making demands.

Schumer said he didn't vote for Roberts for the DC Court of Appeals because he didn't answer some questions Chucky wanted answered.

Then, senior Senator from New York said this:"The burden is on a nominee to the Supreme Court to prove that he is worthy, not on the Senate to prove that he is unworthy."

How's that for being guilty until proven innocent?? Thank you Senator Schumer. May we suggest a remedial course in Constitutional law?? But that's how the left views this. In their twisted little world, they should get to pick the nominee for the court. They want to take 'advise and consent' to a whole new level. Also, such is their hatred for George Bush, they will do everything in their power to deny him his choice for the bench.

It will be interesting to see what happens. If Schumer and his buddies in the Democratic party smell blood, that is if they realize they have 40 votes against Roberts, you can bet they'll filibuster.

All these nice things they're saying about keeping their powder dry, giving the nominee a fair hearing and all of that, . . . you can forget it. The left's last dying grasp on power in Washington DC is the United States Supreme Court, which they view as a lawmaking branch of government. Replacing Sandra Day O'Connor with John Roberts represents a loss of that power. No matter what they say now, they're not going to go quietly.

Hinting at a possible judicial filibuster of the President's nominee, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) announced on Fox News, "The fact that Sandra Day O'Connor stepped down creates an extraordinary circumstance." Suddenly, she's giving advice to those fourteen Senators who promised an up, or down, vote. She was too chicken to join their ranks, now she wants to advise them, on the matter. Character is devoid from California's Senatorial reps. We should hear from Feinstein sometime tomorrow.

MoveOn.org raised $1.3 million to fight Judge Roberts... BEFORE he was even nominated, and reacted to the nomination by calling Roberts "another right-wing crony." This ought to really PISS you off!

NOW (the National Organization for Women) said of Judge Roberts that "our hard-won rights will be in jeopardy if he is confirmed," and that President Bush chose "to pick a fight. We intend to give him one." How do they know?? (It should be obvious -- he's a little bit conservative, and that doesn't meet their criteria for "acceptable")

NARAL stated that "President Bush has consciously chosen the path of confrontation, and he should know that we, . . . are ready for the battle ahead."

Well, guess what -- SO ARE WE.

And with your help, we're going to continue to take the fight directly to the American people -- and we're going to MAKE SURE that far-left Senators like Dick Durbin, Robert Byrd, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and others hear the message LOUD and CLEAR from their constituents... especially for the ones that are facing upcoming elections!
TAKE ACTION: With President Bush's nomination of Judge John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court, we have the opportunity to get a judicial conservative on the Court -- a conservative who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and the laws of our country without legislating from the bench.

We must not let the radical leftists sabotage this chance to replace Sandra Day O'Connor's "swing vote" with a solid conservative vote. As we saw in the recent "Kelo" decision to take away our private property rights, ONE VOTE can make all the difference in the world.

We've ALREADY begun fighting in "battleground" states like West Virginia, where Hiram Lewis, a military hero in the liberation of Iraq, has a growing campaign against the far-left Senator Robert Byrd.

We need YOUR help to apply pressure to "red state" Democrats like Sen. Ben Nelson in Nebraska and Sen. Bill Nelson in Florida, to make sure that they vote FOR Judge Roberts on the Senate floor. We especially need to make sure the "Gang of Fourteen" judicial filibuster compromisers -- like Sen. Mike DeWine in Ohio, who's up for re-election -- do NOT allow another filibuster to take place.

Write a personal letter to your Senators, . . . Both of them! If you need an exemplar letter, to modify to your own use, use the commentary button, below, send me your e-mail address, and I'll send you one. It will cost very little to send it to your Senator's office via fax. It will take only 37 cents to use a first-class stamp, and send it via the United States Postal Service's First Class Postage. Or, you could e-mail it, (but we don't recommend this method, because most Senators pay very little attention to publicly available e-mail addresses, opting for assigning a staffer, to obtain, and answer them, via form-letters and return e-mail), so that, at least, you'll be adding to the numbers of concerned citizens, who want a specific action from that Senator. Please. Get involved. Write your Senators! You can be sure that those on the left will.

Will you stand with us today, to do even more??

We plan to run radio ads, television ads, print ads, and of course ongoing internet efforts against the building liberal onslaught. Please make your best donation right away to help us FIGHT BACK against the radical leftist groups and liberal & compromising Senators! Click here to contribute now:

https://secure.responseenterprises.com/rightmarchpac/?a=21

NOTE: You can also send a FREE message directly to your two Senators at

http://capwiz.com/sicminc/issues/alert/?alertid=7853081&type=CO

telling them to confirm Judge Roberts quickly.

Be sure to send the link to this blog to EVERYONE you know who wants to see President Bush's conservative Supreme Court nominee confirmed in the U.S. Senate.

Thank you so very much!

God Bless,
Dan'L

The Junior Senator from New York is Hispandering....she says the government isn't doing enough to help Hispanics. And the same woman who said she was against illegal immigration now says she'd like to provide illegal immigrant students with college aid. Whatever it takes to get the votes, . . . terrorism be damned, . . . illegal immigration be damned, . . . the safety and security of the American way of life be damned, . . . It's all about the votes! I know you'll tell every one of your liberal friends.

God Bless,
Dan'L

Bush Accused of Lowering His Ethical Standards

By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor

July 19, 2005

(CNSNews.com) -- Democrats are shifting focus in the Karl Rove case. Politically speaking, what Rove did matters; but since he may not have broken any law, Democrats are now focusing on what President Bush said.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is now accusing President Bush of "lowering the ethical standard for White House employees."

The new standard is, "If indicted, you can serve," Pelosi complained on Monday. She said that's the same standard used by House Republicans -- and she said the American people will demand better of the White House.

Pelosi frequently accuses Republicans of ethical lapses despite failing to report one of her own privately sponsored trips. Two weeks ago, Pelosi belatedly filed reports for three trips she has accepted from outside sponsors.

Pelosi issued blasted White House ethical standards after President Bush told reporters on Monday, "If somebody committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."
Democrats are demanding that President Bush either fire his top aide Karl Rove or revoke his security clearance after Rove told a Time magazine reporter in 2003 that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

Democrats say it was a politically motivated leak. Rove says he was trying to correct Wilson's account of who sent him to Niger. Rove reportedly has testified that he never mentioned Valerie Plame's name, nor did he know what she did at the CIA.

A number of media outlets also seized on Bush's comment as "creating a higher threshold...for holding aides accountable" (Washington Post); and "raising the bar for firing aides" (Seattle Times); and giving Karl Rove "added job security" (Newsday), to name just a few media accounts.

The way Pelosi and other Bush critics interpret it, the president has said he would fire anyone involved in the disclosure of a cover CIA officer's identity.

"If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action," Bush said on Sept. 30, 2003.

More recently, he has refused to comment on the ongoing federal grand jury investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame's name. Last week, President Bush said he would not "pre-judge the investigation based on media reports."

"I will be more than happy to comment further once the investigation is completed," Bush said on July 13.

"Disclosing a covert officer's identity was a serious abuse of power," Pelosi repeated in her Monday press release. "The Bush White House's arrogant stonewalling and ever- changing statements are unacceptable.

"Regardless of the results of the ongoing criminal investigation, if Karl Rove, Lewis Libby, and any other White House official confirmed the identity of a CIA clandestine service officer, they should be fired," Pelosi said.

The Democratic National Committee chimed in, too:
"Faced with a question about whether or not he will keep his promise to fire those involved in leaking the identity of an undercover CIA agent while we are at war, President Bush backed away from his initial pledge and lowered the ethics bar," DNC Chairman Howard Dean said in a statement.

"With several sources now citing Rove and Libby as two sources of the leaks, Bush should be prepared to keep his word, and to enforce a high standard of ethics in the White House as he promised from the beginning of his administration."

The furor over Karl Rove's alleged leak - which may not rise to the level of a criminal offense - is seen by many Republicans as a partisan attack and an effort to "get" Bush.

Rove and others have testified before a federal grand jury that continues to investigate the White House leak.

Some political observers say the Rove controversy is diverting attention from the nation's more pressing problems, including the war in Iraq.

***************************************************

My take on it . . .

As we've learned, above, . . yesterday, President Bush spoke to the media, and he was asked if he stood by his pledge to fire anyone in his administration who leaked Valerie Plame's name.

Here's what he said:"We have a serious ongoing investigation here. And it's being played out in the press. And I think it's best that people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions. And I will do so, as well. I don't know all the facts. I want to know all the facts. The best place for the facts to be done is by somebody who's spending time investigating it. I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts, and if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

Ah ha! The media immediately ran right out and wrote a bunch of stories accusing Bush of changing his position. To them, it sounded like he wasn't going to fire anyone unless they committed a crime."

Ted Kennedy put his long pants on quickly enough to run right out and issue a press release condemning Bush for moving the goal posts. The only problem, . . ?? . . . .

. . . Bush's position hasn't moved one bit!

On September 30, 2003, when Bush was first asked about the leak, here is what he said:

(Pay really close attention to this quote) "If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of." Essentially the same thing. This should be proof enough of the liberal bias in the mainstream news media, to anyone with even ONE intellectually-honest, and functional brain cell. However, in recent days that same mainstream media is slowly graduating from liberal bias to outright political propaganda. The events at CBS Evening News with Dan Rather, and the public perception thereafter, were the catalyst for that movement. Apathy is an insidious thing!

God Bless,
Dan'L

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS REMAIN

As week two of the scandal that wasn't continues to unfold, two unanswered questions remain. And except for a few scant reporters, the mainstream media is making absolutely no attempt to answer them.

The reason?

The answer to those questions would undermine the left's big lie about Karl Rove being the focus of the investigation.

The questions are:

Question #1.) Was Valerie Plame a covert agent??

The 1982 statute under which anyone who divulged her name would be prosecuted clearly states she must have been in the field in the last 5 years. So far, all the evidence says no. Her husband, Joe Wilson, was confronted with this very question Sunday. He refused to answer. If she was not in the field as an agent in the last 5 years, all of this is a grand waste of time.

Although the special prosecutor has plenty of integrity, and is well regarded by both sides of the isle, it certainly appears that, at this time, that he's simply promulgating his own little bureaucracy, and wasting hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars. How many FBI agents are assigned to his exclusive use, for this debacle?? Let's hope he has the integrity to explain what's going on, sometime in the near future.

Question #2.) Why is Judith Miller sitting in jail??

Who is she protecting, and why is the New York Times refusing to give her up?? She gathered information for a story she never wrote, and now she's sitting in jail to protect that source.

The record clearly indicates that the New York Times is no friend of the Bush administration, so if it was Karl Rove or Scooter Libby, they'd sell them out in a minute. No, . . . Judith Miller is protecting someone else.

And nobody knows who it is.

Until we have the answers to those two questions, there's absolutely nothing new about Valerie Plamegate.

God Bless,
Dan'L

MEDIA MIND CONTROL IN THE WAR ON TERROR

By Craig Roberts

July 15, 2005

http://www.newswithviews.com/Craig/roberts7.htm

In the movie “The Wizard of Oz,” Dorothy and her compatriots finally come upon the palace of the Wizard, and in the main hall a huge head faces them, talks, breaths fire and smoke and holds the terrorized but rapt attention of anyone who looks upon his face. That is until a curtain is moved and we find that the Wizard is actually a little wimpy old man who just works levers and pushes buttons to make the huge head talk and move.

“Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” the Wizard yells into a microphone, hoping the huge talking head will make Dorothy, the Tin Man, the Cowardly Lion and the Scarecrow ignore the facts and concentrate on the illusion.

As in the Wizard of Oz, the American people are transfixed on our own talking heads that come from our own Wizard boxes every night on the evening news. And the “news media” understands completely how much power they have over the minds of the masses, even those who say “it’s all lies and you can’t trust the media.”

By using graphic images, focusing only on what they want you to see and hear, shaping events by reporting only on those that fit the media’s political agenda, ignoring anything that is counterproductive to their goals, they control an empire that is actually a fourth arm of government. And, they control our minds.

One example that occurs nightly since the “War on Terror” began, and especially since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, is the “tributes to our fallen heroes.”

Wrapped in a thin veil of alleged “patriotism”, the evening news now makes a daily point of “honoring” those killed that day with color photos of them in uniform, photos of them as children, and quotes from their parents, school teachers, coaches, and then a brief bio to humanize the subject.

But what is really happening is that the body count, kept like a scorebook, is being paraded in front of us in a manner that psychologically affects us as individuals. Instead of “honoring” the casualties, in reality we see more people being lost, and for what? We see the young faces, the faces of our kids and our family members who are trying to help a country get on its feet after decades of dictatorial oppression, and we think “It’s not worth it! We need to get out of there and let the country sink of its own weight.”

This psywar maneuver of “bringing out the dead” is as old as warfare itself. By displaying dead enemy corpses to the enemy soldiers, ancient armies hoped to frighten and influence the morale of the opponents in such a manner it would shape the outcome of the battle or the war. However in many cases it only enraged the enemy into an even more combative mindset, which had the opposite effect.

However in Vietnam, by late 1965, our socialist media discovered that the power of television could actually influence politics by bringing the war into our living rooms on a daily basis. One early case in point was when CBS reporter Morley Safer flew in a helicopter into a village complex near Da Nang shown on the map as Cam Ne. While there he and his cameraman filmed some Marines burning the roofs of grass huts with lighters, then solemnly spoke into the camera that we were burning down the ancestral homes of the villagers, implying it as almost a war crime, or at least a wanton act of American savagery.

However, he did not mention the fact that Cam Ne was a huge underground tunnel complex and the headquarters of the Viet Cong’s Doc Lap R-60 Battalion, which was the guerrilla unit that continuously attacked the Da Nang airbase with mortars and satchel charges, booby trapped all the local trails and roads, and emplaced mines on the main highways and bridges. Nor did he mention that the “village” was actually only camouflage for the underground complex and we had suffered casualties in the vicinity for three weeks before that particular search-and-clear mission, and that no one lived there. Instead, the American people saw the first images of the anti-war reporting that was to follow on the Vietnam war. They saw what appeared to be the US Marines committing an act of barbarism in graphic detail. And it was all lies.

But the media learned well on that day and after. Simply get the footage, get plenty of smoke and mirrors and blood and dust, and then make up any story you want. The motto evidently was “guilty until proven innocent” for our forces. Never mind the atrocities the VC committed, nor the number of schools and orphanages and hospitals and roads that we built. Forget about the aid and the food and the medical supplies we provided. Concentrate on the dead. Theirs and ours. Count the bodies. Show the cost. And do it every night.

Now we are seeing a more subtle, more polished form of Body Count Mind Control. Under the guise of “honoring our fallen heroes” we are instead subjected to a parade of “what this war is costing us.” The message is clear: Get Out!

The questions we should be asking of our media is why they are not reporting all the other things we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why not show the schools open, women being treated with more equal rights, roads being rebuilt, electrical grids being constructed with modern technology and equipment, pipelines and refineries being brought into usage, water purification and distribution networks being rebuilt and so on. In other words, why are we not seeing the “happy Iraqis and Afghanis?”

When was the last time you saw an interview with a single Iraqi or family that liked the Americans or what we were doing? There are tens of thousands who hope we never leave, because they are afraid other sects of their Moslem religion will gain enough power to take over, or worse. They fear that their country will be vulnerable and fall back into chaos, like Iran did after the fall of the Shah, and Cambodia after the Khmer Rhouge took Phnom Penh.

When was the last time an in-depth report was done on the “insurgents” and who they really are and where they really came from? The dictionary defines “insurgent” as “rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.”

The so-called “insurgents” in Iraq are not insurgents. They are foreign terrorists, criminals and murderers who attack any soft target of opportunity, including women and children and babies.

They are evil scum who do not hesitate to kidnap unarmed civilians and behead them on camera. These rodents only understand one thing, and that is the result of superior firepower. Ours.

By identifying them as “insurgents” instead of what they really are, our media actually softens their image and lends a degree of credibility and justification to their actions. And by parading our own casualties in an up-close and personal way every night, they are actually aiding and abetting them as well. The Islamic terrorist organizations never had it so well.

In World War II, the media was actually censored from showing photos of dead Americans in battle, or using any imagery that would hurt our military and civilian morale or aid the enemy’s. It was not until after the war ended that so many photos of the aftermath of battle were actually shown to the American public. Today, the media uses our casualties as subtle mind control subjects to show us a continuing “cost of the war” story. Maybe it is time that our media is recognized for what it is: Al Jazeera West.

In the same vein, I would like to pose another question that goes unanswered. Why is it that when we try to send a package to Iraq or Afghanistan to our troops we are asked by our post office if there are any religious materials inside (specifically any Bibles)? Our own government won’t let us send Bibles to our kids because it might offend some local in a country that we just paid for in our own sweat and blood. The media has never addressed this issue, but if someone claims that some form of disrespect happened to Quarans (issued by our government, by the way) in Guantanamo Bay, then it is on the news for days—and echoed by the liberals in congress for weeks.

Excuse me, but what is our government doing issuing religious materials to prisoners of war on a government installation anyway? Is this not a conflict of “church and state”? And what are these people doing praying on a government installation?

The point of this column has nothing to do with whether one believes in the military efforts or not, nor whether we should send our troops abroad or bring them home, nor whether or not there are weapons of mass destruction hidden somewhere. The point is that we have a one-sided media that is using mind control methods to shape our consciousness, regardless of the facts or the truth of the matter. They are not “honoring our fallen heroes”, they are actually dragging a cart piled with the casualties through your village, shouting “Come out and see the dead! Come out and see the dead!”

And our enemies cheer.

For the complete story on Morley Safer at Cam Ne, go to www.riflewarrior.com and click on the article titled “Fact, Fantasy and Film at Eleven.”

© 2005 Craig Roberts - All Rights Reserved

Craig Roberts has lived a life many people only dream about. He is an internationally published author of over a dozen books, has written hundred of magazine and newspaper articles, appeared in several shows on The History Channel, written for Time-Life books, hosted a radio talk show and appeared on scores of radio talk shows. He is a US Marine Vietnam combat veteran, where he served in a line company and as a Marine sniper -- hence his extensive writing on marksmanship, sniping, weapons and the 2nd Amendment.

1936 Chrysler Airflow Club Coupe Street Rod

These are some more photos of my favorite Street Rod, (the same one I posted a couple days ago). Since I've gotten a few e-mails, from friends and occasional blog readers, I thought I'd share a few more of the better photos I have of the car.

Somebody in Texas has the RIGHT idea for a Cruiser!

On the way home today, I found my neighbor's cat.

Rumsfeld: "Gitmo Suspect to be Tried ASAP"

Monday, July 18, 2005

WASHINGTON — Backed by a favorable court ruling, the Pentagon intends to resume shortly the military trials of two terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay (search), Cuba, and to file charges against eight others.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld (search) said the ruling Friday by a three-judge federal appeals court panel was vindication of the Bush administration's approach to prosecuting suspected terrorists. Critics say the approach is flawed by inadequate legal protections.

"Proceedings will resume as soon as possible against two detainees," Rumsfeld said Monday without identifying them by name. Charges will be prepared against eight other suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, he said, and President Bush will be asked to declare additional detainees there eligible for military trials.

Later the Pentagon issued a written statement saying the men whose trials would be resumed first are David Hicks (search), an Australian accused of having fought alongside the Taliban against U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and Salim Ahmed Hamdan (search), a Yemeni whose challenge to the legality of the trial system was initially upheld but was overturned Friday by the three-judge panel.

Gordon England, the acting deputy secretary of defense and overseer of the military trial process, said in the Pentagon statement that the Hamdan and Hicks trials will be reconvened "as soon as any necessary court orders are issued."

Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, noted that lawyers for Hamdan said after Friday's ruling that they planned to further appeal it, either to the full United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit or to the Supreme Court. Tobias questioned whether it makes sense for the administration to resume the Hicks and Hamdan trials before the appeals process has run its full course.

"They have the power to proceed, but whether it's a good idea practically — it seems to me it might not be," Tobias said in an interview.

Trial proceedings were begun last summer against Hicks, Hamdan and two other suspects, but they were halted after a district court ruled in November that Hamdan could not be tried by a U.S. military commission unless a "competent tribunal" determined first that he was not a prisoner of war under the 1949 Geneva Convention.

In Friday's ruling, the three judges said the commission itself is such a competent tribunal, and that Hamdan could assert his claim to prisoner of war status at the time of his trial before a military commission.

Hamdan's lawyers said Bush violated the separation of powers in the Constitution when he established military commissions. The appeals court disagreed, saying Bush relied on Congress's joint resolution authorizing the use of force after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, as well as two congressionally enacted laws.

The other two suspects whose trials were started and then suspended are Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud al-Qosi (search), a Sudanese citizen accused of conspiracy to commit terrorism, and Ali Hamza Ahmed Sulayman al-Bahlul (search), a Yemeni accused of conspiring to commit war crimes. Officials said Monday that these cases would not be resumed as quickly as the Hamdan and Hicks cases because there are procedurals issues to be settled.

At a joint news conference at the Pentagon with Australian Prime Minister John Howard, Rumsfeld applauded the court ruling and said it would help expedite the military trials, which are criticized by some as unfair .

"The court's ruling marks an advance in the global struggle against extremists and aids the effort to protect innocent life," Rumsfeld said. "It vindicates the president's determination to treat suspected terrorists humanely but not to grant them the protections of the Geneva Conventions as a matter of right."

Howard, whose government is a close U.S. partner in the war on terror, said he is confident that Hicks will get justice.

"Particularly in the wake of some changes that were made to the process, Australia is satisfied that the military commission process in relation to David Hicks — since he is the one Australian held in Guantanamo Bay — will provide a proper measure of justice," Howard said.

Later, Howard said the allegations against Hicks are "particularly serious" and that he welcomes Rumsfeld's decision to resume the trial as soon as possible.

The Pentagon says there are about 520 terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay.

The Pentagon also announced Monday that it will soon name replacements for the military commissions' chief defense counsel, Air Force Col. Will Gunn, and the chief prosecutor, Army Col. Robert Swann. Gunn and Swann are retiring from the military.

Now maybe the bleeding hearts, who wanted Gitmo shut down, will shut their pie-holes!

God Bless,
Dan'L

It's MONDAY --

Time for a reality check, (please read the text, carefully!)

Lest We Forget The 'Confusion' Of Joseph Wilson

By Vincent Fiore

July 18, 2005

The bombing in London by terrorists and the continuation of the war in Iraq were of secondary importance to official Washington and the mainstream media this week. Even the prospect of the president having to replace two vacancies upon the Supreme Court received short shrift.

Instead, the continuing saga of Karl Rove, Joe Wilson, and Valerie Plame and who-outed-who electrified the media in what has to be one the biggest non-stories in politics to date. While the country has been deluged with Rove's supposed dark and "traitorous" vendetta against former CIA agent, sometime Vanity Fair cover girl Valerie Plame, I thought it might be useful to remind all just who is most responsible for the tangled web of intrigue we find ourselves in today.

Memo to the masses: When you see the words "misspoken," "erred," and "confused," in relation to former ambassador Joseph Wilson, know this: These words are typical beltway qualifiers that seek to say in essence that "I lied," without ever having to say the word "lied."

As surely as the sun rises and sets upon another Democratic chapter of "The conspiracies of President Bush," Joe Wilson has broken the hearts of many a Democrat in Washington--not by lying but by getting caught.

It seems like ages ago that columnist Robert Novak first alerted the public to the doings of the innocuous and relatively unknown Wilson. But in a column written on July 14, 2003, Novak wrote of Wilson's trip to Africa in February, 2002, to see if Saddam Hussein's Iraq was trying to buy Uranium, or "yellowcake" from Niger.

Forward to January 28, 2003, and the president's State of the Union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

It is here in these now-famous 16 words that Democrats in Congress then and now talk themselves into near apoplexy, saying that Bush "misled" the country about pre-war intelligence. But until Wilson went public with a 1400-word op-ed titled "What I Didn't Find in Iraq" in the New York Times on July 6, his findings regarding Iraq trying to purchase uranium went little noticed. It was Wilson's op-ed that not only ignited Congressional Democrats into a political frenzy, but tipped his hand as an official "Kerry for President" acolyte.

In his New York Times op-ed, Wilson brazenly declared: "Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

But as the Senate Intelligence Committee's July 9, 2004, report shows, it is Wilson who twisted intelligence to actually downplay Iraq's nuclear threat, thereby meeting his own political agenda of helping Kerry win the election in November.


Consider the Senate committee's findings:

*** The panel found that Wilson's report, "rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, actually bolstered the case for most intelligence analysis." (web site)

*** To this day, British intelligence maintains that Saddam Hussein sought uranium in Africa, recently underlined by a report from The Financial Times of London. The British government states "European intelligence officers have now revealed... human and electronic intelligence sources from a number of countries picked up repeated discussion of an illicit trade in uranium from Niger." The New York Times paraphrased the above with a clear-cut story titled: "Intelligence Backs Claim Iraq Tried to Buy Uranium." The essay leaves no doubt as to the claim of Bush in January 2003 that Saddam Hussein was not only was trying to procure uranium, but had been for years. (web site)

*** Ambassador Wilson's wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, "specifically recommended" Wilson for the trip to Africa. In a memo from Plame dated February 12, 2002, to the deputy chief of the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) from Plame, the Senate report concludes that according to the CIA testimony, Plame "offered up his (Wilson's) name." (web site)

*** Wilson misled the "Washington Post" in June 2003, when he told the paper that the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." In fact, Wilson had never seen the reports.

When the Senate committee staff asked Wilson how he could have come to that conclusion, Wilson replied that he may have "misspoken" (See first paragraph) to reporters. (web site)

*** Contrary to Wilson's claim's that the Bush administration understood that it was knowingly passing along questionable information to the American public, the Senate committee found in its investigations that the CIA did not tell the White House it had its own doubts about an Iraq/Niger connection for the procuring of uranium.

Joseph Wilson has had extensive ties to the Democratic Party throughout much of his time in Washington. Wilson is an unabashed supporter and donor to the Kerry/Edwards campaign for the presidency. In 2000, he donated to Vice President Gore's election, as has his wife, Valerie Plame. In the mid-eighties, Wilson worked for Gore as a congressional staffer. He has donated money to such liberal stalwarts as Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy. He has in the recent past spoken to liberal "527" groups like Win Without War, which is a part of MoveOn.org, the premiere liberal hate group that is renowned for its coarse and hate-inspired political sloganeering.

Joe Wilson, like former terrorist czar Richard Clarke, who also tried to spin a web of deceit against Bush, have shown to be seriously lacking the moral character that one would expect from such once-trusted government officials.

It is chilling to me just what the acquisition of power means to the party out of power. In this case, it is the Democratic Party. It has shown that it and its supporters, like Clarke and Wilson, would willingly throw the country into political disarray all in hopes of attaining political power and favor.

It is unclear whether honest news can travel fast in a media mired in political self-interest reporting. I suspect not, as I'm sure this surprises no one interested in the truth. One would hope that the country learns of the mendacity of Joe Wilson, and his willingness to inject his political viewpoints in a time of war, all in the hopes of seeing a Democrat in the White House.

The prolific architect, Frank Lloyd Wright, said "The truth is more important than the facts." I would amend his words to say "The truth is that much more important because of the facts." In Joseph Wilson, the fact of the matter is that the truth is not important, regardless of the facts.

------------

Vincent Fiore is a freelance political writer who lives in New York City.

Get Karl, (continued)


The 'Get Karl Rove' jihad on the left and in the news media has appeared to flame out.

Now that the revelation that Rove first heard about Valerie Plame from another journalist is out there, those in the Democratic party with at least one functional brain cell have begun to do the revisionist backstroke. It's a very familiar scene. Ask yourself, "Why doesn't the media publish her photo?" . . . I did! C'mon, everyone -- This isn't the gotcha-fest the Democrats want you to believe it is, . . .

We are talking about the same extreme leftist people who picked out the above shot, for Vanity Fair, folks. No wonder our intelligence on WMD was screwed up!

But the left, always trolling for the latest 'gotcha,' may point to Time magazine journalist Matt Cooper's interviews on Meet The Press and CNN's Late Edition yesterday. The media seems to be running with Cooper's allegation that Rove was his only source on Valerie Plame.

Let's take a look at the high points of what he said and debunk them one by one, shall we?

1.) Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby confirmed to Matt Cooper that Joe Wilson was sent to Niger at the behest of his wife, who worked at the CIA on WMD issues. That's the same thing Rove told him. BFD.

2.) Look at what Cooper said exactly: "After that conversation, I knew that she worked at the CIA, and worked on WMD issues. But as I made clear to the grand jury, I'm certain Rove never used her exact name and certainly never indicated she had a covert status." Once again, Rove never used her name and didn't know she had covert status. Yawn.

3.) So is Libby the source? Nope. All he gave Cooper was the same information Rove did. If the special prosecutor told Rove's lawyer he's not a target, then Libby isn't either.

So all in all, despite Matt Cooper's little media tour, nothing has changed. There's nothing new.

And once again, the mainstream media is missing this story by a mile. Right now, Judith Miller of the New York Times is sitting in jail, protecting a source in the Valerie Plame case.

But such is the left's blind lust to get Karl Rove and bash all things related to the Bush administration, they can't see what they're missing.

Who is Judith Miller protecting? Why is she in jail?

The answer to that is where the point of this entire investigation lies.

God Bless,
Dan'L

Anyone who knows me, knows I'm a motorhead. I have been a gearbrain for over fifty years. One thing I've done in the past, is to restore a few, very near perfect, antique cars. I like Chrysler Products, because of my admiration for the founder of the company, Walter Percy Chrysler. If you find yourself among my closest friends, you'll already have received a really nice copy of his autobiography, "Life of an American Workman," First Edition, as a gift. I've done this for several years, and although the books are rare, I have supply enough to last me, the rest of my life.

My love of the antique restoration hobby takes me back to my youth, when, every time I wanted to make some change to one of my cars, my father said, "absolutely not!" If it wasn't something that the car came with, it wasn't necessary to add, subtract from, or modify in any manner, the original configuration of the car. I needn't tell you, my father was NOT a gearhead, by any stretch of the imagination. Now that I've made the attainment of the category, "middle-age," I think I'm going into my second childhood, wanting to build a modified, old, Chrysler-product, with a non-stock, fancy paint scheme, nice wheels, modern drive train, contemporary braking system, air-conditioning, and a really nice, comfortable set of bucket seats, and a Global Positioning System mapping guide, mounted in the dashboard. Above is an example of my dream-car. This one sold, last January, at auction in Scottsdale, AZ, for $510,000.00. Amazing!

I remember that in about 1974, I was heavily involved in restoring a 1948 Dodge Club Coupe, that had belonged to my grandfather and my aunt, when I read a front page headline printed by Old Cars Weekly, a newpaper for the hobby, that said, "Record Price Paid for Duesenberg Model J Roadster." In the body of the story, one learned that the very same auction company, http://www.barrett-jackson.com/ had sold the record-breaking Duesenberg for $500,000 bucks -- they kept saying that a half-million was a mark that may not be reached again for at least a decade. Little did they know that they were close to correct, but only because of the inflationary rate of interest going to double digits, during the Carter Administration. Once Ronald Reagan was elected, and the lower tax rates increased government revenues, the inflation vertually disappeared, and prices of these old treasures skyrocketed, to the point where a really nice hot-rod, (those terrible things eschewed by my father), will now bring the big bucks.

Keep in mind, that the above example is a very well done, professionally built, re-engineered masterpiece of Street Rodding, and drives better than the late model Dodge Viper, that gave up its engine for it, and probably worth every penny of the half-million it cost. That doesn't keep me from drooling over it. For now, I have only the dozen or so, photos; similar to the one above, and my dreams to keep my fantasy alive. It would make my day, just to be able to see it in person, and talk to the guys who built it, . . . or the guy who bought it.

God Bless,
Dan'L