In Scooter Libby’s case, there was no crime until the investigation began. Special 
prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is standing by his prosecution of the ‘who leaked Valerie Plame Wilson’s name’ case by insisting that he needn’t have explain why no-one was charged for the leak, even now when everyone knows who the leaker is. It was Colin Powell’s State Dept deputy Richard Armitage who has publicly admitted as much.
What’s up with that?
This north Philadelphia school was among the lowest performing in the city, qualifying for the No Child Left Behind program, three years in a row, beginning 2002. Now, they are among the best, winning a national award for their success. They don’t accept the soft bigotry of low expectations from their students nowadays. Their secret? “It’s all about challenging people to move to the next level,” Principal Barbara Adderly said.
The Iraqi court is scheduled November 5 to deliver a verdict for Saddam Hussein over the killing of 148 Shi’ite Muslims in the village of Dujail, two days before mid-term elections in this country. If he is found guilty, Saddam could go to the gallows.  So why would the court change its agenda based on the mid-term elections in the United States? According to Mariam Karouny in Baghdad, “A guilty verdict could reflect positively on Bush as a vindication of his policy to overthrow Saddam in 2003.” I’d like to think that Saddam’s conviction would be no small victory for the people of Iraq.  And being witnesses to how a functioning democratically-elected government of Iraq will administer justice, I just don’t see them delaying the announcement of the verdict one minute.Â
We have been hearing for years that Iraq is ‘Bush’s war,’ so I say to the victor goes the spoils. They can’t take credit for prosecuting this war because they’ve been consumed with fighting to defeat Bush because of the war. I think I’ve said this before, but it bares repeating. If it’s good for Bush, it’s bad for the democrats.Â
A guilty verdict would be a correct verdict. And it wouldn’t hurt Bush if it came down on Nov. 5. Although Bush isn’t running for anything, the democrats’ anthem has been all anti-Iraq war, anti-war-on-terror, anti-Bush, all the time.Â
Regardless of when the verdict is announced, the American people already understand which party is tough on terror, and which party wants to confer constitutional rights to enemy combatants. That Saddam will be found guilty is, IMHO, a forgone conclusion.Â
We’ve seen how events external to an election can flip the outcome, as in Spain. So what kind of message does this send to the people of Iraq, trying to get things together over there, to find out that the other political party in the US wants to get out of Iraq at any cost, and leave them to the terrorists and death squads, and rape rooms, and torture rooms?  With friends like that, who needs enemies? It makes being an ally of the US a risky venture at best. Another message that is sent around the world.
It will be instructive to see the democrat leadership’s reaction to a guilty verdict, after years of defending him. It’ll go something like this, but you ‘haven’t got Osama yet, where’s Osama?’
BAGHDAD (Reuters) – A court trying Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity could delay its verdict by a few days, the chief prosecutor said on Sunday, in a move that would shift the announcement until after U.S. midterm elections. Read onÂ
The media has never been accused of being either ethically or morally upright in the way they carry out, some might say abuse, their journalistic responsibility. Just look at the speculation, or rather the eager anticipation, that Newsweek and MSNBC exhibit in this article.
Responsibility is sacrificed in favor of enabling the enemy. In their view, enabling the enemy will also enable Democrats to get elected. Given the chance to do either, they will. And if they can do both, all the better.
Watch for Al Qaeda’s press release at a mainstream media outlet near you.
CNN, the network that admits withholding news unfavorable to Saddam, is another example.
Some have said, and democrats hope, that conservatives who have had it with Bush will stay home on election day. Ostensibly to punish Bush. I don’t buy into that theory. Conservatives are smarter than that and won’t commit political suicide. I think we learned a lesson from the 1992 election. Democrats, on the other hand, just may have a stay-at-home problem of their own making that is taking on a racial component.
Democrat strategists and the New York Times talk about disillusionment of Black voters being up. A disillusionment of hearing year after year that an election lost isn’t an election lost, but rather an election stolen and manipulated. Their talking point worked so well, it seems, that they have convinced this voting block, apparently, that their vote doesn’t matter. Â
That’s a serious consequence for two reasons. First is that a voting block can be manipulated to the point of believing our voting system is rigged, and second that a political party would seriously campaign on the stolen election sour grapes campaign instead of conceding a loss, no matter how close it was. But that’s where we are today.
ref: James Taranto, Opinion Journal; Democrats Fear Disillusionment in Black Voters, New York Times; Democrats work to woo black voters, Buffalo News
Â
| Actions | Read on |
Today, finally and thankfully, President Bush signs into law the Secure Fence Act of 2006. The erection of the wall has prompted Mexican President Vicente Fox to call it Bush’s Berlin Wall. No, the coca-cola dealer has it wrong. It depends on who owns the fence. If it were his wall then the Berlin Wall analogy is correct.
AP – President Bush wanted an exchange of workers with Mexico to bring order to the border, but wound up signing a law Thursday that approves partitioning 700 miles of the United States from its southern neighbor.
Have you heard that Air America Radio is in bankruptcy? Not a big deal you know. Businesses come and go based on their success. But for Mike Papantonio, board member of Air America Radio and host of AAR’s ‘Ring of Fire’ radio program (I think it’s one hour a week), it must be a big deal. Into AAR for over $600,000, not counting his ‘state-of-the-art’ broadcast studio in Pensacola, Papantonio says he is not a creditor, but rather an investor.
Aside from being an investor in Rabid Radio, he also is loose with the truth. His animosity towards Rush Limbaugh seems to be his only motivation to continue to be an ‘investor’ in Rabid Radio. And telling lies in order to utter his name and maybe catch one or two more listeners is more important than his credibility.
Case in point ishis latest ‘Pap Attack’. In this Pap Attack, did I say attack? That’s right I did. That’s what he calls it himself. Anyway, in this clip, he uses Limbaugh’s name several times as though he is even in the same league, by denouncing the White House’s ‘media day’ as a hate radio gathering with Limbaugh, and other conservative talk-radio hosts. Give one listen to this clip and you tell me who the hate monger is. As usual, there is no substance, only a lot of creative pejoratives and insults and crap directed at conservatives, Bush, and talk-radio. The latter of which he knows apparently little about.
The lie? What would he have said about ‘media day’ if he knew that Rush Limbaugh was not there nor was he invited to be there? Spoken like a real class-action attorney. Sounded great, but not true.
Economics 101 would suggest a correlation between ‘no credibility’ and ‘no money.’ Business 101 would suggest having a product doesn’t mean anyone will buy it. OK, but that’s all the help they’re going to get from me.
“Hate Radio Goes To Washington” by Mike Papantonio
It depends on what the definition of ‘attack’ is I guess. Every time I see a republican accused of attacking the democrats, I check the article out to see what it’s all about. What I invariably find is that the so-called attack is merely a stone cold analysis of a democrat position. When I think of an ‘attack’, I think of stuff like calling Bush a liar, a thief, a murderer, etc..
In this case, the Washington Post calls this an attack:
“You can’t say I want to win the war but not be willing to fight the war,” said Rove, Bush’s top political adviser. “And if leading Democrats have their way, our nation will be weaker and the enemies of our nation will be stronger. And that’s a stark fact, and it’s the reason that this fall election will turn very heavily on national security.”
Rove is right of course. But because it is he who had the nerve to utter those words, that makes it an attack? Despite the confidence they are exhibiting about the election this November, democrats continue to show just how thin skinned they are about their own positions.