Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Nothing like Sunday good news/bad news to get you ready for the week ahead.  Some time back Dick Cheney was getting good reviews for bringing attention to what’s right and what’s wrong about the US and how we deal with terrorism.  Something some other members of the GOP would do well to take a stand on.  Now, ooh, new revelations from inside the CIA via Leon Panetta start another controversy on this same topic.

Where do you draw the line between national security and the ideals in this republic intended to govern those who govern?  May be no one is handling this correctly.  From the liberals obsessed with using their current majority to punish the opposition under the guise of democracy to the occasional conservatives looking for political cover, how about we have a real discussion on the subject.

It would have been better had politicians found the courage to deal on these matters with each other in private rather than possibly damaging national security by trying to score points in the media.

And the good news is Sarah Palin is not leaving politics. Contrary to the opinion of those who hold an unfavorable opinion of Governor Palin she is good for politics whether you are left or right.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Democrats slam Dick Cheney over secret CIA program
Los Angeles Times - Julian E. Barnes -

Sen. Richard Durbin says Congress should investigate whether Cheney ordered the counter-terrorism program not be disclosed to lawmakers.

Senator: Cheney and alleged secret CIA program ‘a problem’
CNN - Pam Benson -

WASHINGTON (CNN) — CIA Director Leon Panetta testified to a congressional committee that he was told former Vice President Dick Cheney ordered the intelligence agency to withhold information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress, …

Palin says she’s not leaving politics
The Associated Press -

WASHINGTON (AP) - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said she’s not only staying involved in national politics, but she plans to jump back into the national scrum when she leaves office at the end of the month.

The first story is a bit of a surprise. The second, another in a series of stories on Dick Cheney is not. And the third, on Gitmo and the detainees continues. President Obama also suggests ‘loose nuclear materials’ will be secured in four years. Funny how US Presidents always seem to provide time lines that coincide with the election cycle for the term of the office they hold. Doesn’t do much for the public confidence factor. Is Obama’s stance on Gitmo based on a reasonable approach, his own personal opinion or the concern that not closing the facility will break one more campaign promise to his followers?

The bomb plot story has a time line indicating it is a legacy operation from the Bush Administration. You remember him. The President many love to bash yet are willing to forget he kept the US safe since 9/11 along with the man in the second story listed here by the name of Dick Cheney. BTW, another story indicates Cheney’s popularity in the polls has risen since his return to public discourse on the topic of terrorism. And another story suggests ‘the muscle’ for the GOP resides in Cheney, Limbaugh and Gingrich. Another ‘funny’ item in the sense of interesting or unusual is that President Obama mentions in the third story presented here that his number one job is to keep America safe.

A familiar pattern seems to be emerging here. Other reports suggest Obama cannot distance himself from items associated with the previous administration no matter how hard he may try. He has at least altered action of promises made to his legions of followers and been criticized by them for not being to the left enough. His actions would indicate he agrees there is some wisdom in what Bush and Cheney accomplished yet he cannot bring himself to say it. But his actions reflect that at times. And yet the left side of politics continues to bash the past and criticize the present. While the rest of us realize things weren’t so bad during the Bush years. Sure, there were reasons to be concerned. One example would be Bush pushing the shamnesty immigration policy that was soundly defeated by public outrage. The fall from grace on fiscal discipline is another. But the number one job as described by Obama in the third story here was a complete success.

Those who support keeping Gitmo open and handling the detainee question as in the Bush years express the notion that it has worked. Those who oppose it suggest their is something wrong, immoral or impractical about it. Try this parallel. The use of self-defense in protecting one’s life and the lives of others. No reasonable person wishes to kill another. But sometimes it is necessary. Consider you have a weapon in your possession. An armed intruder violates the sanctity of your home and the scenario places you face to face with the threat. As the intruder raises his weapon toward you there are two choices. It might be nice to talk it over and find a mutually agreeable resolution to this conflict. But most reasonable people would understand the intruder already made his decision which leaves you with one choice. It is unfortunate. But not unlike the Gitmo and other terrorism questions choosing the ‘nice’ choice may end your life or the lives of others.

Try stirring that ingredient into your humble pie.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Four men arrested in an alleged plot to blow up a synagogue, a Jewish community center, and U.S. warplanes are expected to appear in federal court Thursday in White Plains, New York.

Federal prosecutors say New York City authorities arrested the men Wednesday, following a year-long undercover operation. In a statement Wednesday, prosecutors say the suspects tried to buy plastic explosives from an undercover FBI informant to use in an attack on a New York synagogue.

They are also accused of trying to obtain surface-to-air missiles to attack military planes at an Air National Guard Base near New York City.

Federal prosecutors say the four men have been charged with conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction, which carries a maximum penalty of life in prison. They have also been charged with conspiracy to acquire and use anti-aircraft missiles.

Officials say three of the defendants are U.S. citizens and one is of Haitian descent.

Authorities say one suspect, James Cromitie, told an informant that his parents once lived in Afghanistan and that he was angry about the killings of Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan by U.S. military forces.

The other three suspects are David Williams, Onta Williams and Laguerre Payen.

A local newspaper, the Times Herald-Record, says an area mosque leader has described one of the men, 21-year-old Payen, as a “strange kid” with “a lot of psychological problems.” The newspaper quotes mosque leader Hamin Rashada as saying Payen would occasionally attend services and that his statements on Islam often had to be corrected.

Some information for this report was provided by AP and Reuters.

Former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney has defended the Bush administration’s use of harsh interrogation methods, saying they were necessary to get information from terrorists and save American lives.

In a speech Thursday at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, Cheney said President Barack Obama and other officials have largely “mischaracterized” the previous administration’s approval of such techniques.

He said they were “essential,” “justified,” “successful,” and the “right thing to do” and that they prevented the violent deaths of thousands and possibly hundreds of thousands of people.

The former vice president, who played a major role in crafting U.S. anti-terrorist policies under George W. Bush, said the methods were always given legal review before approved and that torture was never permitted.

President Obama says the Bush-approved simulated drowning technique known as water-boarding was torture and vows to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Cheney has sharply criticized Mr. Obama’s national security policies, saying he is making the United States more vulnerable to terror attacks.

Former Vice President Cheney has said he has made a request to declassify two CIA memos that he says outlines, in detail, the successes that came from using harsh techniques during interrogation of terror suspects.

Al-Qaida actively planning to attack US

U.S. President Barack Obama says al-Qaida is actively planning to attack the United States again.

In a speech in Washington Thursday, Mr Obama said these are “extraordinary times” for the country, fighting two wars and facing a range of challenges. He said his single most important responsibility as president is to keep the American people safe.

The president said the U.S. must use all its elements of power to defeat the threat posed by al-Qaida terrorists, and he added that steps have already been taken to ensure the country is secure.

Addressing an audience of senior Cabinet officials and members of Congress, Mr. Obama said these steps include providing the necessary resources to fight the extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001, and investing in military and intelligence capabilities. He also said his administration has “re-energized” a global effort to curb proliferation of nuclear weapons - in the president’s words, “to deny the world’s most dangerous people access to the world’s deadliest weapons.”

Mr. Obama said all “loose” nuclear materials in the world should be secure within four years.

He said the United States is better protecting its borders and increasing its preparedness for any future attacks or natural disasters. The United States is building new partnerships around the world, the president said, “to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaida and its affiliates.”

Mr. Obama said the United States has renewed American diplomacy, so that the U.S. once again has the “strength and standing to truly lead the world.”

Obama defends decision to close Guantanamo prison

President Obama has defended his decision to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, saying the facility set back the moral authority of the United States.

Although hundreds of people have been detained at Guantanamo during the past seven years, Mr. Obama said, the military commissions set up to try those detainees have handled only three cases.

Continued operation of the prison at Guantanamo has “weakened” U.S. national security, according to Mr. Obama, who announced his intention to transfer some of those held in Cuba to so-called “supermax” prisons - ultra-secure detention facilities - in the United States.

The president’s plan to close Guantanamo by January of next year has attracted widespread criticism in the United States from those who oppose the transfer of dangerous suspects to U.S. states.

Mr. Obama pledged that his administration will not release anyone who would endanger U.S. national security or the American people.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney, who has sharply criticized Mr. Obama’s policies on Guantanamo and other issues, also is speaking out on national-security issues Thursday.

Mr. Obama says the Guantanamo detention camp has been an obstacle to getting allies to cooperate with the United States in fighting worldwide extremism.

He described the prison as a “mess” and said it was a “misguided experiment” begun by the administration of former President George W. Bush.

Mr. Obama said all pending cases at Guantanamo will be reviewed.

US Must Not Abandon Principles

President Obama has said that after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the United States entered a new era, in which enemies did not abide by any laws of war and presented new challenges to the application of U.S. law.

Mr. Obama said the government needs new tools to protect the American people, prevent terrorist attacks and prosecute those who carry them out.

He said that faced with an uncertain threat to the United States after the September 11 attacks, the government made a series of hasty decisions in an effort to protect Americans, and did so based on fear rather than foresight.

He said the U.S. cannot afford to set aside its principles, something he accused both Democrats and Republicans of doing.

President Obama called on both parties to take a new approach, rejecting torture and recognizing the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

The president said the United States needs to update its institutions to deal with the threat of extremism, but must do so within the the rule of law and with due process, checks and balances and accountability.

President Obama said the legal approach for fighting terrorism over the last eight years was neither effective nor sustainable, and failed to adhere to America’s values.

Mr. Obama said that is why he chose to ban so-called enhanced interrogation techniques, such as water-boarding. He said he rejects the assertion that such methods are the most effective means of interrogation.

He said they undermine the law, alienate the U.S. internationally, and increase the enemies’ will to fight.

Some detainees to be tried in US federal courts

President Obama says whenever feasible, detainees at Guantanamo who have violated American criminal laws will be tried in American federal courts.

Mr. Obama noted that terrorists including Zaccarias Moussaoui, identified as the 20th hijacker in the September 11 attacks, was convicted in a U.S. court and is serving a life prison sentence.

He said detainees who violate the laws of war will be tried through military commissions, saying such panels have a history in the United States dating back to the first U.S. president and the Revolutionary War.

The president said his administration is bring the commissions in line with the rule of law, instead of using what he called the same “flawed” commissions of the last seven years.

Many challenges remain before closure of prison

President Obama says there are detainees at Guantanamo who in effect “remain at war” with the United States.

He acknowledged challenges in closing the facility, and said his goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for Guantanamo detainees.

He said the toughest decision on the closure is what to do with detainees who cannot be prosecuted but yet pose what he called a “clear danger” to the American people.

The president said if the U.S. determines it must hold someone indefinitely to prevent a terror attack, then it must be done with a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight.

Review of state secret doctrine nears completion

President Obama says his administration is nearing completion of a thorough review of the state secret doctrine.

Mr. Obama noted the doctrine has been used for many decades by presidents to challenge legal cases involving secret programs. He said the practice is “absolutely necessary” to protect national security, but he is concerned that it has been overused.

He said governments must not protect information merely because it reveals violations of the law or embarrasses the government.

Certainly one of the most controversial people in the Bush Administration was Vice-President Dick Cheney. Some of the chatter from a recent interview provides a little humor on the subject of VP-elect Joe Biden and more insight on the topic of executive powers as viewed from the Bush Administration. The single item as viewed from this blog which comprises the most significance is that this nation has not been attacked since 9/11. Cheney includes references to Abraham Lincoln and FDR when comparing the use of executive powers during war time. There is something to be said for the need to protect the country and the extent to which a President goes to achieve that objective and honor the oath of office. Not a question that will be resolved any time soon.

Below are a couple of quotes from the Fox News Sunday interview between Chris Wallace and Vice-President Dick Cheney.

WALLACE: Transition officials say that Biden plans to shrink his office, that he is not going to meet with Senate Democrats the way you did every week with Senate Republicans, that he is not going to have his own, quote, “shadow government” in the White House.

Biden has said that he believes you have dangerously expansive views of executive power.

CHENEY: Well, I just fundamentally disagree with him. He also said that the — all the powers and responsibilities of the executive branch are laid out in Article 1 of the Constitution. Well, they’re not. Article 1 of the Constitution is the one on the legislative branch.

Joe’s been chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a member of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, for 36 years, teaches constitutional law back in Delaware, and can’t keep straight which article of the Constitution provides for the legislature and which provides for the executive.

So I think — I write that off as campaign rhetoric. I don’t take it seriously. And if he wants to diminish the office of vice president, that’s obviously his call.

I think that President-elect Obama will decide what he wants in a vice president. And apparently, from the way they’re talking about it, he does not expect him to have as consequential a role as I’ve had during my time.

and another quote from the interview on Fox News Sunday (December 21, 2008)

WALLACE: What do you think are the powers of the president relative to Congress and the courts during the war?

CHENEY: I think they’re very significant, and I think they have to be. And I think there’s ample precedent for that. I mean, the fact of the matter is that, especially given the kind of conflict we’re faced with today, we find ourselves in a situation where I believe you need strong executive leadership.

What we did in this administration is to exert that kind of authority. We did it in a manner that I believe and the lawyers that we looked to for advice believed was fully consistent with the Constitution and with the laws of the land. And there’s, I say, ample precedent for it.

If you think about what Abraham Lincoln did during the Civil War, what FDR did during World War II, they went far beyond anything we’ve done in the global war on terror.

But we have exercised, I think, the legitimate authority of the president under Article 2 of the Constitution as commander in chief in order to put in place policies and programs that have successfully defended the nation.

I think if…

No President nor his administration is perfect. The Bush Administration was no exception. It may be that people’s views of a particular President are focused largely on one or two issues and the reflection of those opinions in a poll are misleading or unfair.even if the approval rating is acceptable. Are the polls that offer approval ratings the result of mainly partisan support or opposition? That would be unfortunate. Just as President Bush suffers from a dismal approval rating along with Congress, will the Obama Administration be subjected to the same measure? It should be realistic to note that each administration will do things right and wrong. The trouble is having people admit both cases rather than only the one that fits their preferences.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Looking back at Hillary Rodham Clinton’s criticism of Barack Obama as naive and irresponsible, the statement should be left on the table while everyone considers recent actions by the former First Lady. Her campaign finance irregularities are as bad as those of Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff yet few if any in the liberal ranks will press the issue as they would if she were a Republican. Jefferson’s $90K in the freezer is evidence of that.

Promoting a transparent remake or sequel to her failed health care idea more than a decade ago is as irresponsible as anything with which she accuses Obama. Add to that her lame energy and education policies and a manic attachment to the fringe left with a global warming panic and this self-proclaimed centrist earns her socialist moniker.

But for Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards inventing villains and feeding on their campaign designed victims is not enough. Perhaps the stress of a longer than usual campaign season is beginning to crumble their plans. Lately, HRC can’t find enough gaffes to fill a day on the trail with the TipGate and QuestionGate to follow ChinaGate and TravelGate. So the planted questions story now has Clinton and Edwards feeding on each others carcasses and looking all the naive and irresponsible which she accused Obama of being.

‘Planted’ questions: Edwards compares Clinton to Bush; she says it won’t happen again

Clinton The news — and now confirmation — about instances when the presidential campaign of Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton “encouraged audience members to ask her specific questions” (as The New York Times rather cautiously puts it this morning) has opened up another round of sharp words with one of her Democratic contenders.

As our Gannett colleagues at the Des Moines Register write:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign was acting like President Bush’s when it recently planted a softball question from an Iowa audience member, rival Democratic candidate John Edwards said Sunday.

Clinton camp accuses Edwards of acting like Bush
DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) — In a sign of the increasingly bitter feud between the leading Democratic presidential contenders, Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign Monday accused John Edwards of acting like President Bush and dividing Democrats.

A student says she was told what to ask during a Clinton event in Newton, Iowa.

On Saturday, Edwards, while campaigning in Iowa, criticized the Clinton camp for planting a question in the audience, saying the practice is “what George Bush does.”

“George Bush goes to events that are staged, where people are screened, where they’re only allowed to ask questions if the questions are favorable to George Bush and set up in his favor,” the former senator from North Carolina said.

But it is Edwards who is acting more like the sitting Republican president, the Clinton camp says.

“What George Bush does is attack Democrats and divide the country,” Clinton campaign spokesman Mo Elleithee said Monday. “Sen. Edwards’ campaign resembles that more and more every day.”

This sort of behavior is problematic for the Democrats and is present throughout the party. Their strategy to attack the Bush Administration, appeal to the fringe left by condemning the military, maverick missions to appease state sponsors of terrorism and generally characterizing all conservatives or Republicans as evil is as complete a failure as one could imagine.

The Congressional majority owned by the Democrats since the November 2006 midterm elections has once again delivered proof that their party is not capable of leading a scavenger hunt much less a government. Their giddiness at winning the last Congressional majority omitted any consideration that one has to actually bring forward sensible initiatives to perform adequately in politics and have any chance of success.

This post ends with an excerpt from a WaPo item.

The Can’t-Win Democratic Congress
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007; Page A19

Democrats in Congress are discovering what it’s like to live in the worst of all possible worlds. They are condemned for selling out to President Bush and condemned for failing to make compromises aimed at getting things done.

Democrats complain that this is unfair, and, in some sense, it is. But who said that politics was fair?

Over the short run, Democratic congressional leaders can count on little support from their party’s presidential candidates, particularly Barack Obama and John Edwards. Both have decided their best way of going after front-runner Hillary Clinton– who has been in Washington since her husband’s election as president in 1992 — is to criticize politics as usual.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Random Yak, Right Truth, The Populist, The Pet Haven Blog, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, Big Dog’s Weblog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Wake Up America, Public Domain Clip Art, third world county, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CORSARI D’ITALIA, Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

crossposted at:

Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog

FaultlineUSA

.

Nixon’s legacy included the milestone of opening dialogue with China and historic visits by the West to the mysterious and isolated region of the world. Carter’s often criticized administration had what appeared as a Middle East peace effort that came closer than any other at resolving the conflicts. Reagan convinced the Soviet Union to ‘tear down this wall’. Much about President Bush these days points to the near obsession of American Presidents to push for their legacy in the fading hours of their Presidency. Beyond victory in the war in Iraq, President Bush’s latest call for Middle East peace talks presents among other things, his search for a legacy.

Along with most in the international community, as indicated below, the US and EU want nothing to do with Hamas while a few voices are heard urging dialogue with the generally perceived Middle East outlaws. No relationship in the search for Middle East peace may be more of a gamble than the involvement of both President Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. In general, the intentions of both men may be to recover some success for their respective legacies after the controversy and criticism over the war in Iraq and perhaps Afghanistan.

US, EU shun Hamas as Blair takes over as Middle East peace envoy
Compiled by Daily Star staff
Friday, July 20, 2007
The Quartet of Middle East mediators met for the first time with Tony Blair as special envoy on Thursday at a meeting Washington hopes will breathe some life into the stagnant Israeli-Palestinian peace process. In Cairo, Foreign Minister Ahmad Abou al-Gheit said Thursday that a Mideast peace conference called for by US President George W. Bush will likely be held in September on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meeting in New York.

Understandably, some in the Middle East are wary or even suspicious of Tony Blair’s involvement. Of all the people on the planet likely to have a role to play in the search for Middle East peace, Tony Blair probably has the best chance of providing a sense of genuine sincerity and honesty to the task at hand. But the baggage of his history with President Bush and some indications he bears his own separate agenda on solving this never ending crisis may sabotage his ability to assist before it really begins.

Blair hampered in Middle East role
BEN LYNFIELD IN JERUSALEM
Ms Rice deftly defended the limiting of the scope of Mr Blair’s job, despite EU foreign ministers arguing that it should be expanded. The American backed brief says “yes” to Palestinian institution building and economy, but “no” to a role in peace negotiations.

Indeed, if Mr Blair entertains the idea of gradually expanding his own mandate, and dreams about jump starting peace talks, he may find that Ms Rice is a no less formidable obstacle than the Israelis and Palestinians.

Among Palestinians, Mr Blair’s impending arrival is being greeted with a mixture of skepticism and anticipation.

But Palestinian politicians outside of Fatah, and even some Israelis, say such a policy is doomed to failure because it excludes the group chosen by the majority of Palestinians in the 2006 elections.

Abbas may be viewed as a wild card in this entire scenario. His power or influence over any part of the conflict may be suspect and the call for elections just one more attempt by a weak player to muster languishing support.

Abbas plans to call early elections, isolate Hamas
AP, RAMALLAH, WEST BANK
Friday, Jul 20, 2007
In a speech on Wednesday, Abbas asked the Palestine Central Council, a Palestinian Liberation Organization decision-making body, to endorse his call for elections that aides said would be designed to freeze Hamas out of the political arena.

Abbas’ aides said they expected the election by the end of the year or early next year. His announcement came as the US and other international mediators were moving swiftly to try to revive Mideast peace efforts.

And no one should overlook the complications provided by the most suspected opposition to any peace in the region, none other than the President of Iran. A meeting between Iran, Syria and Hamas is nothing more than a strategy session of those opposing peace efforts in the Middle East.

Iran’s Ahmadinejad in Syria for talks with Assad, Hamas
19/07/2007 11:04 DAMASCUS, July 19 (AFP)
The fact that Ahmadinejad’s visit — his second to Damascus since becoming president in 2005 — comes so soon after Assad’s re-election will be seen as a clear sign of the value of the relationship to both sides.

The strength of their ties is viewed with the deepest suspicion in Washington, which blames Tehran and Damascus for much of the instability dogging the Middle East region.

The classic mixture of opposing agendas by all involved in Middle East ‘relations’ are no more an optimistic forecast for resolving problems now than at any time in the past. No one should be hopeful this early in the recent moves to hold talks on peace in the Middle East or anywhere else on the planet.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to Perri Nelson’s Website, 123beta, DeMediacratic Nation, Big Dog’s Weblog, Maggie’s Notebook, The Pet Haven Blog, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Right Celebrity, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein… has no mercy, Blue Star Chronicles, Nuke’s news and views, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog
FaultlineUSA
Screw the UN

The following is certainly an oversimplified appraisal. But the order of the news reports lent itself to an almost automatic response. The events themselves may have played out somewhat differently. At least as far as timing is concerned. But nevertheless there chronological publishing times may be in proper order. The point is this.

We all know that Iran was on President Bush’s ‘D’ list. They were not likely to get invited to any parties. And if you are old enough to remember the dagger in the heart of Jimmy Carter’s Administration or had some history classes in school, you are familiar with 444 days worth of agony suffered by Americans at the hands of Iranian hospitality.

Then there was the Reagan Administration basking in the glory of the return of the American hostages and later the Iran-Contra scandal and I’m getting crazy just thinking about it. That is over twenty-five years ago and the process has not improved. It appears more complicated than the simple explanation that every country is looking out for their own agenda and benefit.

With the Memorial Day concluding earlier this week, thoughts of WWII and the greatest generation did not escape most Americans. Citizens of many other countries are sure to have been reminded also. When I think of our country’s contribution to winning that war alongside so many other allied nations, another striking reminder enters my thoughts.

At the end of WWII the League of Nations was replaced by the United Nations whose stated mission was to intervene in conflicts between nations and avoid future wars. It almost seems as though human beings were finally getting it right. Instead of a period of time of peaceful activity followed by the totally impractical practice of armed conflict, we would solve our differences in an organized group to eliminate the need for death and destruction in enormous quantities.

Let’s review the latest success of this noble endeavor. As stated earlier, the sequence of the following reports is assumed to be relatively chronological.

Iraq’s Sadr blasts US-Iranian meeting

BAGHDAD, May 30 (UPI) — Among those who blasted the meeting is Iranian-backed Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr, who said in a statement Wednesday that the U.S.-Iranian talks in Baghdad Monday constituted “interference in Iraqi affairs.”

So the first thing that happens is the cleric known as Sadr throws his two cents worth in ‘dissin’ the meeting. One man who has done everything he can to cause more bloodshed in Iraq is complaining about a meeting between the US and Iran. Could be so simple as he doesn’t want anything solved for it ups his value as a ’somebody’ in Iraq.

Talking With Our Enemies Is Smart Policy

The Moderate Voice -
By Jeb Koogler. The recent meeting between American and Iranian officials in Baghdad effectively brings to an end the Bush administration’s use of ‘enforced …

Then we have another opinion apparently applauding an approach that differs from the typical ‘cowboy George’ routine that one could characterize as shoot now, ask questions later or the old Teddy Roosevelt adage of walk softly and carry a big stick. This second philosophy has a tendency of provoking more attitude from hostile foes and delay the desired victory outcome.

Iran official rules out halting enrichment ahead of nuclear talks …

International Herald Tribune, France -
In another sign of defiance, hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boasted that Iran has become so strong that no adversary can defeat it. …

Which of course prompted the response above from the Iranians as well as another one bragging about no one would be crazy enough to challenge the great and powerful Iranian military. Ok, where did we here that Mother of all wars speech before. Yo, yo, Prez AJ, over powering the Iraqi forces was not a problem. Keeping the nutcases contained has presented a problem, but foreign armies, not a big deal. Does he have that little man syndrome?

Diplomats: West rejected Iran nuke concession

MSNBC -
In another sign of defiance, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boasted that his country’s military has become so strong that no adversary would risk an …

And the tennis ball lands in the other court and we have renewed talk about regime change. So the long delayed question is where the hell is the United Nations, again, and why does it even exist anymore. Not like their weren’t plenty of reasons to ask for it to be dissolved before.

Getting Serious About Iran: For Regime Change

Commentary, NY -
To the contrary, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the recently elected president, announced that the Islamic Republic was reneging on its suspension agreement and …

Afghanistan, Iraq, maybe Iran, Russia and new nukes, India talking more nukes, US shielding EU and the circus just keeps coming to town. Is no other country the least bit interested in taking one more shot at using the UN for what it was designed for? I am sure anyone reading this may feel compelled to complain about my suggestions. Consider that the UN is useless and it probably needs to be dissolved. But now would be a great time to give that ‘body’ one last chance to actually do something useful. There are major players involved in dealing with the current generation of conflict and resolution. There is no better time to get everyone involved and in a position to make the UN work before it is entirely abandoned. Even a loser is worth one more try. As long as the cards are on the table and every one knows how to play.

In the words of Larry the Cable Guy, ‘get her done’. If it flops, get rid of it.

Thompson on the Run

Town Hall, DC -
At an event for the Electronic Data Systems Corp. on April 27, he said he supported helping Iranians overthrow President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s government. …

Heading into the 2008 elections, it would be nice to resolve some of the world’s issues since no one knows who will be in the White House and the example above is not ready for nonsense by his statements. That may apply to one or more other candidates but some would be a definite disadvantage in that regard.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The extreme peaceniks and others expressing less venomous opposition to the Iraq war often begin their arguments with reference to inherent characteristics of war as their central theme. Aside from the obvious death and destruction that accompanies armed conflict, they stress the loss of troops and civilians as their largest concern. But they will never accept the fact that this same expression of opposition has prolonged the war in Iraq by strengthening the determination of the enemy. In other words, opposition prolonging the war shares responsibility for the death toll that the anti-war crowd views with such disdain. How’s that for irony?

Each day that politicians seek political cover on the war in Iraq from these same anti-war critics also causes more loss of life. A prudent and practical human being regardless of ideology would sacrifice their own selfish interest in favor of the valiant contributions by those actually at risk of death. To express the realities of politics is simply more rhetoric and of little consolation to those who shoulder the real burden. If you are not now nor have ever been in Iraq, shut the hell up and get this thing done so those who are can satisfy the demands of both sides of the issue by achieving victory in Iraq and coming home that much sooner.

To a much less dramatic issue but with equal potential for serious injury to the United States is illegal immigration. The reason for addressing it at the same time as the Iraq war is the focus afforded these two issues will distract from attending to other matters until resolved. The sympathy argument for illegals is another ploy that compels politicians to seek political cover rather than face the reality that this is simply an economic or financial issue.

The open borders crowd claims that illegals are merely seeking a better life is really describing a better income. The business community’s scare tactics about economic disaster without illegals is really describing lower costs and higher profits by exploiting artificial wage competition. Trying to solve the world’s problems by eliminating border and immigration control only exacerbates the symtoms.

Not securing the borders or controlling immigration is a national security risk we cannot afford. Allowing amnesty for lawbreakers only encourages its continuation. Not enforcing existing laws is a violation of the oath of office of all or most elected and appointed officials in the executive branch. Both sides of the issue, again, can be satisfied by effective control and management of the flow of people in and out of this country. Conceding to the demands of selfish special interest is not an option. Common sense demands this issue be solved now. The guiding force should be the rule of law not the whim of personal preference.

As a personal note, if you truly believe open borders are a good thing, I suggest this. Leave all your locks unlocked 24/7 from now on. Then let us know how long it takes before you experience something really bad. It is nice to think the best of people but that does not suggest ignoring the worst. They invented security because both exist.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Congressional Democrats Negotiate With Bush Aides on Iraq

Congressional Democrats and President Bush’s aides meet again Thursday to negotiate on funding for the Iraq war.

Senators Work With White House to Craft Immigration Deal

Bipartisan group of senators and White House officials work to craft an immigration agreement.

Mitt Romney has been called a dark horse in the 2008 Presidential race. There are so many candidates, declared or waiting, a dark horse description seems more fitting for at least four or five other candidates before hanging it on Romney. He has raised more campaign money than most. He was considered the winner in the first GOP debate. He leads the polls in New Hampshire. He received an award from the pro-life advocates. Time magazine will feature him, he was just featured on 60 Minutes and is inundated with interview requests. A dark horse you say?

The man made millions as a management consultant. What is being President if not a manager? He has acknowledged mistakes. How many elected officials ever do that when it counts? He is criticized for being Mormon in a land of religious freedom yet the religious right is beginning to cozy up. He is working to strengthen the conservative base. Could we use a man in the White House with an ability to bring people together?

It’s a long way from the 2008 election. Much can and will happen in the coming months. It is certainly worthwhile to discount the critics as politically motivated from opposing camps and take a close look at Romney. Dismissing Mitt Romney could be a colossal mistake. A man this successful who does not brag about his strengths, dimiss his flaws, shy away from a challenge or fear revising a position when warranted. That may fit the definition of a human being. We could use more of those in government. Keep watching and don’t be too quick to dismiss a candidate with this much going for him.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Mitt Romney Rises to the Top

Ronald Kessler
Monday, May 14, 2007
Suddenly, the mainstream media are taking Mitt Romney seriously.
“60 Minutes” just featured Romney as its lead story Sunday night. Time magazine has Romney on the cover this week. The Romney campaign is besieged with interview requests.
The surge in interest follows Romney’s widely perceived “win” in the Republican debate on May 3. A recent New Hampshire poll has Romney leading the GOP pack in the key primary state.

Sometimes you could wonder if everyone involved in an investigation, scandal or other embarrassing moment is guilty of something. As far as Joe Wilson and Valerie (Plame) Wilson are concerned, they may only be guilty of bad taste. On the one hand it is hard to argue with someone taking offense at being exposed as working for the CIA. But then to have a major book deal and a movie in the works sure could ease a lot of pain and suffering. So what came first, an exposure of personnel matters or the self-promotion exposure? And since dear Valerie testified that the job she so loved involved investigating WMD, why has no one connected the dots on that part of the story? Hmm?

There are only two reasons this post has been published here. To see if we can get the conspiracy theory rumor mill percolating and at least one of us thinks Valerie is hot so we need an excuse to post her picture again. Ha, ha, ha. Hey it’s the weekend and a little comic relief (very little) is needed for recouping from the stress of March Madness.

C. Harris
MoreWhat.com
(I’m in complete control until Stanford and the rest of the staff return)

At Hearing, Plame Rebukes Bush Administration
Valerie Plame, the CIA officer whose leaked identity triggered a federal investigation that reached into the White House, today publicly refuted claims that she was not a covert employee and accused the White House and State Department of “carelessly and recklessly” destroying her cover for political purposes….

Trackposted to The Virtuous Republic, Phastidio.net, Dumb Ox Daily News, 123beta, and Sujet- Celebrities, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Senator Chuck Schumer just can’t leave it alone. If you want to investigate something fine. But continuing to make public statements to degrade the person who is apparently your target, is at best premature and at the worst evidence that you have no class. How about a little dignity entering the process. You might want to convince the citizens you represent of your sincerity and belief in the process rather than display your questionable character by taking cheap shots. Remember assumed innocence. Don’t dishonor the principles. One does not have to be a fan of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to know your behavior is suspect. Try not to look so biased and political.

from the linked article below, a quote:

“Either Attorney General Gonzales knew what his chief of staff was doing - that’s a pretty severe indictment - or he didn’t, which means he doesn’t have the foggiest idea of what’s going on in the Justice Department,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

Gonzales fights to keep his job
By Ron Hutcheson
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has said that he doesn’t remember talking to an aide in early 2005 about plans for a mass firing of U.S. attorneys, but it’s not just his memory that’s in question now.
A new batch of Bush administration e-mails released on Thursday added to doubts in Congress about Gonzales’ truthfulness and management abilities. In a Jan. 9, 2005, e-mail, a Gonzales aide reported on his conversation “a couple weeks” earlier with Gonzales about plans for a mass dismissal of federal prosecutors.

Senators OK subpoenas in attorney probe
15 March, 2007
By LAURIE KELLMAN, AP
A Senate panel authorized subpoenas for Justice Department officials Thursday in a probe of the prosecutor firings that have jeopardized Attorney General Alberto Gonzales‘ job and raised questions about White House involvement. A second Republican senator urged Gonzales‘ departure.

C. Harris
MoreWhat.com
.
.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, Adam’s Blog, basil’s blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Jo’s Cafe, Conservative Thoughts, Rightlinx, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, , stikNstein… has no mercy, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, Overtaken by Events, The Pink Flamingo, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

That AP’s text in this report contains the phrase “reiterating his administration’s long standing position” supports the claims that the “Main Stream Media” or “MSM” contributes to the dissemination of biased information for public consumption. Maybe that is how people get the notion that President Bush is a political puppet with VP Dick Cheney’s hand…….you know. The phrase mentioned is included in a sentence of Dick Cheney’s remarks. Keep up the good work AP.

That aside, would someone inform the Whitehouse that it is all well and good that all options are on the table from a negotiating standpoint but even if all the Iranian’s were not afforded a top level college education at taxpayer’s expense in a fine American institution

of higher learning, they are surely smart enough to know there is a limit to how many battles the American military can handle. Notwithstanding, the subverted peacenik noise around the country and the propensity of like-minded politicians to aid and abet the enemy for political purposes. The same people who can’t ever see enough visas for everyone in the world to come to America and take what they want and then complain. Maybe they learned that from the liberals. I just exceeded my self-imposed limit on per post personal rants. Someone please continue.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to Perri Nelson’s Website, Right on the Right, Mark My Words, third world county, basil’s blog, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, The Bullwinkle Blog, High Desert Wanderer, and Jo’s Cafe, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Cheney Says Military Option on Table Against Iran

Sunday , February 25, 2007
AP
SYDNEY, Australia —
Vice President Dick Cheney left open the possibility of U.S. military action against Iran over its nuclear ambitions, saying Saturday that “all options are still on the table.”

Cheney, speaking at a joint news conference with Australia’s Prime Minister John Howard, said that the United States was working with it allies to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear weapons programs, and that it was Washington’s preference for that to happen peacefully.

“But all options are still on the table,” Cheney told reporters, reiterating his administration’s long-standing position on Iran.

Bears Fan Loses Bet and Must Change Name

Bears Fan Loses Bet and Must Change His Name to Peyton Manning

Boehner Announces Republican Members of House Ethics Committee
Feb 6, 2007 - House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) announced the Republican Members that will serve on the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. He issued the following statement:“The American people rightfully expect the highest ethical standards from their elected leaders. Republicans and De…

Pelosi Names Members for House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct

“With their commitment to the highest ethical standard, this group of Members will serve with integrity, building on our bipartisan efforts to restore accountability, honesty, and openness to the House of Representatives.” 02/08/2007

Pelosi Announces Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement

Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi with Minority Leader John Boehner announced today a special task force on ethics enforcement. The task force will report to the House by May 1 to consider whether the House should create an outside enforcement entity, based on examples in state legislatures and private entities.

The United States Office of Government Ethics’ website (www.usoge.gov) is as peculiar as the appearance of ethics reform in Congress. There are numerous links on the site that only result in “not found” error pages. It appears an accurate reflection of the state of ethics reform; not found. H Res 6 was passed adopting the House Rules for the 110th Congress and included a section on ethics. Steny Hoyer, the House Majority Leader, introduced H Res 6 on January 4, 2007. Do you find it odd that the final vote of passage was 232-200 in favor? There can be many reasons for voting against legislation. So is there some flaw in the resolution? Or did so many vote against it for other reasons? There are no co-sponsors listed on this resolution. Why do you suppose that is? And a few did not even bother to vote.

The task force, as mentioned in an earlier post, is charged with returning an answer by May 1 as to whether or not there should be an outside entity to attend to ethics matters. There are many previous ethics reforms and other materials documenting this topic of Congress. You can read the full text of H Res 6 at www.house.gov. The point here is that on many occasions Congress and others have announced ethics reform and still much time and money is spent trying to convince the public something is being done. I see know evidence of that. Until elected officials can operate ethically there is not much chance of the public interest being represented.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

So how did the United States Congress do in the first month of the 110th session? You be the judge. First, a little review of the fact that posts here have sometimes asked why we get so focused on what Congress does. After all, they legislate. That’s it. They legislate. The can pass laws. Whatever the House passes must be passed in the Senate also. So both Houses of Congress must pass the same version of a bill before it can become law. Then it goes to the President. He can sign it into law. He can veto it and send it back to Congress. He can pocket-veto at the end of the session. Or he can pretty much ignore it and it becomes law. All you expert legal types out there, feel free to refute this if you must.

Next, Congressional action is either a bill or resolution. Most of the time, resolutions are pretty much useless to the ordinary citizen. There is one example this past month that is not useless. It should not have to come to this but usually does. A joint resolution is similar to a bill. The one last month was for appropriations. You know, to keep the government operating until Congress and the President figure out what they’re doing.

So six bills and one joint resolution have the term “on passage” next to them in the voting record in the House. Being that it is joint and includes the Senate, that’s the only thing showing up on their completed list. Then there are the six bills. You’ll remember them from the daily reminder of the 100 hour agenda. Here’s a take on that.

On January 9, 2007, House of Representatives 1 or HR1 was passed.
This is to implement 9/11 Commission items.
On January 10, 2007, HR2 was passed.
This is for increasing minimum wage over 26 months.
On January 11, 2007, HR3 was passed.
This is to “enhance” stem cell research.
On January 12, 2007, HR4 was passed.
This allows government to negotiate medicare drug prices.
On January 17, 2007, HR5 was passed.
This lowers interest rates on government backed student loans
On January 18, 2007, HR6 was passed.
This is an act for alternative energy creation. That’s quite an act.
On January 19, 2007, HR475 was passed to revise the House Page Board.

The above items are what the House passed. The Senate passed the one joint resolution with the House. And one item became law that was posted here earlier. It is for renaming a National Recreation Area.

One law was passed to rename a park. And the other bills have many hurdles to cross before they can become law. Even if they become law there is no guarantee they will have any positive effects. No one, with any regularity, will follow up on them. So the Congress has done nothing for one month. They have solved nothing. There is only one item as law and it is not critical. 21 Senators are worried about 2008 due to re-election. Other Senators are worried about running for President. And the rest have passed one joint resolution and participated in renaming a park.

We would be better off paying more attention to the remainder of government. At the federal level at least, nothing productive is happening in the legislative branch. Ask anyone from the House or Senate if they care to dispute this. The new Democratic majority are developing disharmony among themselves as are the GOP members. If any of you still hold out optimism for the 110th Congress, good for you. Currently, the chances of Congress contributing to the overall good of the country are slim. That is unless they change their ways. And they will not.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Check the Beltway Traffic Jam