Recent Appearances...

Warning: Undefined array key "rbname" in /data/rantburg.com/www/rantburg/pgrecentorg.php on line 14
Hello !
Recent Appearances...

Government Corruption

Bill Clinton's Last Outrage; The President's Defenders Feel Betrayed by His Pardon of Marc Rich

2024-12-15

[Brookings Inst. from 2001] ....But Clinton’s truly remarkable achievement was in creating a consensus against himself with his pardon of Marc Rich, popularly known as the "fugitive financier," and otherwise known as large-scale tax cheat and buster of sanctions. On this one, I’d wager all the money Rich owes the government that Clinton’s friends are even more outraged than his enemies.

Take Rep. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat and House Judiciary Committee member who was one of Clinton’s most forceful and articulate defenders during the impeachment mess. "I was very angry about it," Frank says of the Rich pardon. "It was a real betrayal by Bill Clinton of all who had been strongly supportive of him to do something this unjustified. It was contemptuous."

Then there’s Sen. Paul Wellstone, a Minnesota Democrat who is one of the most liberal members of Congress. "It puts back into sharp focus all the questions about values and ethics in relation to the Clinton administration," he said. "I think it was a mistake. I don’t know why he did this. People in the country need to be given more encouragement about public affairs, not more reasons to be cynical."

Fresh off his battle against John Ashcroft’s nomination for attorney general, Sen. Pat Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democratic member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, was no less angry. "It was a terrible pardon," he said. "It was inexcusable. It was outrageous...Here was a man who was involved in a huge swindle and has shown absolutely no remorse." Usually, Leahy added, pardons go to those who have paid at least some penalty for their crime. Rich’s penalty? He’s been living "a life of luxury" in exile in Switzerland and Spain.

I noticed on The Washington Post’s op-ed page that one of the original prosecutors in the Rich case was Martin Auerbach, now a lawyer in private practice. Having met Auerbach in college more than three decades ago, I rather doubted he had become a right-wing conspiracist. So I called him, too.

"I voted for Clinton three times," said Auerbach, who lives in Brooklyn and was referring to his presidential votes in 1992 and 1996, and his ballot for Hillary Clinton in last year’s Senate contest. "I’ve defended Clinton for years. I always felt that the rules had changed around him. But this creates a whole different question in my mind."

The problem with Rich is that "he thumbed his nose at the law every single time the country responded to a crisis," whether the matter was the energy crisis or the hostage crisis in Iran. "You may think tax rates are too high," Auerbach said. "But to unilaterally evade taxes on $ 100 million is not the way to go."

Auerbach, still a political progressive, offers what should be a very troubling observation for liberals. "Think of all the kids who hot-wire cars and go to jail. They don’t get to choose between going behind bars or spending a rather comfortable exile." And he adds: "I sure would like an explanation from the former president: What was he thinking?"

It’s possible for Clinton’s defenders to argue that the president’s enemies made a bigger deal out of some of the post-presidential controversies than they would have for any other former president. The gifts were excessive, so unnecessary and, well, so uncool, not to mention a way around the gift rules that now cover the junior senator from New York. But other presidents have taken gifts too. And office space in Manhattan is, by definition, expensive. These mistakes were easily undone.

But the Rich pardon cannot be undone. In defending himself last Friday, the former president offered these wise words. "You never get in trouble for saying no," he said. Yes, and sometimes "no" is exactly the right thing to say.

Link

Home Front: WoT

An Al Qaeda Ldr Came to USA as a Refugee, And Applied for Disability for Bullet Wounds

2020-02-07

[Frontpage] Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

After engaging in terrorism in Iraq, an Al Qaeda leader came to America as a refugee and applied for Social Security disability benefits because his "injuries" in Iraq had made it too hard for him to work.

In 2006, Ali Yousif Ahmed Al-Nouri was the Emir of an Al Qaeda terrorist group in Fallujah. The Iraqi city was the scene of brutal battles between Al Qaeda and America. It was where American soldiers had suffered the most casualties in any battle since the Vietnam War. Despite multiple defeats, Al Qaeda remained deeply entrenched in the city and was even able to seize a number of neighborhoods in 2014.

By then, Al-Nouri was living in Arizona.

Only 2 years after being the Emir of an Al Qaeda group, Al-Nouri had traded the deserts of Al-Anbar for the deserts of the Southwest. How was an Al Qaeda leader able to move to the United States?

Easy. He claimed to be a refugee from Al Qaeda.

In 2008, the United States raised the refugee admission celling to 80,000 to accommodate the surge of Iraqis applying to come to the United States. The Iraqis claimed to be fleeing terrorism, but some, like Al-Nouri were terrorists, and our refugee resettlement program was not interested in telling them apart.

A quarter of refugees that year were Iraqis. The Al Qaeda leader was one of 13,823 Iraqi refugees. The huge increase from 1,608 in 2007, made any real screening of the Iraqis all but impossible. And, worse still, Iraqis, like Al-Nouri, were in the top 3 refugee groups and their claims were processed 'in-country'.

"In-country processing", as noted by the Center of American Progress, makes "the process less onerous and cumbersome for Iraqis seeking asylum by allowing for in-country visa processing, making screening less restrictive." And what migrants from Al-Qaeda’s stronghold needed was less restrictive screenings.

The less restrictive screenings were one of Senator Ted Kennedy’s final immigration gifts to America. The Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act was introduced by Ted Kennedy, backed by Grover Norquist, and co-sponsored by Joe Biden, Pat Leahy, Chuck Hagel, Dick Durbin, Bob Menendez and Barack Obama.

Link

Government

Grassley to Democrats Opposing Gorsuch: ‘You'd Filibuster Anyone'

2017-04-03

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said Senate Democrats who are threatening to filibuster a "qualified" judge like Neil Gorsuch would "filibuster anyone."

"It leaves me then very stunned why there’s this talk about a filibuster. It’s quite clear that if he isn’t qualified, then nobody is. If you would be filibustering a judge like this, it’s obviously that you’d filibuster anyone, so the actions that some would want to filibuster is quite purely politics because if you’re voting on his qualifications it’s a very easy ’yes’ vote," Grassley said at a news conference with former law clerks for Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch who are supporting his confirmation.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Merrick Garland, President Obama’s pick for the seat once filled by late Justice Antonin Scalia, was "credibly qualified" but a victim of the "Biden rule," referring to then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) saying that President George H.W. Bush should not nominate a Supreme Court justice in the middle of an election year.

"To my Democratic colleagues, if he can’t get 60 votes, Neil Gorsuch, that tells me that you don’t care about qualifications any longer. I voted for [Sonia] Sotomayor and [Elena] Kagan under the Obama administration. I would not have chosen either one but I thought they were well-qualified. And I can say without hesitation, according to the American Bar Association, Neil Gorsuch is one of the most qualified people in the country to be on the Supreme Court," said Graham at the conference held outside of the Supreme Court.

Graham said the Democrats should give President Trump the same treatment he and other Senate Republicans gave Obama’s first two Supreme Court nominees.

"I just assumed like most people it would probably be a Democrat [president] and [the nominee] might be more liberal than Garland. President Trump won. He defied my expectations," he said. "He won the White House and he deserves, I believe, the same respect and treatment that was given to President Obama for his two nominees that reported out of committee."

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said the arguments Senate Democrats used to justify filibuster rule changes in 2013 for judicial appointments below the Supreme Court level could also apply to Senate Republicans using the "nuclear option" for the Gorsuch nomination.

"There is not one argument advanced in justification for the Democratic Senate majority’s decision to go nuclear in November 2013 that doesn’t also apply with equal force throughout the executive calendar," Lee said.

"There is not one argument they’ve made that can apply there, so in my view that decision was made in November 2013."

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) questioned why Democrats who voted to confirm Gorsuch a decade ago to the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals would reject him now.
Because Trump
"Not a single senator spoke out against him ‐ not Dianne Feinstein, not Pat Leahy, not Barack Obama, not Joe Biden, not Hillary Clinton. Every one of them went along with confirming him to the court of appeals ‐ a question anyone should ask. If they supported him being on the court of appeals a decade ago, what’s changed?" Cruz said.
They not only lost, they got their asses beat with a steak tenderizer. And they are throwing a tantrum.
"And the only thing that has changed is our energized activist friends that have Democrats senators terrified they will be primaried from the left in a Democratic primary ‐ that’s the only thing that’s changed," he added, referring to the activists that had gathered outside of the Supreme Court to protest Gorsuch.

Cruz said the Supreme Court seat was on the ballot when Trump won the presidency, since Hillary Clinton promised a liberal nominee while Trump said he would nominate someone in the mold of Scalia.

"This election was in a very real sense a referendum on the Supreme Court ‐ that has no precedent, the degree to which the voters knew precisely what they were getting," he said. "The overwhelming election results in November as the American people chose the direction gives this nomination a kind of super legitimacy."

Cruz said Democrats were very "animated" about their opposition to Justice Clarence Thomas, who was ultimately confirmed with 52 votes, and no Democrats had demanded a 60-vote threshold.

"He was confirmed with a simple majority ‐ that, if the Democrats make the ill-advised decision to filibuster [this] week, will be the rule to which we return, the rule that has governed the Senate for Supreme Court nominations for two centuries," Cruz said.

In a press conference on Capitol Hill, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said special interest money is being used to "prop up" Gorsuch’s nomination.

"He was hand-picked for the Supreme Court by the right-wing, special interest-laden Heritage Foundation and Federal Society. Now millions of dollars of undisclosed special-interest donations are being used to prop up his nomination," he said on Wednesday. "Let me be clear: he was hand-picked by special interests, supported by special interests and has a record of siding with special interests. This is no neutral, down-the-middle judge."
He *GASPS* rules according to how the law is written!!!
Schumer recommended that the Republicans change the nominee rather than change the Senate rules.

"If Judge Gorsuch fails to earn 60 votes and fails to demonstrate he is mainstream enough to sit on the highest court, we should change the nominee, not the rules," Schumer said. "They could easily come to another nominee who might be a little more mainstream."
Who you would filibuster
Schumer warned that Senate Republicans could change the rules for the next Supreme Court nominee as well.

"If they are so quick to change the rules this time, they will be just as quick to change it next time," he said. "If right now, already, with this kind of nominee chosen by this kind of group, they are saying ’we are going to change the rules’ they will change it again."

Toward the end of the news conference, Schumer was asked if he would be willing to work with Trump on issues like healthcare. In response, Schumer said Democrats have suggestions to improve the healthcare system.

"Once they get off this kick of repeal and stop undermining the healthcare system, we have suggestions we want to make to make the system better. They’ll have suggestions. We should get in a room and try to make the system better. We’re happy to do that," Schumer replied.

"You can’t govern from the hard right," he added. "President Trump campaigned against both the Democratic and Republican establishments but when he came into office. He chose his appointments, including Supreme Court, and governed from the hard right ‐ even without Democrats, he’s having trouble doing that as Trumpcare shows.

That's Ryancare, Senator Schumer. President Trump did not send the House a draft bill to work on. Speaker Ryan and his cronies came up with it on their own, then couldn't sell it to either the Democrats or the Tea party Republicans. But he only been been Speaker for a few months -- this was a learning experience.

He’ll have trouble constantly unless he moves to the middle. We’re waiting for him to do it."
Well according to you it is only possible to govern from the hard left and no matter what it seems you are determined to throw your temper tantrum.

Now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational Reid Rule!!!

Link

Home Front: Politix

Senate approves nuclear option

2013-11-21

The Senate has voted to change its rules so that a simple majority is required to confirm judicial nominations and executive branch picks -- the so-called "nuclear option."

The final vote was 52-48. The previous threshold was 60 votes to bring such nominations to a final up-or-down vote.

"The threshold for cloture on nominations not including the Supreme Court, is now a majority," Sen Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), the Senate president pro tempore, declared after the vote.

Three Democrats voted with Republicans against the change: Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Mark Pryor (D-Ark.). Levin is a longtime senator; Manchin and Pryor come from red states.

To about 1840 or so the House also had a version of the filibuster. It wasnt quite the same as the Senate but by rule and decorum, one needed a super-majority to move bills through.

From then up to the 1890s there was a variant of this called the disappearing quorum: the House needed a super-majority to make a quorum, so the minority party if disciplined enough would refuse to answer whenever a quorum just happened to be called, causing everything to stop. Then House Speaker Reed (a Pub) said, The best system is to have one party govern and the other party watch, and set about to eliminate this, and he did. The Democrats howled but the Pubs prevailed, and so now we have a modern House in which 218 yea votes makes things happen.

I shall suggest that it is time for the Senate filibuster to disappear completely.

Yes, I believe that major changes in our government should be done on a bipartisan basis: Social Security. Medicare. Civil Rights Bill. Decision to go to war in Iraq. And so on. Our countrys parties should agree on the big things.

But if the Democrats are going to behave like monkeys at a zoo then Speaker Reed is right: one party governs, the other opposes. And the party that is in power has the RESPONSIBILITY to govern wisely or else end up out of power.

The lack of a filibuster will hurt the next fourteen months. But the public (I predict) will see how the Democrats govern, and in a year the public shall vote. Eliminating the filibuster removes the one big excuse Harry Reid has had in his time as majority leader, that he couldnt get anything done because those eeeeeevil Rethuglicans wouldnt let him.

Okay Harry, lets see your real agenda. I think the American people will figure out what youre up to and will decide to oppose you, particularly if the Pubs are smart enough (and remember, were called the Stupid Party for a reason) to hoist him on his petard next October.

Budget? No excuse now, they have to pass a budget. Raving red lunatics for the appeals courts? Make clear that theyre loonies. And so on.

How is it the Pubs can win the House and win most state district and senate races (the Pubs do hold a sizable majority in the state legislatures right now), and yet lose Senate races? Because Dingy Harry, Chuckles Schumer, and Dirty Dick Durbin have managed to keep power and avoid responsibility.

No longer. Now theyre responsible, 50% + 1.

I predict they shall be called on it in November 2014.

Link

Home Front: Politix

How Bad Could 2010 Really Get For Democrats?

2010-04-15

Though Election Day is still months away, pundits have already begun to speculate on possible outcomes for this year's midterms. There's a general consensus that Democrats will lose seats in November, but beyond that opinions vary widely on how big those losses might be. Some argue that because of the advance notice, passage of health care, and an improving economy (or some combination of all three), Democrats will be able to limit their losses significantly. Others are predicting a repeat of 1994, when Democrats lost 50+ seats and control of the House.

So how bad could 2010 get for the Democrats? Let me say upfront that I tend to agree with analysts who argue that if we move into a "V"-shaped recovery and President Obama's job approval improves, Democratic losses could be limited to twenty or twenty-five seats.

That said, I think those who suggest that the House is barely in play, or that we are a long way from a 1994-style scenario are missing the mark. A 1994-style scenario is probably the most likely outcome at this point. Moreover, it is well within the realm of possibility - not merely a far-fetched scenario - that Democratic losses could climb into the 80 or 90-seat range. The Democrats are sailing into a perfect storm of factors influencing a midterm election, and if the situation declines for them in the ensuing months, I wouldn't be shocked to see Democratic losses eclipse 100 seats.

Consider that Democrats typically lead in the generic ballot, even if they do not gain control of Congress. In 2004, for example, Democrats led Republicans in 63 out of 72 generic ballot tests taken that year. Yet Republicans picked up a handful of seats in 2004 and won the popular vote by three points.

This year, five different polling companies have put Republicans in the lead for the generic ballot in the last two weeks alone - one reason why Michael Barone calls this the worst polling environment for Democrats "during my 50 years of following politics closely." The RCP Average has Republicans leading Democrats by 2.8 points on the generic ballot test. That should equate roughly to a 225-seat Republican majority (Republicans won the national vote by 5 points in 1994), which would almost represent a 50-seat pickup.

But many of these polls survey registered voters. Polling among likely voters, such as Rasmussen Reports, shows Republicans up by about 8-10 points, which would probably represent a seventy-seat pickup.

And the polls of the most highly energized voters are even worse for Democrats. Recent NBC/WSJ polling found that Democrats led by three points among registered voters. But among those most interested in the November elections, Republicans led by 13 points.

This reminds me of the polling that showed Martha Coakley up 15 points in early January, but which also showed her and Scott Brown tied among those most interested in the race.

The exit poll model I used in late 2009 to suggest that the Massachusetts Senate race would be a close one leads to a similar conclusion. You can read the article here for a more thorough explanation, but applying the model to a national ballot test suggests that the Democrats should lose the popular vote 57%-43%.

It isn't just the generic balloting that has been horrendous. Every Democratic Senate candidate except five from very blue states (Pat Leahy (VT), Chuck Schumer (NY), Barbara Mikulski (MD), Dan Inouye (HI) and Richard Blumenthal (CT)) has had at least one poll test placing him or her below 50% this cycle. Similarly, the individual House polling has been uniformly dismal for Democrats. Democrats in light blue districts , like Ben Ray Lujan and Jerry Costello, have been significantly below 50% in polls. Democrats in red districts who normally receive around 60% of the vote are below 50% as well. If these Democrats are truly below 50% in their polling, a ninety-seat pickup is not out of the question.

And this is the present situation. If unemployment doesn't abate and incomes don't rise much, President Obama could easily be hovering around 40% approval in November. What does the generic ballot, which is partially keyed off of the President's approval rating, look like then?

Link

Fifth Column

Moonbat Fratricide: "Air America is now the Jesus W Bush network!"

2008-04-04

The link is to Air America ~~Fuehrer~~ ~~Zampolit~~ ~~el Jefe Maximo~~ Chairman Charlie Kireker's press release announcing that Randi Rhodes has been suspended for calling Hillary Clinton a "f$#%@*&! whore" and all that. Pop up a bag of microwave butter lite and scroll down to the comments. Some in the audience are not amused . . .

Shame on you Charlie Kireker! You have clearly violated Ms Rhodes Constitutional right to Free Speech. Even though you may have been one of the sponsors for her appearance, a simple statement that you do not condone her public language should have sufficed. Instead, you have silenced one of the only voices on the radio that actually has the nerve to speak the TRUTH about what is going on in the world! How is it that Vice President Dick Cheney can tell Senator Pat Leahy to Go F Himself on the floor of the U.S. Senate, with anger and venom and not in jest, and never even be held accountable for his total disrespect of this distinguished person? But, you, Mr. Kireker suspend Randi for doing a comedy act not even aired by your station! What a despicable and cowardly act on your part!

Randi has become so many of our voices. It's a damn shame that her knowledge, outstanding research capability and her willingness to educate in the most unique fashion is being trumped by a politically incorrect stand-up comedy routine!!! For God's sake, you corporate gurus at Air America are single handedly willing to take this away from us... for what? Political correctness? Bowing to the Clintons? (don't tell me they had no hand in this... their political claws are OUT!!) This is shameful! Randi is a breath of fresh air, whether you agree with her or not, ONLY because she's willing to cut the crap. As a wife, mother of 2 teenagers, registered nurse and an independent thinker... who lives in the midwest and has, along with millions of Americans, been completely traumatized from the multitude of crimes committed by this horrendous Bush Administration..... I demand that Randi be re-instated immediately, be completely vindicated, and allowed to resume her show UNALTERED by political correctness. I'm completely discouraged that voices are being suppressed and the "dumbing down" of Americans continues. I, for one, will cancel my Premium Membership if that's what it takes, and only listen to Mike Malloy on Nova M Radio, or The Young Turks (who recently left Air America voluntarily....wonder why?) You corporate thugs only listen to one God.... Money. Sincerely pissed off, Kelly Shepherd

This last one heer is a real classic (emphasis added):

I agree with everything Ms Rhodes said. Air America is now the Jesus W Bush network. It's time for another bankruptcy to go with your ethical bankruptcy.

Link

Home Front: Politix

Roseanne vs. Spiderman

2008-01-28

When hyperliberal Sen. Pat Leahy criticizes Bill Clinton for glib, cheap shots at Barack Obama, Hillary is in real trouble. Clintons Troubles arent caused only by backfire at Bills blunt use of racial prejudice against Obama in South Carolina. The Troubles are much more basic. Bills charm isnt transferable to the lady who is known to some as Bills lovely wife, Bruno.

Hillarys poll numbers may be a bit above Obamas nationally -- yesterday, RealClearPolitics had her ahead by about 8 points -- but those polls are not yet indicative of nation-wide strength. And theres one factor the polls dont measure.

Last October, gushy Katty Kay of BBC and Chris Matthews had this exchange about Obama:

Matthews: This guy can stand before a crowd and make them feel magic.

Kay: "And along comes somebody like Obama, who has all sorts of charisma, he is ridiculously good looking!"

No one ever said that about Hillary. Add to that what Caroline Kennedy twittered about Obama in yesterdays New York Times:

I have spent the past five years working in the New York City public schools and have three teenage children of my own. There is a generation coming of age that is hopeful, hard-working, innovative and imaginative. But too many of them are also hopeless, defeated and disengaged. As parents, we have a responsibility to help our children to believe in themselves and in their power to shape their future. Senator Obama is inspiring my children, my parents grandchildren, with that sense of possibilityI have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president -- not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.

No one will again confuse Katty or Caroline for serious people. But why are so many Democrats of both genders going goo-goo eyed for Barack? Easy: Bruno doesnt run well against Barack.

Saturdays blowout win by Obama in the Democrats South Carolina primary (55%-27%) cannot be disregarded by the Clintons, because its the first time this year that any candidate got more than 50% of the vote. According to Fox News exit polls Obama beat Clinton among women voters (53%-30%) and especially among black women (79%-19%) though she won among white women (44%-34%). It was as if Obama swooped down up at the right moment to rescue the voters, scooping up South Carolina in his arms, firing his webbing at a nearby wall and swinging out of range while the octopus-like villain was clicking its claws futilely in the air.

The Democratic primary race is Spiderman versus Roseanne. A lot of gals (and some wimpy guys) favorite self-doubting superhero against the pain-in-the-butt wife that is every mans nightmare. Call it what it is: a stylish rookie against the most charisma-free presidential candidate America has seen since Bob Dole.

My advice to O'Bama: Keep her laughing and you'll win in a landslide.

Link

China-Japan-Koreas

Japan makes missile defence shield priority

2007-07-06

TOKYO - Japan said Friday it aims to erect a missile defence shield as quickly as possible as North Korea develops increasingly sophisticated weaponry, including long-range rockets.

I thought missile defense couldn't possibly work. Carl Levin and Pat Leahy say so. Why would the Japanese buy something that will never work?

Japans annual defence report warned that North Korea is improving its missile system to cover all east Asia, including Japan, and potentially reach the northern tip of Australia as well as part of Alaska. The report, approved by Prime Minister Shinzo Abes cabinet, was the first published by the defence ministry, which was upgraded from agency status in January in line with Abes initiative to expand the role of Japanese troops.

North Koreas ballistic missiles are now regarded as more practical, the report said. North Korea is improving its capability of managing ballistic missiles. It is considered that North Korea is trying to further extend their firing range.

It is necessary to finish deploying a ballistic missile defence as quickly as possible, the annual paper said, noting the need for Tokyo to strengthen cooperation with the US military.

Link

Home Front: Politix

Bush needs to fight back

2007-04-02

by William Kristol

An experienced Republican operative of our acquaintance--normally a man of sanguine disposition--said it all last week. After denouncing the amazing irresponsibility of the Democratic Congress, after lamenting the refusal of much of the media to report progress from Iraq, after noting the apparent incompetence of the attorney general, after wondering why the secretary of state seems to be making herself irrelevant--he came as close as he ever does to exploding. "But all this doesn't matter. It's really about Bush. Doesn't he understand he's walking around with a 'Kick Me' sign on his back?"

Surely President Bush must realize that the Democratic Congress is not merely struggling with him over policy, or jousting for political advantage. The Democrats in Congress are trying to destroy his presidency. They are trying to cripple his ability to govern for the rest of his term. And they are not far from succeeding. Will Bush fight back?

This does not mean defending everything his administration has done indiscriminately, of course. It may be, for example, that Attorney General Gonzales and Deputy Attorney General McNulty should go. Then get rid of them now. Appoint strong conservatives to replace them. And insist on their prompt confirmation.

Senate judiciary chair Pat Leahy threatened last week to hold up any such confirmation until his committee had access to testimony from Karl Rove. Why do the Democrats want Rove to testify? The Senate Democratic whip, Dick Durbin of Illinois, gave the game away in a recent interview with the Chicago Sun-Times's Lynn Sweet. Durbin explained that he wants Rove to testify so he can be forced to answer questions about "how much did the president know" and what did he do. Durbin wants to destroy the possibility of confidential communications between the president and his White House staff.

And that's not all. If Rove were to be sworn in as a witness, Durbin continued, the committee would want to know, "What else was Karl Rove doing when it came to other activities, departments of the government?" In other words: Democrats want a fishing expedition. Bush needs to be unequivocal that his White House aides will not testify. And if Leahy holds up confirmation hearings for the nominee for attorney general--if there is one--Bush needs to make his man acting attorney general in the meantime, rather than allowing Democrats to impede his ability to govern.

There is much else that Bush could do to show strength and remoralize his supporters. He could pardon Scooter Libby--now. When his top communications aide, Dan Bartlett, leaves, Bush could replace him with someone aggressive and conservative. And he could order his administration to battle for its initiatives and its people.

Here's a small but revealing example of the current situation. Last week, the White House withdrew the nomination of St. Louis businessman and philanthropist Sam Fox to be ambassador to Belgium after John Kerry threw a fit about Fox's having given money in 2004 to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Kerry tried to insist that Fox apologize for his donation. Fox, a man of stature and dignity, refused to pretend to be contrite. Kerry bludgeoned Senate Foreign Relations Committee Democrats into opposing Fox--which was not so easy, as Fox had wide and bipartisan support in Missouri and beyond. But the White House did nothing, and Democrats fell into line behind Kerry.

Sam Fox won't be an ambassador, but maybe the White House can learn from his experience. Refusing to yield to Kerry's bullying, Fox defended his contribution: "I did it because politically it's necessary if the other side's doing it." The other side is doing it in spades right now. If Bush doesn't fight back, the wreckage will extend to the few issues Bush has been vigorous on, such as Iraq. Even as Gen. Petraeus makes headway, even as John McCain demolishes the arguments of his Democratic colleagues, it will be increasingly difficult to maintain support for the war if the administration is in free fall.

Many Republicans may be tempted to give up in exasperation on a Bush administration that often seems incapable of defending itself. This would of course be bad for the country, leaving the nation at the mercy of the Democratic Congress for the next year and a half. But it would also be a political mistake. Even though Giuliani and McCain and Romney and Thompson have a fair amount of distance from the Bush administration, there is almost no precedent for a party's retaining the presidency if the outgoing administration ends its term in a shambles. So if Republicans--even not-particularly-Bush-friendly Republicans--want to save the country from a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress in 2009, with all that implies for foreign policy and the Supreme Court, they need to fight to save the Bush administration. It would be helpful if Bush would fight too.

Link

Syria-Lebanon-Iran

US open in support of Syrian oppn groups

2006-12-21

WASHINGTON - The United States said Wednesday it supported Syrian opposition groups rivalling President Bashar Al Assad, but said such support was overt, and not a secret bid to undermine his government. New scrutiny of tense US-Syria relations came after Time magazine ran an exclusive report on its website, based on a classified document it said showed the Bush administration was mulling an effort to fund opposition to Assad.

Good old MSM strikes again, publishing a classified document about our activities. Strange, they didn't do this when a Democrat was president ...

It said some critics charge such an initiative would amount to a covert action to influence a foreign government, and so leave the White House legally bound to inform Congress.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the United States supported Syrian civil society groups, in line with its global bid to foster democracy around the world. Any activities the State Department are involved in are overt, theyre funded through our Middle East initiatives, and theyre for all to see, he said. There are public reports on these things. We talk to the Congress about them.

Waiting for Pat Leahy or Charlie Shumer to open up in 5 .. 4 .. 3 ..

Time said that one proposal being considered was an election monitoring program that would need to be concealed to be effective. The report said the US effort was particularly targeting legislative elections in Syria due in March.

A White House official, who requested anonymity, said election monitoring was an important component of any free election, and the US supports the training of monitors.

Which we did in places like Ukraine, Peru and Georgia. It's an effective program and another arrow in our quiver against thugs and jihadis. Makes you wonder what Time has against it.

The official did not say specifically if the United States was planning such an effort in Syria, but added : it is currently not possible for the Syrian people, much less international experts, to freely monitor elections inside Syria in order to make sure that they are conducted according to internationally recognized standards.

The Syrian government should permit the freedom of movement, speech, and association of those in Syria who want to monitor the upcoming elections in 2007, the official said. We are very open about the fact that the Presidents Freedom Agenda makes democratic development in the Middle East a priority for US foreign policy.This includes assisting people in the region who want to participate in free and fair elections that meet international standards.

Time said the election monitoring scheme could involve Internet accessible materials available for printing and disseminating throughout Syria and neighbouring countries.

Rather hard for that to be covert, isn't it? Seems like it's right out in the open.

The proposal also called for voter education campaigns and public opinion polling and a surreptitious effort to provide support for at least on Syrian politician, the magazine said.

Link

Home Front: Politix

The Dangers Of A Democrat Senate

2006-09-14

On this, the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attack on America, concern over those who will make decisions about our nation's future, combined with the positive response to my last column ("The Dangers of a Democrat House"), has convinced me to do the same kind of analysis on the United State Senate. While many Americans are disgusted with those currently in leadership positions in the "upper body" of the GOP Congress, we should be downright terrified by the prospect of the Democrats who would replace them if the balance of power shifts in November. Consider these possibilities:

Harry Reid, D-Nevada -- Having succeeded Tom Daschle as the Dems' whiner-in-chief, Reid is poised to move from minority leader to majority leader should the Democrats regain control. Reid voted "no" on a balanced budget amendment; "yes" on additional funding and stricter sentencing for "hate crimes"; "no" on increased penalties for drug offences; "no" on drilling in ANWR; and "yes" on giving away the store to illegal aliens.

Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, and Barbara Boxer, D-California -- As two of Reid's loyal lieutenants, Assistant Minority Leader Durbin and Chief Deputy Whip Boxer are poised to assume similar roles in the majority. Boxer, one of the most stridently left-wing members of the Senate, fights vehemently for unconscionable "rights" like partial-birth abortion, while the equally liberal Durbin publicly equated our troops in Iraq with "Nazis."

Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia -- In one of the cruelest ironies yet for the American taxpayer, the biggest pork-barrel spender in the history of the Senate could become chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Second choice for this chairmanship could be another of the Senate's most notorious liberals, Sen. Patrick Leahy of the Peoples Republic of Vermont.

Carl Levin, D-Michigan -- Levin is the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and as such would become its chairman in a Democrat Senate. He supported Bill Clinton's incursions into Kosovo but opposed the use force against Iraq. If he forgoes his right to assume chairmanship of Armed Services, it could be handed Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY. Need I say more?

Joe Biden, D-Delaware -- One of the dimmer bulbs in the Senate, Biden thinks he can be elected president in two years, despite the fact that he was caught plagiarizing speeches the last time he ran. His senate votes include a "yes" on establishing a guest worker program for illegal aliens and on giving them a path to citizenship, "yes" on allowing illegals to participate in Social Security; and "no" on limiting welfare for immigrants. Biden would become chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey -- Although Joe Lieberman is currently the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, his loss to in the bitter Connecticut Democratic primary will assure his ouster from the Democratic leadership. This leaves Daniel Akaka of Hawaii or Lautenberg as the most likely Democrats to chair this important committee. Akaka could very well lose his bid for reelection in November, thus leaving Lautenberg, another old-line liberal whose voting record mirrors Biden's on illegal immigration and who voted against reauthorization of the Patriot Act.

Ted Kennedy, D-Massachusetts -- Disgruntled Republicans, of which I am one, who disapproved of the Senate Judiciary Committee being chaired by liberal Republican Arlen Specter, D-PA, must consider the unacceptable alternative. Had Massachusetts' senior bloviator or his socialist comrade, Pat Leahy, been in charge of this committee when President Bush nominated John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court, the outcome would have been quite different. Kennedy and Leahy are the likely candidates to succeed Specter in a Democrat Senate.

From judicial nominees to international treaties, from homeland security to education, from illegal immigration to taxes, from the sanctity of marriage to the sanctity of human life, Democrats will make things decidedly worse for America. On November 7th, even if your GOP candidate makes you hold your nose to do it, please vote Republican. It's still important.

Link

Home Front: WoT

To connect the dots, you have to see the dots

2006-05-14

Here are two news stories from the end of last week. The first one you may have heard about. As "The Today Show's" Matt Lauer put it:

"Does the government have your number? This morning a shocking new report that the National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone records of tens of millions of Americans."

The second story comes from the United Kingdom and what with Lauer's hyperventilating you may have missed it. It was the official report into the July 7 bus and Tube bombings. As The Times of London summarized the conclusions:

"Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the bomb cell, had come to the attention of MI5 [Britain's domestic intelligence agency] on five occasions but had never been pursued as a serious suspect . . .

"A lack of communication between police Special Branch units, MI5 and other agencies had hampered the intelligence-gathering operation;

"There was a lack of co-operation with foreign intelligence services and inadequate intelligence coverage in . . ."

Etc., etc., ad nauseam.

So there are now two basic templates in terrorism media coverage:

Template A (note to editors: to be used after every terrorist atrocity): "Angry family members, experts and opposition politicians demand to know why complacent government didn't connect the dots."

Template B (note to editors: to be used in the run-up to the next terrorist atrocity): "Shocking new report leaked to New York Times for Pulitzer Prize Leak Of The Year Award nomination reveals that paranoid government officials are trying to connect the dots! See pages 3,4,6,7,8, 13-37."

How do you connect the dots? To take one example of what we're up against, two days before 9/11, a very brave man, the anti-Taliban resistance leader Ahmed Shah Massoud, was assassinated in Afghanistan by killers posing as journalists. His murderers were Algerians traveling on Belgian passports who'd arrived in that part of the world on visas issued by the Pakistani High Commission in the United Kingdom. That's three more countries than many Americans have visited. The jihadists are not "primitives". They're part of a sophisticated network: They travel the world, see interesting places, meet interesting people -- and kill them. They're as globalized as McDonald's -- but, on the whole, they fill in less paperwork. They're very good at compartmentalizing operations: They don't leave footprints, just a toeprint in Country A in Time Zone B and another toe in Country E in Time Zone K. You have to sift through millions of dots to discern two that might be worth connecting.

I'm a strong believer in privacy rights. I don't see why Americans are obligated to give the government their bank account details and the holdings therein. Other revenue agencies in other free societies don't require that level of disclosure. But, given that the people of the United States are apparently entirely cool with that, it's hard to see why lists of phone numbers (i.e., your monthly statement) with no identifying information attached to them is of such a vastly different order of magnitude. By definition, "connecting the dots" involves getting to see the dots in the first place.

Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) feels differently. "Look at this headline," huffed the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. "The secret collection of phone call records of tens of millions of Americans. Now, are you telling me that tens of millions of Americans are involved with al-Qaida?"

No. But next time he's flying from D.C. to Burlington, Vt., on a Friday afternoon he might look at the security line: Tens of millions of Americans are having to take their coats and shoes off! Are you telling me that tens of millions of ordinary shoe-wearing Americans are involved with al-Qaida?

Of course not. Fifteen out of 19 of the 9/11 killers were citizens of Saudi Arabia. So let's scrap the tens of millions of law-abiding phone records, and say we only want to examine the long-distance phone bills of, say, young men of Saudi origin living in the United States. Can you imagine what Leahy and Lauer would say to that? Oh, no! Racial profiling! The government's snooping on people whose only crime is "dialing while Arab." In a country whose Transportation Security Administration personnel recently pulled Daniel Brown off the plane as a security threat because he had traces of gunpowder on his boots -- he was a uniformed U.S. Marine on his way home from Iraq -- in such a culture any security measure will involve "tens of millions of Americans": again by definition, if one can't profile on the basis of religion or national origin or any other identifying mark with identity-group grievance potential, every program will have to be at least nominally universal.

Last week, apropos the Moussaoui case, I remarked on the absurdity of victims of the London Blitz demanding the German perpetrators be brought before a British court. Melanie Phillips, a columnist with the Daily Mail in London and author of the alarming new book Londonistan, responded dryly, "Ah, but if we were fighting World War Two now, we'd lose."

She may be right. It's certainly hard to imagine Pat Leahy as FDR or Harry Truman or any other warmongering Democrat of yore. To be sure, most of Pat's Vermont voters would say there is no war; it's just a lot of fearmongering got up by Bush and Cheney to distract from the chads they stole in Florida or whatever. And they're right -- if, by "war," you mean tank battles in the North African desert and air forces bombing English cities night after night. But today no country in the world can fight that kind of war with America. If that's all "war" is, then (once more by definition) there can be no war. If you seek to weaken, demoralize and bleed to death the United States and its allies, you can only do it asymmetrically -- by killing thousands of people and then demanding a criminal trial, by liaising with terrorist groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan and then demanding the government cease inspecting your phone records.

I yield to no one in my antipathy to government, but not everyone who's on the federal payroll is a boob, a time-server, a politically motivated malcontent or principal leak supplier to the New York Times. Suppose you're a savvy mid-level guy in Washington, you've just noticed a pattern, you think there might be something in it. But it requires enormous will to talk your bosses into agreeing to investigate further, and everyone up the chain is thinking, gee, if this gets out, will Pat Leahy haul me before the Senate and kill my promotion prospects? There was a lot of that before 9/11, and thousands died.

And five years on?

Link

Warning: Undefined property: stdClass::$T in /data/rantburg.com/www/rantburg/pgrecentorg.php on line 132
-12 More