The Thin Skin of Helen Thomas

Helen Thomas is seriously peeved.

Drudge reports:

HELEN THOMAS ANGRY AFTER 'KILL SELF' OVER CHENEY COMMENTS PUBLISHED

White House press doyenne Helen Thomas is plenty peeved at her longtime friend Albert Eisele, editor of THE HILL newspaper in Washington, D.C.

In a column this week headlined "Reporter: Cheney's Not Presidential Material," Eisele quoted Thomas as saying "The day Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I'll kill myself. All we need is one more liar."

Thomas also said: "I think he'd like to run, but it would be a sad day for the country if he does," according to Eisele's column.

But Thomas said yesterday at the White House that her comments to Eisele were for his ears only. "I'll never talk to a reporter again!" Thomas was overheard saying.

"We were just talking -- I was ranting -- and he wrote about it. That isn't right. We all say stuff we don't want printed," Thomas said.

But Eisele said that when he called Thomas, "I assume she knew that we were on the record."

"She's obviously very upset about it, but it was a small item -- until Drudge picked it up and broadcast it across the universe," Eisele said.

Still, he noted that reporters aren't that happy when the tables are turned. "Nobody has thinner skin than reporters," Eisele said with a laugh.

Although Helen Thomas' skin has the texture of a raisin left out in the desert for a month, she is obviously very thin-skinned. Her withered, leathery appearance and tough as nails attitude are misleading.

Albert Eisele seems to have broken a trust when he printed Thomas' proclamation that she would kill herself if Dick Cheney ran for president.

Thomas drives me crazy; but I can understand her feelings about what Eisele did. She didn't think she was on the record.

Nevertheless, in the end, Thomas has herself to blame for making such hateful remarks in the first place.

I think it's interesting that Eisele, and most likely Thomas too, thought nothing of it UNTIL Drudge broadcast it to the universe.

The New Media busted Thomas for being the partisan hack that she is. That was hardly news, but this latest incident is most definitely an embarrassment for such a fabled journalist as Thomas.

The insulated world of the liberal elite is no longer closed territory. What's said by the likes of Helen Thomas gets around very fast, and it's scrutinized by the masses.

Poor Helen. She's actually being held accountable for her despicable remarks.

Boo Hoo.

Today in Aruba

Deepak Kalpoe, 21, leaves court in Oranjestad, Aruba, Monday, July 4, 2005.


There have been a number of new developments in Aruba.

ORANJESTAD, Aruba (AP) -- After spending nearly two months in Aruba searching for clues and offering rewards, the mother of a missing teen has left the island and returned home to Alabama.

According to a relative, it was "very difficult" for Beth Holloway Twitty to leave without knowing her daughter's fate, and she plans to return soon to keep the investigation alive.

I think Beth Holloway Twitty is an incredible woman--without a doubt, the mother of the year. She has worked so tirelessly to find her daughter.

Although she just left the island, now there are reports that she may be returning to Aruba. If that's the case it certainly would indicate that something significant has happened or is about to happen.

Then, there is the matter of the size 14 K Swiss tennis shoe.

Police are searching for this piece of evidence. If found, it could place Joran at the scene of the crime.

Probably the most significant of today's developments is a statement that Joran van der Sloot made to police. It was obtanined by Diario, Aruba's largest newspaper.

According to Diario, Joran told police that Deepak raped Natalee and murdered her.

Given that charge, it seems odd that Aruban authorities would have chosen to release Deepak weeks ago, while detaining Joran. I would think they would want to keep Deepak in custody until they are certain that Joran’s statement is a lie.

Do authorities have concrete evidence that exonerates Deepak? If they don't, why would they have released him, while continuing to detain Joran?

In another development, Tim Miller of EquuSearch is putting pressure on Paul van der Sloot, Joran’s father.

Yesterday, Miller asked van der Sloot for permission to search his property.

Miller said, “If he has nothing to hide, he should let us in there.” He described van der Sloot as sweating profusely, agitated, and on the verge of a complete meltdown.

Miller said, “We’re going to make his life as miserable as possible. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.”

TJ Ward, the private investigator working for Natalee's family, said that he is certain that Paul van der Sloot has been untruthful. After examining various tapes and other information available to him, Ward believes that Paul van der Sloot knows much more than he has revealed to authorities. Moreover, Ward concludes that what he has said about Natalee's disappearance is false.

Other leads that Ward is following include e-mails and phone calls.

The developments in Aruba today are encouraging. It appears that some significant strides have been made in the case.

What must be unbearable for Natalee's family is the knowledge that this situation would have played out so differently had American officials been allowed to handle it. If not for all the blunders made by Aruban authorities, it's possible murder charges would have already been filed.

American authorities would have combed through every inch of van der Sloot's property. It would have been thoroughly searched weeks and weeks ago.

Suspects Joran van der Sloot, Deepak Kalpoe, and Satish Kalpoe would not have been released and given ten days to cover their tracks and coordinate their stories, with Paul van der Sloot acting as their adviser.

DNA tests would have been done promptly and properly.

Instead, the Aruban incompetents seem to have mishandled the case in every conceivable way.

It's horrible that Natalee's family has had to deal with her disappearance and come to terms with the likelihood that she has been murdered.

On top of that, their pain has been compounded by being forced to battle Aruban authorities in order to see justice done in Natalee's disappearance.

It's really unforgivable.

Sunday Boost for NASA

Discovery in orbit

Although it's not unusual for Meet the Press, FOX News Sunday, and This Week to have guests that are spacy, it isn't often that the guests are actually in space.

This morning, Discovery flight crewmembers visited the Sunday shows.

Commander Eileen Collins, Pilot Jim Kelly and Mission Specialist Charlie Camarda expressed confidence that the shuttle is sound and fit for a safe return home.

They also relayed their optimism for the space program in general.

Making the crewmembers available for interviews was a smart move by NASA. Hearing them speak positively about the shuttle and U.S. space missions was a boost after the past few days of news about NASA's mistakes and failures.

Eileen Collins said it was important to acknowledge all that is going smoothly on the mission, and not only dwell on the foam pieces that tore away at liftoff.

It was reassuring to learn that the crew in space and all those working on the ground in Houston will take every precaution to avert a disaster.

I was extremely impressed by the poise, courage, and professionalism of the shuttle astronauts. They are truly in a league of their own. These pioneers don't get nearly the recognition they deserve.

Furthermore, I think their families also should be recognized for the special courage it takes to send a loved one into space, particularly after the Columbia catastrophe. We should be grateful for their strength and sacrifice.

I'm confident that the crew of Discovery will return home safely.

Godspeed.

Carter Spouts Off Again

Jimmy Carter was a horrible president. He's also a horrible former president.

BIRMINGHAM, England (AP) -- Former President Carter said Saturday the detention of terror suspects at the Guantanamo Bay Naval base was an embarrassment and had given extremists an excuse to attack the United States.

Carter also criticized the U.S.-led war in Iraq as "unnecessary and unjust."

"I think what's going on in Guantanamo Bay and other places is a disgrace to the U.S.A.," he told a news conference at the Baptist World Alliance's centenary conference in Birmingham, England. "I wouldn't say it's the cause of terrorism, but it has given impetus and excuses to potential terrorists to lash out at our country and justify their despicable acts."

..."What has happened at Guantanamo Bay ... does not represent the will of the American people," Carter said Saturday. "I'm embarrassed about it, I think its wrong. I think it does give terrorists an unwarranted excuse to use the despicable means to hurt innocent people."

Disgrace?

Carter's a disgrace.

He was a miserable failure when he was in office. Absolutely miserable!

There's no question that Carter was an embarrassment as a president.

Jimmy should stick to building houses. His persistent criticism of Bush is unprecedented. Past former presidents have not made a habit out of openly bashing the sitting president.

As usual, Carter is misguided in his ideas about what's right for the country. Now, in his old age, he has become as insufferable as he is wrong.

Back to the Landfill

July 30: Police in Aruba search a landfill where a witness says he saw men bury what appeared to be a body.

ORANJESTAD, Aruba (AP) -- Police and volunteers picked through a landfill Saturday where a witness claimed he saw men dumping a female body two days after an Alabama teenager vanished. The landfill is on the southern part of the Dutch Caribbean island, the opposite side from where 18-year-old Natalee Holloway was last seen in the early hours of May 30.

Crews stopped the search late Saturday without finding anything, but planned to resume Sunday, said Tim Miller, director of the volunteer Texas EquuSearch, which is coordinating the landfill search.

The witness claimed to be dropping off trash when he saw the men dumping the body on the afternoon of June 1, Miller said.

"He said he saw a face, blond hair and a woman's chest, and that the body was dumped and covered," Miller said.

The witness could not identify the men but said they were driving a light colored jeep, said Miller.

Police spokesman Edwin Comenencia said police searched the landfill after receiving the tip days after Holloway's disappearance, but found nothing. He said the witness recently approached Holloway's family, who asked for another search.

...On the opposite side of Aruba, police ordered crews to stop draining a pond near the Marriott hotel, Comenencia said. They found no clues to Holloway's disappearance, he said.

Crews began draining the pond Tuesday, but it was still several feet deep Saturday. Comenencia declined to say why investigators decided to stop draining it.

I assume that "witnesses" with tips may be surfacing because of the reward money.

Natalee's family is offering $100,000 for information that would help solve the case. Information leading to her safe return would bring a $1 million reward.

Since this witness came forward shortly after Natalee disappeared, I tend to believe that the man sincerely thinks he saw something. However, it's possible he's just a nutcase looking for attention and now, a big chunk of change.

Let's say Joran van der Sloot and the Kalpoes did dump Natalee's body at the landfill on May 30. There is no way they would have left her there. They, or possibly someone else, had to remove the body from the landfill and dispose of it elsewhere.

It would be far too risky to leave her body somewhere on the island. Certainly, it would be a much easier task to discover her remains at a landfill than at the bottom of the ocean.

I can't believe that these three young guys acted alone. They must have had help from someone more sophisticated and knowledgeable regarding how to dispose of a body without leaving a trace.

Someone (Paul van der Sloot?) had to help them cover their tracks. After all, it was Paul van der Sloot who advised his son and the Kalpoes to keep quiet.

My guess is that they're playing a waiting game, holding out hope that the searchers find nothing and that the case against Joran remains weak.

After all these weeks, no one has been charged in Natalee's disappearance.

Remember when Karin Janssen told the press that Joran van der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers had been charged with murder?

That was one month ago; and of course, her claims were not true.

I wonder if Aruban officials have any more field trips planned for Joran.

Like his past aimless walks with authorities on the beach, maybe Joran will soon be visting the landfill to pointlessly wander around, allowing officials to make it appear that an investigation into Natalee's disappearance is actually taking place.

Saddam Attacked!

SADDAM'S LAWYERS CLAIM HIS RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED!

I'M OUTRAGED!

HOW COULD SUCH A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE HAPPEN?

AMMAN (Reuters) -- Lawyers for Saddam Hussein said on Saturday their client was attacked by an unidentified man during a court appearance in Baghdad this week, but U.S. forces guarding him denied any such incident took place.

A statement issued by Saddam's international legal team, which has an office in Amman, Jordan, said the former president was attacked and exchanged blows with another person in a hearing attended by Saddam's main Iraqi lawyer Khalil Dulaimi, on Thursday.

"As the president (Saddam) stood to leave the courtroom one of those present attacked him and there was an exchange of blows between the man and the president," the statement said, adding that the head of the tribunal did nothing to stop the assault.

The statement quoted Dulaimi as saying the American guard who protected Saddam in the courtroom did not intervene and that he lodged a formal complaint against the tribunal.

The defense team did not say if Saddam was hurt.

However, a spokeswoman for detainee operations in Iraq, the U.S. military unit charged with overseeing the custody of prisoners including Saddam, said no such incident took place.

"Nothing like that happened with Saddam whatsoever," Lieutenant Kristy Miller said.

This is a bizarre story, isn't it?

If the U.S. really wanted to harm Saddam, there's been plenty of time for that to occur, starting with when he was found cowering in his little underground lair.

There is no indication, as Saddam's defense team is claiming, that the U.S. personnel responsible for guarding the tyrannt are being derelict in their duties. Quite the opposite. Saddam has been catered to while in U.S. custody, not roughed up.



The defense team said it would boycott the tribunal or any committee interrogating Saddam until he was given the right to proper legal representation by a team of international lawyers, including allowing former U.S. attorney general Ramsey Clark, leading Saddam's team of Western lawyers, to see him in prison.

"Repeated interrogations have taken place without a lawyer of choice present, no informed choice of legal counsel has been allowed, on evidence presented against Mr Saddam Hussein and his due process rights have been irreparably violated," Clark told Reuters in a statement.

Boycott the tribunal?

Is that possible?

If Michael Jackson didn't manage to boycott his legal proceedings, I don't see how Saddam can get away with boycotting the tribunal.

And then there's Ramsey Clark---what a guy!

He insists that Saddam's "due process rights have been irreparably violated."

Right.

What due process rights were in place to protect the thousands and thousands that Saddam's regime tortured and murdered?

Just wondering.

Aruba: SNAFU

Joran Van Der Sloot, center, Satish Kalpoe and Deepak Kalpoe


Joran Van Der Sloot


ORANJESTAD, Aruba (AP) -- A court ruled Friday that DNA samples collected from the Dutch youth jailed in the disappearance of an Alabama teenager and one of his friends could not be used in a case against them.

...Joran van der Sloot, 17, the only person who remains jailed in the case, has admitted he spent part of the evening with her. He has said through his family and lawyers that he had nothing to do with her disappearance.

The court ruled Friday that prosecutors did not clarify what his DNA samples would be compared with, but said the prosecution could request new DNA samples from van der Sloot if they had documents clarifying what would be used in the comparison.

In the case of Satish Kalpoe, van der Sloot's friend who was jailed and then released in the case, the court ruled there was not enough evidence to warrant using the tests.

Also Friday, police and a volunteer group from Texas searched a landfill in hopes of finding clues about what happened to Holloway. Edwin Comenencia, the police spokesman, declined to say what prompted the search.

"So far they have found nothing," he said.

Situation normal in Aruba--

The prosecutors have screwed up, AGAIN!

Without question, the court appears to be stonewalling to protect Joran van der Sloot.

However, if the law demands that thorough clarification regarding use of DNA samples be supplied, the prosecutors should have followed that procedure.

Can they do anything right?

I do find it interesting that Joran van der Sloot's attorney would be trying to prevent DNA samples from being used in the case.

If Joran is as innocent as he claims to be, why would there be any concern about how his DNA sample would be used?

He has admitted that he was with Natalee. It's not as if DNA is needed to prove that, nor is it criminal to have been with someone.

Joran's legal representation must be fearing that prosecutors have some evidence that could connect him to a crime. That fear would be baseless if Joran was not involved in some foul play with Natalee.

Regarding the DNA testing on the hair strands found on duct tape, Beth Holloway Twitty, Natalee's mother, found comfort in the results being negative.

"I was completely relieved" by the FBI results, said Beth Holloway Twitty, the teen's mother. "Everytime we exhaust something like this it's a possibility that Natalee is still alive."

A sample of the hair also was tested at a crime lab in the Netherlands, but the results have not been released.

Aruban government spokesman Ruben Trapenberg said he doubted the Dutch results would differ from the FBI's findings. Aruba, a Dutch protectorate, doesn't have a lab to conduct the genetic testing.

"The hair was never something we considered significant but it needed to be checked out," Trapenberg said.

Do Aruban officials have ANYTHING they consider to be significant in the case?

They seem to want to give the impression that they are making strides in the investigation. So far, any notion that the case of Natalee's disappearance is closer to being solved is a false one.

Aruban authorities do insignificant DNA testing, spend days draining a pond, and take Joran out for walks on the beach with little purpose, resulting in no breaks at all.

It's possible that all hope of solving this case was lost when Joran was released from jail early on in the investigation. He, his father, and the Kalpoes were given ample opportunity to clean things up, if they are in fact guilty of wrong-doing.

Whatever the final outcome of the case, I imagine it will take a long, long time before Aruba and would-be tourists can shake off the memory of Natalee Holloway.

Is a Human Embryo a Human Life?

Bill Frist says he thinks so; but you couldn't tell that by listening to him speak on Friday.

He delivered a speech to the Senate announcing that he now backs federal funding for new embryonic stem cell research. Frist broke with President Bush's position that federal dollars should not be used to bankroll the destruction of embryos.

It should be noted that Bush has NOT banned embryonic stem cell research. The issue here is whether tax dollars should be used to support it.

Frist said:

I am pro-life. I believe human life begins at conception. It is at this moment that the organism is complete -- yes, immature -- but complete. An embryo is nascent human life. It’s genetically distinct. And it’s biologically human. It’s living. This position is consistent with my faith. But, to me, it isn’t just a matter of faith. It’s a fact of science.

Our development is a continuous process -- gradual and chronological. We were all once embryos. The embryo is human life at its earliest stage of development. And accordingly, the human embryo has moral significance and moral worth. It deserves to be treated with the utmost dignity and respect.

I also believe that embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged and supported. But, just as I said in 2001, it should advance in a manner that affords all human life dignity and respect -- the same dignity and respect we bring to the table as we work with children and adults to advance the frontiers of medicine and health.

WHAT?

If Frist believes that an embryo is a human life that deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, why would he support funding its destruction?

His position is completely illogical.

I wonder what sort of embryonic stem cell research Frist envisions that would manage to preserve the dignity of those human lives as they are destroyed.

His reasoning is preposterous.

Frist argues that the "human embryo has moral significance and moral worth," that life begins at conception, while calling for research that would kill that life.

An editorial in Saturday's New York Times applauds Frist's change of mind and ignores the moral inconsistencies that allow him to support increased funding for embryonic stem cell research.

The Times says that Frist "showed courage and common sense."

I see neither courage nor common sense in Frist's choice to be guided by expediency rather than principle.

According to the editorial, "Such research has the potential to provide cures for a range of diseases someday, but it is anathema to the religious right because the stem cells are extracted from microscopic embryos that are destroyed in the process."

Notice how the Times qualifies the embryos as "microscopic." In other words, the editorial attempts to strip the embryo of its humanness by pointing out its tininess to its readers.

Also, notice the use of the term "religious right" as a label to paint opponents of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research as out of the mainstream.

As Frist argues, although small, an embryo IS human life. Unlike the Times, he believes it should be treated with dignity--except in those instances when he wants it to be "respectfully" destroyed for research purposes.

The Times writes:

Although critics often contend that advances with adult stem cells make research on embryonic stem cells unnecessary, it is notable that Mr. Frist, a physician and a researcher by training, disagrees. He described embryonic stem cells as "uniquely powerful" because they have the capacity to develop into any kind of tissue in the body, potentially enabling them to meet medical needs that adult stem cells cannot.

It's funny how selective the Times is as far as commending Frist's credentials as a physician.

In the case of embryonic stem cell research, his medical degree gives his opinions greater weight. However, at other times, Frist is considered a crackpot doctor. The Times brutally criticized him for speaking as a doctor in the Terri Schiavo case.

Then, he was unqualified and irresponsible. Now, he's insightful.

In this very editorial, the Times reminds its readers of its own flip flop in assessing Frist by calling him the "transplant-surgeon-turned-lawmaker who was last seen catering to religious conservatives by questioning whether Terri Schiavo was really in a persistent vegetative state."

In other words, when Frist supports a liberal agenda he's wise. When he takes a pro-life position, he's nuts.

It comes as no surprise that the New York Times is so nonsensical.

It does come as a surprise that Bill Frist would make such an incoherent speech on the floor of the Senate.

Read Eric Cohen and Bill Kristol's great column, "Frist's Stem Cell Capitulation."

It explains that Bill Frist "did the wrong thing at the wrong time."

Hypocrisy and the Hypocritical Hypocrites Who Wallow in it: A Fair and Balanced Look at Air America

Al Franken, author of Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right, must be squirming over this story.

Then again, I don't know if it's possible to be amoral and squirm. A conscience and integrity would be required for Franken to be troubled.

Do you think he's bothered by the allegations that hundreds of thousands of public tax dollars were illegally channeled from a Bronx community center to the private, partisan operation, Air America?

In an editorial in today's Washington Times, "Robin Hood and Air America," we see ANOTHER indiciation of the Left's tendency to...ethically stray.

Did Al Franken's liberal radio network Air America divert city money for the elderly and inner-city children to itself? That's the question people should be asking this week after the revelation that the New York Department of Investigation is looking into whether hundreds of thousands of dollars were illegally transferred from a Bronx community center to Air America. Only a community paper and a few Internet bloggers seem interested in what could be an egregious case of illegal funneling of tax dollars to a private, partisan organization.

In late June, city officials designated the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club, a nonprofit organization that runs mentoring programs for children and day care for Alzheimer's patients, a "non-responsible city contractor." Investigators found "significant inappropriate transactions and falsified documents that were submitted to various City agencies." The city subsequently suspended the club's contracts, which run well into the millions.

It turns out, according to sources quoted anonymously by the Bronx News, that the mishandled money went to Air America. One source claims that $480,000 was wrongly transferred. The city investigation is concentrating on Charles Rosen, the club's president for 15 years, and Evan Cohen, the development director, who is a former chairman of Air America. Mr. Cohen resigned from Air America in May after the network's leasing plans in Chicago, San Francisco and elsewhere fell through.

No one has claimed that Messrs. Cohen or Rosen sought to profit personally from any transfers. The money was said to have been a "loan" from the community center to Air America, which Air America would repay with interest at some point in the future. But why the public till should be tapped to rescue a foundering news outlet was a question no one seemed to consider. Maybe Air America officers thought spending public funds on their network was a truly compelling public interest. It isn't, of course, and if the allegations are true, they reveal a misuse of tax dollars to support a partisan organization.

Air America's parent corporation Piquant LLC issued an "explanation" yesterday but did not deny the allegations. It instead tried to pin them on Air America's previous owners, on whose watch the transfer is said to have occured. That won't wash.

Not only is Air America teetering on the brink of bankruptcy in fiscal terms, but it's also sadly lacking in terms of talent, humor, entertainment, accurate information, and truth.

Now, though not surprisingly, we discover in concrete terms that Air America is morally bankrupt as well.

It is unjustifiable for public money to be "loaned" to a private, partisan group.

Beyond that, this story is troubling on another level. I question the mental stability of Charles Rosen and Evan Cohen.

After all, no sane person would ever consider "loaning" anything to Air America.

A Finger of Hostility?

The latest in the "Summer of Scandals"--

Did President Bush flip off the press on Wednesday? Did he show them a "finger of hostility"?





From AMERICAblog--

Watch the video here.

Scott McClellan addressed this pressing issue in yesterday's briefing at the White House.

Transcript

Q Scott, last night on the Tonight Show, Jay Leno, who apparently is subbing for Johnnie, displayed a video of the President at the Capitol yesterday. In that video, the President walking away from the press lifts his hand and raises a finger. Mr. Leno interpreted it as, shall we say, a finger of hostility. Each of our fingers has a special purpose and meaning in life. (Laughter.) Can you tell us what finger it was he held up?

MR. McCLELLAN: Ken, I'm not even going to dignify that with much of a response. But if someone is misportraying something, that's unfortunate.

Q Well, it was not a finger of hostility? ("Finger of hostility" cracks me up.)

MR. McCLELLAN: Ken, I was there with him, and I'm just not going to -- I'm not going to dignify that with a response. I mean, I haven't seen the video that you're talking about, but I know the way the President acts. And if someone is misportraying it, that's unfortunate.

In spite of White House efforts to play down the magnitude of this scandal, it just won't go away. In the tradition of Woodward and Bernstein, Peter Baker tries to get to the bottom of Fingergate. He writes his findings in a Washington Post piece today.

Did President Bush show what he really thinks of the media with a flip of his middle finger? Jay Leno thinks so.

On "The Tonight Show" Wednesday, the late-night comic showed videotape of the president leaving a meeting with congressional Republicans on Capitol Hill earlier in the day and passing by a clutch of reporters shouting questions on the fate of the Central American trade pact. On the video, Bush striding away from the camera suddenly thrusts his right hand into the air and extends a finger -- precisely which one was unclear. White House officials yesterday said it was his thumb.

But there were other interpretations. "I think President Bush is getting a little fed up with the press," Leno said, and he then showed the video to much laughter from the studio audience, which seemed to see it the same way. "What was that all about, huh?" Leno asked. "You see? That's the great thing about the second term: Who cares?"

Certainly Bush does not always have charitable thoughts about journalists, and the video clip quickly made its way onto various Web sites. It was played around Washington yesterday as the curious tried to discern for themselves which presidential digit was raised. The speculation recalled last year's still-unresolved controversy over a hump that seemed to be under Bush's suit coat at one of the campaign debates.

...[I]t would not be the first time someone from the administration offered raw commentary on Capitol Hill. When Vice President Cheney ran into one of his leading Democratic critics, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), on the Senate floor one day last year, words were exchanged and the normally mild-mannered veep snapped, "[Expletive] yourself."

Still, none of the journalists on the scene Wednesday reported seeing Bush make a rude gesture. Ken Herman, the Cox News Service correspondent representing other print reporters at the time, did not mention it in his pool report and said by telephone yesterday that he did not see the moment in question. "I think the video is inconclusive but leaning toward thumb," he said after examining the footage. "It's just hard to imagine."

The MSM's anti-Bush administration template is once again exposed.

Baker uses the Wednesday incident to rehash the "still unresolved" Humpgate scandal and the "[Expletive] yourself"-gate scandal. His delight in waltzing down memory lane is clear.

To him and his comrades, it's obvious that the Bush administration is staffed by a bunch of corrupt, lying, ill-mannered, downright evil people.

I think the video and still photos are inconclusive.

In the final analysis, I don't think the issue really is whether Bush did or did not flip off the press.

I think the issue is that the liberal media deserve to be flipped off.

I salute them often.

Litmus Lunacy

Could there be a more blatant indication that Senate Dems have a litmus tests for judicial nominees than this?

From the Washington Times:

A group of female Democratic senators said yesterday that they will vote against Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. unless he vows to uphold abortion rights.

Yesterday's comments exceed previous posturing by Democrats calling on Judge Roberts to state his position on settled cases, a practice that previous high court nominees have avoided. They also come closer than ever to establishing a single-issue "litmus test" for his confirmation.

"Thousands of women a year died in back alleys," Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat, said of the days before Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that established abortion rights.

"For more than 20 years, Sandra Day O'Connor has been an important vote in upholding Roe v. Wade," she said. "Will Judge Roberts be that same important voice?"

...At a press conference yesterday, the women were asked whether any of them could vote in favor of Judge Roberts if he said Roe was wrongly decided. None spoke up. Mrs. Boxer said she would find it "impossible" to vote for him.

Asked specifically, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat, clarified that she would wait to hear Judge Roberts' answers during his confirmation hearings.

"I'm not going to be speculating," she said.

Also on stage were Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, and Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell of Washington. Although Miss Mikulski did not say that she would support Judge Roberts if he opposes abortion, she said the coalition of female senators cared about more than just abortion rights.

...Mrs. Cantwell said that it isn't "good enough" to only ask about a nominee's allegiance to Roe. They also must establish that the nominee believes in an earlier court decision that found "privacy rights" in the Constitution.

"I want to hear a nominee say that it is the basis for their philosophy," she said. "If an individual says that, then I will be convinced that they truly believe in the right to privacy and will not be a member of the Supreme Court that will unsettle Roe v. Wade."

Mrs. Cantwell, a former member of the Judiciary Committee, did not dispute that such a standard amounts to a "litmus test."

"Some of you may think that that is a litmus test," she said. "Well, I can tell you this, that over 60 percent of the American public believe that it is the job and role of the Senate to advise and consent on nominees, and it is very appropriate to ask nominees about their judicial philosophy."

A few thoughts:

First, if I hear one more Dem say that there is no litmus test for judicial nominees, I will become physically ill.

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck! QUACK! QUACK!

Second, the Dems are clearly feeling the heat from fringe special interest groups, like NOW, NARAL, MoveOn, and PFAW. No doubt, the posturing of these female Dem senators is meant to assuage their concerns.

One would think it's a risky move for these senators to actually go on the record saying that they are applying a political litmus test to Roberts, rather than evaluating him on his qualifications to serve as a justice on the high court.

One would think that would be so, but it's not risky for them at all.

They are in the pocket of these loud, radical, leftist groups. In effect, the senators are obliged to come out and say they will oppose Roberts on the sole basis of his position on abortion.

Moreover, senators should carry out their duties with proper decorum, reason, and dignity. Poll numbers should not be an excuse to throw out precedence and procedure.

These senators are a disgrace to their offices, plain and simple.

Third, Hillary indicates once again that she has her sights on the oval office.

Her refusal to discuss how she would vote until she hears Roberts' responses during the confirmation hearings, while totally appropriate, runs counter to the approach her Dem colleagues have chosen--judge first, ask questions later.

Hill is sticking to her moderate facade. She's pretending to be a measured, rational person, unlike the majority of her Dem colleagues. As usual, Hillary is doing what's best for Hillary.

FLAG BURNERS

FAIRFIELD, Ohio -- Police arrested and charged two teens in connection with the vandalism of a fallen soldier's memorial Thursday, News 5's Brian Hamrick reported.

Read Channel Cincinnati's account of the vandalism and community reaction.

The boys, 13 and 15 years old, were accused of pulling up 20 American flags from Pfc. Timothy Hines' father-in-law's front yard and setting them on fire under a car in the driveway last Saturday.

Police said the boys admitted their involvement in the fire. They were charged with one count of arson each.

Investigators said the boys were not aware that the flags were displayed as a memorial and they felt remorse for their actions, Hamrick reported.

According to police, the boys also admitted their involvement in other acts of vandalism in the area. For those crimes, they were charged with two counts each of criminal mischief.

The boys were released into the custody of their parents.

..."We feel that this crime was a random act of violence," said Jim Wessel, Hines' father-in-law. "We are confident that the juvenile justice system will handle this in an appropriate manner."

Last Saturday, Fairfield police Chief Mike Dickey said, "What has happened to this family is a tragedy; what occurred this morning is despicable."

He declared, "We will take every step to identify the persons responsible and hold them accountable."

As it turns out, the ones who desecrated the memorial to Timothy Hines were kids. They weren't aware that the flags they burned were displayed in the yard to honor a dead American soldier.

Obviously, if the vandals had known about the soldier's death and they burned the flags with the intent of causing the family even more pain, that would be cruel beyond words.

Nevertheless, just because kids were behind the flag burning that destroyed a car, and not protesters out to make a political statement, doesn't mean the behavior can be taken lightly and written off as "mischief."

There is a serious problem when a 13-year-old and a 15-year-old are out in the middle of the night setting American flags on fire. These boys intended to cause major damage by starting the fire under a car.

Then, after being charged with arson, THEY WERE RELEASED INTO THE CUSTODY OF THEIR PARENTS.

Well, that's reassuring! The parents didn't do a very good job of supervising their sons the night they burned the flags and destroyed the car of a grieving family.

Are the parents going to do a better job of keeping an eye on the little angels now?

DNA Tests Negative

In the Natalee Holloway case, DNA tests of the blonde hair found on the duct tape have come back negative.

It's NOT Natalee Holloway's hair.

Another dead end....

Helen Thomas

Drudge reports:

REPORTER VOWS TO 'KILL SELF' IF CHENEY RUNS FOR PRESIDENT
Thu Jul 28 2005 15:32:13 ET

Veteran wire reporter Helen Thomas is vowing to 'kill herself' if Dick Cheney announces he is running for president.

The newspaper HILL first reported the startling claim on Thursday.

MORE

"The day I say Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I'll kill myself," she told the HILL. "All we need is one more liar."

Thomas added, "I think he'd like to run, but it would be a sad day for the country if he does."

MORE

How is this woman allowed to keep her White House press credentials?

I guess Thomas isn't considered a threat since she vowed to kill herself, not Dick Cheney.

What a tasteless thing for her to say! Not only does she behave in a totally unprofessional manner; she has no class whatsoever.

In addition to calling the Vice President a liar, she also manages to belittle the suffering of families touched by suicide.

The White House should seriously consider taking away her press privileges.

At the very least, Scott McClellan should ignore her; but he's too nice a guy to do that. He shows respect for doddering elders like Thomas, even when they are being relentlessly and unrepentantly obnoxious.

Straight Talking McCain

John McCain's 2000 campaign bus, nicknamed the "Straight Talk Express"

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. John McCain, often mentioned as a possible GOP presidential candidate in 2008, has reactivated his political action committee, known as Straight Talk America.

"He's inundated with invitations and requests from candidates at all levels of the ballot as well as state and local party committees," a McCain political adviser, John Weaver, said Wednesday.

The committee will help pay for McCain's travel when he gives speeches and allow him to contribute to candidates and party committees.

Weaver said McCain's committee was reactivated in mid-July.

McCain, who ran for president in 2000, fares well in early presidential polling among Republican voters. He dismisses questions about 2008, saying he will wait until after the 2006 election to decide about his political future.

...McCain originally started the PAC — named after his 2000 campaign bus, the Straight Talk Express — soon after suspending his presidential campaign in March 2000.

He wanted his causes to remain in public view and his political options open. The senator closed the committee in the spring of 2003, ahead of his re-election.

McCain's campaign for the 2008 presidential race has officially started.

Of course, his campaign for the presidency has unofficially been ongoing since he challenged Bush for the Republican nomination in 2000.

Straight talking McCain is an oxymoron, with the emphasis on "moron."

BRENDAN MINITER writes an insightful piece about the McCain Myth.

He explains that "[t]he moderation that makes him a Senate powerhouse will keep him out of the White House.

Miniter writes:

The myth is simply that the only way to win elections is to draw voters from the other party by bucking a few of your own party's principles. Call it "maverick moderatism," but this belief has been the foundation for Mr. McCain's strategy for achieving national office and has given us great ideas like the recent iteration of campaign finance reform, opposition to some tax cuts and dogged attacks by Mr. McCain on some military expenditures. It's also the foundation of many pundits' advice to the president that he pick more "moderate" judges, give up on using payroll taxes to create private Social Security accounts, and trim his sails on fighting terrorism by spreading freedom.

...What the McCain Myth ignores is that for now a majority of voters nationwide embrace conservative principles. Talk of being a "compassionate conservative" notwithstanding, it wasn't maverick moderatism that handed President Bush victories in 2000 and 2004. Nor has the McCain Myth been responsible for padding Republican majorities in the House and Senate. Indeed, Republicans have been winning by sticking to their principles and not bucking their party's ideas on tax cuts, national defense or reforming the judiciary.

Miniter points out the McCain's political philosophy, while helping to "wield tremendous power in the Senate, where there are plenty of mushy moderates," won't get him very far on the national stage.

"[T]he idea that it's a political philosophy that will propel Republicans into the White House is a myth that this President Bush has long since dispelled."

Even with the adoring MSM to promote him, I think McCain has a better chance of finding success in Hollywood pursuing an acting career than in Washington serving as the President of the United States.

HOW CONSERVATIVE IS JOHN ROBERTS?

Coming up with an answer to that question depends a lot on what side of the political fence you stand.

Some conservatives are troubled about the strength of John Roberts' allegiance to their agenda. They want to be sure that as a Supreme he will rule in a conservative friendly fashion. Understandably, they don't want to get "Souter-ed" again.

Senator Sam Brownback, for example, has been quite vocal in his doubts about Roberts. However, his meeting with the nominee on Monday afternoon has seemed to alleviate some of his concerns.

One notable conservative who is still screaming that the sky is falling is Ann Coulter. She has been spreading her alarmist message since Bush announced Roberts as the nominee.

In addition to her numerous TV and radio appearances, Coulter has devoted two columns to her doubts about Roberts.

Read her thoughts on the stealth nominee:

SOUTER IN ROBERTS' CLOTHING


FOOL ME EIGHT TIMES, SHAME ON ME


Ann should read David E. Rosenbaum's column in today's New York Times.

In his analysis, "Court Nominee's Record Reveals an Advocate for the Right," Rosenbaum supplies a litany of instances that he believes settles the question of the degree of Roberts' conservatism.

Rosenbaum writes:

[John Roberts'] internal memorandums, some of which have become public in recent days, reveal a philosophy every bit as conservative as that of the policy makers on the front lines of the Reagan revolution and give more definition to his image than was apparent in the first days after President Bush picked him to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court.

On almost every issue he dealt with where there were basically two sides, one more conservative than the other, the documents from the National Archives and the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library show that Judge Roberts, now of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, advocated the more conservative course. Sometimes, he took positions even more conservative than those of his prominent superiors.

Liberals are most likely horrified by Rosenbaum's revelations. Conservatives, on the other hand, might find comfort in the information Rosenbaum has gleaned from Roberts' writings.

I think this entire discussion on the political views of John Roberts shows that the founding framers intention to establish an apolitical, independent judiciary is unrealized. Obviously, many are acknowledging that the Supreme Court, and the judicial branch in general, has become as political as the legislative and executive arms of American government.

Ideally, the politics of a judge shouldn't matter. Judges are meant to interpret the law, not make it.

The night Bush announced John Roberts as his nominee, Chuckie Schumer told reporters, "This, the Supreme Court, is far different than the court of appeals. The Supreme Court makes law. We hope they do it by interpreting precedent and following the legislature. But they make law."

Activist judges, judges that overstep their bounds, do indeed make law. That's unconstitutional, but that's what Chuckie wants.

Liberals are under the impression that the Constitution is a living document. In other words, the Constitutional Convention has never adjourned. From this perspective, judges alone have the power to rewrite the Constitution on a whim, bypassing the amendment process.

Originalists, judges that adhere to the Constitution as a stable document, interpret law. They don't write it.

See the difference?

President Bush promised to appoint Originalists to the high court. That's what I care about.

I want an Originalist to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. I have no doubt that the founding framers would want the same.

How politically conservative is John Roberts?

It SHOULDN'T matter.

Bringing Back the Memorial

Real progress is being made to Take Back the Memorial.

The tireless efforts of 9/11 family member organizations are paying off.

(Read some background, from the Wall Street Journal, on "The Great Ground Zero Heist.")

Wednesday, from the New York Post:

If Gov. Pataki and Mayor Bloomberg are smart, they'll sit up and listen to 9/11 family members who are demanding that the International Freedom Center be booted from plans for Ground Zero.

Fourteen family-member groups are expected presently to release an "Open Letter to the American People." The petition will call for the removal of the IFC and an equally iffy institution, the Drawing Center, from the site.

The center, to its credit, already is rethinking its intention to locate at Ground Zero. The IFC has dug in its heels.

Critics are worried that museums with open-ended missions unrelated to 9/11 will bring inappropriate political controversy — and, let's face it, the usual ugly anti-Americanism found in much of the "art" world — to sacred ground.

Up in the air is whether the groups will explicitly call for Americans to withhold donations from the 9/11 memorial fund until the controversial projects are scrapped.

"We urge you not donate to the World Trade Center memorial until the I.F.C. and the Drawing Center are eliminated from the memorial plans," said a draft letter that was mistakenly posted at Take Back the Memorial.org recently.

Sounds like a plan to us — even if some of the groups hadn't yet signed off on it.

After all, as chief Ground Zero memorial fundraiser Gretchen Dykstra tells Crain's New York Business, "We need to raise a lot of money with the imperative to be respectful."

No imperative, no money?

Again, that sounds like a plan.

In any event, Americans appear already to have gotten the message.

The chairman of the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., John Whitehead, has repeatedly complained that the dust-up is hurting fundraising.

While some at the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation have tried to control the damage by claiming that all the fundraising going on now will benefit only the memorial itself and a museum dedicated specifically to 9/11, such distinctions ultimately are meaningless.

Not donating is a way for Americans to make it clear that they won't be involved in this project in any way until they're sure that Ground Zero will be respected and anti-American nuts shipped elsewhere.

No one is against "culture."

But Ground Zero is just the wrong place for any museum or other institution that wants to have any sort of artistic freedom.

Last month, Gov. Pataki asked for "assurances" that offensive content would be banned by all facilities at Ground Zero.

He was right to do so.

But it also means that there's nothing left to discuss regarding the IFC and the Drawing Center.

They have to go.

The Drawing Center, again, seems to realize this. It balked at Pataki's ultimatum and demanded that he relent.

He won't. So they should find another location.

The IFC (showing a bit less integrity) said it would gladly be censored.

That was followed promptly by one lefty — Eric Foner, a professor at Columbia who equated the 9/11 attacks with America's response to them — quitting the IFC's board.

But there are others of his ilk still aboard.

The fact is, there's simply no way to accommodate either of these two institutions.

It's just the wrong place for them.

If they won't relent, a campaign aimed at slowing memorial fundraising is entirely appropriate.

I agree completely.

The International Freedom Center and the Drawing Center have to go. They do not belong at Ground Zero.

Not surprisingly, today's New York Times takes a different approach in reporting the latest on the Memorial.

The Times had been a staunch supporter of the IFC and Drawing Center. The paper openly campaigned for their location on the Memorial site. Editorials belittled 9/11 family members interested in maintaining the integrity of the hallowed Ground Zero.

For instance, the Times lead editorial on July 12, 2005, slammed the "Take Back the Memorial" initiative.

[W]e've watched a handful of vocal family members, who may not represent a majority of 9/11 families, change the dynamic at the World Trade Center site for the worse. They have begun a movement to "take back the memorial," which means, in essence, eventually purging ground zero of its cultural partners, including the International Freedom Center.

Now, the Times is backtracking. You can tell it's painful.

From today's Times:

TWO lines on a plan drawn two years ago may have settled the fate of a cultural building at the new World Trade Center.

By dividing the trade center site into quadrants around the east-west line of Fulton Street and the north-south line of Greenwich Street, planners created a clearly defined parcel containing the twin towers' footprints.

In retrospect, it seems obvious that this parcel would come to be regarded by some as the memorial precinct exclusively; no matter that planners envisioned a cultural building there as a buffer for the memorial, as a place of "memory and hope"; no matter that people died throughout the whole trade center site.

In retrospect, it also seems obvious that it might grow politically difficult to situate anything in the precinct that was not directly related to 9/11 or that veered at all from a tributary function.

Although the Times elitists have begun to come around, they are still in the corner of those interested in using Ground Zero to push a leftist perspective of moral equivalency to denigrate the country, rather than honor the victims and heroes of 9/11.

To make a case for the freedom center, Mr. Bernstein, the chairman, and Paula Grant Berry, the vice chairwoman, described in a July 6 letter to Mr. Pryor how it could play "an integral role in telling the story of Sept. 11." They also pledged that the center would never "be used as a forum for denigrating the country we love."

They proposed accommodating the Family Room that is now in 1 Liberty Plaza, where victims' relatives come to mourn and remember privately. In one exhibit, they said, they would tell the stories of the men and women lost on Sept. 11 "alongside the freedom heroes of history." They proposed a gallery "devoted to the international outpouring of sympathy and support for the U.S. and the victims."

...Mr. Pryor said yesterday that any 9/11-related proposals would have to be coordinated with the museum being planned in the memorial precinct. "We're still in the process of analyzing elements of this letter," he said.

But the letter has already had an effect. Eric Foner, the DeWitt Clinton professor of history at Columbia University, said its "general stance of surrender" prompted his resignation from the center's committee of scholars and advisers. (Richard J. Tofel, the president and chief operating officer of the freedom center, declined to comment.)

"I objected to the failure to say a word in defense of freedom of expression, or that difference of opinion is not anti-American but essential to the exercise of freedom," Professor Foner wrote in an e-mail message on Tuesday.

"It convinced me that if the freedom center is in fact built, they will surrender again and again whenever anyone objects to anything in it. In those circumstances, I don't see how a genuinely interesting, complicated and historically accurate presentation about freedom and its history can be developed."

He added, "I hope I'm wrong."

Months ago, in explaining to the center's creators why he was reluctant to become an adviser in the first place, Professor Foner seems to have anticipated the current storm.

"There is a danger that the site itself could overwhelm what any good museum needs to have," he wrote, "which is a critical eye, an ability to look carefully and in a complex way at historical questions."

I'm glad Foner resigned.

His arrogance about what constitutes a "good museum" got in the way of what constitutes a fitting memorial to one of the most horrific days our country has ever seen.

The "current storm" wasn't created by anti-intellectuals incapable of grasping history. It's the result of the inability of Foner and his comrades to understand the significance of the site as hallowed ground.

Foner just can't seem to comprehend why NOTHING should be allowed to detract from memorializing the victims and the impact of the events of September 11, 2001.


The Coalition of Family Member Organizations

Advocates for 9/11 Fallen Heroes
Cantor Fitzgerald Relief Fund
Coalition of 9/11 Families
Fix the Fund
Give Your Voice
9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America
9/11 Families for a Secure America
September 11th Families Association
September’s Mission
Skyscraper Safety Campaign
Voices of September 11th
W. Doyle 9/11 Support Group
WTC Families for Proper Burial
WTC Family Center
World Trade Center United Family Group

Still Butchering Bolton

The Dems are so busy these days.

They're juggling a number of different smear campaigns--Rove, Roberts, and Bolton.

Today, it was Biden's task to work on the sliming of John Bolton.

From FOX:

A State Department official said Wednesday that John Bolton, President Bush's nominee to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, does not need to change his response to a Senate Foreign Relations Committee questionnaire despite questions about the answer's accuracy.

Sen. Joe Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that conducted confirmation hearings on Bolton, had inquired earlier in the day as to whether the undersecretary cooperated with a grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA agent's identity.

Biden, who led the Democratic filibuster last month against Bolton, faxed a letter on Wednesday to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asking whether a media report last week was correct when it said Bolton was called to testify before the grand jury in the CIA leak case.

"I write to request that you or the nominee inform the committee whether Mr. Bolton did, in fact, appear before the grand jury, or whether he has been interviewed or otherwise asked to provide information by the special prosecutor or his staff in connection with this matter, and if so, when that occurred," Biden wrote in the letter to Rice.

...Opponents suggest that Rove or someone else in the White House may have gotten Plame's name from the classified memo rather than from reporters, as Rove suggested. The cable news channel report that drew Biden's attention suggested that the grand jury sought Bolton's cooperation in connection with the memo, said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who disclosed the existence of the letter during a conference call with reporters Wednesday afternoon.

Boxer said Biden sought clarification because Bolton had responded in March to a "boilerplate" committee questionnaire that asked if the nominee had been "interviewed or asked to supply any information in connection with any administrative (including an inspector general), congressional, or grand jury investigation within the past five years, except routine congressional testimony."

Bolton swore in an accompanying affidavit that the answers to the committee's questionnaire were all true. Boxer declined to state whether Bolton had responded "no" to that question, but said, "He indicated in his form that he had not [been interviewed or asked to supply information in such proceedings]."

Boxer said an attempt on Monday to clarify the matter between committee and State Department staffs had not cleared up the matter, and as a result Biden directly faxed a letter about the matter to Rice.

The State Department responded to the letter on Tuesday.

"The forms submitted by John Bolton were accurate and nothing has changed to require them to be updated," a State Department official told FOX News.

Boxer conceded it was possible that Bolton's answer was true when he gave it, and that any cooperation he might have provided to the special counsel in the CIA leak case could have come after he filled out the questionnaire in March. The Biden letter asked Rice if the State Department could confirm whether Bolton cooperated with the CIA leak probe, "and if so, when that occurred."

Boxer said she believes the special counsel had completed interviewing witnesses by March, and that even if Bolton's alleged cooperation came later, "ethics tells me you go and amend" the questionnaire.

Ethics?

Amend the questionnaire?

Boxer has got to be kidding!

The Dems really are desperate. I think they're spooked by the thought that Bush appears poised to bypass the Senate and give Bolton a recess appointment.

They are powerless. They know it. They've been rejected by the American people.

What have they been doing this summer? They've been faxing letters, insisting on having access to documents, and demanding explanations.

The Dems aren't doing their jobs as legislators. They're just being whiny obstructionists.

Then again, maybe that is what their liberal constituents and the special interest groups expect them to do--obstruct the President's agenda by whining and stomping around like spoiled, cranky toddlers.

I think the Dems should take a nice, long nap.

Patrick "Litmus" Leahy

In the 1990s, Sen. Pat Leahy criticized litmus tests on judicial nominees:

Leahy: "I would like to believe ... that no senator is imposing an ideological litmus test on judicial nominations." (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 7/10/97, p. S7207)

Leahy: "Partisan and narrow ideological efforts to impose political litmus tests on judicial nominees and to shut down the judiciary must stop." (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 3/2/98, p. S1199)

Leahy: "[Y]ou cannot have a small clique decide they want to know exactly how judges are going to rule before they go on the bench, or they're not going to confirm them." (PBS' "The NewsHour," 10/14/99)

Contrast these statements with what Leahy said this morning on VPR. He no longer is against litmus tests for judicial nominees. In fact, he embraces them.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Top Judiciary Committee Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont said he will vote against Supreme Court nominee John Roberts if the judge seems likely to pursue an "activist" philosophy. Another Democrat said Roberts assured him he is no ideologue.

In an interview broadcast Tuesday on Vermont Public Radio's "Switchboard" program, Leahy said he would vote against the appeals court judge if it seemed as if he would pursue an activist agenda on the court. In selecting Roberts, President Bush emphasized that he was looking for someone who would not legislate from the bench.

Leahy said he's worried that Roberts might try to unravel matters that should be settled law.

Denouncing conservatives on the current court, the Vermont senator said in the interview: "They have struck down parts of the Violence Against Women Act, environmental acts, child safety legislation."

"They've knocked down all these, basically writing the law themselves," Leahy added. "I want to find out if he's going to be as active as this — as people like Justice (Antonin) Scalia and Justice (Clarence) Thomas, who have almost willy-nilly overruled things."

Leahy also said any Supreme Court nominee who doesn't agree that Roe v. Wade is established legal precedent would have difficulty getting confirmed.

"Just as you would not have a justice nominee who said, `Well I wouldn't consider Brown vs. Board of Education settled law,' I don't see how they could get confirmed," Leahy said. "I don't see how somebody who said that they didn't consider Roe vs. Wade settled law ... I don't see how they get confirmed."

Leahy, like the good liberal that he is, makes absolutely no sense.

He condemns activist judges while promoting them.

He decries legislating from the bench while demanding that such acts be upheld.

I say this with all due respect--What a complete and utter fool!

Simply put, Leahy will not vote for Roberts' confirmation unless he promises to rule in a manner that casts no doubt whatsoever on the legitimacy of the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.

From U.S. Newswire:

Today, Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, responded to Senator Patrick Leahy, who indicated that he would vote against Judge Roberts should he not voice support for Roe. "Senator Leahy's comments show a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the Constitution and a Supreme Court Justice."

On a Vermont radio program, Sen. Leahy became the first Democrat to say outright that he would have a Roe litmus test for Judge Roberts. His comments confirm much of what Roberts' supporters had expected, that Senate Democrats could not stop a nominee with such impeccable credentials by evaluating his entire record.

"What Senator Leahy said in effect is that Supreme Court precedent has become part of the Constitution. While precedent certainly has an important role, Supreme Court Justices must be able to restore the Constitution when they find that a previous decision has ignored its text and intent. Either Senator Leahy is suggesting that in the wake of Dred Scott he would have opposed nominees who thought that it was wrongly decided, or he is not really concerned with a judge's willingness to adhere to precedent and is simply trying to appease radical special interest groups that oppose even the ban on partial-birth abortion. I would like Senator Leahy to say which of these is the case."

Fr. Pavone continued, "It is more than a little troubling that the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee wants to ensure that a Supreme Court nominee swears allegiance to a decision that has been criticized repeatedly by people on both side of the abortion issue as having no grounding in the Constitution. I hope that he is the only Senator who thinks that seven Supreme Court Justices have the right to unilaterally amend the Constitution and that there is nothing subsequent Courts can do to restore the Constitution."

Priests for Life will conduct a special educational effort in the next two months on the Roe vs. Wade decision to educate the public that this decision legalized abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy. "No poll has ever shown the American public supporting such an extreme policy," Fr. Pavone concluded.

Fr. Pavone's press release clearly illustrates that Leahy is frighteningly irrational.

Again, with all due respect, Leahy is a blathering idiot.

John Roberts' confirmation hearing promises to be a total sham. Leahy already knows he will oppose President Bush's nominee and trash him in every imaginable way.

Why do this to such a good, qualified nominee?

He and many Dems are held hostage by the fringe Left. They have no choice but to carry water for them, because the radical liberals run the Democratic Party.

The party is completely out of the mainstream.

A new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll, taken Friday through Sunday, finds that the overwhelming majority of Americans want John Roberts to be confirmed.

The Question:

As you may know, John Roberts is the person nominated to serve on the Supreme Court. Would you like to see the Senate vote in favor of Roberts serving on the Supreme Court, or not?

The Results:

59% Yes, vote in favor

22% No, would not

19% No opinion

I don't trust polls.

However, the numbers are so dramatic that the results should cause Leahy, his Dem colleagues, the liberal media, George Soros, NARAL, and assorted radical Leftist groups to step back and reflect on how terribly out of touch they are with America.

PLAME IN BED WITH SOROS

DEBORAH ORIN of the New York Post has outed Valerie Plame!

Plame is a confirmed Bush-hater, joining up with "blinded by the hate" Bush-bashers, and contributing to a George Soros bank-rolled anti-Bush political action committee, ACT.

Plame is also a confirmed liar.

WASHINGTON — Outed CIA spy Valerie Plame last fall gave a campaign contribution to go toward an anti-Bush fund-raising concert starring Bruce Springsteen, it was revealed last night.

It's the first revelation that Plame participated in anti-Bush political activity while working for the CIA.

The $372 donation to the anti-Bush group America Coming Together, first reported by Time magazine's Web site, was made in Plame's married name of Valerie E. Wilson and covered two tickets.

The Federal Election Commission record lists her occupation as "retired" even though she's still a CIA staffer. Under employer it says: "N.A."

Plame's a documented liar, just like her husband! Imagine that!

...Wilson — who played an active role in Democrat John Kerry's losing 2004 campaign — said the anti-Bush concert was "great" and told Time that his wife "doesn't recall listing herself as retired."

CIA rules allow campaign contributions, but the fact that Plame gave money to the anti-Bush effort is likely to raise eyebrows.

Federal rules require a political-action committee to ask all donors to list their employers.

"You don't have to provide it, but if you do, you shouldn't provide false information on those forms — like saying you're retired if you're not," said Larry Noble of the Center for Responsive Politics.

Plame provided false information. That doesn't say much for her credibility, does it?

America Coming Together is one of the anti-Bush activist groups bankrolled by Bush-hating billionaire George Soros. He gave the group around $10 million.

So, Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame rub elbows with the rabid George Soros Bush-haters. What a surprise!

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's probe has raised questions about whether top Bush aides like Karl Rove played a role in outing Plame. Rove has said he relayed her role in arranging her husband's CIA trip, but didn't know she was undercover.

White House officials say Rove was seeking to discredit Wilson's attacks on Bush by noting that Wilson only got picked for the CIA mission because of his wife.

A bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report found that Plame did arrange her husband's trip even though he repeatedly denied it.

That means Wilson is a LIAR. Yes--a LIAR! The Senate Intelligence Committee determined that Wilson is a LIAR.

Take note, Lefties. Wilson is a LIAR and so is Plame, Valerie Plame.

In addition to being confirmed LIARS, they are now both confirmed BUSH-HATERS.

I love the truth!

WE WANT GONZALES!

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The legal right to abortion is settled for lower courts, but the Supreme Court "is not obliged to follow" the Roe v. Wade precedent, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday as the Senate prepared to consider John Roberts' appointment that would put a new vote on the high court.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Gonzales said a justice does not have to follow a previous ruling "if you believe it's wrong," a comment suggesting Roberts would not be bound by his past statement that the 1973 decision settled the issue.

By way of a discussion on John Roberts, Gonzales is revealing his own philosophy regarding the role of the Supreme Court in the U.S. judicial system.


What do you think all the Dems that were campaigning for Gonzales to fill Sandra Day O'Connor's SCOTUS seat think about him now?

I think they're going to regret being on record singing his praises.

Dems were thrilled with the idea of Gonzales being on the high court. They perceived him to be a Roe v. Wade friendly Souter type.

From the July 10, 2005, Boston Globe:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, a friend of President Bush who is considered a leading candidate for the Supreme Court, has been attacked by conservative groups as soft on abortion, based largely on comments referring to Roe v. Wade as the law of the land -- a fact, but one that abortion opponents often use as a jumping-off point to express their belief that the decision was unconstitutional.

Gonzales did not do so, fueling speculation that he might have agreed with Roe or that he might be unwilling to overturn it because it's too ingrained in the law.

In addition, as a member of the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales interpreted a parental-notification law as allowing a minor to have an abortion if a judge believes she had been sufficiently informed about the implications of ending her pregnancy. In the case, Gonzales said he was simply assessing the intentions of the Texas Legislature. And a majority of the court, all Republicans, agreed with him.

Gonzales' statements today send the message that his rulings in the lower courts should not be taken as an indication of how he would rule on the Supreme Court.

This tells me that Gonzales is on the short list for a Rehnquist replacement.

Recess Time for John Bolton

At yesterday's White House press briefing, on two occasions reporters asked Scott McClellan about the possibility of a recess appointment for John Bolton.

Q Last week you sort of indicated that there was no recess appointment for Bolton in the works. Now there seems to be a change in the atmosphere. Can you clear that up? Is he going to get a recess appointment?

MR. McCLELLAN: Nothing has changed in terms of our views about John Bolton.

Q That you want an up or down vote?

MR. McCLELLAN: We believe he ought to have an up or down vote. Nothing has changed in terms of that view.

Q So he's not going to get one?

MR. McCLELLAN: Nothing has changed at this point.

Minutes later:

Q Scott, following up on Helen's question, it appears that you are at least considering a recess appointment for John Bolton. Is there any concern at all that such a move might poison the waters over at the Senate just in time for the Roberts' confirmation process?

MR. McCLELLAN: So you're asking me a "what-if" question or a hypothetical question? I told you nothing has changed in terms of our view.

When McClellan says that "nothing has changed in terms of our views about John Bolton," I take that to mean the White House continues to believe that he should be the U.S. Ambassador to the UN.

Personally, I think the President should get John Bolton over to the corrupt, floundering UN as soon as possible. Since the Dems chose to obstruct and prevent an up or down vote on Bolton, Bush should counter their filibuster with a swift recess appointment.

The reporter who asked, "Is there any concern at all that such a move might poison the waters over at the Senate just in time for the Roberts' confirmation process?" seems to be making a thinly-veiled threat, warning the White House to make the appointment at its own risk.

There's no denying that the waters are already poisoned at the Senate. To suggest that the Dems would be likely to take vengeance on Roberts if Bush used a recess appointment to give Bolton the UN spot is to reveal the current sorry state of the Democrats and their liberal media mouthpieces.

A story from Reuters on the possibility of a recess appointment furthers that notion. Reuters promotes the Dems' anti-Bolton campaign by highlighting discredited rumors.

The nomination of the blunt-spoken conservative has been held up by accusations he tried to manipulate intelligence and intimidated intelligence analysts to support his hawkish views in his post as the top U.S. diplomat for arms control.

Some critics have also seized on reports he may have been involved in leaking the identity of a CIA operative, Valerie Plame, but a U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Bolton had neither testified nor been asked to do so before the grand jury investigating the leak.

By tossing the Plame story into the Bolton mix, Reuters tries to subliminally connect the demon Bolton to the demon Rove to the demon Bush.

It's all part of their efforts to undermine White House credibility.

There had been questions about whether Bolton would accept a recess appointment, which lawmakers said would send him to the United Nations in a weakened political position.

But Republicans say Bolton has signaled his willingness to accept a recess appointment if another vote by the Senate is unlikely to occur.

More rumors. Reuters seizes on the "weakened political position" idea.

That argument is lame.

First, Bolton's critics consider him to be too tough. The man would not be a wimp at the UN.

Second, the U.S. Ambassador, by definition, cannot be weak. The individual is a representative of the world's sole superpower.

The sliming of John Bolton by weak-kneed senators would be completely irrelevant when he'd assume his position at the UN.

McClellan declined to say whether Bolton would receive a recess appointment.

But when asked in general about possible recess appointments, McClellan said, "If the Senate fails to act and move forward on those nominees, then sometimes there comes a point where the president has needed to fill that in a timely manner by recessing those nominees."

...When asked earlier this month about the prospects of a recess appointment for Bolton, McClellan would only say that the White House was seeking an "up or down vote" in the Senate.

I can just hear David Gregory and Terry Moran attacking McClellan, charging him with standing at the podium and lying to the press.

There is nothing contradictory about saying the White House is seeking a vote AND saying recessing nominees is sometimes necessary.

Sorry, Bush enemies, there's no credibility gap on that.

I hope the President decides to send John Bolton to the UN.

If Bush does appoint him while the Senate is adjourned, do you think George Voinovich will start to cry?

Breaks in the Holloway case?

The latest from Aruba:

ORANJESTAD, Aruba (AP) -- Aruban firefighters were draining a lake Tuesday in the search for an Alabama teenager who vanished nearly two months ago while vacationing in the island.

Edwin Comemencia, a police spokesman, confirmed that the draining of the lake across from the Marriott Hotel was part of the investigation into Natalee Holloway's disappearance but would not comment further. A jailed Dutch youth has said he was with Holloway in the area the night she disappeared.

The draining was expected to take up to 24 hours.

Earlier Tuesday, Holloway's stepfather, George Twitty, said two new witnesses had come forward with information about the night she disappeared.

One witness told investigators that he saw Joran van der Sloot, the 17-year-old who has been detained as the main suspect, driving to a nightclub across the road from the Marriott Hotel around 2:30 a.m. the night Holloway disappeared, Twitty said.

The witness said van der Sloot tried to hide his face with his hands as he drove to the Racquet Club with two Surinamese brothers, Satish and Deepak Kalpoe, Twitty said. The Kalpoe brothers were detained as suspects and later released.

The stepfather said the account places the three individuals near the hotel beach where van der Sloot says he left 18-year-old Holloway alone the last night she was seen in public.

"What's interesting is the time — 2:30 a.m. — when the three were supposedly on their way home," said Twitty, referring to their previous accounts to investigators.

The witness, a gardener whose name was not disclosed, gave his account to investigators on Friday, Twitty said.

...A second new witness told a private investigator hired by Holloway's family that she saw van der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers drive into the Racquet Club three times that same night. The woman, who lives near the nightclub, has not yet spoken with investigators, he said.

Aruban authorities did not comment on the stepfather's statements.

I wonder what made these new witnesses come forward. Money?

That's the idea of rewards, to give people who would otherwise stay quiet an incentive to talk.

It also could be an incentive to lie.

I can't imagine how gut-wrenching it must be to watch a lake slowly be drained, knowing it's being done because your child may be found dead at the bottom.