"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."
--Joseph Stalin

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Judge John G. Roberts:Federalist Society Threatens Freedom...NOT!

Will Malven
7/26/05

n an editorial today, the “hightly respected” New York Times is asking whether or not Judge John G. Roberts is a member of the-hold on to your seats now-Federalist Society-ooh, aah, are you frightened yet?

The implication by the Left is that the Federalist Society is some sort of shadowy, cabalistic, perhaps even malevolent, group of hooded, incantation speaking, lawyer-sorcerers who, having sold their souls to the Devil, are intent on corrupting and taking over the Government of the United States. Now once I move beyond my usual sarcastic attitude about trial lawyers and my tendency to say “Of course they are, they’re lawyers!” and move to consider the facts, I am reminded once again of the twisted nature of Liberal thinking. During the Circuit Court Judge debates I witnessed allegedly intelligent, ethical, Democrat Senators asking rhetorically, if the judicial nominees were members of the “Federalist Society” as if to answer “Yes!” would be an admission that they were guilty of practicing of black magic. “What is the Federalist Society?” They would ask. “What is their aim?”

Dick Durbin is the central figure in this cult investigation. For some reason, he seems to believe that if he throws the words “Federalist Society” around often enough, people will take notice and become fearful of any judicial nominee thus affiliated. To quote Durbin: "As we try to monitor the legal DNA of President Bush's nominees, we find repeatedly the Federalist Society chromosome, why is it that membership in the Federalist Society has become the secret handshake of the Bush nominees for the federal court?" Further, in a 2001 hearing on President Bush’s nominee for Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Policy Development at the U.S. Department of Justice, Viet Dinh, Senator Durbin once more expressed his hesitancy to accept anyone associated with this mysterious organization called the Federalist Society by launching into the following tirade:
“You are a member of the Federalist Society. We find it curious on our side of the aisle that President Bush has said that he no longer wants to rely on the American Bar Association to do a background check on perspective judges. This was a tradition that started in a radical era of American politics known as the Eisenhower presidency [note the witty sarcasm here, Dick you are a clever devil.] when President Eisenhower thought it was reasonable — and I do, too, incidentally — that the largest bar association in America at least comment on the worthiness of nominees for the federal bench.”



“Well, let me say that what I've read — and I'm not an expert nor am I member of the Federalist Society — they do have a very conservative philosophy. I don't think they are a debating society. I think they have an agenda. And it troubles some of us to believe that the American Bar Association, [did you notice Ted Kennedy perk up after this third mention of the word “bar?”] which has been characterized as liberal by the conservatives and conservative by the liberals over the course of its history, is being cast aside by the White House now when it comes to the judicial process. And instead we find that many people who are associated with the Federalist Society are now seeking prominent positions in the administration of justice. I don't think it's a coincidence. I think it is a conscious decision to move us toward a path that, frankly, many of us think needs to be questioned, and at least publicized. Could you describe for us your involvement with the Federalist Society and what you believe this group stands for?”
It sounds like he’s trying to characterize the Federalist Society as a conspiracy by evil lawyers [I know I’m treading real close to redundancy here] to take over the Government. I don’t know about you, but I thought that was an exact description of the ACLU, not the Federalist Society.

You can imagine, when I first heard these “earnest concerns” expressed by such a paragon of honesty in the Senate, I rushed to my computer to find out what I could on this...this “Federalist Society.” I naturally assumed from the tenor of Durbin’s questions that it would be a Herculean task to find any substantive information on this mysterious cult. Imagine my surprise when upon entering “federalist society” in the search engine, I came up with their website http://www.fed-soc.org/ as the first result. “This can’t be,” I said to myself. I had thought from Senator Durbin’s questions that they were a secretive organization that would be at least as difficult to find out about as say the Masons or even the Trilateral Commission. Perhaps they would even be as elusive as the dreaded Illuminati of Dan Brown’s novel. [For more about these and other evil organizations, visit www.whatreallyhappened.com, can you say conspiracy?] Yet here I was with a website that even included a complete listing of the names of the Board of Directors, a “Board of Visitors,” a Business Advisory Council, and the organization’s staff.

“Ah,” I thought, “But what Dick Durbin really was concerned about was his inability to discern the purpose of this dangerous organization. Surely that would be hidden in some password protected dungeon on this website that I would never be able to access.” But right there on the main menu was, to my surprise, an entry which says “Our Purpose.” Was I wrong? Was my faith in Senator Durbin’s sincerity misplaced? Could all of his questioning and posing have been for political purposes and completely contrived? Imagine my heartbreak when I discovered that the answer to these questions was yes, yes, YES! I had been misled by a Senator of the United States. Well either that or Dick is computer illiterate. My bet is that he is just a political hack with an anti-conservative, anti-President Bush axe to grind, and a bald faced liar.

Dangerous far Left-wing groups like “People for the American Way” and the denizens of Democrats.com seek to re-enforce this dark conspiratorial impression of the Federalist Society. To see how extremist Democrats.com is they, with complete sincerity, describe People for the American Way as “nonpartisan.” This is a description that PFAW uses to describe themselves...go figure. They describe the Federalist Society simply as “treasonous.” In searching the writings on their website for some further information on this allegation of being “treasonous,” I found none, leading me to ponder whether or not these people even know what the word means. I suspect not. PFAW themselves describe the ABA as “resolutely centrist” and do so with a straight face.

The truth is that “Founded in 1982, the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians dedicated to reforming the current legal order. We are committed to the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The Society seeks to promote awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities.” [Quotation taken directly from the Federalist Society web page, emphasis added.] It was established as an effort to counteract the “orthodox liberalism” running rampant on the campuses of America’s law schools. It is an organization which believes in individual freedom, that making law is and should be the sole province of the Legislative branch of government, and that it is emphatically not the province of the judiciary.

So concerned are the Liberals about the growing influence of the Federalist Society, they have come up with their own answer to it, The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy. Yes, much like their answer to Rush Limbaugh and Conservative Talk Radio, these unoriginal Leftists have got another “me too” organization. I hope for their sake, that it’s more successful than their ill-fated attempt at talk radio...Air-America...give me a break!

This obvious discomfiture of the Left with the current ascendancy of members of the Society is the source of wry amusement for those of us on the Right. Former Solicitor General and current D.C. Chapter head Theodore Olson, one of the more notable members of the society, addressed a Federalist Society luncheon on the 8th of this month. He acknowledged "all of you Federalists who seem to have mastered the secret handshake." And went on to say "For those of you who just stumbled in off the street, it is my duty to advise you that you have stumbled into a right-wing cabal -- you will never be the same again." I love it!

"The Federalist Society appears to be the secret handshake that judicial nominees share with the White House." Dick Durbin Democrat Senator from Illinois in 2003

No Senator Durbin, you’re confusing them with that other “cabal of malevolence,” the Masons. Get a grip Senator Durbin. We’re not children out here; we can spot cheap attempts by unscrupulous politicians to make political points by engendering fear in the electorate. Please stop talking down to us; it only makes you look like a two-bit version of your party’s mascot...eeehaaaw, eeehaaaw.

Monday, July 25, 2005

Karl Rove/Valerie Plame Case Indicates Shield Law is Terrible Idea.

Will Malven
7/25/2005

Congress is debating the passing of a “shield law” which would protect members of the press from being forced to reveal their sources. This push for the so-called shield law has taken on new meaning since the Valerie Plame “outing” case has resulted in the jailing of New York Times reporter Judith Miller on a contempt of court finding for refusing to “give up” her sources for a story she never wrote. We should be asking many questions before we grant this kind of sweeping immunity to the “Fourth Estate.” I believe passing these laws would be a dangerous, dysnomic, act that would give the press a legal carte blanche that is unwarranted given their recent history. So called shield laws grant the press entirely too much power. I have laid out several reasons for this reticence to accept this law without objection.

First, I believe that it is a violation of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth Amendment in setting up a special privilege for members of the press, a privilege not available to the average citizen or blogger. There are more understandable exceptions for Doctors, Lawyers, and Priests. For lawyers this kind of confidentiality is required by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution and the assistance of counsel clause of the Sixth Amendment to insure that the accused has full and fair trial with proper representation. For Medical Doctors, this kind of confidentiality is necessary to insure that his patients feel comfortable confiding their deepest medical secrets so they may secure the best treatment. A more questionable in this modern age perhaps, but certainly historically recognized right in “common” law is that between a priest and his parishioner. The Seal of the Confessional was the first recognized right of confidentiality, and has been accepted as legitimate for hundreds of years.

Second, the term “right to know” is a misnomer. I believe that it should be my “right to know” who the source for a story is so that I can evaluate for myself the validity and honesty of the source. The MSM would have us believe that the protection of a shield law is for the good of the country, in that people will not be forthcoming with information if their identities are not protected. My question to them is, “Are we supposed to trust the MSM to be an honest broker of the information with which they are presenting us. It begs the question, we are speaking, are we not of the same MSM that presented us with fake documents concerning President Bush’s Air National Guard service records? These records, had individuals independently investigating the story not discovered the forged nature of the documents, might have had a profound influence on the Presidential Election of 2004. Are the reporters involved in this story the same members of the press that the American people I and are supposed to invest with their blind trust?

Thirdly, the MSM has been proven not only to be easily duped by less than honest actors serving as sources for stories, they are the same MSM which has been shown time and time again to create and or embellish news stories. I am reminded of the faked unexpected acceleration tests that 60 minutes performed on Audi 5000 automobiles in 1986, in which they hired an engineer to rig the transmissions of test vehicles to duplicate the alleged defect. Or perhaps I should mention Mr. Jason Blair, late of the New York Times, famous for his, shall we say, creative technique in reporting the news (pun definitely intended). And let us not forget the brouhaha over CNN’s self-censoring in Iraq just so they could maintain their presence there. Michael Isikoff’s faulty report of guards flushing copies of the Koran down the toilet in Newsweek Magazine resulted in riots and the deaths of Afghanistan citizens. Should we be putting our blind trust in organizations such as these?

Fourth, the information coming out of the Plame case Grand Jury indicates that Robert Novak stated that his second source was Karl Rove. Karl Rove’s “confirming” statement was “I have heard that too.” I would ask is this the standard to which the MSM is to be held for a confirming source on a story? Is that a level of confirmation with which we should be comfortable? It is easy to envision a scenario in which someone overhears an outrageous, made up tale about an individual, and with no supporting information, no evidence whatsoever, becomes a confirming source. Is that what we should call legitimate sourcing? I venture to say that it is not.

Lastly and certainly, given all of the above doubts about story legitimacy and sourcing, most worrying of all, should we feel comfortable granting this kind of blanket immunity to a Fourth Estate which has become, in essence, an adjunct of the Democrat party? Can we entrust a body which has proven itself so clearly to be biased in support of one party, and actively campaigning against the other with this kind of power? This concept of “the right to know” is a right created out of whole cloth by the press itself. There is no historical basis for it. It is based on the assumption that the press is nobler than the citizenry. It is a right which they have, in their self-righteous belief that they should be the sole monitors of our government’s actions, arrogated to themselves.

Once again, we see the Congressional RINO’s, Senators Arlen Specter (R-Pen.) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and Representative Mike Pence (R-Ind.), in league with the usual liberal suspects, Chris Dodd (D-Con.), Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Rick Boucher (D-Va.) racing head-long to pass this highly questionable law. Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey was slated to appear before the Senate Judiciary committee Wednesday to testify on what he has described as “bad public policy primarily because it would broadly bar the government from obtaining information about media sources, even in the most urgent of circumstances affecting the public’s health or safety or national security.” Comey said, “The bill would seriously jeopardize traditional notions of grand-jury secrecy and unnecessarily delay the completion of criminal investigations.”

This proposed “Free Flow of Information Act of 2005” would have the effect of overturning the Supreme Court decision in Branzburg v. Hayes. In Branzburg v. Hayes the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Byron White, ruled that while “without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated. [The cases before the Court] involve no intrusions upon speech or assembly, no prior restraint or restriction on what the press may publish, and no express or implied command that the press publish what it prefers to withhold. The sole issue before us is the obligation of reporters to respond to grand jury subpoenas as other citizens do and to answer questions relevant to an investigation into the commission of crime.” In this ruling, the court basically was stating my first objection to the currently proposed law; average citizens don’t enjoy this protection, so reporters shouldn’t either.

I believe that the risks involved in allowing the press to operate with impunity, far out-weigh the advantages to the public in having the information that might become available from anonymous sources being used. Without any recourse left to the public for accountability this kind of shield law places entirely too much power into the hands of a group in our society which has proven itself far too unreliable to be entrusted with such power. To be fair, members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have expressed some concerns that the act may be too broad. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Cal.) described the law as “extraordinarily broad.” As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, she has real reason for these concerns, and I agree with her.

Extra-Judicial powers for individuals or sectors of our society should be granted very rarely and grudgingly. Although an out of control judiciary is a threat to our Republic, an uncontrolled free-running press could present an equal or even greater threat to our Republic by exercising undo influence upon the electorate.

As always, balance is the key. It is up to Congress and the individual citizen (by letting their representatives know their wishes) to define and maintain that balance.

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

The Karl Rove Story: Are Liberals and Their MSM Congenital Liars or Just Morons?

Will Malven
07/20/2005

I’m beginning to agree with Michael Savage, that Liberalism is a Mental Disease.  Today the MSM is engaged in a concerted effort to destroy Karl Rove and George Bush by deliberately lying about what President Bush said about the Rove Investigation and how the President will act after the investigation concludes.  They persist in saying that Presidents standards for Rove’s dismissal have changed, even though Bush has been absolutely consistent.  Here are the two statements President Bush made back to back, exactly as they were made in response to questions from the press:

George Bush on September 30th, 2003:  "If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is.  And . . . uh . . . if the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of."

George Bush on July 18, 2005:  "We have a serious ongoing investigation here, and it's being played out in the press, and I think it's best people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions. 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 is 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.”

Now to me and any honest reader of these two statements the only possible conclusion is that President Bush has been scrupulously consistent in what he has said.  I ask you, what part of the above statements is in any way ambiguous?  You liberals tell me, please.  Am I missing something here?  Yeah, I thought not.

Okay, having established that President Bush has not changed his stand on how to handle “the Rove Scandal” since the first question asked about it, let’s examine exactly how the “non-biased” Main Stream Media portrays this inflexible, unchanged stance:

Chicago Tribune today, Mark Silva headline says “Bush limits conditions on firing aides in CIA leak”...LIAR!!!

Newsday today, Craig Gordon headline says “Bush changes his firing line
He now says a leaker must have broken the law before he would let him go, a supportive sign for aide Karl Rove”...LIAR!!!

Washington Post today, Dan Froomkin headline says: “A Sidestep and a Backtrack”...LIAR!!!

San Francisco Chronicle today, Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen of the Washington Post headline says, “Bush alters standard for firing in leak case President says an aide would have had to commit a crime, not just be involved”...LIARS!!!

International Herald Tribune-France today, David Stout of The New York TimesBush shifts standard for firings in scandal”...LIAR!!!

Minneapolis Star Tribune today, David E. Sanger and Richard W. Stevenson of the New York Times headline says: “CIA leak: Bush seems to raise bar for firing”...LIARS!!!

Finally from CNN.com, this headline: President Bush appeared to backtrack Monday from his 2004 pledge to fire anyone involved in leaking the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame...(need I say it, yes) LIARS!!!
I could go on virtually indefinitely with these quotes, variations on a theme.  The theme?  I was thinking maybe “Liar” by Three Dog Night.  Now all you Liberals tell me once again that there’s no Left-wing bias in the MSM.

The key to this puzzling conundrum is two-fold. First is the motive of the MSM to hang Karl Rove and by implication George Bush.  They then combine this motive with the answer President Bush gave to a poorly (or cleverly) worded question asked by an unidentified reporter.

The “unbiased media” are basing their claim of an alleged change of stance on the following conversation between a reporter and President Bush on June 10th 2004.  

“Do you stand by your previous pledge to fire anybody who leaked her name?”

President Bush: “Yes, and that’s up to the U.S. attorney to determine the facts.”

For this to be construed to be a change of stance, they have to twist the meaning of President Bush’s answer to that contrived and erroneous question.  President Bush is standing by his previous pledge as stated on September 30th, 2003.  That pledge was not “to fire anybody who leaked her name,” it was to fire them if they broke the law (committed a crime, for you Liberals). 

The only conclusion you can draw from this, is that the MSM is engaged in an unconscionable, intentional, ruthless, deceptive, politically motivated, campaign to destroy Karl Rove and President George Bush through lies and distortions.  Clearly this makes them fall into the category of congenital liars. 

Democrats on the other hand are falling for this tripe hook, line, and sinker.  A quick visit to any of the Left-wing blog sites will give you a good glimpse into the simple minds of the blind followers of the Big Corporate Electronic and Print Media Monolith of the Left. 

The denizens of those blogs like dailyKos and BoomanTribune live in a complete fantasy world (and I know I’ve said this before) in which they only see what they want to see.  They never see what is actually written on the page, unless it suits their purposes. 

I have become firmly convinced, that many of them are incapable of reading (not unexpected given the condition to which the Liberals have reduced our education system), or at the very least, incapable of comprehending what they read.  Thus they go by whatever they are told by their Liberal friends in the MSM and on the blogs.  Because they hate conservatives so much, they rarely associate with them and even when they do, they don’t hear what the conservative is saying because they are so sure the it’s wrong, and they are too busy trying to figure out how to respond when that conservative hits them with the facts. Hence, they never get but one side of the discussion, so they exist in a complete self-confirming bubble of ignorance and hatred.  For them, I guess, ignorance truly is bliss. 

Perhaps “morons” is a bit strong, but sometimes strong language is the only way to get them to hear what is being said.  It’s as if they walk around with the old Huey P. Long campaign song repeating over and over again in their little empty heads:

Why weep or slumber America,
Land of brave and true?
With castles and clothing and food for all,
all belongs to you.

Ev'ry man a King, ev'ry man a King,
for you can be a millionaire.
But there's something belonging to others,
there’s enough for all people to share.

When it's sunny June and December too,
or in the Winter time or Spring,
There'll be peace without end,
Ev'ry neighbor a friend,
With ev'ry man a King.

As for the “unbiased” MSM you can take all of those headlines, shuffle them and put them in any spot, and there would be no effective difference.  This is a unified, monolithic, group effort to smear and destroy a Presidency. 

If the Republicans had gotten this much help from the media when Clinton lied to the Grand Jury, he would be wearing orange coveralls today and Hillary would probably be in the next cell.  Ah, but the press didn’t care about Sandy Berger and all those classified files with which he absconded.  They didn’t care about the FBI files that Hillary had stashed up there in the White House.  They couldn’t have cared less about Clinton’s habitual sexual abuse of the women around him, even when he had been accused, quite credibly, of rape.  That was because Billy boy was their President. 

As with the cozy relationship they had with JFK, they chose to turn a blind eye on everything concerning his misbehavior they could.  It was only when the MSM was confronted with Monica’s stained dress and the tapes that Linda Tripp made that they grudgingly turned their attention to investigating Clinton.  Even then, they couldn’t control their natural impulse to attack Clinton’s critics.  They demonized Linda Tripp in the cruelest and basest way and once Clinton was found not guilty by the Senate, they dropped the story like a hot rock and went on vilifying Linda Tripp and any one else who criticized the Clintons.

Karl Rove did no wrong.  There was no “malicious attempt to smear Wilson” nor was there any counter campaign against Wilson, other than Rove’s warning to Matt Cooper that Wilson was way off base when he implied that he had been sent to Niger at Dick Cheney’s request. 

Wilson himself had nothing to say about this whole matter until a week or two after joining the Kerry campaign as an advisor.  Then all of the sudden, he decided to write his now thoroughly debunked editorial in the NYT.  The press and the Democrats are now hanging all of their hopes on l’Affaire Plame-Wilson. 

The funny thing is that no matter how much proof they are shown by conservatives, the true believers among the Liberals will never believe it.  So certain are they of their own rectitude that they are walking willingly-blindly-off a cliff and when any of their conservative friends try to warn them of their folly, they happily sing the refrain of “methinks he doeth protest too much,” refusing to believe anything except that conservatives-Republicans-are getting desperate in their attempt to save a “doomed President.”.

As they are reading this, I guarantee you they are thinking that very thought.  They will not see the truth in these words; instead they will read them with contempt.  In fact, it is doubtful they will get this far down before they stop reading because deep thought gives them headaches (okay, maybe I made that part up).  In their unwavering faith lie the seeds of another Republican victory. 

The arrogance of the Left is the source of their ever-deepening downfall.  For them, as a conservative, I cannot possibly be correct because I am too ignorant to understand how errant my view of the world is.  I am to them “a mind-numb robot” as Rush Limbaugh likes to say, and can only barely walk and talk.

There is no fool like one who believes his own propaganda.  I tell you it just gets funnier and funnier.

          ...every man a king, every man a king...

Catchy little tune.


Long Live Our American Republic!!!


Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Karl Rove: Where’s the Beef?

Will Malven
7/19/2005

Call 911, Democrats are hyperventilating.  The Bush-haters are about to wet their little panties in excitement.  Howard Dean is howling with glee.  The cause of all of this activity?  Matt Cooper’s revelation that he had a two minute conversation with Karl Rove, who was on his way out the door to go on vacation, about Democrat party hack (and former ambassador) Joe Wilson.  What was it that Karl Rove said?  According to Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff, Cooper reports:

 that Rove offered him a ‘big warning’ not to ‘get too far out on Wilson.’ Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by ‘DCIA’—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, ‘it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip.’”   

Now I don’t know about you, but reading those words without the blue colored glasses of the Democrat party, I think that’s about the most innocuous statement about the CIA as I’ve read.  Not only did Rove not use Valerie Plame’s name, but he only obliquely referred to the CIA, using the term “the agency” rather than the specific name.  He wasn’t even asserting that she did work there, only that she “apparently” worked there.  To this reader, Rove’s statement resembles more someone relating something that was overheard in a passing conversation than it does a statement of fact by someone who was interested outing an operative in retribution for her husband’s criticism of the Bush Administration.  Very clearly Rove was trying to help Cooper avoid wasting his time pursuing a questionable storyline.

Did I say hyperventilating?

Frank Pallone, Dem, N.J. this morning stated Karl Rove revealed that “Valerie Plame was a covert operative,” very clearly a knowing lie from the mouth of the “honorable” Congressman from New Jersey.

Henry Waxman, Democrat, Wi. is calling for Congressional hearings on Karl Rove’s alleged outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. "The recent disclosures about Mr. Rove's actions have such serious implications that we can no longer responsibly ignore them. The intentional disclosure of a covert CIA agent's identity would be an act of treason," Waxman said.

"The White House promised if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration. I trust they will follow through on this pledge," Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said.

“The president should immediately suspend Karl Rove's security clearances and shut him down by shutting him out of classified meetings or discussions," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat.

"It is time for the President to keep his word. Karl Rove should be fired and prosecuted to the full extent of the law," said Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York.

"Tell Americans what he knew, when he knew it, and who he may have told about Valerie Plame's identity in order to clear the air once and for all," said New York Senator Chuck Schumer

Now you Liberals wipe your chins and compose yourselves.  Once again you are proving your incapability of seeing what is written.  I have a small suggestion, try reading only the black parts on the printed page, forget about the white parts they don’t say anything.  If you follow that suggestion you may learn how to keep from projecting what you want an article to say and just see what is actually being said. Karl Rove did not out Valerie Plame, everyone in Washington knew that she was working for the CIA.  However, there are some interesting sidelights to this whole issue.

What are the facts? 

  • Joe Wilson was sent to Niger on his wife’s recommendation.
  • Wilson was a known critic of the administration, a political hack.
  • Joe Wilson’s report was considered by the CIA to be less than definitive.
  • The Senate Intelligence Committee stated that Wilson’s report did not change any analyst’s assessment of the Niger Iraq uranium deal.
  • Wilson spent a total of eight days in Niger meeting with public officials in his hotel room enjoying fine meals and drinks at the expense of the American taxpayer (wish I could get a cushy job that didn’t require any real results like his).  Such was the extent of his investigation.
  • Wilson had no expertise or training for his mission.
  • Wilson lied about his trip to the press, claiming that the Dick Cheney had requested him, denying that his wife suggested his name( the Senate Intelligence Committee found the memo from Valerie Plame recommending him).

Now, the interesting questions:

  • Why would Valerie Plame, a CIA operative whose job required non-partisan dedication to information gathering select her husband, a known administration critic, to recommend for this sensitive mission?
  • Was Valerie Plame deliberately attempting to sabotage the Bush Administration?
  • Did Wilson actually investigate anything or did he just “party down” for eight days and then make up his report (there was no written report, only an oral report)?
  • If Plame and Wilson were so concerned about her being compromised , why did they do the Vogue shoot?

The inevitable conclusions are that Karl Rove merely said that Wilson’s wife recommended him for the job. Rove made no effort to “out” Valerie Plame.  It is much more likely that her identity as a “covert operative” was made known by Wilson himself in his excitement at his new found celebrity with the MSM.  I suggest he was mesmerized by his sudden transformation from a virtual nobody in the Foreign Service (Ambassador to Gabon? Come on now, you’re kidding right?) to a “whistle blowing hero,” darling of the Left-wing media and the Democrat party and, in an unguarded moment, let it slip.  He was the toast of the Left-wing Glitterati.  He appeared on radio, television, wrote an op-ed for the New York Times bashing President Bush without any evidence to support his claims.  He was a Kerry supporter and donated to the Kerry campaign.

The Rove Controversy...come, on this doesn’t even rate a tenth page column.  Let’s focus on something that actually matters.  Ooh, ooh, did you hear about it? Karl Rove got a sneak preview of the latest Harry Potter book and told Matt Cooper how it ends.  Bush must fire him for this.  Democrats, ain’t they a hoot?

*John Kerry walks into a pub, the bartender says, “Hey John, why the long face?”

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

Monday, July 18, 2005

The Death of Civil Liberties? How Far Should We Extend the Patriot Act?

Will Malven
7/18/2005

This morning on C-Span the topic being reviewed was the United States Patriot Act which is, in part, being debated in both houses of Congress prior to being re-authorized.  The first topic of conversation was whether or not surveillance cameras should be used to monitor the public for crime prevention.  Yikes!  What a frightening concept.

Our nation was founded on one concept above all others; individual liberty is paramount.  The only limit on my freedom should be the point at which it begins to infringe upon yours. 

I used to pride myself on the fact that, unlike the European nations, Americans have never been required to carry federal identification cards.  I loved the fact that only in European “socialist paradises” and the Soviet Union and the satellite nations could a policeman walk up to you and demand to see your ID card.  Now, suddenly, Americans are rushing to surrender their rights by establishing, in effect, a national driver’s license and volunteering to be on camera all day.  Be afraid, be very afraid.

Ben Franklin stated:

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety” [Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759]. 

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Archibald Stuart in 1791, said,

“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”

I understand the impulse here.  Acts of terror are...well...terrifying.  The real question is whether we are to allow our fears to rule us.  The goal of the terrorists is two-fold, first to frighten us into abandoning our Middle East policies, second to disrupt and destroy our way of life. 

Fear is a powerful emotion, and it is very easy for human beings to allow themselves to be ruled by it, but the thing that separates humans from animals, is that we are able to overcome our emotions through logic and reason.  We can still be fearful without succumbing to our fear. 

Courage is not the absence of fear; it is being afraid and still doing what needs to be done. 

There is a very dangerous belief beginning to pervade our society, the belief that life is the most precious thing of all. The founders of our nation, the original patriots, fought a long bloody war to secure the freedoms we enjoy today.  They sacrificed their lives, their families, and their possessions to free themselves from the oppression of an over reaching government.  Now, in one fell swoop, we are discussing the bizarre concept of voluntarily surrendering those same rights back to the government. 

Throughout our history millions of Americans have shed their blood to defend those freedoms.  They did that despite the possibility or actuality that they might loose their lives.  In America we have traditionally held that there are certain concepts that supercede the perceived value of life. 

Even in the animal kingdom, mothers will instinctively overcome fear to protect their young from any threat.  They will sacrifice themselves for their young.  As humans, we have extended that instinct to include certain abstract concepts.  Men have (and, as we have unfortunately seen of late, currently do) laid down their lives for their faith. 

Terrorists are not “crazies,” or “madmen,” or “insane;” they are zealots fighting for their faith.  Now, I would call them cowardly and craven because in their sacrifice, they are targeting, not the military, but civilians.  They are conducting a righteous war in an unrighteous and cowardly manner.  Were these terrorists targeting our military exclusively, I would still despise them as the enemies of freedom, but I would at least respect them as courageous warriors. 

The question has to be, at what point does personal safety trump personal principles and personal liberty?

For quite some time, I have favored the Patriot Act as a tool useful in fighting terrorism.  In my anger over 9/11 and me desire to control the risk to American citizens, I have mistakenly embraced, with some hesitation, the adoption of the Patriot Act.  I still believe that much of the PA is reasonable and necessary.  Now, however, with the advantage of distance and time to review the merits, I have some reservations. 

Those who embrace this act unquestioningly, run the risk of losing their rights permanently.  We cannot assume that our government will always be in the hands of benevolent people.  Operatives in the Nixon administration orchestrated a break in so that they could monitor the activities of their opponents.  The Clintons had a large collection of FBI files stashed in the White House. 

I am not casting aspersions at any administration, merely pointing out that even the best intentioned of administration can get used to additional power, and begin to abuse it in the interest of “protecting” the people.  The dangers of excessive power transcend party lines. 

All human beings are vulnerable to the vanities of their own good intentions.  That is the reason that utopian societies never succeed.  Even the best people are, at times, ruled by their emotions, their desires, and their needs.  The reason we have laws and police is because some of us are ruled more by our baser emotions than our higher selves; our divinely guided selves.  Until human beings are capable of divorcing themselves from those emotions (don’t hold your breath), those limits which we have voluntarily placed upon ourselves, will remain necessary. 

What goes for individuals must, due to scale of risk, include our government.  What any man can use for good, another can abuse for advantage and control.  In spite of the paranoia of the Left and the Democrat party and their exaggerations, I do not fear President Bush and his administration, beyond the normal healthy skepticism I have for all federal powers.  I fear more, a future administration which, out of misguided good intentions (or not so good malevolence), might be moved to usurp more and more power in the interest of “protecting the people” or in the interest of the “common good.” 

Once that point is reached, it will be too late for Americans to question the wisdom of surrendering rights which they no longer have.  The time for serious questions is now, before these laws become permanent.  The conscious American citizens whom, judging from our most recent elections, unfortunately consist of about fifty percent of eligible voters (I am desperately resisting the temptations of partisan politics to comment beyond this point) must not allow themselves to be seduced by the safety of the moment. 

We must monitor what our government is doing and the laws which they impose on us.  We must exercise our rights as citizens to hold our Congress members accountable for the actions they take and the activities they endorse. 

In reauthorizing the Patriot Act, we must demand first that those provisions that palpably impinge on our individual or collective rights, yet are legitimately deemed necessary for the countering of terrorist activities, are subject to “sunset provisions.”  In addition, those provisions that are agreed by both sides of this issue to be reasonable and necessary extensions of law enforcement powers must be carefully scrutinized prior to being permanently instituted.

The balance between safety and liberty is a delicate one and we must always default on the side of liberty. 

We have, in this nation, a habit of becoming complacent in our insular security.  The events of 9/11 shook us out of our lassitude, and compelled us to take action to protect ourselves from an insidious and relentless enemy.  This event precipitated approval of the Patriot Act in an unconscionable manner, with many members of Congress later confessing that they had not even read the act.  This knee-jerk reaction, though understandable under the circumstances, is not the kind of deliberate enactment of law that Americans have every right to expect. 

The American people bear a great deal of the responsibility for this because we demanded immediate action in response to this terrorist act.  We now have time for well considered debate on the provisions of the Patriot Act.  Americans must demand of their elective representatives the exercise of due caution before granting themselves and the executive branch additional powers.

The same freedoms which grant me the right to own, without restriction, a firearm, or the right to travel across the country without being stopped by police, except for due cause, expose me to certain risks.  I choose to accept those risks because I enjoy those freedoms.  I do not wish to relinquish those rights for the sake of some phantasmal concept of complete safety. 

The old saw states that: “The only things certain in life are death and taxes.”  The fact is that we subject ourselves to much greater risk of death every time we get in our car to go somewhere.  Our lives at that point rely more on trust that the other driver is not going to endanger us than on our own skill (a really frightening prospect when you think about it), but we still choose to drive.  Yet when faced with the far less likely prospect of a terrorist act killing us, we somehow seem instantly ready to surrender our most fundamental rights in pursuit of the completely illusory concept of complete safety.

I am not against the Patriot Act; I just want to make sure that the risk to my freedom is suitably balanced with the benefit to my safety.  We must never forget the words of Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775:

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

To that I can only add, “Amen!”

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

Thursday, July 14, 2005

Karl Rove, Downing Memo, Tom DeLay, Desperate Democrats Try Out for Decapitated Chicken Role

Will Malven
7/14/2005

Watching the Democrats today can give you whiplash. With the gradual realization that their agenda is no longer America’s agenda, the Democrats are desperately searching for “the issue.”  Their impression of the proverbial chicken with its head cut off is truly amusing.

The problem; there is no magical “issue.”  If your party’s agenda is bankrupt of ideas, or congested with old, worn out, failed, ideas, you have only two choices to attempt to revitalize your supporters; you can either modernize and modify your philosophy of governance, or you can bluff and bluster, whining about your opponents actions while offering no alternative in hopes of fooling the American people into believing your party would be the better choice. 

Unfortunately, the Democrats have chosen the latter path.  Their religious fervor for their worn-out socialist ideals in concert with their need to kowtow to their extremist string-pullers like Ralph Neas of People for the American Way, George Soros, and Joan Blades and Wes Boyd of MoveOnPac.org have doomed them to blunder along the feckless path they have been pursuing since they first lost control of Congress in 1994.  The problem is, Americans, in larger and larger numbers, are refusing to be swayed by the Democrat Party’s hot air.

As their grasp on the reins of government has progressively weakened, their voices have become more and more strident.  Desperation reigns supreme in the backrooms and dark hallways of the Democrat Party headquarters, the House floor, and the Well of the Senate. It exudes from their every pore.  It echoes in their every word. 

In their desperation, the Democrats are reduced to grasping at straws.  They bounce willy-nilly from one issue to the next hoping in vain to find some issue that will catch on with the public and bring down the Bush Administration, or at least severely damage the Republican Party, so that they can resume their proper place, their Divinely Ordained Place, as the leaders of our government. 

They don’t mind Republicans participating in government, so long as they know and keep their place.  They wish to bring down the current government without having a clue as to what their alternative policies would be beyond redistributing America’s wealth.

Note for the Democrats:  “Bush sucks!” and “We’d do a better job,” are not substantive policies.

This game of political hopscotch has been going on since the Democrats began their 2004 presidential campaign in January of 2001.  Their hatred of Bush runs so deeply that they are blind to all but their one goal in life, to prove that they were right and Republicans were wrongly “given” the White House by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Over the last several months, we’ve had:

  1. Prescription drugs.
  2. The Iraq “failure.”
  3. The “Minute Men” volunteers on the border.
  4. Alan Greenspan. (Remember when Reid called him a political hack)?
  5. Private Accounts for Social Insecurity
  6. The Iraq “failure.”
  7. Tax Cuts for the “Super Wealthy.” (Quote courtesy of Nancy Pelosi).
  8. Terry Schaivo.
  9. Tom DeLay
  10. John Bolton
  11. The Iraq “failure.”  (Did I mention that?)
  12. Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
  13. Judicial Nominees are too extreme.
  14. Gitmo Prison.
  15. Impeachment of President Bush. (Bush lied don’cha know?)
  16. The Iraq “failure.” (I really, really mean it this time!)
  17. The Downing Memo
  18. The Iraq “failure.” (See, they bombed London, I told you Iraq was a failure.)
  19. Karl Rove. (Rove leaked...something.  He had to have, honest.  I’m really serious this time!  I’m certain of it. I hope, I hope, I hope!)

With so many trial balloons in the air, it’s hard to keep track of all of them.  It reminds me of an eighties song, “99 Red Balloons” (original version “99 Luftbalons”) by Nena.  Maybe a better anthem would be “Poor, Poor Pitiful Me” (written by the late great Warren Zevon, sung by Linda Ronstadt). 

I’m doubtful there ever has been a time in American history that so much self-righteous self-pity showered down from one group of its citizens.

As to the multiple issues?  The sad fact, if you’re a Democrat, is that none of them amount to anything.  They are all phantasmal images. Each one vaporizes as the Left tries desperately to grasp it.
 
  • First, Karl Rove didn’t “out” Valerie Plame.  If he had, President Bush would know about it and if Bush knew for a fact that Rove did it, Rove would be out.  Bush keeps his word.  President Bush is more a man of his word than any I have seen in the White House, including Reagan.
  • The Downing memo is a non-starter, no one but the desperate and the conspiracy loonies believe that one, not even the Left-wing MSM.
  • Tom DeLay is not going to resign; he hasn’t broken any laws and has behaved at least as ethically as those calling for his ouster.
  • Iraq is not a failure, it is a success.  War is messy and forming a Democracy is even messier.  We are at least as far along in Iraq as we were in Germany this soon after major combat.
  • Bush didn’t lie, he was misinformed.  Every intelligence assessment in every major government agreed that Sadam had WMD’s.  Why is it so hard for Democrats to believe that the intelligence community got WMD intel wrong, and so easy for Democrats to believe they got it wrong in missing Al Qaeda’s  9/11 plot.  Now mind you, I said Democrats, not Conspiracy Loonies. 
  • The prison at Gitmo is not a “Gulag” nor is it a “Nazi concentration camp.”  It is a prison.  Prisons are not nice places, if they were, they wouldn’t be prisons.  Be that as it may, as far as prisons go, Gitmo is a luxury resort.  Prisoners are not being routinely abused; they are being treated very well.  Hell if I was running a prison to punish Islamist terrorists, I’d be feeding them Spam (Spam is pork shoulder and personally I like it) for breakfast, lunch and dinner along with some grits and greens.  I’d give them only Bibles to read, not the Koran and I’d have Coptic Christians broadcasting Christ’s message to them 24/7.  I would not be going out of my way to respect their customs and religion.  Even at that, I wouldn’t be killing them by the thousands, so the comparison would still be false.
  • If the judicial nominees were so “extreme” why would Democrats be willing to compromise on any of them?  That must mean they were not “unacceptable.”
  • John Bolton is sometimes rude, yeah and so?  We need an A-kicker in the U.N. not a boot-licker.

Answers to the rest are just as simple and common sense.  Space prevents me from continuing, besides, I’ve addressed them all in one form or another in my previous editorials. 

I’m telling you folks this merry game of whiplash generating, issue hopping will continue right up to and through the 2006 Congressional elections unless the Democrats can land upon a better strategy.

The Democrats would be far better served by finding a constructive message rather than beating the dead horse of “Your bad, I’m good.  Nah, nah, nah.”

Harry! Orca! Don’t you dare stick your tongues out like that!

Long Live Our American Republic!!!




Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Karl Rove: Where's the Beef

Will Malven
7/13/05

Call 911, Democrats are hyperventilating. The Bush-haters are about to wet their little panties in excitement. Howard Dean is howling with glee.

The cause of all of this activity? Matt Cooper’s revelation that he had a two minute conversation with Karl Rove, who was on his way out the door to go on vacation, about Democrat party hack (and former ambassador) Joe Wilson. What was it that Karl Rove said? According to Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff, Cooper reported “that Rove offered him a ‘big warning’ not to ‘get too far out on Wilson.’ Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by ‘DCIA’—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, ‘it was, KR said, Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on WMD [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip.’” Now I don’t know about you, but reading those words without the blue colored glasses of the Democrat party, I think that’s about the most innocuous statement about the CIA as I’ve read. Not only did Rove not use Valerie Plame’s name, but he only obliquely referred to the CIA, using the term “the agency” rather than the specific name. He wasn’t even asserting that she did work there, only that she “apparently” worked there. To this reader, Rove’s statement resembles more someone relating something that was overheard in a passing conversation than it does a statement of fact by someone who was interested outing an operative in retribution for her husband’s criticism of the Bush Administration. Very clearly Rove was trying to help Cooper avoid wasting his time pursuing a questionable storyline.

Did I say hyperventilating?

Frank Pallone, Dem, N.J. this morning stated Karl Rove revealed that “Valerie Plame was a covert operative,” very clearly a knowing lie from the mouth of the “honorable” Congressman from New Jersey.

Henry Waxman, Democrat, Wi. is calling for Congressional hearings on Karl Rove’s alleged outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. "The recent disclosures about Mr. Rove's actions have such serious implications that we can no longer responsibly ignore them. The intentional disclosure of a covert CIA agent's identity would be an act of treason," Waxman said.

"The White House promised if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration. I trust they will follow through on this pledge," Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said.

“The president should immediately suspend Karl Rove's security clearances and shut him down by shutting him out of classified meetings or discussions," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat.

"It is time for the President to keep his word. Karl Rove should be fired and prosecuted to the full extent of the law," said Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York.

"Tell Americans what he knew, when he knew it, and who he may have told about Valerie Plame's identity in order to clear the air once and for all," said New York Senator Chuck Schumer

Now you Liberals wipe the spittle off of your chins and compose yourselves. Once again you are proving your incapability of seeing what is written. I have a small suggestion, try reading only the black parts on the printed page, forget about the white parts they don’t say anything. If you follow that suggestion you may learn how to keep from projecting what you want an article to say and just see only what is actually being said. Karl Rove did not out Valerie Plame, it's not even clear that he knew who she was. Allegedly everyone in the Washington press corps knew that she was working for the CIA. However, there are some interesting sidelights to this whole issue.
  • Joe Wilson was sent to Niger on his wife’s recommendation.
  • Wilson was a known critic of the administration, a political hack.
  • Joe Wilson’s report was considered by the CIA to be less than definitive.
  • The Senate Intelligence Committee stated that Wilson’s report did not change any analyst’s assessment of the Niger Iraq uranium deal.
  • Wilson spent a total of eight days in Niger meeting with public officials in his hotel room enjoying fine meals and drinks at the expense of the American taxpayer (wish I could get a cushy job that didn’t require any real results like his). Such was the extent of his investigation.
  • Wilson had no expertise or training for his mission.
  • Wilson lied about his trip to the press, claiming that the Dick Cheney had requested him, denying that his wife suggested his name( the Senate Intelligence Committee found the memo from Valerie Plame recommending him).
Now, the interesting questions:
  • Why would Valerie Plame, a CIA operative whose job required non-partisan dedication to information gathering select her husband, a known administration critic, to recommend for this sensitive mission?
  • Was Valerie Plame deliberately attempting to sabotage the Bush Administration?
  • Did Wilson actually investigate anything or did he just “party down” for eight days and then make up his report (there was no written report, only an oral report)?
  • If Plame and Wilson were so concerned about her being compromised , why did they do the Vogue shoot?
The inevitable conclusions are that Karl Rove merely said that Wilson’s wife recommended him for the job. Rove made no effort to “out” Valerie Plame. It is much more likely that her identity as a “covert operative” was made known by Wilson himself in his excitement at his new found celebrity with the MSM. I suggest he was mesmerized by his sudden transformation from a virtual nobody in the Foreign Service (Ambassador to Gabon? Come on now, you’re kidding right?) to a “whistle blowing hero,” darling of the Left-wing media and the Democrat party and, in an unguarded moment, let it slip. He was the toast of the Left-wing Glitterati. He appeared on radio, television, wrote an op-ed for the New York Times bashing President Bush without any evidence to support his claims. He was a Kerry supporter and donated to the Kerry campaign.

The Rove Controversy...come, on this doesn’t even rate a tenth page column. Let’s focus on something that actually matters. Ooh, ooh, did you hear about it? Karl Rove got a sneak preview of the latest Harry Potter book and told Matt Cooper how it ends. Bush must fire him for this.

Democrats, ain’t they a hoot?

John Kerry walks into a pub, the bartender says, “Hey John, why the long face?”

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Moral Equivalency: A Lie of Uttermost Evil

7/12/05
Will Malven

There is a truly pernicious concept which was heard from the left, like a mantra, during the cold war.  This was the lie that, because America supported some despotic leaders around the world whose government supported America’s anti-communist goals, America was no better than its communist enemies. 

Even though America was the bastion of freedom and the guarantor of freedom for the Western world, we were still evil because of these failings. 

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and our resultant victory, the fallacy of these claims became self-apparent.  The near instantaneous emergence of fledgling democracies among the Eastern block nations proved the validity of America’s chosen policies.  More people throughout the world enjoy freedom now than ever in history.  More nations follow the lessons of democracy than ever before. 

Had we heeded the advice of these nay sayers, say in the early eighties, America and the West might have unilaterally disarmed just as the Soviet system was about to fail.  This would have had massively negative consequences both for the people of the West, and especially for the citizens of those fledgling democracies in Eastern Europe.

Other examples of this flawed philosophy abound.  The anti-Israel faction insist that Palestinian “suicide bombers” who conceal themselves in a passenger bus full of civilians or seat themselves in a crowded restaurant to perform their heinous act are no different than Israeli attacks against Hamas, Hezbollah, or Islamic Jihad leaders or strongholds, because civilians get killed in those attacks as well. 

After 9/11/01 we were informed by our “beloved” MSM, that “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”  Some in the MSM went so far as to prohibit the use of the word terrorist by their reporters.  Even today in the wake of the bombings in London, these same lies are going around the anti-Bush, anti-war blog sites and alternative media commentary websites:

“not attempting to minimize the tragidy [sic]... why is any one shocked? the "Those", "responsible" who "have no respect for human life..." are Bush and Blair etc.! And this will continue until we change our politics.”

“And anyone who votes for the violent policies of those Presidents and PMs should take a long hard look at what they've fostered. Violence begets violence.”
“even on this morning, there is a war in iraq taking the lives of ordinary citizens, just like the ones in london. as the poster said: violence begets violence. whether it's bombs dropped by the USA or suicide bombers: the dead are still dead.”
“Bush says the war on terror must go on -does that mean invade Iran? Or perhaps it will be Syria.
I do feel for the people of London, because most of them didn't want
the invasion of Iraq, but they're the ones paying the price.
I also feel for the people of Iraq, because this is what they're
experiencing every day, especially in Baghdad. But nobody's making
any reference to that”
“Bush's Statement
UGH!
I am so embarrassed--no, mortified--that this dimwit is our face to the world. What a joke.
So, we're going to "spread an ideology of hope and compassion," huh. Of course, we all know that the best way to accomplish this is by murdering thousands of Iraqis.I can't believe anybody takes him seriously”

The first four quotes were from DemocraticUnderground and the last from dailyKos (don’t let the disparity of in number of quotes fool you they are equally prolific on all similar sites, I just didn’t want to waste any more space).  They represent a very small sampling of what passes for commentary on those web pages.  There are others, BoomanTribune and SmirkingChimp also come to mind. 

The sad fact is that these people have no moral compass.  They are incapable of discerning the difference between people who deliberately target civilians with the intent of killing as many of them as they can, and those who target combatants only, seeking to minimize civilian casualties. 

An even more sinister aspect of this moral blindness is that it is politically motivated.  They choose to believe every negative story, every innuendo, about this administration simply because they disagree with them.  They seek to believe the worst about them because they hate them. 

Hatred is one of the basest of emotions, one to be avoided wherever possible, these people, to the contrary, revel in it.  They celebrate their hatred.  They vie against each other to be the most hateful in their comments.  What a sad, sick, miserable existence it must be.

Inevitably wars lead to civilian casualties.  That is the unfortunate nature of war, but there is a vast difference in the causes of those casualties on each side and the aims of those inflicting the casualties.  The term “collateral damage” is sneered at by those on the Left.  It is often cited as proof of our callousness toward civilian deaths.  In fact, it is nothing but a factual description.  It conveys no valuation of the loss, it merely informs one of the unintentional nature of the injuries inflicted. 

Juxtapose this to the intentional level of loss in a terrorist attack.  Terrorists are not interested in inflicting casualties on the military, they are interested in inflicting terror on the people. 

The road to Hell may indeed be paved with good intentions, but motives are still a legitimate means of determining the good from the evil.  America is fighting a war in Iraq for a number of good reasons and one which, as it turns out, was apparently not so good.  There are currently no WMD’s (okay, I know that technically it should be W’sMD, but it just doesn’t look right) in Iraq, so far as we know.  We do know that there were WMD’s in Iraq at some time in the past. 

The concern about WMD’s was a legitimate concern; worldwide, major intelligence organizations all believed that Saddam had them.  We also know that Saddam was prone to provide sanctuary to anti-Israel and anti-American terrorists.  The two are definitely not a good mix.  Whether Saddam Hussein shipped his WMD’s out to Syria or he destroyed them, is something we will eventually find out.  What we do know for sure, is that the other reasons cited by President Bush prior to the invasion all remain valid and all are just by nature. 

The Iraqi people were suffering under one of the worst despotic regimes in history.  Saddam had no difficulty in starving his nation’s children while building himself luxurious palaces, then accusing the embargo of causing the suffering of Iraqi children.  Sadly, a lot of the Left-wingers cheerily echoed those lies in their ardor to smear President Bush.  Saddam was clearly a continuing threat to the region.  It was only through our continued over flights of the no-fly zones, that his military and territorial aspirations were kept in check. 

We know now that several of our “allies” were routinely violating the U.N. imposed embargo for their own monetary gain.  The geopolitical chess game was beginning to fall apart, as the embargo began to fail.  This is again evident as those same “allies” sought to undermine the U.S.’s efforts to turn up the heat on Saddam’s brutal regime.  It is understandable the France, Germany, and Russia resisted the efforts to reign in Hussein, as they were profiting substantially from their illegal trade with Iraq.

It is also true that the democratization of Iraq will bring greater security and freedom to the region.  Such a democracy could lead to the eventual destabilization and democratization of the two worst remaining terrorist harboring nations, Syria and Iran. 

The left wrongly asserts that the solution to the terrorist threat lies in our withdrawing entirely from the Middle East and providing a higher standard of living for the people of the region.  While one cannot ignore the economic plight of the people of the Middle East, it is wrong to lay blame for the terrorist problem solely on poverty and illiteracy.  Those conditions will solve themselves in a successful democracy.  The political and economic freedom resultant from the establishment of democracy are the most likely precursors to peace in the Middle East.   

Isolationism has been tried before in our history.  Each time it has been tried, tragedy has resulted.  World politics is a dynamic game with potentially very deadly consequences.  Without the stabilizing presence of the United States, local problems tend to spiral out of control.  In a time when the results of these disputes can have cataclysmic results (nuclear war, bio-chemical war) America cannot afford to be a disinterested party.

For the people on the left to ascribe comparable culpability to America’s leaders and those of the terrorist organizations is a dishonest attempt to smear the President and the Republicans with a very broad brush for political gain.  It is easy to determine who is working for the good of the American people and that of the Iraqi people simply by looking at who the Arab press is quoting time and again. 

Al Jazeerah doesn’t quote those espousing American and democratic values for the Iraqi people, they quote the terrorists and those in the West taking up their call.  They didn’t quote Bill Frist or Jim Sessions, they quote Dick Durbin.  The Left have willingly, knowingly, allied themselves with our enemies.

In business there is a saying “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.”  These days, as usual, the Democrats and their puppeteers on the Left are part of the problem.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!