'I Don't Think She's Going to Be Withdrawn'

Arlen Specter talks about the Harriet Miers nomination.

BY MELANIE KIRKPATRICK

Saturday, October 22, 2005 12:01 a.m.

WASHINGTON--Call it a Mr. Hyde-to-Dr. Jekyll moment. When I stopped by the offices of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter late Thursday afternoon to chat about Harriet Miers's prospects for confirmation to the Supreme Court, I had expected to find a less enthusiastic supporter.

Only 24 hours earlier, the moderate, pro-choice Republican had taken the extraordinary step of teaming up with the committee's ranking Democrat, Patrick Leahy, to assail Ms. Miers's answers to a lengthy Senate questionnaire as "insufficient" and request further information. No Supreme Court nominee had ever before endured the humiliation of having her questionnaire bounced back for a do-over.

If that wasn't bad enough, from the White House's point of view, Mr. Specter did so in a joint press conference with Mr. Leahy in which the chairman more than once seemed visibly annoyed with the nominee. It was a "vituperative" performance, in the assessment of one Republican involved in the confirmation process. The old "Snarlin' Arlen"--a nickname the former Pennsylvania prosecutor can't seem to live down--was on display.

But the day of our interview was sunny--with afternoon light streaming in the long windows of his corner billet in the Senate Hart Office Building--and the senator's mood was sunny, too. As I sit in the very spot on the camel-backed sofa where Ms. Miers had sat days earlier, the senator leans back in his chair, hoists a foot up on the coffee table and talks about the candidate, the confirmation process and the conservative revolt against Ms. Miers.

"There's one person who has a pretty good line on Harriet Miers's opinions," he says, "and that's the president." How much deference is a president due in his selection of a nominee? "At least from the time he nominates her until the time she gets to the hearing," he says, emphatically. His voice rises: "But so far he hasn't got that little, that modicum, of deference. She has been pilloried, instantly . . . I.P.--Instant Pillory."

Mr. Specter may just have coined another Beltway verb. Just as the failed nomination of Robert Bork introduced the word "bork"--lower-case "b"--to the English language, future nominees facing attack may be talked about as having been "I.P.-ed." As the sole Republican to vote against the Reagan nominee, Mr. Specter was present at the creation of the word "bork," too.

In his press conference on Wednesday, Mr. Specter described the Miers confirmation process as "chaotic," and in our interview he directs more fire at conservative activists. "I'm trying to avoid being distracted by collateral issues such as who told what to Dr. [James] Dobson, or what was on the conference call when a [Texas judge] said, sure, 'She'll overturn Roe,' and a second one said, 'I concur.' You can't ignore that. You have to find out if any of that is connected to her. But she's the one being confirmed. The Judiciary Committee shouldn't hold it against her if a lot of people are talking on their own."

Will he call them as witnesses in Ms. Miers's hearing?--a prospect rich in ironies, especially in the case of Dr. Dobson, who vehemently opposed Mr. Specter's elevation to the Judiciary chairmanship earlier this year. "I'm thinking about it," he says. Meanwhile, he's having his staff talk to Dr. Dobson and the Texas judges to find out exactly what they did or did not say. "There's some talk of wanting to place them under oath," he says, "and I'm opposed to that. It's a violation of 18 U.S. Code 1001 to give a false statement to a federal official, and I think that's sufficient. It carries a jail term. . . . But I don't think anyone's interested in prosecuting someone for perjury. We want to find out what the facts are."

As for the nominee herself, Mr. Specter says he's examined her legal record and is impressed. "During the recess, I took home a large compendium of cases that she'd been involved in and I studied them, and I found out they were very complex," he says. "She had an underground easement case which was very complicated, she represented Disney in a jurisdiction issue in Texas, she represented Microsoft in a patent case. She represented a woman, pro bono, on Social Security [and] a criminal defendant in a habeas corpus case. And I could see as I went through her legal record that she's a good lawyer. She deals with complex, conceptual issues and, I think, demonstrates the capacity to handle a wide variety of issues, including constitutional issues." He keeps a list of questions about her cases on his desk, so that when reporters stop by he can refer to it. "I watch their eyes glaze over," he says, looking into mine with a small grin.

"Malice aforethought."
The senator says his knowledge of her record as a corporate lawyer is one reason why he was dissatisfied with her "insufficient" responses to the Senate questionnaire. She mentioned "only a few cases," he says. "She ought to know more about the cases she's handled than the Judiciary Committee doing research in the course of a few days." He faults the White House, which "didn't give her enough help on the questionnaire."

He also wants to know more about Ms. Miers's work in the White House and how it could bear on issues that are likely to come before the court. "For instance, Guantanamo is coming up in a number of dimensions. Did she give the president advice on that? I'm not asking her what advice she gave the president, but I think I ought to know whether she gave the president advice and if she's going to recuse herself." After abortion, executive authority will be the most discussed issue at her hearings, he predicts, because she is so close to the president.

Mr. Specter says he told Ms. Miers that the questions he asked John Roberts in his confirmation hearing last month will be a "roadmap" to the questions he'll ask her. He gave her copies of two detailed letters he had sent Mr. Roberts in August about what to expect. Roe v. Wade is at the top of his list, he says, and he plans to ask her about the weight she thinks Roe deserves as a precedent: "Do you consider a woman's right to choose being embedded in the culture of our society?"

More broadly, he wants to hear whether she believes in an "evolving" Constitution. "I'm going to ask her in a very gentle way. I'm going to say, Chief Justice Roberts agrees that the Constitution is a living thing. Do you agree with that? As values change, the Constitution accommodates to the needs of modern society. I'll give her a chance to agree with Roberts."

Earlier in our conversation he'd spoken of the influences that helped to shape his own understanding of the Constitution. "One thing I drew on which I don't talk about much: I was an assistant D.A. when the Warren Court revolutionized criminal procedures, search and seizure, Miranda, the right to counsel--and I saw it change before my eyes. So I know what a changing Constitution is. And of course that's a gigantic thing. Justice Scalia would disagree with the evolving Constitution. Roberts agreed with me."

The Miers hearings are scheduled to begin on Nov. 7, and Mr. Specter politely notes how difficult it will be for a nominee who isn't immersed in constitutional law to get up to speed quickly. It's evident that he's skeptical that Ms. Miers has enough time to prepare. "I'm aware of how tough it is to move into the field in a short period of time, to master it and joust with 18 senators. And I told her as much." He says it took him all of August and more to refresh his understanding of constitutional issues and get up to date on recent Supreme Court decisions in time for the Roberts hearings. He sought the help of seven or eight law professors (whose names I was unable to prise out of him), with each of whom he spent several hours. "It's a daunting task. . . . I told her I would not start the hearings until she told me she was ready. She said Nov. 7 would be acceptable. It's a very, very big job."

Back on the subject of Instant Pillory, Mr. Specter lays to rest one of the I.P.-ers' accusations against Ms. Miers--the charge that she was not closely involved in the judicial-selection process. "The president says she knows what kind of judges I want because she's helped pick 'em. And some unnamed staffers on the Judiciary Committee say, no, she wasn't much involved in that. But I think she was. I talked to her about a lot of judges."

The senator also tries to quell mounting speculation that Ms. Miers's nomination will die before it can make it to the hearing-room. He says he's "confident" there will be a hearing. "I don't think she's going to be withdrawn."

"Whether she's going to be confirmed is totally in her hands," he says. His fellow Senators don't know much about her now--"she doesn't say very much in the meetings"--but soon Ms. Miers "will have center stage. . . and the opportunity to prove her mettle."

Dems Complain About DeLay's Smiling Mug Shot

By Susan Jones

October 21, 2005

There it is, front and center on the Democratic National Committee's webpage: a full-color mug shot of Rep. Tom DeLay, not bad as mug shots go, with the caption, "DeLay Booked."

The Texas Republican is smiling, dressed in a suit and wearing his House pin. Unlike most mug shots, the photograph being circulated on the Internet does not include written information at the bottom, so it looks more like an ordinary snapshot than a mug shot.

That bothers many of the bloggers on the Democrat's "Kicking Ass" website.

Some complained that the official mug shot \ldblquote doesn't look real -- no ID markings, no booking numbers, etc." Others wanted to see the profile shot.

"I want a copy of the warrent [sic] for the back of a t-shirt and his mug on the front," one Democrat wrote. Others indicated they'd like to wipe the smile off DeLay's face.

DeLay was fingerprinted and photographed at a Harris County, Tex., sheriff's office on Thursday, then released on $10,000 bond. He's scheduled to appear in an Austin courtroom on Friday to face charges of conspiracy and money laundering.

DeLay says he's the victim of a politically motivated prosecutor, Ronnie Earle, a Democrat who DeLay insists is out to get him.

''Now Ronnie Earle has the mugshot he wanted," DeLay's attorney Dick DeGuerin told reporters after DeLay was booked. DeGuerin also noted that DeLay is smiling in the mug shot. "He's eager and he's ready to go," the attorney told reporters.

While Democrats scream corruption, DeLay's supporters argue that the fund-raising-related charges against him are flimsy and came only after prosecutor Ronnie Earle brought the case before three grand juries. Two of the three returned indictments, forcing DeLay to temporarily relinquish his powerful position as House majority leader.

DeLay has requested that his trial be moved out of Travis County, but Earle said he would oppose the motion. DeLay's attorneys also have asked Travis County Judge Bob Perkins to step aside, given his record of supporting liberal politicians and causes.

***************************************************************
What do you do when you're an indicted politician, facing having your picture taken for a mug shot, a picture that will be broadcast instantly around the world??

You do what Tom DeLay did, . . . . Wear a suit with your House of Representatives pin on the lapel and smile nice and broadly while they take your mug shot. Why do that??

Because as soon as that mug shot is released, your political opponents and the media are going to be waiting to pick it up and run with it.

They planned on using that picture in their news reports and campaign commercials. An unflattering mug shot photo could be used to make Tom DeLay look like a criminal. But he took away their ammunition by making his picture look like the photo you might see hanging in a congressman's district office.

It looks nothing like a mug shot. So much for that. DeLay continues to thwart his political enemies...they're not going to get any mileage out of this picture, that's for sure.

God Bless,
Dan'L

Congressional Incompetence on Display


Have you heard what the moronic idiot Congresswoman from Atlanta did yesterday??

She was part of a panel questioning Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff. She asked him why he shouldn't be charged with negligent homicide because he didn't rescue people from nursing homes in the New Orleans area.

Yeah, Cynthia, that's it. Let's start charging government officials with homicide when they fail to save lives in the time of a disaster!!

Pardon me, Mr. Chertoff, but I'm going to suggest a response for you the next time you encounter the cutest little jihadist in Congress.

"Hold on -- Just one damned minute!! You're Cynthia McKinney, aren't you? The Democrat Congress Critter From the Fourth District of Georgia, right?? . . . You Betcha, I've heard of you. You're the one who fueled your campaign with jihadist Middle Eastern campaign donations soon after September 11, 2001, right?? Wasn't it your father that blamed your election loss several years ago on Jews?? Yessirree, . . . I remember your sorry butt!!. You're the one who said that President Bush knew about the events of September 11, 2001 well before it ever happened, and he let the plan go ahead so that his oil buddies could make money with the aftermath. Now you want to know why I shouldn't be charged with negligent homicide?? Well, my job description does not require me to deal with idiots. Your fellow members of
Congress don't take you seriously, and I see no reason why I should take you seriously. If you think that it's a good idea to hold government officials, and that would include police and firefighters, criminally responsible when they fail to save lives in a disaster, then why don't you introduce a bill making the failure to save a
life during a disaster a federal crime?? That's why you're in The United States Congress, isn't it?? To make laws? So, . . . Please, Ms. McKinney, . . . get your sorry butt out there, and DO it!"

Do the people in McKinney's district in Georgia know that she's a laughing stock, . . . . an they're virtually unrepresented when it comes to any, and ALL, real issues facing the American citizen these days??

God Bless,
Dan'L

GOP Facing More Budget Heat, Left and Right

By Randy Hall
October 20, 2005

With the U.S. House Republican leadership now pushing $50 billion in budget savings over the next five years in programs like Medicare, Medicaid and student loans, Democrats charged Wednesday that the GOP budget plan was "immoral and irresponsible."
Republicans on Capitol Hill and President Bush are likely to take a verbal pounding on Thursday as well from the leaders of several conservative groups upset over the massive deficit spending that has occurred under the GOP-controlled federal government.

The American Conservative Union, the Heritage Foundation, Family Research Council and the Club for Growth will hold a news conference to "challenge Congress and the Bush administration to rein in federal government spending." The sub-headline on an advance press release issued by the groups declared "Recent Republican Spending Cut Proposals Not Enough."

House Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) did state on Wednesday that Republicans were hoping to increase their budget saving plan from $35 billion to $50 billion. And it immediately drew fire from the Democrats.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) criticized the GOP majority in Congress for having "misplaced priorities" but nevertheless promised to "take action" to "put America's priorities first.

"The American people are struggling with serious issues right now, including rising energy prices, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and preparedness for a disaster like avian flu," Reid said.

"If Republicans can find the time and resources to spend billions on tax breaks for special interests, they certainly should be able to find the time and resources to help working Americans, too," he added. "Democrats believe we can do better than ignoring these issues, and we have introduced plans to help."

Assistant Minority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) accused Republicans of being "committed to an agenda that benefits their party's special-interest friends," while Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) called for legislation that would "stop the price gouging" by oil companies and take money from the industry's "obscene" profits to reduce gas prices paid by consumers.

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) spoke about victims of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, "some of whom are pregnant women" and unable to get adequate health care. While lauding the relief efforts of private donors, Baucus asserted that only the government can produce the funding needed to properly address such emergencies.

Reid acknowledged there would undoubtedly be "some spending cuts," but he refused to list any specific programs that he felt needed to be looked at for savings.

The senators' strategy of bashing Republicans while offering few, if any, specific solutions was similar to the one used earlier by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). In a press release, she accused GOP members in Congress of "desperately trying to distract the American people from their culture of corruption and cronyism.

"The real problem with the Republicans' immoral and financially irresponsible budget is that it does nothing to address the concerns of hard-working Americans; instead, it gives tax breaks to Republican cronies," Pelosi said in her statement.

"Republicans need to get serious about the budget," she added, noting that the GOP "refused to join Democrats in supporting pay-as-you-go budgeting to share the sacrifices that must be made."

During their own news conference Wednesday, House Republican leaders stressed their commitment to "fiscal responsibility" while putting the finishing touches on the new budget.

Blunt added that a proposal by House conservatives, for a 2 percent across-the-board reduction in government spending, has been put off until later in the year.

Throw them ALL out, . . . Immediately!

Anyone who enters the United States illegally should be expelled without exception, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told a Senate hearing today.

"Our goal at DHS is to completely eliminate the 'catch and release' enforcement problem, and return every single illegal entrant, no exceptions," he said.

"It should be possible to achieve significant and measurable progress to this end in less than a year."

Chertoff said U.S. authorities are immediately returning thousands of Mexicans entering the country illegally, but "other parts of the system have nearly collapsed under the weight of numbers."

"The problem is especially severe for non-Mexicans apprehended at the southwest border," he said.

"Today, a non-Mexican illegal immigrant caught trying to enter the United States across the southwest border has an 80 percent chance of being released immediately because we lack the holding facilities," Chertoff explained.

"Through a comprehensive approach, we are moving to end this 'catch and release' style of border enforcement by reengineering our detention and removal process."

As WorldNetDaily reported in May, the president of a labor organization representing Border Patrol employees and a Texas congressman criticized a Homeland Security bill passed by the House for failing to fund construction of new detention facilities to hold illegal border-crossers from countries other than Mexico, resulting in their automatic release pending a later hearing date.

A Zogby poll earlier this year indicated Americans were not pleased with the Bush administration's handling of illegal immigration.

The poll showed a huge majority – 81 percent – believed local and state police should help federal authorities enforce laws against illegal immigration. Only 14 percent disagreed.

Voters also were asked, "Do you support or oppose the Bush administration's proposal to give millions of illegal aliens guest worker status and the opportunity to become citizens?" Only 35 percent gave their support, and 56 percent said no.

The biggest opponents of illegal immigration are Democrats, African-Americans, women and people with household income below $75,000.

When it came to the status of the nation's borders, respondents were asked, "Do you agree or disagree that the federal government should deploy troops on the Mexican border as a temporary measure to control illegal immigration?" A clear majority – 53 percent – agree, while 40 percent disagree.

No Final Report Seen in Inquiry on C.I.A. Leak

By DAVID JOHNSTONand RICHARD W. STEVENSON

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 - The special counsel in the C.I.A. leak case has told associates he has no plans to issue a final report about the results of the investigation, heightening the expectation that he intends to bring indictments, lawyers in the case and law enforcement officials said yesterday.

The prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, is not expected to take any action in the case this week, government officials said. A spokesman for Mr. Fitzgerald, Randall Samborn, declined to comment.

A final report had long been considered an option for Mr. Fitzgerald if he decided not to accuse anyone of wrongdoing, although Justice Department officials have been dubious about his legal authority to issue such a report.

By signaling that he had no plans to issue the grand jury's findings in such detail, Mr. Fitzgerald appeared to narrow his options either to indictments or closing his investigation with no public disclosure of his findings, a choice that would set off a political firestorm.

With the term of the grand jury expiring Oct. 28, lawyers in the case said they assumed Mr. Fitzgerald was in the final stages of his inquiry.

The focus of Mr. Fitzgerald's inquiry has remained fixed on two senior White House aides, Karl Rove, who is President Bush's senior adviser and deputy chief of staff, and I. Lewis Libby Jr., who is Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Both had conversations with reporters about a C.I.A. officer whose name was later publicly disclosed.

It is not clear whether Mr. Fitzgerald has learned who first identified the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, to the syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak in July 2003.

Some of the lawyers in the case say Mr. Fitzgerald seems to be wrestling with decisions about how to proceed, leaning toward indictments but continuing to weigh thousands of pages of documents and testimony he has compiled during the nearly two-year inquiry.

In recent days, Mr. Fitzgerald has repeatedly told lawyers in the case that he has not made up his mind about criminal charges.

Mr. Fitzgerald has been investigating whether administration officials deliberately disclosed Ms. Wilson's identity - she is also known by her maiden name, Valerie Plame - in response to criticism by her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, of the administration's use of intelligence about Iraq's weapons programs before the invasion.

Some lawyers in the case had expressed hope that a final report would provide Mr. Fitzgerald with a vehicle to disclose his investigative findings even if he absolved everyone of wrongdoing. Democrats in Congress had also expressed a desire for such a report, apparently hoping it would offer fresh details about the administration's actions.

Any decision will be announced in Washington and not in Chicago, where Mr. Fitzgerald is the United States attorney, Justice Department officials said.

In his daily news briefing, Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, said Tuesday that a successful completion to the inquiry would be one in which Mr. Fitzgerald would "determine the facts and then outline those facts for the American people."

Asked if that meant the White House would favor a public report if there were no indictments, Mr. McClellan said that the decision was Mr. Fitzgerald's, but that "we would all like to know what the facts are."

Such a report could not only show where evidence failed to result in criminal charges, but also make recommendations for changes in law, disciplinary actions or criticize the conduct of public officials whose actions did not rise to the level of criminal behavior.

Given the political ramifications attached to Mr. Fitzgerald's decisions, officials at the White House have begun discussing what would happen if Mr. Rove was indicted.

Among the names being discussed to take some of Mr. Rove's responsibilities should he have to step aside, an outside adviser to the White House said, are Dan Bartlett, currently Mr. Bush's counselor; Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the Republican National Committee; and Robert M. Kimmitt, the deputy Treasury secretary.

Under Justice Department regulations, it is not clear whether Mr. Fitzgerald has the authority to issue a final report, even if he wanted to, although he has operated under a broad delegation of authority, issued in a pair of letters by James B. Comey, the former deputy attorney general. Those directives gave Mr. Fitzgerald virtually the same power as the attorney general to conduct criminal inquiries.

But even the attorney general is restricted in what information he can release publicly or present to Congress when it has been obtained, as Mr. Fitzgerald has gathered it, through extensive use of a grand jury, whose proceedings are secret. Even so, some lawyers have argued that Mr. Fitzgerald could issue such a report and have said there is general authority to report his findings if they are requested by Congress.

Without a report, it seems likely that questions about the case may remain unanswered and that a complete account of the administration's activities may never be known, including the details of testimony by the scores of administration officials who were interviewed in the inquiry.

The likelihood that crucial details might be kept secret would be increased if Mr. Fitzgerald brought charges that were narrowly focused on perjury, false statement or obstruction of justice counts involving misstatements by officials in their testimony. But he has also examined broader potential violations, among them whether there was an illegal effort, directed by senior officials, to disclose Ms. Wilson's identity.

Officials who testified or were questioned by investigators also included John Hannah, Mr. Cheney's principal deputy national security adviser.

al Qaeda's Sissy hairdresser arrested in Iraq

BAGHDAD -- U.S. forces in Iraq said on Saturday that they were holding a man suspected of acting as a barber to senior al Qaeda militants and helping them change their appearance to evade capture.

The man, named as Walid Muhammad Farhan Juwar al-Zubaydi -- "aka 'The Barber,"' the U.S. military statement said -- was arrested in Baghdad on September 24, the day before U.S. troops caught up with and killed a militant they described as the most senior al Qaeda leader in the capital, Abu Azzam.

"'The Barber's' duties included altering senior al Qaeda in Iraq members' appearances, such as al Zarqawi's, (photo shown above), by dying hair color, altering hairstyles and changing facial hair in their efforts to evade capture," the military said in the statement.

Also detained on September 24 was Ibrahim Muhammad Subhi Khayri al-Rihawi, the military said, naming him also as Abu Khalil and calling him a "close associate" of Abu Azzam.

"(He) served as an executive assistant for the terrorist emir. He also acted as a banker for Azzam and stored the terrorist organization's funds so they would not be confiscated should Abu Azzam be killed or captured," it added.

Abu Azzam was described by U.S. commanders after his death as second only to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in the Islamist network's organization in Iraq.

U.S. forces are keen to show progress in tracking down insurgents in Iraq after two and a half years in which the militants have inflicted thousands of casualties on Iraqi civilians and security forces and killed hundreds of Americans.

Hypocracy, Incorporated

If Michelle Kosinski's canoe had sprung a leak on NBC's "Today" show Friday, she didn't have much to worry about.

In one of television's inadvertently funny moments, the NBC News correspondent was paddling in a canoe during a live report about flooding in Wayne, N.J. While she talked, two men walked between her and the camera -- making it apparent that the water where she was floating was barely ankle-deep.

Matt Lauer struggled to keep a straight face, joking about the "holy men" who were walking on water.

"Have you run aground yet?" Katie Couric asked.

"Why walk when you can ride?" Kosinski replied.

Later, an NBC News spokeswoman explained that Kosinski had been riding in deeper water near an overflowing river down the street, but there were concerns that the current was too strong for her.

"It's not like we were trying to pass it off as something it wasn't," spokeswoman Lauren Kapp said.

*******************************************************************
Oh, YES you were, Ms. Kapp!! This wasn't a case of some molly-coddled, overly-babied, spoiled-rotten, journalistic-info-babe, who didn't want to get her nylons wet.

This was an absolute attempt to embellish the real news, and make the situation appear much worse than it really was.

If you missed this one, you missed a really funny, almost hilarious, talking-head, who was caught-in-the-act of embellishing the news. Picture the above info-babe, sitting serenely, in a canoe, speaking into a microphone, reporting about the devastation around this New Jersey town, and talking about how terrible the water levels were, and how the government has yet to make good on promises to bring federal aid to the area, then, suddenly two adult males, wearing hip waders, walk by, splashing the ankle-deep water as their brisk pace increases, to get out of the camera shot. Absolutely humorous, until you think about what you just saw!! The in-studio talent could do NOTHING, except make light of it, and poo-poo the seriousness of getting caught in the act of embellishment.

Read yesterday's story, found below, about how the mainstream media has their panties all wadded into a knot, over the Bush Administration doing a preparation for the photo-op with the President by some troops serving in Iraq, via televideo conference technology. You would have thought that the Administration officials were committing the ultimate act of fraud, on the American public, but then, they step on their very own pee-pee, by doing the exact thing they accuse the Administration of doing. Wazzup Widdat??

This little debacle for NBC News is just the latest in the awareness being gathered by the residents of the red states, (including the blue voters in those states), making the red become much more pronounced, and predominant for the future understanding of these kinds of journalists.

God Bless,
Dan'L